Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Atreyu »

Chili wrote:
Atreyu wrote: Again, you are confounding the more complex property of "consciousness" with the much more simpler property of "awareness". A common error.
Would you say that statements like that are "dictionary true" or more like that they are only true in some rarefied sect?
I'm speaking absolutely in this case.

Dictionary definitions in the realm of psychology might be quite inadequate and even erroneous due to the fact that true psychology is generally unknown. Since nobody really knows psychology, including psychologists themselves, we can't expect that any established definitions are going to be sufficient.

However, even in ordinary conversation we clearly differentiate between mere "awareness" and "consciousness", and I gave many examples above, particularly dreaming, being in a coma, and being hypnotized. In ordinary conversation we clearly recognize that "consciousness" implies more than just having an experience, i.e. "awareness".
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Chili »

Atreyu wrote:
Chili wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Would you say that statements like that are "dictionary true" or more like that they are only true in some rarefied sect?
I'm speaking absolutely in this case.

Dictionary definitions in the realm of psychology might be quite inadequate and even erroneous due to the fact that true psychology is generally unknown. Since nobody really knows psychology, including psychologists themselves, we can't expect that any established definitions are going to be sufficient.

However, even in ordinary conversation we clearly differentiate between mere "awareness" and "consciousness", and I gave many examples above, particularly dreaming, being in a coma, and being hypnotized. In ordinary conversation we clearly recognize that "consciousness" implies more than just having an experience, i.e. "awareness".
Gee, I don't know, you are certainly composing your words as if tutored in a rarified sect. "Nobody really knows psychology." There are some things which are purely empirical and "nobody knows" such as the next particular random measurement from some quantum experiment. Then there are words which are more general, and defined in the dictionary, so that if 2 people are using the same definition, they are both pointing at the same rock, and then the word works.
Wayne92587
Posts: 1780
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Wayne92587 »

Not every Human Being is Humane.

Not all Human Beings are Conscious.

Consciousness is an elevated level of awareness.

-- Updated October 19th, 2017, 7:54 am to add the following --

In order to be conscious, that which above must be equal to that which is below and that which is below must be the a equal to that which is above.

Conscious allows us to analyze, to think about, not only Empirical Reality but also the priori knowledge of Reality that we have not, can not, have yet, or will possibly never, experience, especially Illusions of Reality, Speculation, Theory, conjecture.

With out a doubt we can not be conscious if we are not also empirically sensitive.

Even a rock is sensitive to Empirical World of Reality, however a Rock is not conscious.

There are many levels of awareness some of which exhibit some level of Consciousness.

There is more to the meaning of “I am” than to say that it is a self declaration, a sign of the fact that I have Knowledge of Self, Numero Uno.

You can have knowledge of self without knowing Self, the knowledge of Self being Priori knowledge.

First person, “I Am”, is a declaration of Completeness, wholeness. That although I am a Duality, have two qualities to my character”, in me the two act as One-1, the whole of a Single Reality; “I Am”.

I am, no longer flawed, naked; I am more than a mere animal.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Consul »

Wayne92587 wrote:I am more than a mere animal.
I'm not sure what you mean by "mere animal", but to say that humans are animals is not to say that they don't have any special features (in comparison with other animal species).

"I shall be concerned to argue that there is nothing in the world over and above the entities of physics, and that everything operates according to the laws of physics. According to this view, living organisms (including human beings) are very complicated physical mechanisms and nothing more. Of course it is liable to cause misunderstanding if we say 'human beings are only very complicated physical mechanisms.' Stressing the 'only' may divert our audience from metaphysical contemplation to irrelevant questions of value judgement. In saying that humans are 'only' very complicated physical mechanisms I intend only to make an ontological point – a point about the make up of the universe. It is not to deny that some complicated physical mechanisms do very wonderful things. Some have written symphonies, others have erected gothic cathedrals, others have penetrated the secrets of the atom, and others yet again have erected beautiful edifices of pure mathematics. A physicalist metaphysics of course does not deny any of this. Indeed, to say that a leaf of a tree, or even a single living cell, is only a complicated physical mechanism can be taken wrongly. A physicalist is well aware of the extraordinary complexity of a living cell and even more of a whole leaf of a tree, orders o awesome complexity far and away above that of any human artefact of the sort that our aesthetic colleagues enthuse about.
The 'only' in 'only a very complex physical mechanism' is an ontological one, and neutral about value. It takes no sides about what we find most admirable: some may prefer to immerse themselves in contemplation of the leaf, others of the cathedral or symphony."


(Smart, J. J. C. Our Place in the Universe: A Metaphysical Discussion. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. pp. 79-80)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Chili »

Mr. Smart is just one more person I would question regarding the problem of other minds. Does he believe (other) people are conscious? If so, why? He seems to carefully avoid any words implying agency, saying only that some machanisms "do" and *have done* wonderful things.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Consul »

Chili wrote:[There is a certain logic here, but it misses the two fundamental issues.

1) to reject solipsism, there is quite simply a leap of faith. No scientific experiment performed by the individual will tell him if he is a detached brain attached to a complex interactive VR program - or indeed even if brains exist. Perhaps he is a disembodies consciousness at the disposal of angels and/or demons. So the reality of whatever is outside of one's mind at the present moment involves a leap of faith. It is an unprovable "background assumption".

2) once one accepts (for whatever reason) that there is a material world out there which one is experiencing, one can make measurements, correlates them, and
ends up understanding it more and more in terms of science. Sooner or later, reduction marches on, and there are even more discoveries and understandings. Most or all complex human-level things are comprised of smaller things and the mechanisms of their interaction. Some things seem to be "conscious" and "alive" and difficult to understand in terms of interactions of parts, although the individual can understand them more and more, it is difficult. Neuroscience results from these efforts. At no point is one required to ascribe sentience to any of these macroscopic living things or any of their parts. One may feel intuitively so strongly that those others are themselves having an internal experience analogous to one's own, and are causes of events just as oneself is subjectively felt to be. But the further one goes down this road, the less one is doing reductionist science, but following one's intuition and feelings. To be certain that some or all other people are conscious requires a 2nd "leap of faith" and becomes a second unprovable "background assumption".

Any "good reasons" to think other people (or other phenomena) are conscious eschew reductionist explanations.
There are many far-fetched logical possibilities which needn't be taken seriously, because they are mere possibilities. Of course, there are scientific problems concerning empirical (behavioral and neurophysiological) criteria for other minds/consciousnesses that need to be taken seriously; and there are questions which are very difficult to answer such as What's the earliest/oldest species of conscious animals? and How many species of conscious animals are there?. But these problems don't justify general skepticism about other minds/consciousnesses or the existence of a (mind-independent) physical reality. As Wittgenstein remarks: "Braucht man zum Zweifel nicht Gründe?"/"Doesn't one need reasons for doubt?" Do I have rational reasons to doubt that I am not the only conscious being, that there are many (human and nonhuman) conscious beings, or that there is a (mind-independent) physical reality? – No, I haven't!

-- Updated October 21st, 2017, 9:49 am to add the following --
Chili wrote:Any "good reasons" to think other people (or other phenomena) are conscious eschew reductionist explanations.
???
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Chili »

Consul wrote: There are many far-fetched logical possibilities which needn't be taken seriously, because they are mere possibilities. Of course, there are scientific problems concerning empirical (behavioral and neurophysiological) criteria for other minds/consciousnesses that need to be taken seriously;


Red flag. Fundamental problem there. Why did you ever think other people were conscious. Is it because you were attempting to extend the range of reductive physicalism? No, it was not. The whole enterprise of understanding or explaining consciousness can be thought of as "anti-science" on its face. Just admit it, you're going with your gut on this one.
and there are questions which are very difficult to answer such as What's the earliest/oldest species of conscious animals? and How many species of conscious animals are there?. But these problems don't justify general skepticism about other minds/consciousnesses
All skepticism of causes of behavior which are not reductive physicalism is justified in reductive physicalism. What justifies going outside of reductive physicalism - at least as a long-term goal. Isn't this where all science wants to go if it can?
or the existence of a (mind-independent) physical reality.


Science cannot really even begin to address this issue. Personally I'm going with my gut in saying that there is a reality "out there".
As Wittgenstein remarks: "Braucht man zum Zweifel nicht Gründe?"/"Doesn't one need reasons for doubt?" Do I have rational reasons to doubt that I am not the only conscious being, that there are many (human and nonhuman) conscious beings, or that there is a (mind-independent) physical reality? – No, I haven't!


This is the human bias - and it clearly is a bias. Bias shows when you have a proposition and its opposite, and you declare one to be the *clear default* and the other requiring extreme justification aka "no reason to be skeptical" of it.

-- Updated October 21st, 2017, 11:19 am to add the following --

see Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emperor's New Clothes"
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Consul »

Chili wrote:Mr. Smart is just one more person I would question regarding the problem of other minds. Does he believe (other) people are conscious? If so, why? He seems to carefully avoid any words implying agency, saying only that some machanisms "do" and *have done* wonderful things.
Being dead, Smart doesn't answer questions anymore. I couldn't quickly find any written statements of his about the problem of other minds, but here are ones by his (equally dead) friend David Armstrong, who, like Smart, was a champion of reductive materialism in the philosophy of mind:

"[L]et us note that our account of the nature of mental states makes the problem of our knowledge of the existence of other minds peculiarly easy to solve.
Notice in the first place that our rejection of any sort of logically privileged awareness of our own minds means that there is certainly nothing wrong with the traditional argument from analogy. Given awareness of our own mind together with perception of our body and the bodies of others we can certainly say that there is some probability that there is a mind standing to the other body as our mind stands to our body. The inferred object is unobserved, of but it is not logically unobservable, so the case is a quite uncontroversial case of inductive inference.

It is true, nevertheless, that an argument from analogy is a rather slender basis for our complete assurance about many things that go on in the minds of others. So it is interesting to realize that an account of mental states as states of the person apt for the bringing about of certain sorts of physical behaviour makes the problem of our knowledge of other minds still more tractable. Suppose a human body exhibits the right sort of behaviour.

Given our analysis of the nature of mental states we need only three premisses to infer the existence of a mind that this behaviour is an expression of. (i) The behaviour has some cause; (ii) the cause lies in the behaving person; (iii) the cause is an 'adequate' cause—it has a complexity that corresponds to the complexity of the behaviour. Given only these quite modest assumptions, the existence of another mind is necessary. Thus although our knowledge of other minds is inferential, the inference is more secure than that provided by the Argument from Analogy."


(Armstrong, D. M. A Materialist Theory of the Mind. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968. pp. 123-5)

For analogical inferences to other minds, see: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/#3.1

From the perspective of reductive materialism, mental/experiential occurrences are purely physical occurrences, so they are externally detectable and observable. If reductive materialism is true, then the mind = the brain, and mental/experiential states are nothing but a certain kind of purely neurological states. This would mean that knowledge of the presence of mind/consciousness can be inferred successfully and reliably from knowledge of (systematic similarities between) certain objective neurological structures and processes.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Chili »

Consul wrote:From the perspective of reductive materialism, mental/experiential occurrences are purely physical occurrences, so they are externally detectable and observable. If reductive materialism is true, then the mind = the brain, and mental/experiential states are nothing but a certain kind of purely neurological states. This would mean that knowledge of the presence of mind/consciousness can be inferred successfully and reliably from knowledge of (systematic similarities between) certain objective neurological structures and processes.
You say "perspective", I say assumption.

Show me the experiment where persons or neurons or ions are demonstrated to be sentient.

Other minds are simply assumed throughout.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Consul »

Chili wrote:
Consul wrote:From the perspective of reductive materialism, mental/experiential occurrences are purely physical occurrences, so they are externally detectable and observable. If reductive materialism is true, then the mind = the brain, and mental/experiential states are nothing but a certain kind of purely neurological states. This would mean that knowledge of the presence of mind/consciousness can be inferred successfully and reliably from knowledge of (systematic similarities between) certain objective neurological structures and processes.
You say "perspective", I say assumption.

Show me the experiment where persons or neurons or ions are demonstrated to be sentient.

Other minds are simply assumed throughout.
Call it an assumption, a belief, or an opinion—the point is that such assumptions/beliefs/opinions can be (and often are) epistemically justified owing to their being grounded in empirical (ethological or neurophysiological) evidence. So it's not just a matter of "blind faith".
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Chili »

Consul wrote:Call it an assumption, a belief, or an opinion—the point is that such assumptions/beliefs/opinions can be (and often are) epistemically justified owing to their being grounded in empirical (ethological or neurophysiological) evidence. So it's not just a matter of "blind faith".
This passive construction "can be ... are justified" covers many mistakes, sweeping them under the rug.

Prescientific man used gut-level justifications to fill out his pantheon of natural deities.

Today we would scoff at the overactive imagination and lack of rigor.
Wayne92587
Posts: 1780
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Wayne92587 »

Consul;

First; thank you for your response.

Of the many times that I have used the word mere, you are the first to ask, what do you mean by mere.

The post is going to be a little far-out.

I believe that civilization had been around thousands of Years, like maybe tens of thousands of years.

I believe in the reality of myth, astrology, religion; In fact I believe that all religions, myth, folk lore, have a common origin.

When Adam heard what he thought might be the Voice of God, he covered himself and hid in the bushes.

This was the first sign of self-realization, Wisdom, Consciousness.

I Am that I Am.

God ask Adam who told you that you were Naked? Adam answered, I myself have recognized who and what I am.

Having been born flawed, incomplete, not fully dressed, Naked, Adam was born “Bare-Ass-Naked, Bare meaning less than a mere animal, a mere animal being born nothing more and nothing less, born fully as realized. the conscious level of a mere animal lacking depth, clarity,

Adam having been born of the dust of the ground, the Evolutionary Process, was born flawed, Incomplete, not fully dressed, was born Bare, less than a mere animal, was born without specification, Boundless, Free do as he will.

Adam realized that in order to survive he would have to become more than a mere animal bound to the Material World of Reality, that he would have to be able to Step out of Empirical World of Reality in order to enter the Gateway to Shangri La.
User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 338
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by SimpleGuy »

I think for example on so called intelligent agents. Believe, Desire, Intention modelling for agents (robots etc.) for example could already be interpretated as a consciousness in an AI sense. So how would you think would this agent behave different from a conscious beeing if it could infer , natural language computed theorems ?
Difficult to guess.
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Togo1 »

Chili wrote:All skepticism of causes of behavior which are not reductive physicalism is justified in reductive physicalism. What justifies going outside of reductive physicalism...
Chili wrote:Bias shows when you have a proposition and its opposite, and you declare one to be the *clear default* and the other requiring extreme justification aka "no reason to be skeptical" of it.
If you put these two statements side by side, can you perhaps see a problem there?
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Chili »

Reductive physicalism is the ideal of how science works. Whenever you don't have it, you keep looking for it. Science has found that things are made of other things and many or most of the most mysterious behaviors of something are understood when the pieces and their interactions are understood. This is true in every field. This is why we prefer the reductionist explanation of how weather works rather than alternatives such as "Zeus is bored". It's not about picking a default, it's about what is based the most on measurements and correlating them and the least on sheer imagination or poetry. You can go the Zeus route but it is not "science" and if you're trying to model, predict, and manipulate the world, you don't want it to be about "Zeus".
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021