Imagine a hypothetical being or "zombie" that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience. When a zombie is poked with a sharp object, for example, it does not feel any pain though it behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or tell us that it is in intense pain).
It is just as capable of problem solving, working and reproducing as a normal human.
Why aren't we all zombies?
Other urls found in this thread:
>Why aren't we all zombies?
we are.
Prove me wrong, oh wait you can't.
Have a look at solipsism. It will expand on the concept you've proposed.
Also, it's not science because you can't prove it.
Zombies can't collapse the wave function.
We often take actions that are purely a product of conscious experience, like arguing about one's qualia on a Mongolian tapestry mailing list.
A zombie that could simulate all the processes that lead to this, would necessarily be conscious, wouldn't it?
And even if the zombie itself were just following a list of steps, those steps by themselves would constitute consciousness.
This is what Alan Turing was trying to pin down with the Turing Test
If we are conscious of some part of our subjective experience, we can express it.
It you remove any of that, you get different behavior.
Constructing such a zombie is impossible unless consciousness by definition is completely disconnected from reality and thus nonexistent.
You actually don't feel pain. You actually only recoil from the stimulus, say "ouch!" and tell everyone you 'felt' some sort of intense pain. Prove me wrong.
if it looks like a duck
walks like a duck
quacks like a duck
maybe it's a fucking duck??
if there is no way to distinguish human from zombie by experiment, then which one you are does not matter
why do degenerates believe that extensional equivalence is somehow weaker than intensional equivalence?
Something something, sex with your mother, made her a philosophical zombie, something something. Philosophy is a social construct, something[...].
There's no difference between something "behaving exactly as though it feels pain" and the thing feeling pain.
>except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.
No one here can prove the existence of any of these things listed in the context you present.
Your question is not adequately defined because you cannot prove their existence either.
This is more of a communication problem than anything else though.....
i think people who aren't afraid to die aren't truly conscious, i just don't see how a conscious being can be blank to their non-existence when existing. these guys just don't pass the turning test as far as i'm concerned.
*turing
>find out that there is someone that is not a pussie
>h-he is not just insane, he is not even conscious
>how a conscious being can be blank to their non-existence when existing.
try meditation.
that's not a blank response, you need to condition the fear out of you hence meditation. but no thanks that time could be better spent figuring out means of life extension or making money to fund life extension research.
>Imagine a hypothetical being or "zombie" that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience
Imaging a hypothetical red apple that is indistinguishable from a normal red apple except in that it lacks the colour red. That is basically what you are saying.
If the "zombie" is 1:1 and exact to the normal human being, then there is ZERO difference whatsoever. Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. If the two brains are exact, 1:1, and indistinguishable, then, so is the consciousness.
> have a look at solipsism
That's a funny way to say "Just look at how women behave.", user.
checked
The P-Zombie is an incoherent idea, but it doesn't map 1-1 with the apple simile, because the word "red" is shorthand for "reflects red light" which is one of the properties of the hypothetical not-red apple.
Qualia is not necessarily one of the properties of a person who reacts to a needle poke with claims of experiencing the "pain" qualia, viz: people can lie.
(I can go into the other reasons why the P-Zombie is incoherent but it's a bit of a write-up so I'm not going to if there's no interest. TL;DR version: It violates information theory)
>the word "red" is shorthand for "reflects red light"
no, it is the experience of seeing the apple as red.
conflating subjective experience and objective reality in a thread about P-zombies makes me think you are a full-of-shit edgy-15-year-old-philosopher tier idiot who thinks his trivial ideas are deep.
tl;dr your a faget
>>the word "red" is shorthand for "reflects red light"
>no, it is the experience of seeing the apple as red.
#ThisAnonDoesn'tKnowAnyColorblindPeople
My colorblind brother in law believes me when I say what color something is, because he knows color is a property of the object, not a property of his perception.
If you wanted to talk about perception, you should have written:
>Imaging a hypothetical red apple that is indistinguishable from a normal red apple except in that it doesn't look red to you. That is basically what you are saying.
>If you wanted to talk about perception, you should have written:
>>Imaging a hypothetical red apple that is indistinguishable from a normal red apple except in that it doesn't look red to you. That is basically what you are saying.
And that's still not comparative to P-Zombies, because you're saying "imagine it is indistinguishable despite the fact that you can perceive a difference" while the P-Zombie says "Imagine it is indistinguishable because you cannot perceive the thing that makes it different.
In conclusion: Takes one to know one, faget.
>tries to redefine what language means to fit his theory
like every single "philosopher" ever. get fucked
youtube.com
>posts unclear drivel
>gets defensive when it isn't understood
Are you a cuck?
Explain?