I understand that I am *supposed* to suspend disbelief; however what a rock and the mammal in this scenario have in common in short summation include: similar molecular composition, similar fixation in time/space, identical observance of physical laws.

A rock’s existential experience would be so remarkably different that no “values” can be equated and so no value judgments are valid. To imagine that a rock can have relate-able experiences would be to fundamentally change the nature of a rock. This isn’t just a bias, it is a completely nonviable interaction.

I take it as axiomatic that humans best understand humans because humans experience life as humans do. Rocks do not. No matter how you might embed a rock with consciousness, it cannot be human consciousness – only rock consciousness which must be held inferior.

I would thus see in the rock some alien intelligence whose purpose is to incite people to self-destruction without a human capacity to empathize. It is therefore a threat to humanity. As such, I destroy the rock.

Or I move it to the territory of my enemy.

Problem solved!

Are you suggesting that the claim that i should commit suicide is reasonable on the basis that there are only two choices (to be or not to be)?

There are probably claims that a rock could make that I might accept. Consider the weather rock – “If I’m wet it’s raining, if I’m white it’s snowing…”

And I’m willing to posit the possibility that there is some sequence the rock could follow to gain my confidence.

After all, saying “I cannot imagine what a rock could do to convince me of something” or “There is no way anyone or anything can convince me of this proposition” is in some part a statement about my imagination and sophistication.

That said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and here we have two extraordinary claims. Do evidentiary requirements add or multiply?

If I were to encounter a burning bush that demonstrated godlike abilities, I would have to conclude that my reality is not what it appeared to be, but is perhaps a Matrix-style simulation or a ‘basement-level’ universe with magic. My priors would favour the former, and no sensory evidence could defeat that judgment, including claims by the bush.

Rcrii, your feeling uncertain about the rock’s priors has nothing to do with the priors being uncommon. In a formal model, priors are always common knowledge; everyone knows that everyone knows … them.