Thread 16783422

Imagine a hypothetical being or "zombie" that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience. When a zombie is poked with a sharp object, for example, it does not feel any pain though it behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or tell us that it is in intense pain).
It is just as capable of problem solving, working and reproducing as a normal human.

Why aren't we all zombies?

>>16783422 (OP)
P-zombies are only coherent under mind-body Dualism. The fact that it lets you assert that being conscious makes no objective difference and you can never know if anyone is conscious or not, actually undermines Dualism itself.

>>16783422 (OP)
We don't have enough information to empirically answer that question or several other questions that would need to be answered before we even approach it (see: solipsism).

That said, let's make the following assumptions to give this question as much "meaning" as possible:
>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>p-zombies are possible and not prohibited by some fundamental nature of complex biological systems
>consciousness itself does not incur any benefits to survival and reproduction of a species

Even with these assumptions in place, it could be answered by the simple fact that evolution is often poorly optimized.
The common ancestor of all conscious beings developed it, even if it was some form of energy sink it just may have been so irrelevant of one that no species downstream was incentivized to lose it.

>>16783539
>let's make the following assumptions to give this question as much "meaning" as possible:
>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>p-zombies are possible
Good job immediately contradicting yourself. Jesus fuck, this board is retarded...

>>16783422 (OP)
Are you sure you have qualia?
If yes, then at least you're not a zombie.

>>16783550
I find Dennett and the entire philosophical constellation he belongs to obnoxious, but he was right about qualia: it's nonsensical to think of them as independent phenomena.

>>16783422 (OP)
>has 13 different pornographic boards
>lets /b/ get spammed with thought-ending pornography everyday in 2025
>has an /LGBT/ containment board
>has 8 separate boards for video games
>has a Science & Math board
>has a History & Humanities board
>doesn't have a Philosophy-specific board
>OP is moved to post Philosophy-related thread on /sci/ because it's not clear where else to post something like that (although it technically fits both the "Humanities" and "Science" categories depending on whom you ask)

4chan, everybody.

>>16783422 (OP)
>qualia
Crackpot pseudoscience belongs on >>>/x/

>>16783587
>Crackpot pseudoscience
But that's materialism. Qualia weren't conceived as a "scientific" concept in the first place, just an attempt to formalize talking about aspects of first-person experience.

>>16783591
>it's not pseudoscience because it's not even science
Good job retard. Now back to >>>/x/

>>16783597
How come your own posts keep using words that aren't science? It's a heckin' science board?

Mentally ill retard.

>>16783539
>(see: solipsism)
Dude, I am literally right here like all the fucking time.
I wish I wasn't.

>>16783422 (OP)
>Imagine a hypothetical being or "zombie" that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience
this is fiction, of the worst kind. there's no reason to expect such a thing
>imagine a car, built to spec, everything is perfectly assembled it's not missing anything, but doesn't work and nobody knows why

>>16783548
>Good job immediately contradicting yourself
There's no contradiction. You're just retarded.
Assuming all apparently conscious things are conscious in the real world does not mean that they necessarily must be conscious in the hypothetical world we're constructing.
Lrn2logic.

>>16783657
Psychotic word salad. Literally from your post:
>let's make the following assumptions to give this question as much "meaning" as possible:
>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>p-zombies (i.e. entities that appear conscious but secretly aren't) are possible
These are mutually exclusive premises. There's no way around that.

>>16783682
NTA, but what he said makes sense if you use a syllogism
[math]\bigboxplus[/math] Biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious.
[math]\boxminus[/math] P-Zombies appear conscious but aren't conscious.
[math]\therefore[/math] P-Zombies aren't biological organisms.

>>16783682
Equivalent premises:
>all milk has lactose
>milk without lactose is possible
Up until the invention of lactose free milk, the first premise was true. The fact that lactose free milk exists now proves the second premise is also true.
You are dumb.

>>16783422 (OP)
Because consciousness is the mechanism nature has evolved in order to make those outward behaviors possible. Perhaps there is a way to arrange and differentiate the cells in an organism to do the same without consciousness but nature has not worked that out, maybe because something makes it unfeasible or consciousness is just more efficient.

>>16783422 (OP)
Are you talking about women or blacks?

>>16783689
>Equivalent premises:
>>all milk has lactose
>>milk without lactose is possible
No, you dumb ape. That is actually not analogous.
>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
This statement asserts that if a biological organism appears conscious, then it is conscious. If you want a milk analogy (because you're infantile retard suckling momma's titty in between posts):
>all milk that smells sour is sour
>sour-smelling milk that isn't sour is possible
Which is a contradiction like your original post.

>>16783688
I was half-expecting him to backpedal to that one, but you did it for him. Well done, anon. I kneel.

>>16783720
>>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>This statement asserts that if a biological organism appears conscious, then it is conscious
This is your own misinterpretation.
I am not asserting that the appearance of consciousness is sufficient to prove consciousness. I am assuming all presently existing organisms which appear conscious are conscious. I will admit to ambiguity in how I phrased it as either interpretation is equally valid. But you are a fucking moron for attacking a statement I did not make and then rejecting the clarification that I gave you while still asserting that I said something I did not say.
When I said "all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious" I meant it in EXACTLY the same way that you would interpret the phrase "all milk has lactose."

>>16783422 (OP)
>It is just as capable of problem solving, working and reproducing as a normal human.
Literally how? This is like imagining a magnet that attracts ferroumagnetic materials but without interacting with the electromagnetic field. What is the physical process through which a zombie deals with novel information instead of just bumping into a window over and over again like a fly?

Convince me that "qualia" isn't just a roundabout way of saying "perspective".

>>16783727
>What is the physical process through which a zombie deals with novel information instead of just bumping into a window over and over again like a fly?
Ask ChatGPT.

>>16783726
>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>>so if a biological organism appears conscious, then it is conscious?
>noooo!!! that is a misinterpretation!
Fucking mental illness running rampant on this board.

>>16783729
>Convince me that "qualia" isn't just a roundabout way of saying "perspective".
It's a category error to equate the totality of something with an aspect of it.

>>16783734
And youve resorted to pretending to be trolling.
I accept your concession.

>>16783727
>What is the physical process through which a zombie deals with novel information instead of just bumping into a window over and over again like a fly?
Who cares? How is this relevant? Whatever physical process it takes, it's inexplicable why that process would cause anything beyond the observable "outputs".

>>16783726
>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>>so if a biological organism appears conscious, then it is conscious?
>noooo!!! that is a misinterpretation!

>>16783736
>i didn't say what i said!!!
>stop trolling me!!!
Holy mother of all mentally ill pseuds.

>>16783738
>Whatever physical process it takes
Oh cool so you don't know? Explanatory gap, hard problem of consciousness collides with the hard problem of unconsciousness, both mutually annihilate and cease to exist.

>>16783735
That's not very convincing, convince me some more by actually differentiating them.

>>16783743
You clearly don't understand what the thread is even about. If you have some entity and you believe it "processes novel information", that's because it's taking some inputs and then generating outputs that imply "processing novel information". But "processing novel information" in and of itself doesn't imply internal experience and mapping out the process by a system generates outputs doesn't imply anything beyond an abstract model of the "mechanics" by which inputs lead to outputs in the given system, it certainly doesn't establish anything about internal experience.

>>16783747
I wasn't trying to convince you. I was simply covering your category error. I'll leave "convincing" to whatever shabbos goy politician you voted for.

You can suck my hard problem

>>16783741
Give it up. You misunderstood what I said, threw a fit because you were confused, were corrected and now know what I was actually getting at, and are now too insecure your brain did a little fucky wucky on an anonymous imageboard to admit you were mistaken.
Just take the L, bro.

>>16783757
>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
Does this imply that if a biological organism appears conscious, it is indeed conscious?

>>16783759
If it exists at present.
It does not imply an exception cannot exist though. And that is what you were confused about and keep pretending to ignore.

>>16783761
>If it exists at present.
That's not what you wrote. You wrote 'all'.

>t does not imply an exception cannot exist though
The qualifier 'all' does indeed imply an exception cannot exist. And that milk excuse you came up with earlier (which already amounts to an admission that you were very sloppy in your wording) doesn't work in this context, because while you could maybe argue that having lactose is not a defining quality of milk, going out of your way to state that ALL apparently-conscious beings ARE conscious, as a premise for an argument, in a thread about p-zombies, definitely implies consciousness is a defining characteristic of beings that act conscious.

>>16783765
>The qualifier 'all' does indeed imply an exception cannot exist.
False.
Let's revisit the milk thing:
>all milk has lactose
This could be rewritten as "if it is milk, it has lactose." Both statements were true at a time where lactose-free milk had yet to be invented.

>ALL apparently-conscious beings ARE conscious
This could be rewritten as "if it is an apparently conscious being, it is conscious." But the same exact reasoning follows that applies to milk. It is true until an apparently conscious being which is not conscious is born.

The (assumed) present lack of p-zombies combined with the possibility of a p-zombie's existence were used as a mechanism to discuss how not all traits that come out of evolution are adaptational and how things like the founder effect can make a useless trait ubiquitous.
The logic is sound.
You lost.
Get over it.

>>16783422 (OP)
>lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience
>Why aren't we all zombies?
Endless loop. Defining a lack of experience requires an experience. If you then argue it's all the same, you're arguing that you haven't defined a lack of anything. Therefore your definition failed and you need to reframe it. Repeat.

>>16783682
>>16783689
>>16783720
>>16783726
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_riddle_of_induction

>>16783774
Just say you've been brough up with temporal modal logic from birth and it's second nature to you to view the universal quantiifer as dependant on time.

>>16783749
>"processing novel information" in and of itself doesn't imply internal experience
Really? Can you recreate it physically in a way that matches novel information processing done through internal experience? Just handwaving it with "by whatever means necessary" doesn't mean it's actually possible. Also reminder that finding philosophical zombies possible necessitates believing that we are qualia zombies who just so happen to have a perfectly correlated consciousness with what our machine bodies do by pure coincidence.

>>16783776
I guess that's fair. It would be weird to interpret my statement atemporally given the context it was made but that's quite obviously what idiot-stick was doing to find a "contradiction."

>>16783774
It's funny watching you do these nuts mental gymnastics to save face after contradicting yourself. But ok. Suppose I accept your excuse. What exactly does the premise contribute to your argument? Combined with the p-zombie premise, you immediately end up with "some, but not all, biological organisms that appear conscious, are conscious". It's pointless. You might have just said "let's assume p-zombies are possible" and the rest of your dumb argument would have gone the same. So no, you're just backpedaling after making the dumbest possible mistake.

>>16783780
>Really?
Yes, really. In and of itself, "processing novel information" doesn't imply consciousness. It's a logical non-sequitur.

>b-b-but what about this one correlative example asserted on empirical grounds?
What about it? The brain does a lot of stuff. You can call any and all of it "information processing". It's impossible to know what of it causes consciousness, if at all.

>>16783775
Word salad. Your IQ is definitely in the low 90s.

>>16783785
>"processing novel information" doesn't imply consciousness
Show me an example of a thing that exists in the world that processes novel information like conscious entities do without having consciousness. What is the mechanism such an entity would even use to solve puzzles that it saw for the first time? How could it have aphantasia?
>You can call any and all of it "information processing"
Yes, and not all of it is conscious. You and I aren't consciously processing every keystroke in this conversation, for example, because we both have enough built-in habit to use a keyboard mindlessly. But if you were learning how to use a keyboard for the first time, you'd have to do it "manually" and exert quite a bit of expensive cortical activity before you got the hang of it. How would you do that without consciousness?

>>16783789
>Show me an example of a thing that exists in the world that processes novel information like conscious entities do without having consciousness
Robotics is full of examples, but of course, now you're gonna say it doesn't count as "novel information" under your special head canon, even though what they do fits the literal meaning of the phrase.

>Yes, and not all of it is conscious.
How would you know if any of it is involved in consciousness?

>>16783682
>>16783786
>word salad
Baby bot learned a new bot thing today

>>16783794
I learned that this place is perpetually full of retards with schizophasia long ago. I unironically figured out how a LLM works before LLMs were even a thing, just by observing broken biobots spewing paragraphs of semi-plausible but ultimately meaningless word salad.

No, I'm saying you're a fucking idiot.

>>16783789 conclusively btfo by >>16783793

>>16783793
>Robotics is full of examples, but of course, now you're gonna say it doesn't count as "novel information"
No robot does anything beyond insect-like reaction based on preset data. That's the whole buzz around "AGI" that's going around. If AGI is possible, the zombie argument might hold some water, but we don't have anything like that.
>How would you know if any of it is involved in consciousness?
What do you mean, specifically? Like I said, we do shit on autopilot all the time thanks to the basal ganglia etc, shit that requires clunky conscious decision making is sluggish, energy intensive and involves a lot of cortical activity. I'm not pretending the hard problem is solved, we don't know exactly how consciousness comes into being, I'm just smacking down the zombie whackamole because it's a nonsensical argument.

>>16783798
You're engaging with so it's not quite as meaningless as you'd have us believe.

>>16783422 (OP)
Imagine a universe just like ours but where 0.999… is exactly equal to 1. Could we tell?

>>16783804
>robots that react in complex ways to a real-time stream of unpredictable sensor data aren't "processing novel data"
>models that "learn" how to perform complex tasks based on nothing but a big data aren't "processing novel data"
Called it. You're a predictable biobot. Might as well be a p-zombie. Words mean nothing to you. You're just stringing them in patterns you associate with refutation.

>What do you mean, specifically?
Just what I said: since you've conceded that almost everything the brain does can be characterized as "processing novel data", but not all of it necessarily corresponds to conscious experience, how can you tell what processing (if any at all) does?

>>16783783
>What exactly does the premise contribute to your argument?
Because OP asked why were aren't all p-zombies.
I opened with the fairly trivial point that the question is kinda meaningless without knowing the nature of consciousness or what does and does not have it.
So, start by assuming all the things that look conscious are conscious so we don't waste time with dumb "what if I'm the only conscious being" style questions.
Next, assume that p-zombies are even possible at all, so we can disregard exactly what you were assuming I said and thought was a contradiction. All apparently conscious things can be conscious without consciousness being a prerequisite to apparent consciousness.

That was a simple opener to the point I was actually making and that is that there doesn't really have to be a "reason" for consciousness and it could simply be a byproduct of evolution doing weird things because biology is weird.

Starting to understand yet?

>>16783816
>all the things that look conscious ARE conscious
>so that we don't waste time with dumb "what if I'm the only conscious being"
>but umm... i mean, all apparently conscious things CAN be conscious
>but they don't HAVE to be
>so what if I'm the only conscious being?
Keep digging that hole, tard. lol

>>16783809
I can imagine both ways. But why is 0.000...1 the soul in this analogy and not the other way around?

>>16783816
>there doesn't really have to be a "reason" for consciousness and it could simply be a byproduct of evolution doing weird things because biology is weird
This, by the way, is absolutely retarded and doesn't address OP's question in any way. The p-zombie premise admits the possibility that two brains can be biologically identical but the owner of brain A is conscious while the owner of brain B is not. How does evolution accomplish that?

>>16783798
>>16783815
>biobot
You're really the babiest bot in the thread lol

>>16783817
>>so what if I'm the only conscious being?
You could, very well, be. Hence why I said:
>>16783539
>(see: solipsism).
And before you start, I know the claim that I'm the only conscious being is technically distinct from (but mot mutually exclusive to) solipsism. But that's very much not the point.

@16783824
Imagine witnessing the intellectual output of "people" like this and still being against forced eugenics.

>>16783821
>The p-zombie premise admits the possibility that two brains can be biologically identical but the owner of brain A is conscious while the owner of brain B is not
That's not necessarily true. There could very well be a physiological difference between the brains that we don't recognize as causing or negating consciousness because we have no way of measuring consciousness independently of behavior.

>>16783786
>Word salad.
Correct, OP's question is literally an endless loop of word salad.

@16783827
>That's not necessarily true
>My argument just assums that it is, by saying p-zombies are possible
Both of his parents should have been sterilized. All his family members. It's immoral and irrational to let these "people" reproduce.

>>16783829
You lost, tranny.

@16783830
>loses his cool and lets slip that he's indeed "white" americoon "working" class trash
Prime sterilization target.

>>16783831
You were already wrecked like 10 replies ago. I'm just beating a ragdoll at this point.

You are literally lower than tranners. At least they do society the courtesy of sterilizing themselves and they stick to /pol/ and /g/, where you should return.

>>16783826
>>16783829
>>16783831
>@
Is this what happens when a bot breaks?

>>16783837
Nah. It's what happens when some retard can't admit he was wrong about something very simple and wants to throw an autistic shitfit hoping the person who outsmarted him doesn't see it.
Unfortunately, he can't smart his way into a semblance of literacy so he just makes himself look pathetic in the process.
Isn't that right, >>16783835 ?

Let's see how many times the mentally ill tard updoots itself.

>>16783840
Kek, retard can't comprehend that more than one person thinks he's retarded.
Good thing downies usually don't breed.

Notice how the mentally ill tard keeps begging me for (You)s. It really needs those (You)s or else it starts replying to itself in order to simulate them.

>>16783844
Kek. Keep seething. We've got this thread nice and derailed at this point. You can have fun being illiterate elsewhere unless you have something of substance to say.

>mentally ill retard contradicts itself directly and repeatedly
>if you notice it, you're le bad and illiterate >because you correctly interpreted his statement as written instead of his post hoc mental gymnastics
Eugenics. No other way forward. There's billions of this retarded cattle and everyone of them thinks he's an "intellectual" in the age of mass communications and mass media.

>>16783854
>let's make the following assumptions to give this question as much "meaning" as possible:
>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>p-zombies (biological organisms that appear conscious but aren't) are possible

...

>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>>so if a biological organism appears conscious, then it is conscious?
>This is your own misinterpretation.

...

>>What exactly does the premise contribute to your argument?
>So we don't waste time with dumb "what if I'm the only conscious being" questions
>All apparently conscious things can be conscious without consciousness being a prerequisite to apparent consciousness.
>>this doesn't rule out "what if I'm the only conscious being" questions
>You could, very well, be

...

>>The p-zombie premise admits the possibility that two brains can be biologically identical but the owner of brain A is conscious while the owner of brain B is not
>That's not necessarily true. There could very well be a physiological difference between the brains
>>But you accepted the p-zombie premise
>You lost, tranny!!!!!!!

>>16783422 (OP)
This is "word thinking"
If you can't distinguish something, it's literally indistinguishable. If OP is a teenager, maybe he's not stupid but he shouldn't be posting here. If OP is an adult, he's cooked.

>>16783862
>This is "word thinking"
>If you can't distinguish something, it's literally indistinguishable.
I like how you accuse him of word-thinking and immediately make an error by engaging in it. Indistinguishable in the sense of "impossible to tell apart from a given perspective" =/= indistinguishable in the sense of "identical in every aspect".

>>16783860
You're still crying? Kek.
I'll skip the shit I already wrecked you on and go here:
>>16783860
>>That's not necessarily true. There could very well be a physiological difference between the brains
>>>But you accepted the p-zombie premise
The p-zombie premise does not necessarily mean the brains would be identical. Only that we wouldn't know the difference That was exactly my point. But you are too illiterate to understand basic English communicated to you.

>>16783867
>let's make the following assumptions to give this question as much "meaning" as possible:
>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>p-zombies (biological organisms that appear conscious but aren't) are possible

...

>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>>so if a biological organism appears conscious, then it is conscious?
>This is your own misinterpretation.

...

>>What exactly does the premise contribute to your argument?
>So we don't waste time with dumb "what if I'm the only conscious being" questions
>All apparently conscious things can be conscious without consciousness being a prerequisite to apparent consciousness.
>>this doesn't rule out "what if I'm the only conscious being" questions
>You could, very well, be

...

>>The p-zombie premise admits the possibility that two brains can be biologically identical but the owner of brain A is conscious while the owner of brain B is not
>That's not necessarily true. There could very well be a physiological difference between the brains
>>But you accepted the p-zombie premise
>You lost, tranny!!!!!!!

...

>The p-zombie premise does not necessarily mean the brains would be identical
>>16783422 (OP)
>a hypothetical being or "zombie" that is indistinguishable from a normal human being

what if cat was spelled D O G

>>16783865
I like how you think amplifying the stupidity of something stupid is an "error" lol.
>Indistinguishable in the sense of
> ...
>perspective
> ...
> oooooooo
Oh, look at that. OP's definition failed so let's reframe it fucking lol. We can repeat this until your dictionary runs out, moron.

>>16783873
Absolutely assblasted but the point still stands: you conflated two different meanings because your "mind" runs on verbal patterns.

>>16783775
>Defining a lack of experience requires an experience.

Clarify this sentence, if you would.

>>16783869
>>a hypothetical being or "zombie" that is indistinguishable from a normal human being
Right, we wouldn't know the difference. I already said that.
Here, new set of assumptions:
>consciousness is caused by some inconspicuous cluster of neurons in the frontal lobe.
>half of people have it, half of people don't.
>no difference in behavior or communication is observed
Even if that cluster of neurons were detectable, you wouldn't have any way of knowing that it's in any way linked to consciousness.
Therefore, normal people and p-zombies are completely indistinguishable in this fantasy scenario.

>>16783875
>Absolutely assblasted
Sorry but I'm not finished yet and I honestly don't care if it bleeds.

>>16783879
>literally asks me to fuck him harder
You made another mistake by once again incorrectly extrapolating a verbal pattern. This time you're going to the ER. :^)

>>16783877
I'm not the one defining it and asking a question about my definition. You'll have to ask OP

>>16783881
I'm so sorry for your ass (but not really).

>>16783878
>let's make the following assumptions to give this question as much "meaning" as possible:
>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>p-zombies (biological organisms that appear conscious but aren't) are possible

...

>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>>so if a biological organism appears conscious, then it is conscious?
>This is your own misinterpretation.

...

>>What exactly does the premise contribute to your argument?
>So we don't waste time with dumb "what if I'm the only conscious being" questions
>All apparently conscious things can be conscious without consciousness being a prerequisite to apparent consciousness.
>>this doesn't rule out "what if I'm the only conscious being" questions
>You could, very well, be

...

>>The p-zombie premise admits the possibility that two brains can be biologically identical but the owner of brain A is conscious while the owner of brain B is not
>That's not necessarily true. There could very well be a physiological difference between the brains
>>But you accepted the p-zombie premise
>You lost, tranny!!!!!!!

...

>The p-zombie premise does not necessarily mean the brains would be identical
>>16783422 (OP) (OP)
>a hypothetical being or "zombie" that is indistinguishable from a normal human being

...

>Right, we wouldn't know the difference.
>There could very well be a physiological difference between the brains

>>16783882
That was my first post in this thread. I'm asking you to explain one of your sentences. Are you saying that the act of defining something necessitates experience? It's not a clear sentence.

>>16783885
>asking the retard to explain his word salad and expecting him to do it

>>16783884
Yup. And now you're out of rebuttals.
Feel free to concede any time. It's just sad at this point.

>>16783885
It's a clear sentence. Defining a lack of X requires X

>>16783887
>let's make the following assumptions to give this question as much "meaning" as possible:
>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>p-zombies (biological organisms that appear conscious but aren't) are possible

...

>all biological organisms that appear conscious are conscious
>>so if a biological organism appears conscious, then it is conscious?
>This is your own misinterpretation.

...

>>What exactly does the premise contribute to your argument?
>So we don't waste time with dumb "what if I'm the only conscious being" questions
>All apparently conscious things can be conscious without consciousness being a prerequisite to apparent consciousness.
>>this doesn't rule out "what if I'm the only conscious being" questions
>You could, very well, be

...

>>The p-zombie premise admits the possibility that two brains can be biologically identical but the owner of brain A is conscious while the owner of brain B is not
>That's not necessarily true. There could very well be a physiological difference between the brains
>>But you accepted the p-zombie premise
>You lost, tranny!!!!!!!

...

>The p-zombie premise does not necessarily mean the brains would be identical
>>16783422 (OP)
>a hypothetical being or "zombie" that is indistinguishable from a normal human being

...

>>Indistinguishable
>Right, we wouldn't know the difference.
>There could very well be a physiological difference between the brains

...

>Yup. And now you're out of rebuttals.

>>16783886
I know, I felt silly typing the post. It's almost like a sport to me now though

>>16783886
Hi baby bot.

>>16783891
>>16783886
Get a room you drooling faggots lol.

>>16783888
>It's a clear sentence. Defining a lack of X requires X
>Defining a lack of experience requires an experience.
Ok. OP experiences things and he defines a p-zombie as lacking that. What's the next step of your master plan?

>>16783890
Yup. You got wrecked on every one of those points. All you have demonstrated is your lack of reading comprehension.

>>16783888
...
>Defining a lack of experience requires an experience.

So, "an experience"[sic] is required to "define a lack of experience"... When is "an experience" required? For whom? Under what conditions? Why? Are you genuinely manic or unwell?

>>16783896
>What's the next step of your master plan?
Sorry, you talk like a faggot. Go microwave your own head.

>>16783894
>>16783901
meds

>>16783899
It's a clear sentence. Defining a lack of X requires X.
>For whom? Under what conditions? Why? Are you genuinely manic or unwell?
Literally kill yourself you dumb teenager lol

>>16783902
>>16783902

Almost everyone ITT is a literal subhuman... Holy shit. Hard to believe it's even real people shitting out these posts.

>>16783901
>tard literally can't go one step beyond his initial word salad
>refuses to address any kind of question except by repeating himself

>>16783906
Did you enjoy your pancakes this morning?

>>16783908
>word salad
Four hits now. Can we get six?
Try asking OP is a way that isn't literally word salad.

>mentally ill retard gets filtered by a clear and succinct description of a classic thought experiment
>unironically replies with this:
>Defining a lack of experience requires an experience. If you then argue it's all the same, you're arguing that you haven't defined a lack of anything. Therefore your definition failed and you need to reframe it. Repeat.
>multiple people ask him to explain his word salad
>repeatedly deflects and refuses
>then calls OP "word salad"

Lol are you this retard?
@16783837

>>16783422 (OP)
i have never understood how someone could the p-zombie is a meaningful...anything. on what possible grounds can one think it is reasonable to axiomatically assume that conscious experience/sentience can be separated from human behavior? so so so dumb

>>16783976
If you don't separate consciousness and behavior, then that raises (uncomfortable?) questions about the consciousness of machines.

>>16783987
yeah okay, so what? even if they're conscious, it'll be a consciousness utterly alien to our own; additionally, it would imply that ANYTHING is conscious. it would be conscious, it would not be meaningfully conscious in any way that we would understand (obviously, otherwise computers would flinch if you hit them)

>>16783976
You can assume anything axiomatically. What you can't do is define a word, assume the lack of it, and then argue that the lack has priority.

>>16783422 (OP)
even if we entertain this scenario and its terms, it fails to generate meaningful problems because:
1. regardless of whether an agent external to you is a zombie or not, the signals are exactly same (i.e. you have to treat them as if they were consciousness)
2. interacting with yourself is no different than interacting with another person; you are simply doing it across space instead of time
3. since you are interacting with an agent which has ambiguous consciousness signals, you have to assume this agent (i.e. future you) is conscious.
4. furthermore, one can assume axiomatically that they are conscious if they have conscious experience

since it is 100% indistinguishable, we can conclude one of the following:
either being a zombie is being conscious, or zombies do not exist.

>>16783993
Well of course it would be a very primitive form of consciousness. And it would only be able to sense what it has sensors for.
Ofc a computer wouldn't feel pain if you kicked it since it has no pain receptors. Nor would it be physically capable of flinching if it could feel pain since, well, how the hell would it?

It could "see" if you installed a webcam. It would "feel" something when you press the keys. And each key would feel very different since it reacts different to each one.
Does it have likes or dislikes? Probably not.

The bottom line is: even if you don't agree, you'd be disingenuous to say you don't understand why some people aren't fond of the idea that conscious experience is just some inevitable result that occurs whenever a sensor and actuator come together.

>>16783998
well they aren't fond of the idea because when they think consciousness, they think human consciousness, not consciousness as an abstract sensation (which, to be fair, is not something most people can experience with extraordinary circumstances (NDEs, psychedelics, etc). so is it disingenuous to not understand why people don't think through it a bit deeply? not really, it is very very very obvious that behavior is connected to the physical structures of our brain, it's just hard to grasp that our basic experiences are constructed and would be unique to, at the very least, vertebrates.

>>16783729
Experience is a better term for it if you don't want to use the term of art for some reason.

>>16783976
Dualist NPCs can't help but feel called out by it, so they obsess over this non-problem endlessly.

>>16783422 (OP)
Retard.
>>16783700
Nigger.
>>16783776
Retard.

>>16783786
Nigger.
>>16783809
Gay.
>>16783870
Namefaggot.
>>16783875
Faggot.

>>16783996
>ambiguous
>you have to assume
>assume axiomatically
>we can conclude ...
"Assume" is not the same as "conclude", retard. Try again.

>>16783996
I don't have to assume anything about you, nigger
if the world is consistent, I can start by assuming anything about you and arrive at the truth by adjusting my beliefs / predictions into closer and closer accord with reality by observation and experiment
I will assume you are a p-zombie nigger until proven otherwise, it is safe to do so since no experiment can distinguish between you and a real person, by definition

>>16784155
But you did distinguish between him and a real person. A biobot is not the same as a p-zobmie. :^)

>>16784155
This assumes only situations involving a small sample space that you can witness. There is no guarantee you arrive at anything, the truth being the least likely.

>>OP
>word salad
>nooo you can't use my own word salad against me

>>16783422 (OP)

You are simply describing a sleepwalker, although that one might not lack all the criteria you describe here. Just your brain on automatisms.

>>16783820
Ok now imagine 0.999… is strictly GREATER than 1.

>>16783585
Create the fuckin board, now !
/Phi/

>>16785944
Literally just use /his/
>>16783585
>(although it technically fits both the "Humanities" and "Science" categories depending on whom you ask)
Right, "technically," in the same way the moon is made of green cheese depending on who you ask.

>>16783602
Try liquor

>>16786005
I had my lifetime quota in my 20s. It's all weed now. Hard to be a solipsistic when there's this stoner giggling all the time.

>>16785049
I try to order dual numbers [math]a+b\epsilon[/math] with [math]\epsilon<0[/math]. I just reflect the imaginary axis but now I'm calling good evil wow is me. Such doge.