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

Debate 5 Discussion: Whether Zombies are Possible

muxol
yuletide

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 07, 2003
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1844

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/29/04 - 10:18 PM:	#26
Andrew Saunders wrote: I will debate a related topic: zombie-hammers. Zombie-hammers are hammers that appear to be normal hammers, but they do not actually cause nails to be driven. A zombie hammer is exactly identical to a normal hammer in every way, except when it strikes a nail, and the nail is driven, it is not actually the hammer driving the nail. It is entirely possible that there is another force there, that is actually driving the nail. No matter what you say, you cannot disprove zombie-hammers. There is no way of knowing whether the hammer and the nail driving go hand in hand, or if the nail driving aspect of the hammer is an effect of another simultaneous force. what exactly are you arguing? that there exists zombie hammers; that zombie hammers cannot be disproved; that real hammers do not exist; that we cannot differentiate zombie from real hammers? it isn't clear at all. if a zombie hammer is defined as being identical to a hammer in every way except for driving nails, then it is not only possible that there is another force driving the nail, it is necessary by definition. for if the zombie hammer was driving the nail, it wouldn't be a zombie hammer at all - it would be a real hammer. nobody wants to disprove the existence of zombie hammers because nobody cares. it's not philosophically interesting. if you're arguing against observing causality (and induction) in general, then it has nothing to do w/ the existence of the actual objects that are said to be efficacious. maybe i cannot know that hammers are actually the things driving nails. that does not mean that hammers do or can not exist. also, hammers are defined functionally - i.e., by their functional (as in purpose, not input/output/internal state) roles. people are not. hammers exist insofar as they are capable of driving nails. a hammer that does not drive nails does not exist. but it is not necessary for a person to have qualia, as far as our intuitions are concerned anyway (and that is in fact what the debate is about).

NoSoul
Economic determinist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 609

Posted 03/15/05 - 10:51 AM:	#27
Andrew Saunders wrote: Machiveli wrote: What evolutionary advantage does consiousness have? Why would evolution not create zombies if such a thing were possible in a behavioural sense? the phenomenal feel of consciousness (consciousness as it is being used in this discussion) has no evolutionary advantage whatsoever. How, exactly, do you know this? You assert this statement so strongly, you exude absolutely certainty. One might expect you to thus offer evidence, beyond bald assertion. The probabilistic fact is, if some biological trait exists, especially if it's extremely widespread among a population or many populations, then there's almost certainly an evolutionary reason for it, an evolutionarily adaptive advantage. Since it's almost certain (despite the pro-zombie position) that everyone on the planet who's alive is not a zombie, but instead actually has the phenomenological "feel of consciousness," then it's pretty much guaranteed that conscious non-zombie-ness does confer evolutionary advantage, absolutely. What is this advantage? fwiu it has much to do with the simple fact that it spurs the organism to have what we might call a "teleology," an organized, focused capacity for motivating itself to stay alive & reproduce. After all, we are just RNA, DNA & proteins, etc. The RNA's "want" to reproduce -- but they are quite "zombie-like" (probably). RNA's have "figured out" (metaphorically, & via evolution) how to best reproduce themselves. Actually, single-celled microbes (bacteria, viruses, etc.) are the single largest group of organisms on the planet -- constituting more biomass by weight than all other living creatures on Earth combined -- but even their "consciousness" is more controversial than you might expect (e.g. even bacteria might be "conscious" at some extremely rudimentary level). But beyond the single-celled microbes, multicellular eukaryotic organisms all seem to display varying degrees of "consciousness," and all of them seem well-served by the "sense" of "teleology," meaning, organization, focus, and "purpose" which this "consciousness" seems to give them all: They all strive to survive & reproduce & replicate their ribonucleic acids (RNA's).
Firmly tie the mind, resembling a mad elephant, to the strong pillar of its perceptual content, with the rope of contemplative inspection, and gradually tame it with the hook of discrimination. -- Buddhist Handbook, Salamander Press Nietzsche & Gallagher have much in common: One philosophizes with a sledgehammer, effectively spewing watermelon pulp all over his closest audience much like the latter.

NoSoul
Economic determinist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 05, 2004
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 609

Posted 03/15/05 - 10:57 AM:	#28
As to the debate itself: I am firmly in the anti-zombie camp. I cannot accept the bald assertion that a creature so composed as a human being with all this complex neural wiring, nervous system, all other body organs, etc, can somehow "possibly" be non-conscious yet function as any conscious normal human being. That's completely insane & utterly flies in the face of all science & all that is known about biology, from RNA's, proteins, to single-cells, to multicellular organisms, to organisms like humans with large complex brains. Moreover, I like Paul's argument that Kant's distinction between things-in-themselves and things-as-appearances fundamentally underlies this confusion about "zombies," e.g. outer intuition vs. inner intuition. Human beings are simply, categorically built by evolution in such a way that they absolutely cannot exist (in any normal way) without consciousness & "inner intuition." (Although I suppose much of the heat from this debate comes from the debate question itself: Rather than asking "Are zombies possible," the relevant, interesting question perhaps ought to be, "Do any zombies actually exist?")
Firmly tie the mind, resembling a mad elephant, to the strong pillar of its perceptual content, with the rope of contemplative inspection, and gradually tame it with the hook of discrimination. -- Buddhist Handbook, Salamander Press Nietzsche & Gallagher have much in common: One philosophizes with a sledgehammer, effectively spewing watermelon pulp all over his closest audience much like the latter.

MG Miller
Author,Scholar,Gentleman

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Location: PA
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/08/05 - 12:03 PM:	#29
I just read through the debate, and got to wondering. Couldn't sociopaths qualify as 'zombies' under AKG's definition? How about small children?

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 05/08/05 - 08:46 PM:	#30
The point is, anybody could. I believe that: a) Most plausible The mind is different from the body, since experience is not "just a process," there must be some content, something being processed, just like a waving arm is nothing without some content: an arm. Since experience is "something" and it's not physical since you couldn't find it inside your brain, or floating above your head, the mind is something ontologically different. Or if that irks you, diferrent in some aspect of it's nature, i.e. on a "higher" level analogous to the difference between matter and energy. b) It seems that most of your activity is determined by brain activity. This means that we don't require the mind to have an active effect on the brain (some people feel that this creates an "interaction problem"). It seems most plausible given modern science that human behaviour will be explicable by the brain alone, whereas perception or experience will not. c) Least plausible (but not implausible) That without evidence or reasons to the contrary, we have no reason to believe that just because I have a mind (a brain could say this, it does some strange things, why not make up a "mind"?) and a brain that a brain necessarily leads to a mind. Therefore, there could be people who act like us (since behaviour is determined by brain) but don't have our consciousness (because having similar bodies doesn't imply having similar minds, or even having minds) and are hence zombies. There's no reason why this would apply only to a certain category of people. The last one (above) was a bit of a stretch, but I don't believe, despite how strange it is, that there is sufficient reason to claim it implausible, and certainly not impossible (the two may be the same). Therefore, given these conditions are consistent and possible (which I hope my posts in the debate showed), zombies certainly are possible, and moreover, there is no quantifiable reason to believe that zombies are even unlikely, it's just not pragmatic so we don't bother. There's a difference between being false and being cumbersome, however.
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 05/08/05 - 08:53 PM:	#31
NoSoul wrote: Moreover, I like Paul's argument that Kant's distinction between things-in-themselves and things-as-appearances fundamentally underlies this confusion about "zombies," e.g. outer intuition vs. inner intuition. Human beings are simply, categorically built by evolution in such a way that they absolutely cannot exist (in any normal way) without consciousness & "inner intuition." The debate comes down to whether 1) inner intuition is inherently different from outer intuition, and so though it exists, it isn't physical, and whether 2) humans are categorically built to require "inner intuition." What evidence did Kant present? To me, the following... (Although I suppose much of the heat from this debate comes from the debate question itself: Rather than asking "Are zombies possible," the relevant, interesting question perhaps ought to be, "Do any zombies actually exist?") ...suggests that you might mean that since the relevant question was whether zombies really did exist, that you're not so certain that humans are built to require inner intuition. If it is possible for humans to not require inner intuition, then it would follow that zombies are possible, wouldn't it. So then, why do humans require it?
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3325

Posted 09/17/05 - 09:12 AM:	#32
Posted on behalf of MG Miller AKG wrote: The point is, anybody could. I believe that... Can there be behavior without conciousness? Or does lack of consciousness only make complex behavior impossible? Then again one must consider contiousness versus self-awareness, or sentience. Is a zombie defined by being unconscious (only life support is working), or is it self-awareness that defines it? In that case wouldn't making a zombie be as simple as a lobotomy? Does it have to be commandable or autonomous? Each of these questions is related to what sections of the brain would have to be removed/incapacitated to achieve the goal. Edited by AKG on 09/17/05 - 10:16 AM
"The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.