When we hear someone about qualia, we can make a valid inference that this is caused by qualia existing or having existed in the past.
When we hear someone talking about a god, we can make a valid inference that this is caused by a god existing or having existed in the past.
we could figure out how qualia actually works, and then scan brains and see whether there are circuits implementing it or not.
Whether circuits implement something is subjective—on the physical level the circuits in other humans’ brains don’t implement your qualia. If you generalize to other humans’ implementations, what’s stopping you from generalizing to anything with pain receptors?
something that we think could be a part of how qualia works exists in that species.
When we hear someone talking about a god, we can make a valid inference that this is caused by a god existing or having existed in the past.
It is valid Bayesian evidence, yes. We can’t consistently expect that people talking about gods is less likely in worlds where gods do exist. (Of course, other explanations remain far more probable, given background knowledge; it’s hardly a proof.)
When we hear someone talking about a god, we can make a valid inference that this is caused by a god existing or having existed in the past.
Whether circuits implement something is subjective—on the physical level the circuits in other humans’ brains don’t implement your qualia. If you generalize to other humans’ implementations, what’s stopping you from generalizing to anything with pain receptors?
So pain receptors?
It is valid Bayesian evidence, yes. We can’t consistently expect that people talking about gods is less likely in worlds where gods do exist. (Of course, other explanations remain far more probable, given background knowledge; it’s hardly a proof.)
yeah, I got a similar impression that this line of reasoning doesn’t add up...
we interpret other eucaryotes as feeling something when we see their reactions 🤷