Ian,
Yes, the only escape for the materialist is to logically demonstrate that p-zombies are logically impossible!
By logically impossible I mean that there is an inherent incoherency in the notion of a p-zombie, for eg like an object which at the same time is simultaneously both a cube and a sphere. That is to say that it must be shown that p-zombies could not obtain in any logically possible Universe.
But it is difficult to see how the materialist could do this. After all, unlike an object which is simultaneously both a cube and a sphere, I can certainly conceive of p-zombies. That which is conceivable tends to suggest that it is logically possible. Certainly the onus is on the materialist to logically demonstrate that they are not.
Well, if the mind-brain hypothesis is true, then p-zombies are logically impossible. This is because if the mind-brain hypothesis is true, then consciousness can (at least in principle) be logically derived from the physical facts. The existence of a p-zombie would therefore be a logical contradiction.
Of course, the only way I could formally prove that, would be to actually derive consciousness from the physical facts. Unfortunately, we do not yet know all of the physical facts, and even if we did, the complexity is such that a derivation of that type is probably not tractable.
I don't see why this should be seen as a problem, though. After all, we cannot logically derive the chemical properties of complex molecules from Quantum Mechanics either. We just assume that chemistry is reducible to QM because that is the most parsimonious explanation we have for our observations. The fact that I cannot derive it certainly does not justify the claim that chemistry involves more than QM, and likewise the fact that we cannot yet formally derive consciousness from brain activity, does not justify the claim that there is more to consciousness than just brain activity.
If you want to prove that materialism implies that people are p-zombies, then you need to demonstrate that p-zombies are logically possible. You cannot just assume that they are, on the basis that I cannot prove they are not, and then from that conclude that materialism is false. After all, the assumption that p-zombies are logically possible involves the assumption that the physical world is not causally closed, which is an assumption that materialism is false. Your reasoning is circular.
I can neither reject nor accept its existence until you define what you mean by the term.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't. We only!
know of it as a directly experienced reality.
Perhaps you just don't understand what a definition is? I am not asking for a complete explanation for it, or any kind of explanation. I am asking for you to tell me what mean by the word. It appears as though you mean "that which we directly experience". That is a definition. I certainly agree that I have experiences, but I do not see why you insist that they cannot possibly be brain processes, or for that matter, any kind of physical process.
But I would suggest that only a p-zombie could claim that consciousness is meaningless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you cannot define what the word means, then it is meaningless. That is what the word "meaningless" means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not continually redefine words. Even if I agree to your definition then this would simply necessitate that there is no inconsistancy in the meaningless existing. But then I'll get some dickhead who says you've obviously winning the argument because I am making ludicrous assertions eg that which is meaningless exists. It's happened before, and I'm sure that lot of people think it.
I have no idea what you just said here. Are you going to try to claim that a word that has not been defined still means something?
Note that I am not saying that consciousness is meaningless. I am saying that as long as you refuse to define what you mean by the word "consciousness", any statement you make which refers to that word
doesn't mean anything.
I'm a tad pissed off with your cheating in this way. I refuse to any loger accept your definition of words.
So f*ck off you stupid cheating b*stard.
You're pissed off? I'm the one cheating? You are the one who starts entire threads about consciousness, and insults materialists because of their views of it, even though you cannot even explain what you mean by the term.
There is certainly something which I call consciousness, which I am immediately acquainted with. I am quite capable of defining what I mean by the word, though. And I certainly see no reason to think that this thing which I am immediately acquainted with is not definable, or that it cannot be investigated scientifically.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know, that's because you're stupid. Or should that be Dr Stupid?
Another dazzling argument from the brilliant philosopher.
Of course, a p-zombie would be "immediately acquainted" with those brain processes which I am claiming are consciousness. But they are definable, and can be studied scientifically.
Since, by definition, there is no way for you to know whether you are p-zombie or not,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? What an utterly astonishing thing to say! Of course I know that I experience (real) consciousness!
Do you? Your brain is what knows things, yet if you accept the epiphenomenalism argument upon which p-zombies are dependant, your brain cannot possibly know anything about consciousness. Your brain believes it possesses consciousness, but for completely physical and misguided reasons. Your consciousness experiences your brain's thoughts, but has no cognitive capabilities of its own. It doesn't "know" anything.
Frankly, I don't understand why you are persisting with this p-zombie nonsense anyway. P-zombies are not consistent with either of our worldviews. If they are truly logically possible, then we are
both wrong about the nature of consciousness.
If Libertarian free-will exists, as you believe, then p-zombies are impossible, because consciousness affects the physical world. Therefore a p-zombie would not be physically identical to a normal human being, just as a TV which cannot pick up any television signals is not physically identical to one which can.
If the physical world is causally closed, then p-zombies are impossible because consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon. Therefore a p-zombie would not be physically identical to a normal human being, because his brain processes would have to be different.
It really boggles my mind that even though you are an idealist, all of the arguments you use against materialism are dualistic ones, which are equally incompatible with idealism.
Your inability to provide a definition just indicates your own conceptual confusion. You see, you may not realize it, but when you say that consciousness is "that which you are immediately acquainted with", you have just provided a definition for consciousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine, I hope you like my "definition" of consciousness. Just bear in mind that I do not have the same definition of "definition" that you have.
Talking to you is like clapping with one hand.
Actually, even if the above premises were true, it would only imply that the supernatural exists.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It destroys determinism thereby implying libertarian free will.
This is pathetic even for you. Are you seriously saying that the only alternative to determinism is Libertarian free-will?
Here's a counter example for you. We are all just puppets being controlled by God and Satan. The entire universe is a huge puppet show that they are putting on for their local community. Our belief in free will is an illusion that they gave us in order to make the show more amusing.
Yes, your claim that materialism can only ever imply the existence of p-zombies, and not real people, is based on the assumption that real people are causally affected by something non-physical. You have no evidence for this, only your intuitive preconceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it is based on the assumption that p-zombies are not logically impossible. That is all. What you said is not my assumption, but rather my conclusion!
The fact that you so profoundly lack any understanding of even your own argument, makes it not at all surprising that you never understand mine. The assumption that p-zombies are logically possible is
exactly the assumption that consciousness is something non-physical. Combine that with the other premise of your argument, which is that consciousness must affect the physical world since you know you have it, and you have assumed that real people are causally affected by something non-physical.
Let me put it this way. If materialism is true, then p-zombies are not logically possible. You have assumed that p-zombies are logically possible. That means that you have assumed that materialism is not true. To conclude from this that materialism is not true, is both trivial and completely irrelevant. Unless you can demonstrate that p-zombies
are logically possible, you have proven nothing about the real world.
This means that you are concluding that the physical world is not causally closed from the assumption that something non-physical (your free-will) is causally affecting something physical (your brain).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you entirely misunderstand my argument. That would simply beg the question!
Then perhaps you should clarify your argument. You can start by presenting your evidence that there are supernatural influences on the brain.
Dr. Stupid
