That's some quality nit-picking (which IMO is rather enjoyable) but it doesn't really address what I put forward does it? Thinking "Mr. X is a bad person" is s

That's some quality nit-picking (which IMO is rather enjoyable) but it doesn't really address what I put forward does it? Thinking "Mr. X is a bad person" is still subject to external experiences and should be re-evaluated if given further evidence. If it can be re-evaluated if given further evidence, surely the initial opinion was invalid? > they think that (or not) because of the interaction between experience and lower-level value functions, not experience alone. "Experience" entails an interaction with inner values for humans - you can't really separate experience from the inner values without cutting off the nervous system from it... at which point you can't call it experiencing something anymore.