The Zombie Poll

[Apathia]

Option A, "Smooth as Silk:" Self-Consciousness and subjective experience are invariant in a systematic substitution of fully functioning, comparable, physical components. They aren't the functioning components.

Option B, "Zombie:" Self-Consciousness and subjective experience are lost in a systematic substitution of fully functioning , comparable, physical components. They weren't the functioning components.

Option C, "Curare:" Self-Consciousness and subjective experience are invariant in a systematic substitution of allegedly fully functioning, comparable, physical comonents, but the components fail to function or fail to make the interface. Self-Consciousness and subjective experience continue since they aren't the functioning components, but the malfuctioning or not interfacing physical components can only yield paralysis.

Option D, "D" as in Dead:" Self-Consciouness and subjective experience are lost and so is the functioning brain as it's torn apart for substitute pieces that malfunction or can't interface. Physically dead and subjectively dead. Dead all around. Self-Consciousness and subjective experience are not invariant here. It may be they need truely functioning physical components or are the functioning of the physical components. It's not clear which.
selecting option D, is saying "no, no way, not now not ever" is this experiment going to be carried out in reality.

It's a no can do
Frankenstein is a woo.

D was not included because the OP made this assumption:

Science has discovered how to electronically replicate the exact behaviour of an individual neuron. In the experiment, each of your neurons is going to be replaced by an electronic component. Eventually, the surgeons will entirely replace your brain with electronics which carries out precisely the same function.

way simplistic overview:
A: Body & Mind
B: Body but no Mind
C: No Body but Mind
D: No Body and No Mind

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Option A, "Smooth as Silk:" Self-Consciousness and subjective experience are invariant in a systematic substitution of fully functioning, comparable, physical components. They aren't the functioning components.

Option B, "Zombie:" Self-Consciousness and subjective experience are lost in a systematic substitution of fully functioning , comparable, physical components. They weren't the functioning components.

Option C, "Curare:" Self-Consciousness and subjective experience are invariant in a systematic substitution of allegedly fully functioning, comparable, physical comonents, but the components fail to function or fail to make the interface. Self-Consciousness and subjective experience continue since they aren't the functioning components, but the malfuctioning or not interfacing physical components can only yield paralysis.

Option D, "D" as in Dead:" Self-Consciouness and subjective experience are lost and so is the functioning brain as it's torn apart for substitute pieces that malfunction or can't interface. Physically dead and subjectively dead. Dead all around. Self-Consciousness and subjective experience are not invariant here. It may be they need truely functioning physical components or are the functioning of the physical components. It's not clear which.
selecting option D, is saying "no, no way, not now not ever" is this experiment going to be carried out in reality.

It's a no can do
Frankenstein is a woo.

D was not included because the OP made this assumption:

I'm not sure what you are saying here. What isn't the functioning components? The neurons?

 

[DarkMagician]

Braaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnns!

Brrrraaaaaaaaaainnnnns! Bbbbbrraaaaaaaaaainnnnnnnns! Bbbbbbrrrrrraaaaaaiiiiiiiinnnnnnnssssss! Brrrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnssssssssss! Bbbbbbbrrrrrraaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnssssssss! Bbraaainnns! Bbrrraaaaiiiiiiinnssssss! Liver!

 

[Apathia]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. What isn't the functioning components? The neurons?

The pronoun "they" refers to "Self-Consciousness and subjective experience.

 

[chriswl]

The pronoun "they" refers to "Self-Consciousness and subjective experience.

You seem to be arguing in favour of full-on dualism here; that whatever happens to the physical brain is irrelevant to consciousness because consciousness is some other type of thing entirely. Is this why you keep using the word soul?

 

[Apathia]

You seem to be arguing in favour of full-on dualism here; that whatever happens to the physical brain is irrelevant to consciousness because consciousness is some other type of thing entirely. Is this why you keep using the word soul?

Pardon me for the list I'm about to write. I don't mean to be rude by it, just to be clear.

1.) The now absent OP left us with a little thought experiment. Did anyone, especially those who have argued with him for months and even years, not see its purpose? I merely attempted to pull it to front and center.
I supose some, like Paul, saw it right away for what it was, and I'm kind of silly for draging out the obvious.

2.) It's not an argument that proves anything metaphysical. If you chose C, that might indicate an Ontological Dualism on your part. But not a proof, just your preference. D as well, touches on the metaphysical, becuause choosing it is saying the premise of the thought experiment can never be done. But that's as far as it gets, and it's just a choce, not a conclusion about Ontological Dualism.

3. You might call the experiment a loaded question. Or you could say the Elephant set us up. In talking about any of the options we linguistically seperate between the artificial mechanism to be substituted for the original and self-coinsciousness/subjective experience. You do this linguistic with each option chosen and why you chose it. Let me repeat it's a lingusitic divide.

4. The Undercover Elephant is hding under the rug and trying not to laugh.
His original point in the "Materilist Thread" was that we do have this linguistic divide that makes us talk is if subjective experience were some other matter than what we call physical. No we exhibt this proclivity in this thread while weighing in on our choices in his thought experiment. We do the dance.

5. UR would then go on to argue that we need to come to terms with this habit of ours of seeing our subjective mental life in a different light than objectively observed physical things. He doesn't do a full on or Ontological Dualism from this but posits the position called "Neutral Monism."

6. When UR points out the lingustic divide, many readers still read into that Full-on or Ontological Dualism. So many pages were spent in the Materialism Thread or misunderstanding, and no one got around to arguing about his particular metaphysical position, Neutral Monism. Over in the Materialst Thread right now, you still have someone saying he's a closet Dualist. The muddle continues.

7. There is a lingustic divide as I spoke of above. UR's thought experiment at the beginning of this thread displays the culpit in full view. Some, as in the Materilalst Thread will continue to deny there is a divide, becuse that seems to support an Ontological Dualism. To get from the divide to Ontological Dualism is a leap. No one has to jump to the conclusion that there is an Ontological Dualism just because there is a linguistic divide in the structure of our language. At best it indicates that if we make Ontology/Metaphysics we could do to be more subtle than a Monistic Materialism or a Monistic Idealism

8. That there is a linguistic divide between the objectively physical and the subjectively mental in the structure of our language is not the same as saying there is a Ontological, Substantial, difference amounting to Ontological Dualism.
I know, I'm repeating myself. And someone will still think I'm aruging for Dualism or an immortal soul. But the dualism exhibited in UR's thought experiment is what's called, "Property Dualism." That isn't Ontological dualism. It's just the statement that we find a divide in the structure of our language.

9. The lingustic divide persists even if we use different words like "Private Behavior" vrs. "Public Behavior." Maybe that purchases a little distance, but we go on to exhibit that divde if we keep talking. It persists if we deny it even exists. Denying it even exists is like trying to hide an elephant under a carpet.
The motive for trying to hide an elephant under a carpet? To escape from an undesirable Ontological Dualism. But the escape is simpler. Don't leap to that conclusion yourself, based on no more than a bit of language structure.

10. Sure, language is how we talk about reality. But reality is always quite a bit more complex than what we'd make of it in common sense language. So don't buy into Ontological Dualism because of English.

11. I am not an Ontological Dualist. I have no intention to argue for a metaphysical position in this thread. I personally like the direction Neutral Monism goes, but I'm not committed to it. The Mahayana philosophical foundations of Zen are a form of Neutral Monism. But, when it comes to Zen, I close my mouth and just sit.

12. As I've said again and again in my posts, I don't use the word "Soul" as indicative of a metaphysical substance. It's a word i use in communicating about my internal, subjective, life. Everyone here can use "soul" in that fasion without commiting to any ontology or being some kind of religious believer.

 

[hammegk]

Let me repeat it's a lingusitic divide.

Facts not in evidence. We do agree no 'divide' is possible in 'what-is'.

At best it indicates that if we make Ontology/Metaphysics we could do to be more subtle than a Monistic Materialism or a Monistic Idealism..

Perhaps. What moves? Flag? Wind? Mind?

I know, I'm repeating myself. And someone will still think I'm aruging for Dualism or an immortal soul.

The only argument for Dualism is goddidit; souls are irrelevant.

The lingustic divide persists even if we use different words like "Private Behavior" vrs. "Public Behavior." Maybe that purchases a little distance, but we go on to exhibit that divide if we keep talking. It persists if we deny it even exists. Denying it even exists is like trying to hide an elephant under a carpet.

I.E. Our very own UCE!

"Private Behavior" imo is another ploy dualists who wannabe materialists toss out to better pretend they have faith ontology is meaningless.

The Mahayana philosophical foundations of Zen are a form of Neutral Monism.

That could be so argued. I disagree, but that is neither here nor there.

Certainly a form of monism, though I prefer atman=brahmin.

But, when it comes to Zen, I close my mouth and just sit.

 

[chriswl]

So you were just talking about the dualistic structure of language? Oh come off it! Your statement was actually quite clear. You said:

Option A, "Smooth as Silk:" Self-Consciousness and subjective experience are invariant in a systematic substitution of fully functioning, comparable, physical components. They aren't the functioning components.

Option B, "Zombie:" Self-Consciousness and subjective experience are lost in a systematic substitution of fully functioning , comparable, physical components. They weren't the functioning components.

Option C, "Curare:" Self-Consciousness and subjective experience are invariant in a systematic substitution of allegedly fully functioning, comparable, physical comonents, but the components fail to function or fail to make the interface. Self-Consciousness and subjective experience continue since they aren't the functioning components, but the malfuctioning or not interfacing physical components can only yield paralysis.

You highlighted it in bold, three times. Either you are claiming that consciousness is something other than what you get when you have appropriate functioning components that function as human brains or you were spectacularly failing to say something completely different.

12. As I've said again and again in my posts, I don't use the word "Soul" as indicative of a metaphysical substance. It's a word i use in communicating about my internal, subjective, life. Everyone here can use "soul" in that fasion without commiting to any ontology or being some kind of religious believer.

I can't imagine why someone would use such a word unless thay had religious or woo-ish tendencies. Do you really think you can use a word like "soul" and just ignore all the centuries of religious baggage associated with it? You are giving strong subliminal messages when you use a word like that, whether you mean them or not.

 

[Apathia]

So you were just talking about the dualistic structure of language? Oh come off it! Your statement was actually quite clear. You said:


You highlighted it in bold, three times. Either you are claiming that consciousness is something other than what you get when you have appropriate functioning components that function as human brains or you were spectacularly failing to say something completely different.


I can't imagine why someone would use such a word unless thay had religious or woo-ish tendencies. Do you really think you can use a word like "soul" and just ignore all the centuries of religious baggage associated with it? You are giving strong subliminal messages when you use a word like that, whether you mean them or not.

As I said the whole OP thought experiment is a kind of set up. I just explicated it clearly.
Yes, you get self-consciouness when you have appropriately functioning components, but what our languge refers to as self-consciousness and subjective experience isn't the functioning components themselves.
Now, if you wish, you can go on to say that language notwithstanding the subjective can be reduced to the functioning components.
When I get metaphysical, I go with the Buddhist perspective that "I" has no inherent existance, that ontology is empty of what I call my subjective self (and empty of what I call my objective identity as well) There's no supernatural soul for me to defend.

And I take your point, the word "soul" does have baggage. I will hencefoth in this use the word, "person," that ought to be much more palatable for everyone, provided no one is trying to read that I'm reading something supernatural into it.

 

[Mercutio]

"Private Behavior" imo is another ploy dualists who wannabe materialists toss out to better pretend they have faith ontology is meaningless.

I disagree, as you know. I think perhaps it is time that you defend this claim. I am neither dualist nor materialist, but I am perfectly comfortable with "private behavior".

Do you wish to defend your position? Perhaps simply explain it?

 

[hammegk]

Your options are simple:

1. Deny dualism -- define the monism that remains.

2. Accept that reality seems to be dualist, but cannot logically be so, and choose a position you are willing to defend.

3. Pretend both options above are not worth consideration by a scientist. Define that position without using dualist terms, and explain why you have faith science answers all questions worth asking.

4. Describe some other position and defend it.

 

[Darat]

Your options are simple:

If they were the options you list they would be simple as in simple minded...

Seriously your "options" are loaded with assumptions and assertions based on nothing more then your beliefs and wishes.

 

[hammegk]

No one has yet successfully provided other positions. Please do so.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't like any of Hammy's options. Am I required to pick one?

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

I don't like any of Hammy's options. Am I required to pick one?

No one has yet successfully provided other positions. Please do so.

 

[Apathia]

I don't like any of Hammy's options. Am I required to pick one?

~~ Paul

Those four is it? I'd advise you to take The Fifth!*




*Alas I have to explain the pun for folks not familiar with the U.S. Constitution (over half being American citizens).
The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights gives the citizen the right to refuse to make a self incriminating statement in a court of law or in a police interrogation.
It serves as a safe response to loaded or trick questions.

 

[hammegk]

Those four is it? I'd advise you to take The Fifth!*

Taking the Fifth, liquidly or constitutionally, does not change Reality.

 

[Darat]

No one has yet successfully provided other positions. Please do so.

Many people have - some even in this thread. Have a read of the thread and you may gain some understanding. If you don't just take it as my opinion that I find your "options" extremely simplistic and really nothing more then a statement of your beliefs.

 

[hammegk]

Many people have - some even in this thread.

You certainly haven't.

Have a read of the thread and you may gain some understanding.

Summarize the position you like. Or admit you can't. That is, demonstrate your "understanding".

If you don't just take it as my opinion that I find your "options" extremely simplistic and really nothing more then a statement of your beliefs.

Unlike you, at least I have beliefs that do not waver in the slightest breeze, and have the courage to state them and defend them.

 

[Darat]

You certainly haven't.

...snip...

Did I say I had?