Morality or Obedience?

[Tassman]

It is - and I agree that we cannot know the qualia experience of another person, let alone another species. Tass may be confusing "qualia" with "cognition" and the ability to reason and be self-aware.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...6098221200320X

[seer]

Tass you are completely missing the point, it is not whether animals have subjective experience, but what exactly that experience is like for them. Or for us personally. Let me give an example. Two men witness a bad accident, both men tell you that it was terrible and that they feel for the families. One man is honest, the other is a psychopath who could care less but says all the right things to fit it - which man is which? How can you tell? Only by self-reporting...

[Doug Shaver]

Right, not only that, I could not even be sure that you experience things the way I do.

Yes, but only if in order to be sure, you must have eliminated any possibility of being mistaken. I think we can justifiably claim to be sure about a lot of things that we cannot be absolutely certain about.

[seer]

Yes, but only if in order to be sure, you must have eliminated any possibility of being mistaken. I think we can justifiably claim to be sure about a lot of things that we cannot be absolutely certain about.

But you can never be sure about my subjective experience unless I self-report.

[carpedm9587]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...6098221200320X

I see. So you're suggesting there is a methodology to determine whether or not another animal experiences qualia - not what the qualia actually is. It's an interesting experiment, and it seems, at first blush, it might be possible. It all hinges, however, on their interpretation of the animal's behavior.

[carpedm9587]

But you can never be sure about my subjective experience unless I self-report.

I cannot even be sure about the experiences if you DO self report.

[seer]

I cannot even be sure about the experiences if you DO self report.

Right, I could be lying.

[carpedm9587]

Tass you are completely missing the point, it is not whether animals have subjective experience, but what exactly that experience is like for them. Or for us personally. Let me give an example. Two men witness a bad accident, both men tell you that it was terrible and that they feel for the families. One man is honest, the other is a psychopath who could care less but says all the right things to fit it - which man is which? How can you tell? Only by self-reporting...

Actually - you can't tell at all...

[Tassman]

I see. So you're suggesting there is a methodology to determine whether or not another animal experiences qualia - not what the qualia actually is. It's an interesting experiment, and it seems, at first blush, it might be possible. It all hinges, however, on their interpretation of the animal's behavior.

Yes, it does rely on the interpretation of the animal's behaviour but this is not impossible. Especially as, to a lesser degree, our understanding of the experiential qualia of our fellow humans also hinges on our interpretation of their behaviour...although we have the advantage of language.

[seer]

Yes, it does rely on the interpretation of the animal's behaviour but this is not impossible. Especially as, to a lesser degree, our understanding of the experiential qualia of our fellow humans also hinges on our interpretation of their behaviour...although we have the advantage of language.

Answer this Tass:Two men witness a bad accident, both men tell you that it was terrible and that they feel for the families. One man is honest, the other is a psychopath who could care less but says all the right things to fit it - which man is which? How can you tell?

There is no way you can know what a monkey's subjective experience is like, you can not even know ours...

[carpedm9587]

Yes, it does rely on the interpretation of the animal's behaviour but this is not impossible. Especially as, to a lesser degree, our understanding of the experiential qualia of our fellow humans also hinges on our interpretation of their behaviour...although we have the advantage of language.

Tass, our "understanding" of the experiential qualia of another human being is based on language, observed behavior, and our own experience of qualia! We are looking for language and behavior that suggests that the other person is internally experiencing what we are experiencing, or something similar. But there is no way for one person to experience as another experiences. It's simply not possible. Even if we could find a way to transfer our "mind" into their "body," our mind would bring with it our experiences and history, which would inevitably color our experience in a way that would be different from what the other experiences. If we could somehow "project" what another is experiencing (holography?), we would have an internal experience of the projected reality.

So I have to concur with Seer - whether or not another being experiences qualia may be something we can determine - but another being's actual experience of qualia is not available to us.

[seer]

So I have to concur with Seer

And the clouds parted and the heavens opened!!!!

[carpedm9587]

And the clouds parted and the heavens opened!!!!

Once in a while...you're actually right!

[Tassman]

Tass, our "understanding" of the experiential qualia of another human being is based on language, observed behavior, and our own experience of qualia! We are looking for language and behavior that suggests that the other person is internally experiencing what we are experiencing, or something similar. But there is no way for one person to experience as another experiences. It's simply not possible. Even if we could find a way to transfer our "mind" into their "body," our mind would bring with it our experiences and history, which would inevitably color our experience in a way that would be different from what the other experiences. If we could somehow "project" what another is experiencing (holography?), we would have an internal experience of the projected reality.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...de-waal-review

So I have to concur with Seer - .

I know from experience that Seer's objection to experiential qualia in animals is based on his religious belief that man is unique, not scientific objections. He will object to the notion whatever evidence one can provide.

whether or not another being experiences qualia may be something we can determine - but another being's actual experience of qualia is not available to us

We cannot be fully aware of another human's "actual experience of qualia" either, even with the advantage of language. But we can know that they experience it, just as we can know that the higher animals experience it.

[seer]

I know from experience that Seer's objection to experiential qualia in animals is based on his religious belief that man is unique, not scientific objections. He will object to the notion whatever evidence one can provide.

Where did I ever deny that animals could have subjective experiences? What I have said and maintain, is that we can not know what those experiences are like for them.

We cannot be fully aware of another human's "actual experience of qualia" either, even with the advantage of language. But we can know that they experience it, just as we can know that the higher animals experience it.

Right and that is beyond science, and this is evidence that reductionism is false...