Yes and that works reasonably well for most humans, since we grow up assuming that other humans work similarly to us. But as soon as you ask whether an animal or a computer program or a fetus suffers, intuition stops being very reliable.
Consider:
A) A life-like humanoid robot with a relatively simple control program that makes pained faces and says “ouch” in response to certain stimuli.
B) An uploaded human who is experiencing simulated torture.
C) An actual biological human whose motor nerves have been paralyzed, being tortured. The subject’s face and breathing are placid.
Which of these would a casual outside observer believe were experiencing suffering? How would an expert convince the casual observer otherwise?
Yes and that works reasonably well for most humans, since we grow up assuming that other humans work similarly to us. But as soon as you ask whether an animal or a computer program or a fetus suffers, intuition stops being very reliable.
Consider:
A) A life-like humanoid robot with a relatively simple control program that makes pained faces and says “ouch” in response to certain stimuli.
B) An uploaded human who is experiencing simulated torture.
C) An actual biological human whose motor nerves have been paralyzed, being tortured. The subject’s face and breathing are placid.
Which of these would a casual outside observer believe were experiencing suffering? How would an expert convince the casual observer otherwise?
But this wasn’t the question he asked. He asked if
A) I could suffer
B) I could prove it
To answer your question, I’ll just lazily say that it requires The Hard Problem to be solved first.