Materialism

[AmateurScientist]

Neo

But the materialists avoids the hot water without heat conclusion by asserting that once we have Brownian motion, such as that which obtains in hot water, then it is logically necessary that we also have temperature.

Does my variation of your argument strike you as at all problematic?

If not, then why would substituting "temperature" for "consciousness" make a difference?

Agreed. The p-zombie argument put forth by dualists is silly for several reasons, one of which is that the way philosophers define p-zombies--responding to questions, going to work, playing basketball, eating, doing everything humans do except for having the experience of those things--is absurd on its face. It should be obvious to anyone that any being capable of engaging in such activities to the extent that it is indistinguishable from a human being is in fact a human being. P-zombies are defined in such a way that they are logically impossible--if a p-zombie is indistinguishable from a human, then he is not a p-zombie, but is in fact a human. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....

AS

 

[Guest]

one of which is that the way philosophers define p-zombies--responding to questions, going to work, playing basketball, eating, doing everything humans do except for having the experience of those things--is absurd on its face.

Totally false. I see no reason why a powerful-enough neural net running on a computer could not do all these things, and I see no reason at all why such a machine should be conscious. Everything humans do (with the possible exception of total altruism) could be replicated by a non-conscious machine.

It should be obvious to anyone that any being capable of engaging in such activities to the extent that it is indistinguishable from a human being is in fact a human being

WHY?

P-zombies are defined in such a way that they are logically impossible--if a p-zombie is indistinguishable from a human, then he is not a p-zombie, but is in fact a human. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....

....it might be a machine programmed to walk like a duck and talk like a duck.

P-zombies are not logically impossible. They are used to demonstrate a logical argument. You cannot argue with a logical argument by saying...."well look at it....that's silly...."

We know it's silly!

edited :

This is part of the problem. To me, materialism itself looks precisely as silly as you think a p-zombies are. That is because p-zombies are implied by materialism! There are no p-zombies in idealism.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

If a machine would be made to process exactly like a brain (or create an artificial brain), it would be concious.

Materialism doesn't imply p-zombies, you goof. It implies conciousness isn't supernatural, or are physical in some way.

 

[AmateurScientist]

If a machine would be made to process exactly like a brain (or create an artificial brain), it would be concious.

Materialism doesn't imply p-zombies, you goof. It implies conciousness isn't supernatural, or are physical in some way.

Exactly. That's the whole point of a materialist explanation of consciousness. The mind is the brain, or if you prefer, it is an emergent property of it.

The implication from this is that a machine which could exactly, not nearly, replicate all of the functions of the brain would necessarily be conscious. UCE fails to acknowledge this. BTW, despite what science fiction novels and movies like to suggest, we are nowhere near being anywhere close to being able to construct neural networks which can replicate even a tiny fraction of what human brains do every day. Many AI researchers believe that there is no forseeable time in the future in which we could replicate human brain function in toto, or that it is even possible.

Agreed also that materialism in no way implies p-zombies. P-zombies are logically impossible because of the way they are defined. It is no different from supposing that we could have a man who was identical in every way to a regular man, except that he was pregnant! That's logically impossible because of the distinguishing characteristics of being male. Male humans cannot become pregnant. A pregnant man wouldn't be a man at all. P-zombies are no less silly.

AS

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Pregnant man, you say?

Yes, I know it's fake.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Totally false. I see no reason why a powerful-enough neural net running on a computer could not do all these things, and I see no reason at all why such a machine should be conscious. Everything humans do (with the possible exception of total altruism) could be replicated by a non-conscious machine.



WHY?

Really? Could a machine be programmed to have fun? To fall in love with a beautiful woman? To create soulful improvised jazz music? To cry in spontaneous response to a sad story?

....it might be a machine programmed to walk like a duck and talk like a duck.

But then any human baby, and nearly any higher mammal would be able to distinguish it from a real duck after close inspection. A machine programmed to walk and talk like a duck is manifestly not indistinguishable from a real duck.

P-zombies are not logically impossible. They are used to demonstrate a logical argument. You cannot argue with a logical argument by saying...."well look at it....that's silly...."

The very definition of a p-zombie is flawed, which makes the supposition of their existence silly. A p-zombie which is indistinguishable from and which behaves exactly like a human is in fact a human. The "indistinguishable from and which behaves exactly like" is the part which is a cheat. That is how we define categories of beings. If A is indistinguishable from and behaves exactly like B, then A=B.

Suggesting then, that A is not = B is then silly and a logical impossibility, given the parameters defining B.

This is part of the problem. To me, materialism itself looks precisely as silly as you think a p-zombies are. That is because p-zombies are implied by materialism! There are no p-zombies in idealism.

Sorry, but they're not. See above.

AS

 

[Guest]

If a machine would be made to process exactly like a brain (or create an artificial brain), it would be concious.

LISTEN TO YOURSELF!

You have just made a statement with total certainty based on nothing but FAITH!

How do you know that such a machine would be conscious?
How would you test it?
What EVIDENCE could you supply?
What LOGIC supports your position?

Faith, faith, faith, dogma and more faith.

Materialism doesn't imply p-zombies, you goof.

Nice argument. It's called "ad hominem".

It implies conciousness isn't supernatural, or are physical in some way.

No DC, it imples P-ZOMBIES.

. It implies conciousness isn't supernatural, or are physical in some way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. That's the whole point of a materialist explanation of consciousness. The mind is the brain, or if you prefer, it is an emergent property of it.

That isn't an "explanation" any more than "God made the world in seven days" is an "explanation". It is a bald, unsubstantiated assertion. As for "the mind is the brain" - that is just prima facie incomprehensible gibberish. You can say "Snow is Fidel Castros beard.". Does it make sense? NO! And neither does "mind is brain". You say it for one reason only : materialism required it to be true.

The implication from this is that a machine which could exactly, not nearly, replicate all of the functions of the brain would necessarily be conscious. UCE fails to acknowledge this.

I fail to acknowledge it

1) because there is no evidence
2) because it is logically backwards

Your argument is :

If materialism is true then the mind is the brain therefore P-zombies can't exist and machines can be conscious therefore materialism is true. Get rid of the initial "if materialism is true" and the entire argument collapses like the wicked witch of the west under Dorothys bucket of water. It is no better than "If the bible is true then Darwinism must be false".

P-zombies are logically impossible because of the way they are defined. It is no different from supposing that we could have a man who was identical in every way to a regular man, except that he was pregnant!

Why? WHY? WHY WHY WHY

You just assert things. No evidence. No logic.

Really? Could a machine be programmed to have fun?

Unknown. No evidence available. Why not?

To fall in love with a beautiful woman?

No, because it requires human hormones.

To create soulful improvised jazz music?

Unknown. No evidence available. Why not?

To cry in spontaneous response to a sad story?

Unknown. Presumably not since understand sadness may also requre human physicality.

None of the above is evidence for anything. It depends on subjective guesses and pre-formed dogma.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....it might be a machine programmed to walk like a duck and talk like a duck.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But then any human baby, and nearly any higher mammal would be able to distinguish it from a real duck after close inspection.

HOW?

WHY?

You are assuming it is a poor replica. That is just a limitation of current android technology!

A machine programmed to walk and talk like a duck is manifestly not indistinguishable from a real duck.

WHY?

Do you have anything to offer but your own guesses, biases and dogma? You aren't even trying to offer any evidence or logic. Your argument is pure arm-waving!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P-zombies are not logically impossible. They are used to demonstrate a logical argument. You cannot argue with a logical argument by saying...."well look at it....that's silly...."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The very definition of a p-zombie is flawed, which makes the supposition of their existence silly.

You HAVE NOT explained why. All you have done is arm-waved.

A p-zombie which is indistinguishable from and which behaves exactly like a human is in fact a human.

WHY?

The "indistinguishable from and which behaves exactly like" is the part which is a cheat. That is how we define categories of beings. If A is indistinguishable from and behaves exactly like B, then A=B.

Nonsense!

Two utterly identical twins are the same person?

Furthermore, just because you CANNOT detect consciousness objectively this does not entitled you to ASSUME that everything which behaves as if it is conscious is conscious. You call that "science"?. I call it nonsense.

Suggesting then, that A is not = B is then silly and a logical impossibility, given the parameters defining B.

You use the word "silly" very liberally. Don't pretend it is an argument.

Want to try again, this time without faith, guesswork, ad hominems and blind assertions?

It seems to me that you are insistent on evidence and logic when you want to reject something, but when it comes down to supplying evidence and logic to defend your own belief system you are quite happy to resort to arm-waving and claims that the alternative are "silly". If YOU demand evidence, then YOU must supply EVIDENCE.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

AS wrote: The "indistinguishable from and which behaves exactly like" is the part which is a cheat. That is how we define categories of beings. If A is indistinguishable from and behaves exactly like B, then A=B.

UCE replied: Nonsense!

Hey AS, looks like UCE needs to send some e-mails to all the biology departments in the world. Apparently phyologeny and claudistics or nonsense...

 

[The One called Neo]

Neo

But the materialists avoids the hot water without heat conclusion by asserting that once we have Brownian motion, such as that which obtains in hot water, then it is logically necessary that we also have temperature.

Does my variation of your argument strike you as at all problematic?

If not, then why would substituting "temperature" for "consciousness" make a difference?

Are you talking about temperature as in the phenomenological quality? That is to say are you talking about the actual feeling of warmth or pain of a particular temperature? If so this is just a specific instance of the more general question which I raised. In this case we need to ask if the feeling of warmth or pain is logically necessitated.

 

[Guest]

AS wrote: The "indistinguishable from and which behaves exactly like" is the part which is a cheat. That is how we define categories of beings. If A is indistinguishable from and behaves exactly like B, then A=B.

UCE replied: Nonsense!

Hey AS, looks like UCE needs to send some e-mails to all the biology departments in the world. Apparently phyologeny and claudistics or nonsense...

Do you understand the debate, UnrepentantSinner? Methinks not. Let me help you out. We are currently discussing whether P-zombies are logically possible. A P-Zombie is a thing which looks and behaves exactly like a human being but has no internal subjective state. It is a fundamental FACT that objective science has no way of determining whether or not a thing, either organic or computer, has an internal conscious state. That is why the 'Turing test' was invented, even though it relies on subjective judgement.

So AS is arguing that "Because a human is indistinguishable from a P-Zombie the idea of a P-zombie is 'silly'" (he also likes to claim it is illogical but he has not shown why).

The argument then boils down to : "Because science cannot distinguish between a human and a P-zombie we should assume that everything that mimics consciousness is conscious".

Go have a cup of coffee and a little think to yourself, dear. Do you think this argument is based on logic and evidence or do you think it is based on blind faith and guesswork?

NB : If you want me to avoid this sort of dismissive post try addressing me directly instead of publicly making snide comments about me to other people about subjects you don't understand.

 

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Neo

But the materialists avoids the hot water without heat conclusion by asserting that once we have Brownian motion, such as that which obtains in hot water, then it is logically necessary that we also have temperature.

Does my variation of your argument strike you as at all problematic?

If not, then why would substituting "temperature" for "consciousness" make a difference?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amateur Scientist

Agreed. The p-zombie argument put forth by dualists is silly for several reasons, one of which is that the way philosophers define p-zombies--responding to questions, going to work, playing basketball, eating, doing everything humans do except for having the experience of those things--is absurd on its face.

Yes everyone feels that it is.

It should be obvious to anyone that any being capable of engaging in such activities to the extent that it is indistinguishable from a human being is in fact a human being. P-zombies are defined in such a way that they are logically impossible--if a p-zombie is indistinguishable from a human, then he is not a p-zombie, but is in fact a human. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....

You're appealing to our feelings here in order to convince us that we are all material creatures living in a material world. But most non-materilists would emphatically agree with you in your sentiments.

The problem for the materialist is that given his belief that the physical world is closed, that is to say given that everything that happens is due to prior physical causes, then we must say that a talking and walking duck does so entirely as a result of physical causes. More generally the entirety of human behavior is due to physical causes. Thus a p-zombie which is physically identical to a human being would act exactly the same as a human being. The only way to get around this would be to assert that p-zombies are logically impossible. This is equivalent to maintaining that physical processes within the brain logically necessitate the qualitative feel of consciousness. But obviously you need to provide reasons for supposing this to be so.

Moreover, if we are to take your feelings seriously, shouldn't we also take peoples feelings that love, hope, despair etc are not numerically identical to a series of neurons firing? In which case the feelings you have expressed ought to compel us not to adopt materialism, but rather interactive dualism or idealism.

 

[Peskanov]

UCE,

----
quote:
We are currently discussing whether P-zombies are logically possible . A P-Zombie is a thing which looks and behaves exactly like a human being but has no internal subjective state.
----

Which is a impossible concept under the knowledge of modern science and materialism. Science is working on the hypothesis that the subjective is a subset of the objective.
You are not going to find a single materialist neurologist believing that such a concept ( behaving exactly like a human being but having no internal subjective state) is possible.

----
quote:
It is a fundamental FACT that objective science has no way of determining whether or not a thing, either organic or computer, has an internal conscious state.
----

This is fact?
As usual, you are underrating the whole neuroscience field.
There is a lot known about consciousness, is your choose to ignore it.
If this is a fact, present the proofs; and don't bring on the Qualia thing, because it has been answered tons of times...There is a place for Qualia in materialism, and it is a good one.

----
quote:
That is why the 'Turing test' was invented, even though it relies on subjective judgement.
----

Not true; the 'Turing test' was invented to measure intelligence.
Is commonly accepted that a high degree of intelligence can be reached without most propierties of the human mind, including consciousness.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

LISTEN TO YOURSELF!

You have just made a statement with total certainty based on nothing but FAITH!

How do you know that such a machine would be conscious?
How would you test it?
What EVIDENCE could you supply?
What LOGIC supports your position?

Faith, faith, faith, dogma and more faith.



Nice argument. It's called "ad hominem".



No DC, it imples P-ZOMBIES.

[/B]

1. Why? Because it would function the same as a human brain.

2. I didn't dismiss your argument by calling you a goof. I simply called you a goof. I didn't say you were wrong because you were a goof. It's no ad hom. Nice try, though.

3. No, it doesn't, and it doesn't become true if you keep on repeating it. I know my position more than some idiot on a message board does, thanks.

 

[The One called Neo]

Elephant
It is a fundamental FACT that objective science has no way of determining whether or not a thing, either organic or computer, has an internal conscious state.
----
Pesk
This is fact?
As usual, you are underrating the whole neuroscience field.

It might well seem to be a fact because first of all no arguments demonstrating that certain physical process logically necessitate consciousness have been forthcoming. Secondly it is difficult to envisage what shape or form such an argument could conceivably take.

Neuroscience could only ever aspire to a causal relationship between processes within the brain and consciousness, surely? It cannot demonstrate that the latter is a logically necessary consequence of the former.

 

[Guest]

UCE,

----
quote:
We are currently discussing whether P-zombies are logically possible . A P-Zombie is a thing which looks and behaves exactly like a human being but has no internal subjective state.
----

Which is a impossible concept under the knowledge of modern science and materialism. Science is working on the hypothesis that the subjective is a subset of the objective.
You are not going to find a single materialist neurologist believing that such a concept ( behaving exactly like a human being but having no internal subjective state) is possible.

Of course I'm not going to find a materialist who believes this. If they did, then they'd have to admit materialism is false. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. The hypothesis that the subjective is a subset of the objective is forced upon materialists by their belief system, just as 7-day creationism is forced upon biblical literalists. In neither case am I interested in their beliefs. I am interested in logic and facts. I see no logical reason why a brain should have an associated mind. All I see is arm-waving and unsubstantiated assertions.

----
quote:
It is a fundamental FACT that objective science has no way of determining whether or not a thing, either organic or computer, has an internal conscious state.
----

This is fact?

YES, if is a FACT. An absolute, undeniable, logically inevitable FACT. There is no objective means of determining whether a physical entity has a subjective internal state. It is logically impossible. If it was not logically impossible then it would be possible to logically eliminate solipsism. It is not logically possible to eliminate solipsism.

As usual, you are underrating the whole neuroscience field.

Neuroscience has nothing whatsoever to do with it. All the neuroscience in the world cannot escape the logical FACT that it is impossible to eliminate solipsism.

There is a lot known about consciousness, is your choose to ignore it.

I am not ignoring it. It is irrelevant to this specific question. Please explain how you think neuroscience can eliminate solipsism.

If this is a fact, present the proofs; and don't bring on the Qualia thing, because it has been answered tons of times...There is a place for Qualia in materialism, and it is a good one.

The proof is here : How can you ever prove anything exists at all except for the contents of your own mind?

As soon as you accept that you cannot eliminate the possibility that anything exists except the content of your own mind you must also accept that you cannot prove that the entities you percieve as other human beings have an internal state. If you want me to elaborate further I can do so, but you are an intelligent person and I think you know this is true anyway.

----
quote:
That is why the 'Turing test' was invented, even though it relies on subjective judgement.
----

Not true; the 'Turing test' was invented to measure intelligence.
Is commonly accepted that a high degree of intelligence can be reached without most propierties of the human mind, including consciousness.

How does one detect consciousness in another physical entity?

How can you tell the difference between an extremely intelligent machine mimicking consciousness and an extremely intelligent machine which is actually conscious?

If you cannot, and you cannot, then the debate has nowhere to go. P-Zombies are not logically impossible. Once you accept that they are logically possible, then materialism cannot be convincingly defended.

Geoff.



Cobra :

I asked you :

How do you know that such a machine would be conscious?
How would you test it?
What EVIDENCE could you supply?
What LOGIC supports your position?

Your response :

1. Why? Because it would function the same as a human brain.

I asked you for EVIDENCE. I asked you for LOGIC. You have supplied none. Your response only works if materialism is true. But we are here discussing whether or not P-zombies are logically possible in order to examine the logical soundness of materialism. Therefore, you cannot and MUST NOT use an assumption of materialism in order to defend your position. Surely you understand this! I fully understand that if materialism is true, and you build a machine that totally mimics a human brain, that one would expect it to produce consciousness. However - even then you STILL don't actually have any EVIDENCE - all you have is something which logically follows from an assumption that materialism is true.

****But if materialism is NOT TRUE, then your argument collapses.****

Do you understand why you cannot use an assumption of materialism in order to logically defend materialism?

I've heard this so many times from materialists. It boils down to "If materialism is true then the mind is a brain process, therefore there is no such thing as a p-zombie, therefore materialism is true."

Whoopee-doo. Please don't call that a logical defence of materialism.

3. No, it doesn't, and it doesn't become true if you keep on repeating it. I know my position more than some idiot on a message board does, thanks.

I am talking logic and evidence. So far, you aren't.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Do you understand the debate, UnrepentantSinner? Methinks not. Let me help you out. We are currently discussing whether P-zombies are logically possible. A P-Zombie is a thing which looks and behaves exactly like a human being but has no internal subjective state. It is a fundamental FACT that objective science has no way of determining whether or not a thing, either organic or computer, has an internal conscious state. That is why the 'Turing test' was invented, even though it relies on subjective judgement.

So AS is arguing that "Because a human is indistinguishable from a P-Zombie the idea of a P-zombie is 'silly'" (he also likes to claim it is illogical but he has not shown why).

The argument then boils down to : "Because science cannot distinguish between a human and a P-zombie we should assume that everything that mimics consciousness is conscious".

Go have a cup of coffee and a little think to yourself, dear. Do you think this argument is based on logic and evidence or do you think it is based on blind faith and guesswork?

NB : If you want me to avoid this sort of dismissive post try addressing me directly instead of publicly making snide comments about me to other people about subjects you don't understand.

Please spare me the patronization.

You have stated, in the middle of your P-zombie theoretical debate a simple stated fact.

If A is utterly undistinguisable from B then A does not = B.

If that case is so, then Claudistics and Phylogeny need to be thrown out the window as the entire premise of those two areas of Biology are based on the premise that:

If A is utterly undistingishable from B then A=B.

Or perhaps it was you who lacked some understanding of Claudistics and Phylogeny?

 

[AmateurScientist]

So AS is arguing that "Because a human is indistinguishable from a P-Zombie the idea of a P-zombie is 'silly'" (he also likes to claim it is illogical but he has not shown why).

Geoff,

3 Things:

1) In a post above, you chastised me for supposedly using an ad hominem against you. I have not in this thread. Please review it again; you will see that it was Dark Cobra who called you a goof, not I. I am trying to debate this issue on the merits alone.

2) I'm responding to this before work, so I must be short and cannot get to the many other points, including Neo's, until later. I'll do my best then.

3) As to your remark above, I have indeed shown you why p-zombies are illogical under the materialist paradigm. Remember, you claim that materialism implies p-zombies. I was directly refuting that assertion.

You cannot conveniently dismiss my refutation as arm-waving with your insistence that I am assuming materialism to be true. Of course I am assuming materialism to be true. To do otherwise would fail to consider how materialism might or might not imply p-zombies. You made the claim about materialism implying p-zombies; I was directly refuting your claim. To do that, I have to assume that materialism is true.

How's this for an analogy about humans and p-zombies being indistinguishable and doing exactly the same things, except for p-zombies lacking the ability to experience things?

Suppose we examine the number 5. Now, also suppose we examine another number, call it Zork. Zork behaves exactly like 5 in all arithmetic calculations. Zork times 6 is 30. 8 minus Zork is 3. Zork squared is 25. Zork is exactly like 5, except for it lacks the essential 5-ness of 5. Therefore, Zorks are logically possible.

See how stupid that argument is? I have defined Zork so that it is indistinguishable from 5, behaves exactly like 5, but it somehow lacks 5-ness. There's the cheat. If Zork is indistinguishable from and behaves like 5, then by definition, Zork is 5.

P-zombie advocates try to get around how we define things by convention by appending a little cheat at the end of the definition--namely, but lack the experience.

Under the materialist paradigm, then, experience is a necessary consequence of having a fully functioning brain, which is assumed in the definition of p-zombie.

In short, p-zombie advocates cannot have it both ways--either p-zombies are in fact distinguishable from humans, or they aren't p-zombies at all and are in fact humans.

Enough said about p-zombies. It is a cheat, plain and simple. I don't care how esteemed David Chalmers is among his groupies. He's wrong and not nearly as clever as he and his followers like to think he is.

AS

 

[Guest]

Please spare me the patronization.

Then leave off making sarcastic comments about me, but not addressed to me.

You have stated, in the middle of your P-zombie theoretical debate a simple stated fact.

If A is utterly undistinguisable from B then A does not = B.

I made no such statement.

I said that if A is indistinguishable from B then A does not neccesarily = B. And anyway that is a generalisation you are attempting to apply to a specific situation where it does not apply. You cannot distinguish between a real UCE and a zombie UCE. That does not mean that a zombie UCE is conscious. It simply does not follow.

If A is utterly undistingishable from B then A=B.

So there is no difference between a computer mimicking consciousness and a computer which is actually conscious?

If you want me to spare you the patronisation then stop making idiotic statements. You cannot declare that any computer which has the appearance of being conscious is conscious. Just because objective materialism is incapable of telling the difference between these things does not mean there is no difference between them!

A) Computer which mimicks consciousness.
B) Computer which is actually conscious.

A is utterly indistinguishable from B.
A is nevertheless different from B.

Do you understand yet or do I have to explain it again?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

A is utterly indistinguishable from B.
A is nevertheless different from B.

Do you understand yet or do I have to explain it again?

Ugh, it must be the Brit in you...

Look, it's simple.

Phylogeny is based on the principle that:

If A is indistinguishable from B then A=B.

Claudistics is based on the principle that:

If A is indistinguishable from B then A=B.

Both are core principles of Biology. If your premise that A is indistinguishable from B then A does not necessarily = B is true, then both areas of study must be abandoned and Biology loses one of it's most important tools for studying the fossil record and the DNA evidence of interrelationships of species.

As I stated, In my admittedly tangental premise, the simple fact that if we accept your if A is utterly undistinguishable from B, A still =/= B, and those two tools must be rejected.

Can you not put your tea and crumpets down long enough to understand the ramifications of your assertion?

- edited to add, spare me the navel gazing crap about p-zombies, do you deny that your assertion re: A=/=B invalidates Phylogeny and Claudistics?

 

[Guest]

AS :

1) In a post above, you chastised me for supposedly using an ad hominem against you. I have not in this thread. Please review it again; you will see that it was Dark Cobra who called you a goof, not I. I am trying to debate this issue on the merits alone.

I am sorry. Mistaken identity.

2) I'm responding to this before work, so I must be short and cannot get to the many other points, including Neo's, until later. I'll do my best then.

Fair enough.

3) As to your remark above, I have indeed shown you why p-zombies are illogical under the materialist paradigm.

Arghhh!

Materialism, by definition, cannot even define what 1st-person consciousness is, so how can it be expected to understand the difference between a human and a zombie?

That does not mean there is no difference between a human and a zombie. All it means is that under materialism the difference between a human and a zombie is logically incomprehensible. You are now attempting to use materialisms own shortcomings to defend materialism! Arghhh!

Remember, you claim that materialism implies p-zombies. I was directly refuting that assertion.

Materialism cannot tell the difference between a P-zombie and a human. It does not logically follow that there really is no difference between a P-zombie and a human. Is that better?

Suppose we examine the number 5. Now, also suppose we examine another number, call it Zork. Zork behaves exactly like 5 in all arithmetic calculations. Zork times 6 is 30. 8 minus Zork is 3. Zork squared is 25. Zork is exactly like 5, except for it lacks the essential 5-ness of 5. Therefore, Zorks are logically possible.

See how stupid that argument is? I have defined Zork so that it is indistinguishable from 5, behaves exactly like 5, but it somehow lacks 5-ness.

Yep, the argument is stupid. It is stupid because there is only one '5'. There is no brain-5 and mind-5. Your analogy would only work if you yourself were a P-zombie i.e. there was only a brain and no mind. The reason the P-zombie argument is not the same is that each of us is aware of the existence of precisely 1 mind - our own. We have a mind and we have a brain. You have taken an object which is ontologically different to either physical things or mental things - you have taken a number. Numbers do not have two different perspectives. YOU DO. So it is an entirely false analogy. I know I am conscious! I am not making it up. I really am conscious. If the number 5 is conscious, neither of us know about it.

There's the cheat. If Zork is indistinguishable from and behaves like 5, then by definition, Zork is 5.

You really believe this nonsense don't you?

Do you know the difference between your brain and your mind?

If so, there is a difference between a brain with an internal state and a brain without an internal state. One is your brain. The other is your brain and your mind.

P-zombie advocates try to get around how we define things by convention by appending a little cheat at the end of the definition--namely, but lack the experience.

Why is that a 'cheat', exactly?

Under the materialist paradigm, then, experience is a necessary consequence of having a fully functioning brain, which is assumed in the definition of p-zombie.

Great. This is materialist dogma, proudly repeated as materialist dogma. I am aware of materialist dogma, thankyou.

In short, p-zombie advocates cannot have it both ways--either p-zombies are in fact distinguishable from humans, or they aren't p-zombies at all and are in fact humans.

The fact that p-zombies are indistinguishable from humans is a limitation of the scientific method, not any logical or ontological limitations. The entire subjective realm is inaccessible to science, and undefinable to materialism. As far as materialism is concerned it might just as well not exist. That is the materialists problem, not mine!

Your argument now boils down to "All this stuff about P-zombies doesn't make sense to materialists, because materialism can't define what 1st-person consciousness is. Therefore we will just assume that 1st-person consciousness exists in anything that we subjectively assess to be the sort of thing likely to have it."

Do you really think this stands up?

That isn't a defence of materialism. It is damning exposure of its inate inability to cope with concepts required for understanding consciousness.

Enough said about p-zombies. It is a cheat, plain and simple.

Not enough said, AS. I am sure the cretinists would like the Darwinists to go away and leave them and their belief-system alone. It isn't going to happen, and the P-zombie argument isn't going away either. Scientistic Materialism is doomed.

Geoff.