Materialism

[DialecticMaterialist]

Materialism to me seems the only tenable position. Why?

1) Materialism is parsimonous given what we know in science.

2) Idealism cannot explain why we have different ideas,why things change,where the "mind"comes from etc. If things only exist because they are percieved;where did the perciever come from?

This is easily explained by materialism via ignorance of what is real(impossible in idealism) and by the blind nature of causality in materialism. However in idealism causality is guided and one can literally be ignorant of nothing that exists, creating a demand for further explanation.

3) Idealism is absurd in that all that exists is supposed to be ideas and perceptions; but then what is doing all the "thinking" and "observing"? The mind is obviously not thought of or observed so something must exist besides thoughts and perceptions alone. An observer must exist and this replaces the idealism with an even less coherent dualism. Monist materialism is less superfluous then dualism. in short, if things only exist because I percieve them, who is percieving me?

4) Idealists cannot explain how any given human can be ignorant of anything or unable to do certain acts given the mind is THE creator and controller of all things real. Many try to get out of this by presupposing other minds...but these minds cannot be percieved/thought all the time. This negates the original argument of thoughts being all we know and hence all we can say exists.

5) The phenomenon of negating beliefs, idealists cannot deal with this. Since thinking something makes it real, any nonidealist thoughts would have to be real.

6) What is the actual substance of idealist "entities" when percieved made of? How do we percieve the substance? We can for example make certain statements concerning the structue and nature of matter with different theories. Idealism however does not allow for this, as such things will only exist as "perception" requiring itself an underlying substance.

7) How do we percieve idealism or justify the belief in things like atoms?

By what mechanism(or group thereof) does this all operate? I cannot see these mechanisms that makes idealism work, so does that mean they do not exist?

8) With idealism it is difficult to explain why the same mental substance manifests itself in radically different ways(sight vs sound vs touch) via idealist mechanism of the mind. Why are we in fact limited to these senses and not others? Materialism though gives fairly simple and straight forward answers by the fact that the mind didn't create its own sensations. We have different organs, developed through blind causality, that transmit different aspects of the enviroment to us.

9) A pluralist/dualist position is more superfluous then a monist one, whether idealist or materialist. Even if a monist explanation is possible it is more reasonable to adhere to, even if a pluralist position is just as possible.

10) Pluralists cannot state how it is two or more radical substances interact....making their theories somewhat incoherent.

11) Such pluralist interaction would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

12) Lastly materialism is less superfluous in the face of an external world then idealism. As idealism to establish an external world must posit third, very superfluous entities/super-minds like God. That is positing the substance for things seen and a special unseen force to control it. Which in a sense negates many original idealist arguments whereas materialism only has substance to compose seen things.

All these points prove materialism to be true beyond a reasonable doubt via process of elmination.

 

[Guest]

Peskanov :

RE : Why not assume materialism?

What does it truly mean to adopt a "neutral" position with respect to whether consciousness can arise from physical processes?

This is not a trivial question.

I maintain, as I suppose PixyMisa does, that to adopt what you call a "neutral" position is in fact a dispensing of it. It is anti-materialism. By definition, then, one is adopting the position that consciousness must be something other than arising solely from or contained within the physical. That is the only way one can conceive of p-zombies in the manner in which Chalmers et al. define them.

Peskanov said it clearly - it is 'dangerous' for a materialist to take a neutral position.

All I can say is this :

http://www.2think.org/2think.shtml

Arriving at a tentative conclusion vs. beginning at a conclusion that must be defended

The above statement in regards to Islam is an example of someone who once forming (or being born with) a conclusion must do everything to defend it. If the author of the web page really believed his statement then it would be 'unreasonable' for him not to conclude that every large or rapidly growing movement or religion is "True". People tend to create their own conclusion boxes. They then make statements that can't be logically defended--but can help solidify the box they are living in. The assumptions that make up the box are not carefully evaluated.

An example of this from a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint can be found in the August 12, 1996 issue of Christianity Today. On page 64, Charles Colson, writing about what Christians must do to defend their beliefs against evolution, insists that "Christians must come together, craft a credible apologetic, and then refuse to back down". The author doesn't ask that the evidence be examined or that the Truth be sought. Similar statements have also been made by Mormon leaders.

The author Matt Berry states, "The search for] Truth does not begin with an answer on behalf of which all questions must constantly rearrange themselves. The [search for] Truth begins with fearless questions." This all seems so basic and self-evident, but large segments of the population haven't been able to (or don't want to) grasp this fundamental Truth.

I reject any line of thought that begins with its conclusion and then depends on the assumption of the conclusion to be able to defend the conclusion.

 

[Guest]

If you remove the senses, memory, the perception of the passage of time, and all other parts that comprise awareness, as suggested by the poem, what is left? Can that really be said to be conscionable?

Well, I may be usuing a different concept of 'consciousness' to you. I woudl say all of the above are mere zombie-functions being witnessed by consciousness. Maybe the Brahmans experience something higher, once the lower has been removed.

 

[Guest]

Indeed, this would point towards a soul, or some aproxiamtion thereof. And for that there is... no evidence, other than your assertion.

Care to show some?

I was answering a question about mysticism and consciousness. If I had 'evidence' that mysticism was true then the world would be a different place.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Materialism to me seems the only tenable position. Why?

1) Materialism is parsimonous given what we know in science.

No I would say idealism is. After all idealists are both dispensing with a material world and they are not committed to suppose that there is a unique reality which are theories are trying to describe.

2) Idealism cannot explain why we have different ideas,why things change,where the "mind"comes from etc. If things only exist because they are percieved;where did the perciever come from?

Perceivers are self-subsistent. They exist in there own right and don't come from anywhere.

This is easily explained by materialism via ignorance of what is real(impossible in idealism) and by the blind nature of causality in materialism. However in idealism causality is guided and one can literally be ignorant of nothing that exists, creating a demand for further explanation.

Sorry but I don't understand any of this. Why shouldn't idealists be ignorant of something that exists?

3) Idealism is absurd in that all that exists is supposed to be ideas and perceptions;

You are in error. Where did you get this idea from? Selves also exist.

but then what is doing all the "thinking" and "observing"? The mind is obviously not thought of or observed so something must exist besides thoughts and perceptions alone. An observer must exist and this replaces the idealism with an even less coherent dualism. Monist materialism is less superfluous then dualism. in short, if things only exist because I percieve them, who is percieving me?

Idealism can't be considered anymore of a dualist position than materialism (apart from materialists who literally deny the existence of conscious experience). And things don't only exist because you perceive them. And even if that were true, it only applies to the realm of the perceptually experienced, not to experiencers.

4) Idealists cannot explain how any given human can be ignorant of anything or unable to do certain acts given the mind is THE creator and controller of all things real.

Where on earth are you getting your ideas of idealism from! If I am the creator and controller of all things real then why don't I think into existence a thick wad of bank notes! LOL

Many try to get out of this by presupposing other minds...but these minds cannot be percieved/thought all the time. This negates the original argument of thoughts being all we know and hence all we can say exists.

You're simply in error about what subjective idealism is saying.

5) The phenomenon of negating beliefs, idealists cannot deal with this. Since thinking something makes it real, any nonidealist thoughts would have to be real.

Thinking something makes it real??

6) What is the actual substance of idealist "entities" when percieved made of?

In a complete literal sense they are not made of anything.

How do we percieve the substance?

What substance? Idealists don't believe in any substance comprising the external world.

We can for example make certain statements concerning the structue and nature of matter with different theories. Idealism however does not allow for this,

But of course it does!

as such things will only exist as "perception" requiring itself an underlying substance.

There is no underlying substance.

7) How do we percieve idealism or justify the belief in things like atoms?

Things exist either because we "directly" perceive them, or they play a fruitful role in our successful theories (whether explicit or implicit) of the world, or parts of the world.

By what mechanism(or group thereof) does this all operate? I cannot see these mechanisms that makes idealism work, so does that mean they do not exist?

The same mechanisms as materialism.

8) With idealism it is difficult to explain why the same mental substance manifests itself in radically different ways(sight vs sound vs touch) via idealist mechanism of the mind.

Mental substance? What is mental substance?

Why are we in fact limited to these senses and not others?

{shrugs} Who knows? Is this supposed to be a problem applicable only to idealism?

Materialism though gives fairly simple and straight forward answers by the fact that the mind didn't create its own sensations.

It's essentially the same for both the theistic subjective idealist and the materialist. In the case of the former our sensory perceptions are a kind of result of the a collorboration between God's mind and our own; in the latter it is the moulding by the mind, dictated by some implicitly held theory, of a putative mind-independent reality.

12) Lastly materialism is less superfluous in the face of an external world then idealism. As idealism to establish an external world must posit third, very superfluous entities/super-minds like God.

They don't need to. And bear in mind that idealists dispense with a whole material reality!

That is positing the substance for things seen and a special unseen force to control it. Which in a sense negates many original idealist arguments whereas materialism only has substance to compose seen things.

Material substance? Didn't think any materialists believed in material substance anymore!

All these points prove materialism to be true beyond a reasonable doubt via process of elmination.

Dear me! You systematically comprehensively misunderstand what idealism is, so I think your conclusion here is a bit premature.

 

[AmateurScientist]

I reject any line of thought that begins with its conclusion and then depends on the assumption of the conclusion to be able to defend the conclusion.

Funny--that's exactly what's wrong about the conceivability of p-zombies argument's being asserted as a supposed proof that materialism must be false.

AS

 

[Guest]

Funny--that's exactly what's wrong about the conceivability of p-zombies argument's being asserted as a supposed proof that materialism must be false.

AS

This would only be true if the reality we are trying to explain did not appear dualistic. And remember I am a monist. It is nevertheless true that reality appears to us to be split into mental things and physical things. The materialists try to shrug and make out that they "see no reason" to consider mind and matter to be significantly different things. This is where it comes back to language. Think about the way a conscious being learns to navigate reality. First there are just sensations - then if it is a slightly more complex being the sensations collect together as "perceptions", and in complex life forms like humans a further stage of "concepts" emerges. The we invent words to label the concepts and come to JREF and use those words to have a debate about the nature of the reality we find ourselves in. The crucial thing is that the whole reason this debate is being had is because of those noun-concepts - "things" - there is an absolute and perfectly demonstrable split between mental things and physical things- things which exist as part of the outside world and things which exist in the internal world of the mind. Chalmers simply starts from an observation that reality is perceived to be dualistic, and if the materialist claims otherwise he is telling himself lies on a truly monumental scale. The materialist position, by sharp contrast, is that "there is no reason to believe reality is dualistic". They try to claim that there is no dualism in our languages, our concepts or our reality, even though any honest evaluation of this things reveals a blatant an unmistakable percieved dualism. In short, Chalmers starts from the position of what reality seems to be, and materialism starts from the position that depends on an assumption which was introduced as a conceptual tool for examing the physical world in isolation from the subjective realm, and claims there is no reason to believe that the subjective realm is anything different to the physical realm. They do this even though science itself is founded on a method which is critically dependent on the very same dualism the materialists claim not to be able to see - science deliberately eliminates the subjective. You have now gone a step further and claimed that since you cannot distinguish between objective+subjective and objective-on-its-own (having eliminated the subjective from your method), that there is no reason to believe that there is anything different about these things. The harder you look at it the more silly becomes materialism.

 

[Win]

Loki:

Yes, but if I have understood what you are saying above, then the "state of the world" is actually compatible with both your preferred dualism, and Type-A materialism, isn't it? Doesn't this mean that P-Zombies don't actually help at all in determining which alternative is correct? Doesn't this force us to look to other thought experiements to try and determine the truth behind the "state of the world"?

Well, no. The "state of the world" includes qualia. *We* know this as a consequence of our direct access. So long as you're committed to the position that qualia really exist, the Type-A materialist conception will be unsatisfying, because it doesn't, as Chalmers puts it, "take consciousness seriously." It denies the existence of qualia as anything more than the "illusion" created by our nueral architecture. That explains a p-zombie's consciousness, not our, because it doesn't explain the qualia as a real existent.

 

[Yahzi]

Win

It denies the existence of qualia as anything more than the "illusion" created by our nueral architecture.

Qualia is just what brain states look like from a particular angle.

It's like looking at the pyramids: from the outside, they look one way, from the inside, they look different.

But you can't imagine brain states without qualia, anymore than you can imagine pyramids without insides.

Hence, p-zombies are not logically possible.

AmateurScientist
Hmm... well, he didn't post a huffy response. That's an improvement. Really, it is.

UCE

Chalmers simply starts from an observation that reality is perceived to be dualistic

The earth is perceived to be flat.

One might conclude that unexamined perception is not a particularly reliable guide to reality.

 

[hammegk]

One might conclude that unexamined perception is not a particularly reliable guide to reality.

One who actually does so will not be a materialist.

 

[Peskanov]

UCE,

----
quote:
Peskanov said it clearly - it is 'dangerous' for a materialist to take a neutral position.
----

Sorry, I did not say that. I said that the idea of p-zombies comes from a dangerous position.
In this case, a neutral position would be to confess ignorance about the real nature of consciousness and remain there. I don't see anybody in this thread taking such position;
Your position is that is possible to correctly emulate human behaviour without consciousness (p-zombie). This is far from neutral, specially when you negate to provide a definition of consciousness and the avalaible ones does not help you either.

----
quote:
Arriving at a tentative conclusion vs. beginning at a conclusion that must be defended

I reject any line of thought that begins with its conclusion and then depends on the assumption of the conclusion to be able to defend the conclusion.
----

This is what you are doing when you say that p-zombies are logically posible. I am still waiting an explanation how is possible to emulate human behaviour without consciousness.
See, the word "subjective" is not explanation of consciousness, but a condition. You can not use it to stop providing explanations. Where starts and where ends this subjective experience? I am conscient of taking decissions. Can this decisions be taken without me experiencing the process, or is this experience part of the decission?
Some dualist say consciousness is totally passive. In their view, p-zombies are possible. Other dualist do not consider consciousness as pasive, so I can not see how p-zombies could be possible there.
In any case, nobody provides clear evidence of the reality of his definition; as you can see, this is not a problem of materialism, but of universal lack of information.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Win

Qualia is just what brain states look like from a particular angle.

It's like looking at the pyramids: from the outside, they look one way, from the inside, they look different.

But you can't imagine brain states without qualia, anymore than you can imagine pyramids without insides.

Hence, p-zombies are not logically possible.

Yes, this is what I have been trying to say about conceiving of p-zombies, only not nearly so succinctly as you have just now.

AmateurScientist
Hmm... well, he didn't post a huffy response. That's an improvement. Really, it is.

I quite agree. I had just gotten used to not having to deal with Win's condescension and oversensitivity to criticism of any kind when he appeared in this thread and directly engaged me. I didn't invite his engagement, but I was content to treat it seriously and with cordialness.

Instead of making much of an attempt to take my rebuttals and objections to his arguments seriously, or to give them due consideration, Win prefers to issue enigmatic restatements of his earlier remarks without explanation to some, glib non-substantive responses to some others, and downright insulting and abusive responses to others still.

He then has the audacity to demand a huffy apology ("Penitently"--Please, be serious. This made my laugh uncontrollaby and then bite my tongue as to the only response such a stupid demand calls for) for what he mistakenly perceives as my baiting him.

I've had quite enough of this audiacious game in which I am expected to be subservient and unduly reverential to the all-knowing, preternaturally wise and insightful professor.

Methinks the professor was seduced by the dark side and is preoccupied with defending and justifying his following the cult of the dualist. To top it off, he purports to champion "civility," while simultaneously failing to practice it but selectively.

UCE

The earth is perceived to be flat.

One might conclude that unexamined perception is not a particularly reliable guide to reality. [/B]

Good point again. Thanks for hanging around in this thread.

AS

 

[Guest]

Yahzi :

But you can't imagine brain states without qualia, anymore than you can imagine pyramids without insides.

Hence, p-zombies are not logically possible.

Are pyramids conscious then?

UCE

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chalmers simply starts from an observation that reality is perceived to be dualistic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The earth is perceived to be flat.

Indeed. And the Universe is perceived to be made of material.

One might conclude that unexamined perception is not a particularly reliable guide to reality.

Hence we are examining it.

 

[Guest]

Peskanov

I am still waiting an explanation how is possible to emulate human behaviour without consciousness.

Well, this is part of my job. I work on software which simulates the external environment in a battle for training members of the armed forces. Specifically the software I have been involved with is used in military flight simulators. These simulators are much more useful if the simulated enemy actually behaves like a human instead of like a computer. Much research is going on regarding neural nets and the possibility of 'teaching' them to behave like human pilots. I see no reason at all why a sufficiently powerfull neural net, given the correct 'training' could not emulate much of human behaviour. I would question whether it could emulate altruism or love, but I'm not sure these are functions of the analytical 'mind'.

See, the word "subjective" is not explanation of consciousness, but a condition. You can not use it to stop providing explanations. Where starts and where ends this subjective experience?

It never ends.

I am conscient of taking decissions. Can this decisions be taken without me experiencing the process, or is this experience part of the decission?

Neural nets make decisions all the time. Whether or not their decisions were pre-determined is another question, but they do not need to be aware.

 

[Soubrette]

All quotes in bold originally posted by Loki
Win,


Okay, I'm understanding this (I think). What you seem to be saying is that P-Zombies also have "direct internal access" to their qualia - except it's false. I can only assume that this means that 'qualia' in P-ZombieWorld are some sort of illusion, or figment. In other words, in P-ZombieWorld humans are pretty much the way Type-A materialists (using the Chalmers category system) say we are? Is that about it? Dennet says that (a) we seem to have 'experience', but (b) once we fully understand the functioning of the brain we'll see that this 'experience' is an illusion - doesn't he? Isn't that the same thing your describing with P-Zombie Win?

I think Win is saying that p-zombies erronously assume they have direct access

They think this due to the limitation of our vocabulary (kind of ) Everything we describe about an experience, a p-zombie would nod excited and say yes yes I see red, I smell the rose, I feel the water against my skin. Each and every aspect of that experience that I experience is experienced by p-Sou. Except one - she does not have the experience of the experience. But that experience adds nothing to the actual experience itself. So when we are talking about our experiences she will intuitively think she has direct access to it - because our actual experience is the same

So she will tell me adamantly that of course she experiences the experience. After all we've just point by point described the same damned experience haven't we????

But she'd be wrong and I'd be right. I DO have direct access because I know I have that extra layer. She just intuitively thinks she does.

What interests me is what would happen if my direct access was taken away (in a hideous accident ) Would I wake up and know I was a p-zombie?

This is what UcE is saying I think) when he says that HPC is not explainable under Darwin's theory of evolution. HPC simply adds nothing to the experience itself - it's just an extra layer of knowing we experience something.

Yes, but if I have understood what you are saying above, then the "state of the world" is actually compatible with both your preferred dualism, and Type-A materialism, isn't it? Doesn't this mean that P-Zombies don't actually help at all in determining which alternative is correct? Doesn't this force us to look to other thought experiements to try and determine the truth behind the "state of the world"?

P-zombies are just a thought experiment to try and simply explain that the phenomenon known as HPC (on this board anyway ) is irreducable to brain function. Because the brain will function the same with or without HPC. Unless you can put forward some logical reason as to why this isn't the case

So if HPC cannot be reduced to brain function - then what is it? And this is where, I think, Win's dualism gets interesting. I'd like to see some threads saying let's slog out the logic of property dualism somewhere else - on this thread we will assume it to be true and the dualist (ok ok both of them) amongst us, can explain the actual implications of this duality.

Because at the moment property dualism seems only centimetres away from Physicalism or Modern Materialism to me

Sou

(It's funny but AS and Win remind me so much of each other - sorry guys )

 

[AmateurScientist]

Sou,

Thanks for the clear distillation of p-zombies. Finally, one that actually makes sense, even if they are flawed.

Perhaps you should be the philosophy professor defending dualism. Someone else apparently has great difficulty explaining concepts in 500,000 words or less.

(It's funny but AS and Win remind me so much of each other - sorry guys )

Do you really think so? I mean, do your really think that I am that pedantic, condescending and priggish?

AS

 

[Lord Kenneth]

If it consoles you any, AS, you're the intelligent one.

 

[Soubrette]

All quotes in bold by originally posted by AmateurScientist
Sou,

Thanks for the clear distillation of p-zombies. Finally, one that actually makes sense, even if they are flawed.

Perhaps you should be the philosophy professor defending dualism. Someone else apparently has great difficulty explaining concepts in 500,000 words or less.

Well, maybe you should thank Win - he taught me everything I know Oh ok - maybe slimshady put a hand in the mix too (you aint' getting away with it fella - just in case I've said something wrong )

Do you really think so? I mean, do your really think that I am that pedantic, condescending and priggish?

AS

I don't think either of you are totally pedantic, condescending and priggish - but I think both of you are very sensitive to perceived insults

You really are very alike EXCEPT it's Win who always seems to be apologising



But I kinda like you both despite of it

DC

Just because you don't understand what one person is saying or just because you agree with someone else - it doesn't automatically make that person intelligent. That you think so reflects poorly on your own intelligence imo

Sou
(Edited to add - And AS - that was a general comment to DC - in no way am I implying you aren't intelligent - as if I'd dare )

 

[Loki]

Win/Sou,

I'm feeling a little like BillyJoe in the Duplicator thread - you keep writing words, I keep reading them, but comprehension continues to refuse to show up.

(Win wrote) : The "state of the world" includes qualia.

Yes, but that's not denied by Type-A materialists. Isn't the question (for Dennett) "what actually are qualia"? Perhaps I have that wrong ... you seem to be implying that I do.

So long as you're committed to the position that qualia really exist, the Type-A materialist conception will be unsatisfying, because it doesn't, as Chalmers puts it, "take consciousness seriously."

Now, I read this, and it seems to clearly state that you know "the truth" about qualia because you assume it! Why should I be "committed to the position that qualia really exist", rather than take the position "qualia may exist, or may be a subtle illusion, or may be 'x'"? How should I read the above quote as being anything other that a straight out expression of "assuming 'X' is true, then 'X' is true"?

Anyway, P-Zombie Win would also be committed to the position that qualia really exist.

In case it's not clear, the question I'll asking here is not "are qualia real", but "what evidence makes you (Win/Sou) believe they are real"? The short answer seems to be "Direct Internal Access" (DIA).

Well, it seems to me that you are saying that Win and P-Zombie Win would both hold this 'qualia are real" position, and would both offer the same 'evidence' in support of their position. So, if the DIA evidence in this world leads to a 'true' conclusion, but the exact same evidence leads to 'false' in P-ZombieWorld, then the evidence doesn't actually tell us which world we're in, does it? How could it?

Seems to me that this can only mean that DIA of qualia - if viewed in isolation - tells us nothing about the underlying "truth" of that which we are accessing (or thik we're accessing)

(sou wrote) : I think Win is saying that p-zombies erronously assume they have direct access.

Yes, but as far as I can see his reason for asserting that P-Zombies are wrong, and he is right, is that he is right.

(sou wrote) : I DO have direct access because I know I have that extra layer. She just intuitively thinks she does.

perhaps this is simply where I'm failing...I can't see how you differentiate between "I know" and "she intuitively thinks". Stop for a moment, and focus inward on the 'experience of seeing red". That's your DIA of seeing red. Now, try and see how you could believe you had "experienced seeing red", without actually doing so?!?!

What interests me is what would happen if my direct access was taken away (in a hideous accident ) Would I wake up and know I was a p-zombie?

An interesting way of asking essentially the same question! If DIA was suddenly taken away from you, would you know this?

For some strange (to me) reason, a PZombie who has never had DIA, still tries to convince me that he has indeed had it. He gets frustrated as he tries to express in 3rd person terms the 1st person perspective he claims to have. He insists that there is "something it is like to be a bat", and "something it is like to be a humna", and that he knows this to be true because he has DIA. If I suggest to him that perhaps he doesn't have DIA, he scoffs and ridicules me, saying that if I'm stupid enough to deny such a basic fact of human existence then I'm just a dogmatic materialist who will never listen to anything that threatens my "need to believe". When I ask him what evidence can he provide to back up this claim, he gets really frustrated, and shouts "I just told you - I have direct internal access to qualia. What more do you want me to say!". And yet, the entire time, he in fact doesn't have DIA! Again, the question (for me) remains - why is the P-Zombie so passionately defending his DIA when it in fact isn't there? And this leads directly to "if the P-Zombie can be so wrong, yet so adamant, about DIA, then why should I trust Win (or Sou's) assertion that their claim of DIA is anymore reliable than the P-Zombie?"

 

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Win
A general note on what it means for a p-zombie to be "indistinguishable"
from a person.

I am incapable of distinguishing whether any given individual I might
meet is a p-zombie or a person. On the other hand, I know I'm not a
p-zombie. Therefore a p-zombie and a person are not indistinguishable
in principle, because I can tell the difference as regards myself.
And so can you.

The note helps, but one cannot tell if one is a p-zombie or not.

There are two doors. Behind one is certain death; the other, freedom.
Two fellows Jeoff and Jeon stand beside the doors, one always tells
the truth and one always tells a lie. What question could you ask in
order to safely pass through both doors? None that I can think of.

Simillarly, the p-zombie problem. Lets say Jeon has consiousness and
Jeoff does not. You examine both Jeon and Jeoff, ask questions, and
the like, you cannot tell one from the other. Even if you asked on about
the other you get an answer like, "I don't know."

In then end you cannot know if your a p-zombie,
because you give the same answer as a p-zombie.
Otherwise all p-zombies would answer or act otherwise.

P.S. I hope I got that arguement right.