Debate 5 Discussion: Whether Zombies are Possible: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 5 Discussion: Whether Zombies are Possible » Debate 5 Discussion: Whether Zombies are Possible

Debate 5 Discussion: Whether Zombies are Possible

Page: 1 2 3 4

Debate 5 Discussion: Whether Zombies are Possible

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 08/23/04 - 01:50 PM:	#1
Here is the place to discuss all the intriguing implications of this question. Read the debate, and let everyone know what you think about it.

phenyl_engine_rods
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 27, 2004
Location: Exiled from Canada
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 96

Posted 08/23/04 - 11:58 PM:	#2
Is it kosher to start discussing before the debate is over? Seems somehow unfair to the debaters....

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

Posted 08/24/04 - 08:00 AM:	#3
Two points: we need an argument for qualia. It's existence is contentious. And we need an argument for why concievability does not track possibility. I, for one, think it does. i also don't think we can imagine zombies, but I'm not in the debate. The point is that if either argument is going to hang on such contentious claims, we need reasons for getting over the contentiousness. For unless we accept the claims, there seems no reason to be moved by either side.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 08/24/04 - 03:43 PM:	#4
Yes, you are free to discuss the debate while it is ongoing. I'm not sure how it would be unfair to them.

phenyl_engine_rods
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 27, 2004
Location: Exiled from Canada
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 96

Posted 08/24/04 - 05:51 PM:	#5
OK. Just felt like I'd be horning in on someone else's game, or like it'd turn the thing into more of a team debate than maybe the debaters would like. Seems to me Paul's got a tough job ahead of him--it's not going to be enough to show that zombie dualists can't establish their case, but that they must be wrong. Explains the agressiveness of his opening. But seems sometimes like he's not giving the zombie dualist a fair shake. (I won't talk too specifically about any of Paul's arguments, since that definitely feels like nosing in other people's business, but suffice to say the zombie dualist comes off as making way too strong a claim.) Anyway, I think the anti-zombie side might be best off with some kind of argument for naturalism, or that zombie dualism requires us to accept (or at least accept as possible) more mystical mumbo jumbo than normal people would like. And as for the contentious claims troubling flatliner, it seems like both sides would agree on the existence of qualia, or else the debate would be a non-starter. Arguing for qualia here would be like arguing for the possibility of determinism in the last debate--beside the point.

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

Posted 08/24/04 - 07:14 PM:	#6
I don't think either side needs to talk about qualia at all. But if an argument is going to hinge on them, there should probably be reasons for thinking they exist. And if we can't have those, we should at least be clear on what it is we are talking about. The kind that can't be reduced to the physical? are they the kind that work with functionalism? Besides, something can be intropspectively accessible (if we are using 'qualia' in a very broad sense) even though the accessor, the zombie, can't access them. The inner realm, so to speak, for the zombies is accessible even though the zombies can't get there. This just as tomatoes are cookable even if there are no people to cook them. So to say that zombies can't have qualia and that what distinguishes them is that they don't have qualia seems misguided. It is more correct to say that zombies don't access the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of the, so to speak, inner real. There can be an inner realm for zombies, they just can't get there. But then who is the they we are talking about? Also, I am running up against some cognitive dissonance trying to imagine what it would be like to have an inner realm that I can't get to. Anyway, i don't want to say too much and spoil the debate. I am obviously finding it interesting. And I am looking forward to the next round. p.s. I think Paul is winning so far even though I don't agree with him about imagination.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: Sacramentoish
Total Topics: 451
Total Posts: 11788

Last Blog: The Void and the Machine

Posted 08/25/04 - 12:25 AM:	#7
flatliner wrote: And we need an argument for why concievability does not track possibility. I, for one, think it does. I'm not commenting on the debate here, but since it doesn't look like the debate is going to cover that particular argument at all I may as well leave you a link to an old thread on the subject: http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=1579 ('Course, Interlocutor can delete this if it's inappropriate.)

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 08/25/04 - 01:59 AM:	#8
I won't talk too specifically about any of Paul's arguments, since that definitely feels like nosing in other people's business, -phenyl_engine_rods I guess you're free to feel that way, but that's what this space is for--discuss away, if you feel like it. ('Course, Interlocutor can delete this if it's inappropriate.) -Paul You're walkin' the line, buster! You just watch it!

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

Posted 08/25/04 - 04:49 AM:	#9
Yeah, well, I guess an argument that is going to sway me is going to be about why zombies are inconcievable. Everyone thinks they can imagine a zombie because we all saw night of the living dead. But I think this is not being very rigorous with what, EXACTLY, we are imagining. So it seems a braver argument to say that we cannot imagine them. And that is what I think is the case anyway. I am really just trying to influence the debaters to cater to my interests. LOL. edit: that weight argument he gave is bad. It is metaphysically possible that something other than gravity holds us to the earth. And, you guessed it, I can imagine it. The arguer wasn't really clear on the difference between physical possibility and metaphysical possibility.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

Darcho
Researcher

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 12, 2004
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 1110

Posted 08/25/04 - 02:34 PM:	#10
Has anyone seen the movie "Resident Evil?" The way that the virus turns people into zombies seems somewhat plausible.

Page: 1 2 3 4

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.