Non-Physical Zombies
April 7, 2008
I am conceiving of a world that is just like this one in all non-physical respects except that it lacks consciousness. Therefore dualism is false.
Does anyone think that this is agood argument? I do, and I am sure that the world is conceivable, so sorry guys.
Entry Filed under: Consciousness. .
10 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Beoran | April 8, 2008 at 3:57 am
The argument is just as good as the one the dualists present. That is, debatable, since it is purely theoretical and “a priori”. Their conceptions and imaginations are just different than yours. IMHO, everything that the mind can produce is imaginable, so it is also conceivable. That doesn’t mean it is possible in reality, though! Possibility of something in realty can only be established by evidence actual existence, not by “a priori” reasoning.
My suggestion would be that in stead of stead of shouting at each other from the philosopher’s armchair, we should investigate reality more though scientifically rigorous research. We should attempt to construct consciousness in computers to see what factors we might be overlooking. Especially those who are supposed to be doing research on consciousness should not waste their time and our tax money on theoretical angel/pin debates !
2.
Richard Chappell | April 8, 2008 at 7:19 pm
“Does anyone think that this is a good argument?”
Nope.
3.
Richard Brown | April 10, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Beoran,
I agree with all that you have said except that these things are really conceivable. What is conceivable is determined by what s actual, so until we do some investigation we won’t know what is really conceivable and what isn’t. So one of us is really conceiving something, the other mistakenly thinks they are conceiving something that they are not.
RC, see the most recent post for my reply.
4.
GNZ | April 11, 2008 at 4:25 pm
“Does anyone think that this is a good argument?”
‘Nope.’
trust a zombie philosopher to answer a argument about what anyone thinks with No and a reference to themselves.
5.
Beoran | April 13, 2008 at 4:47 am
Richard,
I think I can see your point, however, I guess it’s just about our semantics.
From wiktionary:
conceivable
1. Capable of being conceived or imagined; possible; credible; thinkable.
I’d go with the “capable of being imagined” definition. I can imagine many things that are not actual at all. (Maybe that is evidence that I’m not a zombie?)
I think that I would call what you call “concievable” simply “possible”. Once something actually happened at least once in reality, it might be possible for it to happen again. Then again, enlish is not my native language.
6. Beating an Undead Horse « Philosophy Sucks! | April 20, 2008 at 3:26 pm
[...] In an earlier post I suggested the idea of a non-physical, or reverse-zombie. A reverse-zombie is a creature who is identical to me in all non-physical ways and which lacks conscious experience. Since reverse-zombies are conceivable Dualism is false. This is the zombie argument against dualism. [...]
7. Reverse-Zombies, Dualism, and Reduction « Philosophy Sucks! | May 6, 2008 at 5:01 pm
[...] Dualism, and Reduction In some earlier posts (Non-Physical Zombies, How Not to Imagine Zombies, Beating an Undead Horse) I introduced and defended a parody zombie [...]
8. Philosophical Trends « Philosophy Sucks! | May 21, 2008 at 5:45 am
[...] claim that he could conceive of the zombie world realy was, I introduced the non-physical zombies (here, here and here). Of course RC disagreed that the reverse-zombie argument worked, but he was wrong [...]
9. Call me Crazy « Philosophy Sucks! | May 24, 2008 at 8:38 am
[...] if he would just let the posts speak for themselves)…I will reproduce it here. 1. RB’s Non-Physical Zombies parody argument, and my initial response: how to imagine [...]
10. Philosophical Encounters « Inconsistent Thoughts | June 11, 2008 at 10:53 pm
[...] Around the philosophy blogosphere there have been some pretty heated exchanges recently, witness this and this and this and this and this. It got me thinking about how we do [...]