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
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Togo1 » November 1st, 2017, 11:58 am

Chili wrote:A doctor is looking at a whole system, and uses a body of empirical evidence to correlate inputs and outputs to the black box of life (increasingly understood reductionistically - one wonders where it will end). He is a reductionist in all the ways that matter when he comes up against new situations.
??? No, he isn't.

You keep using the term reductionism, and I don't think it means what you think it means.

This is a decent explanation of the term, and also explains some of the alternatives. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ ... onism.html

Medical doctors more often treat the brain as a emergent system than a reductionist one. I think when you say that doctors are reductionist, that you actually mean they have some other property. Possibly eliminativism? https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mate ... iminative/

It's not a stance that most medical professionals take, but it seems the closest match to what you're claiming happens.
Chili wrote:If he can't see somewhere there might be a problem, he looks. If somebody has a battery in their stomach, it had to get there somewhere, it is made up of particular compounds, there are good well-understood reasons why it is more harmful than some other object, relating to the physics and chemistry of batteries interacting with their environments. He doesn't embrace the simplest explanation possible, but the simplest one which works, and these are all found to be not contradictory with reductionist physics.
But none of this is reductionism, or determinism, at all.
Chili wrote:The Bohmian approach to the quantum world involves particular particles being at particular locations, moved by a quantum potention which is nonlocal but still deterministic. Quantum physics is not a fully deterministic theory but certainly it is not possible to "refute determinism" - and I invite you to cite sources on this.
Please see the source I posted in the previous post, which discusses this point.
Chili wrote:If you ask 100 AI programs if they experience thoughts, count the responses.
AIs don't claim to have subjective experiences.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're try to get at here. Presumably you're saying that evidence that can be deliberately faked isn't evidence. But can't most things be faked? The reason why we don't dismiss most scientific experiments as potentially fraud and thus useless is that we have absolutely no reason to believe that the evidence is faked. I gave you five or so different ways to physically and objectively measure the effects of an intentional consciousness, which is what science does when it is faced with something it wants to investigate but can't measure directly. If you're saying that these are all victims of some neurological conspiracy then it would be useful to know on what basis you're making this claim?
Chili wrote:So there's a kind of default category for anything which cannot be relied upon to just sit there.
Yeah, and it works extremely well, accurately and consistently outperfroming every other model we've come up with. For what reason are you rejecting out of hand the idea that the reason why we evolved to see and models others as conscious, is because they're conscious?

Chili
Posts: 355
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Chili » November 1st, 2017, 12:17 pm

Togo1 wrote:Yeah, and it works extremely well, accurately and consistently outperfroming every other model we've come up with. For what reason are you rejecting out of hand the idea that the reason why we evolved to see and models others as conscious, is because they're conscious?
Perhaps I will read and respond to all of the opinions you are stating - 90%+ of which I consider to be "life unexamined".

Anyhow, I will ask - why have we evolved to see certain people, animals, weather, and symbols as "evil" - unless they really are evil?
Do you reject that out of hand?

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1300
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Consul » November 1st, 2017, 5:23 pm

Togo1 wrote:If nothing else, there's certainly no barrier to cause and effect working within quantum physics. The reason why quantum physics tells us that determinism is false is because it explicitly includes indeterminent events. This violates determinism, the idea that all events are determined by prior events, but is entirely consistent with cause and effect.
See: Causal Determinism > Quantum Mechanics
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

Chili
Posts: 355
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Chili » November 1st, 2017, 6:32 pm

Consul wrote:
Togo1 wrote:If nothing else, there's certainly no barrier to cause and effect working within quantum physics. The reason why quantum physics tells us that determinism is false is because it explicitly includes indeterminent events. This violates determinism, the idea that all events are determined by prior events, but is entirely consistent with cause and effect.
See: Causal Determinism > Quantum Mechanics
How exactly does one get cause and (some future) effect without events being determined by prior events?

Anyhow, there is always superdeterminism, in which our "free" selections of measurements are admitted to be just a part of the cosmic river of causality flowing.
http://mathpages.com/rr/s9-06/9-06.htm

Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Togo1 » November 2nd, 2017, 10:49 am

Chili wrote:
Togo1 wrote:Yeah, and it works extremely well, accurately and consistently outperfroming every other model we've come up with. For what reason are you rejecting out of hand the idea that the reason why we evolved to see and models others as conscious, is because they're conscious?
Perhaps I will read and respond to all of the opinions you are stating - 90%+ of which I consider to be "life unexamined".
Dude, there's no need to get snippy just because I'm contradicting your lazy-ass assertions. You took an example of a doctor treating a mental problem, and just assumed it worked like you would want it to. It doesn't.
Chili wrote:Anyhow, I will ask - why have we evolved to see certain people, animals, weather, and symbols as "evil" - unless they really are evil?
That's easy - we haven't. This is why different symbols of evil exist in different cultures, and there's very little correspondence between them. That's why snakes in the western world are seen as evil, but in the far East are seen as benificent.

Chili
Posts: 355
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Chili » November 2nd, 2017, 11:06 am

Togo1 wrote: Dude, there's no need to get snippy just because I'm contradicting your lazy-ass assertions. You took an example of a doctor treating a mental problem, and just assumed it worked like you would want it to. It doesn't.


Every problem a patient has with their brain is increasingly dealt with using physical science if it can be - particularly if it is extreme. This is why psychiatry continues to take over from psychology. Over "psychologizing" problems is a big problem, and was out of control from Freud until recently. Naturally, the therapeutic approach flourishes (scientists are, after all, people) and the interaction with other experiencing people is the least means when it will work. There are some very interesting situations if you turn on a TV show like, say, "Monsters inside me" and you will see all kinds of cases where a parasite, or a brain infection, or a teratoma in an ovary can lead to behaviors what would have been avidly "psychologized" in a prior decade and treated as evidence of demonic possession in other millennia. People get SAD and also certain medications and certain mineral or vitamin deficiencies can lead to depression, and CBT all day will only help a little bit. There has been a recent breakthrough with intravenous ketamine for depression, with doctors calling for clinics to do the treatments.
Chili wrote:Anyhow, I will ask - why have we evolved to see certain people, animals, weather, and symbols as "evil" - unless they really are evil?
That's easy - we haven't. This is why different symbols of evil exist in different cultures, and there's very little correspondence between them. That's why snakes in the western world are seen as evil, but in the far East are seen as benificent.[/quote]

People have an neurological category of evil, and that has evolutionary explanations, and people and animals have neurological category of "agency" and that has evolutionary explanations, and basically the whole "why do people treat others as conscious unless they are" doesn't really hold up, I have to say.

Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Togo1 » November 2nd, 2017, 11:09 am

Chili wrote:How exactly does one get cause and (some future) effect without events being determined by prior events?
Easy. Take a determined chain, where A causes B causes C causes D.

Replace the links in the chain such that the incidence of A has a 99.9999999% chance of causing B, which has a 99.9999999% chance of causing C, and so on.

Determinations have been removed and replaced with probabilities, and yet causation is alive and well.
Chili wrote:Anyhow, there is always superdeterminism, in which our "free" selections of measurements are admitted to be just a part of the cosmic river of causality flowing.
http://mathpages.com/rr/s9-06/9-06.htm
Yes, you can build a view of the universe where everything depends on hidden variables. There's just no particular reason to.

However, the problem with this approach is that hidden variables are, well, hidden. As in not observed. And if they're not observed, they can't be the basis for scientific models of cause and effect, because those are based on observed variables. So you can assume the world is secretly being determined by hidden variables, but then you have to assume that science is largely bunk - a series of coincidental associations between observable factors that only serves to disguise how the real hidden variables determine everything. It's sort of the philosophical equivalent of deism.

Chili
Posts: 355
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Chili » November 2nd, 2017, 11:20 am

Togo1 wrote:
Chili wrote:How exactly does one get cause and (some future) effect without events being determined by prior events?
Easy. Take a determined chain, where A causes B causes C causes D.

Replace the links in the chain such that the incidence of A has a 99.9999999% chance of causing B, which has a 99.9999999% chance of causing C, and so on.

Determinations have been removed and replaced with probabilities, and yet causation is alive and well.


When the certainty of A>B etc are removed from 100%, we have removed confidence of exactly what has caused D if it actually happens.

Causation is no longer absolute, but it believed to be absolute somehow with unknown links. One can remove all knowledge of causal links and then presume that causality is alive and well if anything actually happens. One's model then is no longer a model of certain causality. One will probably mark it down to insufficient data points.

-- Updated November 2nd, 2017, 11:24 am to add the following --
Togo1 wrote:Yes, you can build a view of the universe where everything depends on hidden variables. There's just no particular reason to.

However, the problem with this approach is that hidden variables are, well, hidden. As in not observed. And if they're not observed, they can't be the basis for scientific models of cause and effect, because those are based on observed variables. So you can assume the world is secretly being determined by hidden variables, but then you have to assume that science is largely bunk - a series of coincidental associations between observable factors that only serves to disguise how the real hidden variables determine everything. It's sort of the philosophical equivalent of deism.
No. One never has perfect knowledge, there is always error in the application of models to reality. The models or data points are presumed to be insufficient and then methods are sought to remedy that situation as much as possible. Science rather than being "bunk" is an ongoing process with imperfect modeling and data points at any moment. In history, "hidden variables" are often found and enumerated. It might not be possible in QM because we may have found the underlying process which are moving *us* as they are moving the particles.

Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Togo1 » November 2nd, 2017, 1:06 pm

Chili wrote:
Togo1 wrote: Dude, there's no need to get snippy just because I'm contradicting your lazy-ass assertions. You took an example of a doctor treating a mental problem, and just assumed it worked like you would want it to. It doesn't.
Every problem a patient has with their brain is increasingly dealt with using physical science if it can be ... This is why psychiatry continues to take over from psychology
Not true.

Back in the late1950s, everything was physical and chemical treatment, therapy was a dirty word, philosophers were writing long treatises on how determinism governed language and logic. By the late 60s skinner was appearing on broadcasts explaining how psychologists would eventually run everything as a utopia by physically altering how people think. Since then, it's been the long slide downhill. Behaviourism collapsed, AJ Ayer's logical positivism was discredited, clinical psychologists started working with psychiatrists (MDs) in mental hospitals, and advances in diagnostic medicine meant that psychological symptoms could no longer be ignored, leading to diagnostic tools such as the DSM.

There have been leaps and bounds in terms of the integration of physical (neurochemical, neuroelectrical and lesion) treatments with various therapies from behavioural and cognitive science, and proper outcome research on psycho-therapy. Advances in technology have led to scientists starting to link behaviour and mental states more closely to neurological ones, allowing scientists such as Haggard to propose links between classic neuroanatomy and classic theories of mind, such as the link between automotive processing and attentional studies, and their role in learning.

I don't see your assertion reflected in reality. However, if you have any evidence to back up your assertion, I'm happy to look at it.
Chili wrote:People have an neurological category of evil,
Is there evidence for this, or have you proposed it because it makes sense to you? I'd rather not confuse science with speculation.
Chili wrote:and basically the whole "why do people treat others as conscious unless they are" doesn't really hold up, I have to say.
I know you feel you have to say it, but the interesting question is why. I'm looking for reasons here. The interesting thing about illusions and inaccurate perceptions from a scientific point of view is showing that they are inaccurate, how they are inaccurate, how the illusion is produced, and what that tells you about the system that produced them. An illusion of conscicousness, which is what you're talking about, would be fascinating to study. Unfortunately, no such mechanism has been found.

-- Updated November 2nd, 2017, 1:27 pm to add the following --
Chili wrote:
Togo1 wrote:Easy. Take a determined chain, where A causes B causes C causes D.

Replace the links in the chain such that the incidence of A has a 99.9999999% chance of causing B, which has a 99.9999999% chance of causing C, and so on.

Determinations have been removed and replaced with probabilities, and yet causation is alive and well.

When the certainty of A>B etc are removed from 100%, we have removed confidence of exactly what has caused D if it actually happens.
In QM percentages don't refer to confidence, they refer to probabalistic outcomes. You're more than welcome to argue how the science works with the relevant scientists.
Chili wrote:
Togo1 wrote:Yes, you can build a view of the universe where everything depends on hidden variables. There's just no particular reason to.

However, the problem with this approach is that hidden variables are, well, hidden. As in not observed. And if they're not observed, they can't be the basis for scientific models of cause and effect, because those are based on observed variables. So you can assume the world is secretly being determined by hidden variables, but then you have to assume that science is largely bunk - a series of coincidental associations between observable factors that only serves to disguise how the real hidden variables determine everything. It's sort of the philosophical equivalent of deism.
No. One never has perfect knowledge, there is always error in the application of models to reality. The models or data points are presumed to be insufficient and then methods are sought to remedy that situation as much as possible. Science rather than being "bunk" is an ongoing process with imperfect modeling and data points at any moment. In history, "hidden variables" are often found and enumerated. It might not be possible in QM because we may have found the underlying process which are moving *us* as they are moving the particles.
Except, of course, we haven't found them, have we? That's why we're referring to 'hidden' variables, because the assumption is that they exist and have not been found. They can't be things we have found, because we can actually check for those. So all of modern physics, and all the data points and physical laws they have identified, are all not involved in these hidden variables. Which means that (existing) physics is bunk. The real story is stuff we havn't found yet.

There's a philosophical position known as 'god-of-the-gaps', where people argue that god does exist, it's just that the science to support him hasn't been found yet. No amount of scientific discovery that doesn't involve god can discourage people of this notion, because there will always be some future gap where god could still be lurking. I'm inclined to label your determinism as a determinism-of-the-gaps, because it works on the same principle. You have a set of hidden variables that secretly determine everything, which can forever lurk in the gaps.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1756
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Wayne92587 » November 2nd, 2017, 3:09 pm

determinism is false is because it explicitly includes indeterminent events.

Perhaps one can not exist with exclusion of the other, why not both.

-- Updated November 2nd, 2017, 12:29 pm to add the following --

The God gap.

We have a sense of Reality that we can not put our finger on, can not speak of because it does not exist in the material sense of the word, is sacred secret, hidden and when spoken of results in blasphemy, lies.

I believe that this something that man has a sense of have has been given a false name, even though it does esist.

I am an atheist that believes in this sacred Entity, God.

Chili
Posts: 355
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Chili » November 2nd, 2017, 4:08 pm

Togo1 wrote: Not true.

Back in the late1950s, everything was physical and chemical treatment, therapy was a dirty word, philosophers were writing long treatises on how determinism governed language and logic. By the late 60s skinner was appearing on broadcasts explaining how psychologists would eventually run everything as a utopia by physically altering how people think. Since then, it's been the long slide downhill. Behaviourism collapsed, AJ Ayer's logical positivism was discredited, clinical psychologists started working with psychiatrists (MDs) in mental hospitals, and advances in diagnostic medicine meant that psychological symptoms could no longer be ignored, leading to diagnostic tools such as the DSM.

There have been leaps and bounds in terms of the integration of physical (neurochemical, neuroelectrical and lesion) treatments with various therapies from behavioural and cognitive science, and proper outcome research on psycho-therapy. Advances in technology have led to scientists starting to link behaviour and mental states more closely to neurological ones, allowing scientists such as Haggard to propose links between classic neuroanatomy and classic theories of mind, such as the link between automotive processing and attentional studies, and their role in learning.

I don't see your assertion reflected in reality. However, if you have any evidence to back up your assertion, I'm happy to look at it.
Note I said "when it can be". Somehow that escaped you and you gave this irrelevant account of behaviorism. Behaviorism is a hand-waving overview of what is going on in a person, just like other psychologizing, and it is not reductionist. There are inescapable conclusions in what I wrote that you don't like or don't understand and kind of hand-wave away. All I can do is reiterate what I have said before. If a serious problem CAN be taken care of by treating the brain, then that is probably the ONLY way to do it. A robot can do that without having a "mind" or believing in a "mind" per se. In the meantime, we are humans and have experiences and are interested in each other's experiences (note this is not science per se) and we can make each other happy with smiles or gifts or good advice or therapy.

-- Updated November 2nd, 2017, 4:36 pm to add the following --
Togo1 wrote: Except, of course, we haven't found them, have we? That's why we're referring to 'hidden' variables,
We "haven't found them" in a much less vague way than we "haven't found" other minds.

Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Togo1 » November 3rd, 2017, 8:13 am

Chili wrote:
Togo1 wrote: Not true.

...

I don't see your assertion reflected in reality. However, if you have any evidence to back up your assertion, I'm happy to look at it.
Note I said "when it can be".
Yes, and I'm denying even that. Don't take my word for it, take a look at something available online like the DSM 5 criteria, or an account from an actual psychiatrist, and get their opinion about how psychiatric medicine actually works.
Chili wrote: There are inescapable conclusions in what I wrote
Meh, given your premises, maybe. But since your premises appear to be wrong on the facts, I'm not sure why your conclusions are relevent. To be clear, what we're disagreeing about is how the science and medicine actually works.
Chili wrote:
Togo1 wrote: Except, of course, we haven't found them, have we? That's why we're referring to 'hidden' variables,
We "haven't found them" in a much less vague way than we "haven't found" other minds.
In each case I'm proposing that we go with the model that best fits the experimental facts, and has the greatest predictive power in experiments. That's how science works.

Chili
Posts: 355
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Chili » November 3rd, 2017, 10:32 am

Togo1 wrote:In each case I'm proposing that we go with the model that best fits the experimental facts, and has the greatest predictive power in experiments. That's how science works.
I believe when you describe "science" what you really mean is "common sense". Common sense seeks folk-y and folks-y commonsensical explanations for events and behaviors like "this guy is drunk" or "the sky gods are restless tonight" and these "fit the facts" in a non-rigorous casual way and provide ways forward in day-to-day living. Science is a realm of endeavor where attempts are made to model phenomena as reductively as possible, as numerically as possible. DSM to the extent that it offers treatments is agnostic to whether there is actual consciousness occurring in the subjects, though its authors, being people, will naturally embrace a down-to-earth commonsensical approach that the other people have minds. It would be laughable to go to the DSM and "psychologize" the problems of someone with brain parasites or tumors, though of course a little CBT combine with old-fashioned TLC will certainly grease the skids of anything that is done on the surgical side.

Gertie
Posts: 594
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Gertie » November 5th, 2017, 10:23 am

I've never gotten my head round Chalmer's P Zombie argument

Can anyone give an idiot's guide as to how imagining a different type of world where p zombies are possible, supports property dualism being true in this world? Or isn't that the claim?

User avatar
Consul
Posts: 1300
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Some Questions about P-Zombies Hypothesis

Post by Consul » November 5th, 2017, 11:10 am

Gertie wrote:I've never gotten my head round Chalmer's P Zombie argument. Can anyone give an idiot's guide as to how imagining a different type of world where p zombies are possible, supports property dualism being true in this world? Or isn't that the claim?
Yes, that is the dualist claim: Zombies are metaphysically/ontologically possible; therefore (reductive) physicalism about mental/experiential properties is false, and property dualism is true.

* "A metaphor of Saul Kripke’s helps to show how the zombie idea threatens physicalism (Kripke 1972/80, 153f.). Imagine God creating the world and deciding to bring into existence the whole of the physical universe. Having created this purely physical universe, did he have to do any more work to provide for consciousness? Answering yes to this question implies there is more to consciousness than the purely physical facts alone can supply. If nothing else, it implies that consciousness depends on nonphysical properties, ones that would not exist in a purely physical world; it would be a zombie world. Physicalists, on the other hand, are committed to answering no. They have to say that by fixing the purely physical facts, God did everything that was needed to fix the mental facts about the organisms thereby created, including their thoughts, feelings, emotions, and experiences. And if fixing the physical facts is alone enough to fix the mental facts, then a zombie world seems impossible."

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

* "Philosophical zombies pose a serious threat to any sort of physicalist view of qualia. To begin with, if zombie replicas are metaphysically possible, then there is a simple argument that seems to show that phenomenal states are not identical with internal, objective, physical states. Suppose objective, physical state P can occur without phenomenal state S in some appropriate zombie replica (in the metaphysical sense of ‘can’ noted above). Intuitively S cannot occur without S. Pain, for example, cannot be felt without pain. So, P has a modal property S lacks, namely the property of possibly occurring without S. So, by Leibniz’ Law (the law that for anything x and for anything y, if x is identical with y then x and y share all the same properties), S is not identical with P.
Secondly, if a person microphysically identical with me, located in an identical environment (both present and past), can lack any phenomenal experiences, then facts pertaining to experience and feeling, facts about qualia, are not necessarily fixed or determined by the objective microphysical facts. And this the physicalist cannot allow, even if she concedes that phenomenally conscious states are not strictly identical with internal, objective, physical states. For the physicalist, whatever her stripe, must at least believe that the microphysical facts determine all the facts, that any world that was exactly like ours in all microphysical respects (down to the smallest detail, to the position of every single boson, for example) would have to be like our world in all respects (having identical mountains, lakes, glaciers, trees, rocks, sentient creatures, cities, and so on)."


Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

* "THE ARGUMENT:

A ‘zombie’, in the philosophical sense, is an exact physical duplicate of a person – you, for instance – but without any experiential consciousness. It therefore has identical physical properties to you, but different mental properties – it has no phenomenal consciousness.

Of course, zombies are not possible in the actual world, i.e. given the laws of our universe, any being that has identical physical properties to you will also have consciousness. What we are thinking about when thinking about zombies is a different possible world – a world which has all the physical properties of our world but without consciousness. To talk of different possible worlds is to talk of ‘metaphysical possibility’ – what could exist, but not in this world.

But is such a world really (metaphysically) possible? To argue that a world with zombies is possible is to argue for property dualism. The argument concludes that the properties of consciousness cannot be physical properties. How does it work?

First, it seems that zombies are at least conceivable. I’ve just described them, and there isn’t an obvious contradiction in the idea. Second, given their conceivability, we may argue that zombies are therefore metaphysically possible. There is a possible world which has all the same physical properties as the actual world, but has no properties of consciousness. Now, if consciousness were identical with physical properties, it would be impossible for a creature to have the same physical properties as you but not have consciousness. This is Leibniz’s principle of the indiscernibility of identicals. If A is identical to B – if A is B – then you can’t have A without B or vice versa; they are the same thing. So if zombies are possible – if a creature could be physically identical to you but not have consciousness – then consciousness is not identical to any physical properties. So, if zombies are metaphysically possible, then consciousness is not identical to any physical properties, and property dualism is true.

1. It is conceivable that there are zombies.
2. If it is conceivable that there are zombies, it is metaphysically possible that there are zombies.
3. If it is metaphysically possible that there are zombies, then phenomenal properties of consciousness are non-physical.
4. Therefore, property dualism is true.

Put another way: according to physicalism, everything that exists is either physical or depends on what is physical. So if physicalism is true, a world that is an exact physical duplicate of our world, with nothing else in addition, will be an exact duplicate of our world in all respects. Therefore, if there is a possible world that is an exact physical duplicate of our world but is different in any way, e.g. it has different (or no) psychological properties, physicalism is false. If two physically identical worlds have different properties of consciousness, those properties of consciousness don’t depend on physical properties. So if zombies are possible, physicalism is false and property dualism is true."


Source: The ‘Philosophical Zombies’ Argument (PDF)

-- Updated November 5th, 2017, 10:16 am to add the following --

Here's a nice video in which Prof. Goff explains the zombie argument:
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

Post Reply