A proof that p-zombies are logically incoherent.

[Iacchus]

That's one theory - in that case, what we're missing is the ability to create a spirit. If it is a real thing in the real world (which it must be if it interacts with the real world), then it is possible to locate, isolate, and recreate it. We simply haven't stumbled across the method of doing so yet. If it is the truth, though, we will.

The spirit is nothing more than living energy. This is what sustains each of us.

It appears we have a large difference in perception, which gives rise to a differences in definitive language. I feel that there are only two states concerning reality - either someone is real or it is not. I do not believe that reality has varying states. If a dog's consciousness is not as complex as a human's, it must still be just as real to exist at all.

Then what do we need big brains for, if not to differentiate between these "varying states?" That would really suck if everything were a simple shade of monotone wouldn't it?

That is only according to my definition, though, because in my thought process, that is what makes appliable sense. In order to have a conversation with another individual, who may hold a different application for the term, I may need to alter my definition for the sake of the conversation. Once again, it boils down to semantics.

Ultimately it's up to each of us to determine what we perceive, however, otherwise there would be no point to us being nothing more than p-zombies.

 

[Mercutio]

The spirit is nothing more than living energy. This is what sustains each of us.

Demonstrates utter ignorance of biology.

Then what do we need big brains for, if not to differentiate between these "varying states?" That would really suck if everything were a simple shade of monotone wouldn't it?

Demonstrates utter ignorance of biology and psychology.

Ultimately it's up to each of us to determine what we perceive, however, otherwise there would be no point to us being nothing more than p-zombies.

Demonstrates utter ignorance of reality.

 

[cpolk]

The spirit is nothing more than living energy. This is what sustains each of us.

If so, we still need to locate, isolate, and recreate it in order to make a living machine such as ourselves.

Then what do we need big brains for, if not to differentiate between these "varying states?" That would really suck if everything were a simple shade of monotone wouldn't it?

The brain - the "inner voice" portion of it that we are talking about - does not determine reality. The main portion of our brain collects information about reality, gathered by our senses, and sends it to the "I". The "I" uses this gathered information to interact with the environment.

The eye on a stove may be heated, but a person will not have the inclination to move their hand from it unless they are receiving that information from their senses. Until they realized their hand was burning, they would not know to move it. Incidentally, if the senses are working correctly, there is a reaction that causes your body to automatically respond before the "I" can perceive or make a decision.

 

[thaiboxerken]

How many times has Ian left this forum forever?

 

[cpolk]

Demonstrates utter ignorance...

Play nice, Mercutio...

 

[Iacchus]

Hey, did you hear about the cow that jumped over the barbed wire fence? ... It was udder destruction.

 

[shemp]

How many times has Ian left this forum forever?

An infinite number of times.

 

[Iacchus]

The brain - the "inner voice" portion of it that we are talking about - does not determine reality. The main portion of our brain collects information about reality, gathered by our senses, and sends it to the "I". The "I" uses this gathered information to interact with the environment.

Yes, I believe the brain is pretty much neutral in the whole affair, and is designed to act accordingly.

The eye on a stove may be heated, but a person will not have the inclination to move their hand from it unless they are receiving that information from their senses. Until they realized their hand was burning, they would not know to move it. Incidentally, if the senses are working correctly, there is a reaction that causes your body to automatically respond before the "I" can perceive or make a decision.

Yes, and if you pass an electric current through a (dead) frog's leg, it will twitch.

 

[cpolk]

Yes, I believe the brain is pretty much neutral in the whole affair, and is designed to act accordingly.

Yes, and if you pass an electric current through a (dead) frog's leg, it will twitch.

You believe that the "I" is the soul; I believe it is merely a part of a program that is controlled by the brain, but is not representative of the brain in its entirety, and that it is only to serve the purpose of interacting with the outside world.

Either way, it shouldn't matter, as long as we recognize that the "brain" and the "I" are related-but-separate functions.

Therefore, p-zombies cannot interact with the outside environment unless they contain an "I", be it in the form of a program or a soul. They, therefore, do not exist.

 

[Mercutio]

Play nice, Mercutio...

That was playing nice. The comments I addressed were an assertion of fact which contradicts what is known of cellular and organismic metabolism. Should such lies go unchallenged? And they are indeed lies. I played nice by implying that they were made out of ignorance rather than out of deliberate malice.

A statement such as "Yes, I believe the brain is pretty much neutral in the whole affair, and is designed to act accordingly" is, as a statement of belief, a confession of utter ignorance of the subject material. It is not malice to recognize it as such.

 

[cpolk]

That was playing nice. The comments I addressed were an assertion of fact which contradicts what is known of cellular and organismic metabolism. Should such lies go unchallenged? And they are indeed lies. I played nice by implying that they were made out of ignorance rather than out of deliberate malice.

A statement such as "Yes, I believe the brain is pretty much neutral in the whole affair, and is designed to act accordingly" is, as a statement of belief, a confession of utter ignorance of the subject material. It is not malice to recognize it as such.

LOL I suppose you're right. I have just recognized my own growing frustations with some on this board, and have realized that I was starting to "not play nice" myself.

I wasn't challenging your challenge, I was just joking with you, in fun. Trying to lighten myself up, I guess.

 

[Interesting Ian]

You believe that the "I" is the soul; I believe it is merely a part of a program that is controlled by the brain, but is not representative of the brain in its entirety, and that it is only to serve the purpose of interacting with the outside world.

Either way, it shouldn't matter, as long as we recognize that the "brain" and the "I" are related-but-separate functions.

Therefore, p-zombies cannot interact with the outside environment unless they contain an "I", be it in the form of a program or a soul. They, therefore, do not exist.

You what?? So if I wind up a clockwork toy and it subsequently interacts with its environment, then it must be an "I" (or self as I would prefer to say) and therefore a fortiori conscious??

Reductive materialists can't believe in a self anyway, yet they certainly believe we interact with our environment.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If something is not conscious then that something cannot be aware of anything.

That would depend entirely on the definition of aware. If you define it to be the same as conscious, then you are certainly right. However, if you define it as:

2 : having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge

then a person with blindsight is aware without being conscious.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay, sorry to come in late, but that's the way it goes after a vacation. Which sort of p-zombie are we talking about?

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/P-zombie

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

A statement such as "Yes, I believe the brain is pretty much neutral in the whole affair, and is designed to act accordingly" is, as a statement of belief, a confession of utter ignorance of the subject material. It is not malice to recognize it as such.

A high fidelity stereo must be neutral to the music which it "entertains" (reproduces), otherwise it would not be high fidelity.

 

[Iacchus]

Reductive materialists can't believe in a self anyway, yet they certainly believe we interact with our environment.

The whole environment is interactive, and ultimately requires "a self" to acknowledge it.

 

[cpolk]

You what?? So if I wind up a clockwork toy and it subsequently interacts with its environment, then it must be an "I" (or self as I would prefer to say) and therefore a fortiori conscious??

Reductive materialists can't believe in a self anyway, yet they certainly believe we interact with our environment.

We are having a similar debate in a separate thread, and I will be more than happy to discuss it there.

Do not use that argument to overlook the fact that I have completely obliterated the argument that "p-zombies" are possible, which is the purpose of this thread.

 

[Mercutio]

A high fidelity stereo must be neutral to the music which it "entertains" (reproduces), otherwise it would not be high fidelity.

irrelevant statement noted.

Iacchus, your radio metaphor has been shredded before--remember how many times Tricky showed you that you had tried it before? It was wrong each of those times; what makes you think it has suddenly become right?

Your metaphor runs counter to centuries of research in biology, physics, and psychology. You really should be ashamed to use such an inappropriate example. It simply highlights your ignorance of the subject matter, and the fact that you use it again and again and again highlights your willingness, even eagerness, to remain actively and aggressively ignorant.

 

[Iacchus]

A statement such as "Yes, I believe the brain is pretty much neutral in the whole affair, and is designed to act accordingly" is, as a statement of belief, a confession of utter ignorance of the subject material. It is not malice to recognize it as such.

Consciously, I am just aware. I have no sensation in the least of this thing called "a brain." This is because it -- i.e., the brain -- is functioning properly.

 

[Interesting Ian]

That would depend entirely on the definition of aware. If you define it to be the same as conscious, then you are certainly right. However, if you define it as:

2 : having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge

then a person with blindsight is aware without being conscious.

~~ Paul

So a p-zombie is self-aware, yet is not conscious. If it is not conscious then a fortiori it is not a self. Yet it is aware that it is a self? This is absolute gobbledegook.

Worse yet Dancing David said:

"To be exhibiting 'all apparrent consiousness', the p-zombie must have the awareness of self that is generaly defined to be consiousness".

So David is saying that to be aware is to be conscious.

I'm sure you guys just love to introduce words with ambigious meaning precisely in order to conceal the fact that your position is completely nonsensical.