I’m not sure what PROBABILITY means the way you’re using it.
Can someone concoct a line of reasoning that would prove this wrong, say similar to 2 + 2 = 3
Are dogs conscious? Ants? Plants?
that fact that something is experiencing something seems irrefutable.
In the case of consciousness, this does seem valid (to me), to the extent that something I don’t understand well enough to create, can be said to exist.* However, not everything people say about their experience should be taken without some salt—the literature on biases (replications aside) claims that 1) there are ways to manipulate people’s decisions where 2) they claim said thing which ‘had a measurable effect’ had no effect.
*That is, if we’re not conscious, then what would consciousness mean? The difficulty of ruling whether this applies, or to what degree it does, is however, less clear.
I’m not sure what PROBABILITY means the way you’re using it.
Are dogs conscious? Ants? Plants?
In the case of consciousness, this does seem valid (to me), to the extent that something I don’t understand well enough to create, can be said to exist.* However, not everything people say about their experience should be taken without some salt—the literature on biases (replications aside) claims that 1) there are ways to manipulate people’s decisions where 2) they claim said thing which ‘had a measurable effect’ had no effect.
*That is, if we’re not conscious, then what would consciousness mean? The difficulty of ruling whether this applies, or to what degree it does, is however, less clear.