That reasoning rests on the redutionist materialism doctrine that all mental states map to neurological states. — Lionino

The zombie brains have to be doing some kind of information processing. If that's not called "thinking" what is it called? P-thinking?

At this rate, it's only a matter of time until the country defaults on its debt, sparking a huge crisis. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm not so sure. No Democrat wants to see a debt default. I would guess most independents don't, either. Same with moderate Republicans. For the foreseeable future, there's going to be enough Democrats and moderate Republicans to avoid a default.

The zombie does not know anything, does not feel anything, it does not think. — Lionino

If a zombie can't think, what do you call the activity it's brain is doing? If you have one solve a math problem and look at what it's brain is doing with a brain scanner, you'll observe it's brain is doing something. If that something isn't "thinking", what is it?

I am not sure how biological and linguistic evolution would be different in the absence of mind, and I don't even wanna think about it, but it is tangential to the matter. — Lionino

If p-zombies in p-zombieland never come up with referents to mental states, then their language would always be different than ours, and their behaviors would be different as well, since their mouths would never be uttering words that refer to mental states.

The issue is that you are not clear about that.
P-zombies can utter the word "lie". Are they invoking the concept of a lie when they say "lie"? No, they have no mind. — Lionino

Suppose we have a world similar to ours was 50 million years ago. There are little p-zombie hamsters running around avoiding p-zombie dinosaurs. The p-zombie hamsters evolve into p-zombie humans. You're claiming the p-zombie humans would go around talking about lies and occasionally accusing each other of lying? How would their language have any referents to mental states?

Lying is telling something other than what you know to be the case (truth). P-zombies know nothing and intend nothing. So they fail to lie. They would also have the word "lie" in the language they seem to speak, but they wouldn't be thinking about the way they use language. — Lionino

If lying is a behavior, and p-zombies can't lie, then they're behaviorally different from us. I suppose one could argue that lying is not a behavior, but that seems pretty counter-intuitive.

What about my other question: would zombies have a word for lying?

Lying is definitely intentional. It's the difference between being misinformed (and passing that on) versus knowing you are misinforming the person you're passing the information on to, intended them to believe it to be true, or correct. — AmadeusD

It's certainly intentional, but it's also behavioral. If zombies can't lie, then they're not behaviorally the same as us, which they're supposed to be.

No, so it can't lie. — Lionino

Isn't lying a behavior*? Also, would p-zombieland even have the word "lie" in its language? If not, then their language would be a lot different than ours, if so, how could zombies come up with a word like "lie"?

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-to-know-pathological-liars

If asked if it is conscious, it will say "Yes" because that is what we would do. — Lionino

Can a p-zombie lie?

The zombie does not know anything, does not feel anything, it does not think. — Lionino

So I'm supposed to think my p-zombie doppelganger will be able to do my job effectively and navigate the world without knowing anything and/or thinking? How would that work, exactly?

How can philosophy of mind be dead when Ai's are close to passing the Turing Test? The question of machine consciousness and other philo-of-mind topics is only going to become more and more pressing.

I would think its brain would prompt it to say something like, "What is 'conscious'?"
— Patterner

The premise of p-zombies is that they would not ask that. They act exactly the same as us. — Lionino

But if we are asked if we have attribute x, and we don't have it or don't know what x is (e.g., telepathy), we would either say, "no" or "what are you talking about?". We don't (usually) lie and pretend we have x. The P-zombie isn't conscious. In so far as it knows things, it would know it's not conscious. So when asked if it's conscious, you're saying it would lie? If so, the zombies aren't acting like us. If not, then by their own admission they're not conscious.

I've had pleasant interactions with you, and I want to keep it that way, so agree to disagree and apologies if I got too snarky.

That is not how I've ever understood any version of the TE.

p-zombies are physically the same, yet unconscious. No idea why we are assuming they're behaving exactly the same? If i've got that wrong, then I have got that wrong. — AmadeusD

They're supposed to act the same as us: talking, fighting, warring, yelling out "Ouch!" when they smash their toe, crying watching Schindler's List, etc. They wouldn't, of course, which is why they're incoherent.

I wont play 'gotcha' games. — AmadeusD

It's not a gotcha game. It's exploring your preference for an Allied victory knowing they killed untold numbers of innocents. I suspect your reasoning is similar to mine: yes, the Allies did terrible things, but the alternative of an Axis victory would have been so much worse. A "lesser of two evils" thing. Am I right?

"Particularly not with someone who accused me of the same."

I never accused you of gotcha games. I said "Who should have won WW2?" is not a gotcha question. I'm right on this. It's not. It's easily answerable.

But this is a ridiculous thing to imagine and so i place no seriousness on that answer. If you want a "why" you wont get one. It's an intuition. Which is my point. — AmadeusD

Of course not. God forbid we explore this intuition you have. It's obviously a "gotcha". :roll:

I'll leave you with some words of wisdom: “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

I would prefer the Allies won. — AmadeusD

So, behind the veil, you would prefer the Allies won even knowing they killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in indiscriminate bombing raids?

e are actually in the situation where the Allies won, and I exist in it. I am unable to prefer else. — AmadeusD

You're unable to prefer any other situation than the one you exist in? Suppose your kids died horribly in a fire. You're telling me it would be impossible for you to prefer an alternate timeline where you died rescuing your kids from the fire? Or suppose you exist and you live in unremitting pain and lack the ability to kill yourself. You couldn't prefer a situation where you were never born?

We are actually in the situation where the Allies won, and I exist in it. I am unable to prefer else. — AmadeusD

Of course you can. Pretend you're behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and you're looking at two possible worlds you might find yourself in: one is a world where the Axis won, and one is a world where the Allies won. Which world would you prefer to be in?

I'm not able to prefer anything other than the current situation, as it is the one in which I exist. Therefore, I prefer the Allies won because it results in my existence. — AmadeusD

That's the only reason you prefer the Allies win? Because of reasons of your own existence? Stopping Nazi Germany doesn't factor into your preferring the Allies won? Let me then ask you: was is it a good thing that Nazi Germany was stopped? Was the world better off for that happening?

What a weird line of thought about this. — AmadeusD

Indeed. Most people would just say, "Yeah, the Allies should have won WW2. Thank God they did. What are you, nuts?" But here we are, having to deconstruct the question you refuse to answer because you think it's some "gotcha".

Unless you can fully understand consciousness in physical terms (I do not believe this is hte case, but even if not, we don't ahve that understanding yet) then p-zombies are coherent until we do (and it excludes that possibility). — AmadeusD

What would the history of p-zombie world be? Is there a coherent story that could be told where p-zombies evolved like we did and developed language, like we did? How could p-zombie language have any referents to mental states?

"Can you imagine an A380 flying backward? Of course you can. Just imagine a large plane in the air, moving backward. Is such a scenario really conceivable? Well, the more you know about aerodynamics and aeronautical engineering, the less conceivable it becomes. In this case, even a minimal knowledge of these topics makes it clear that planes cannot fly backward. It just cannot be done."

I like this. I keep trying to imagine a p-zombie kicking up it's feet at the end of a hard day and drinking a couple beers to take the edge off and I keep not being able to do it. I can, superficially, but when I try to pair my imagining with a being that has no mental states, it's impossible.

preference is very different from who should have won, by the way. I'd be happy to give a preferential call based on what I know, but i couldn't in good conscience say that's who should have won. — AmadeusD

OK, who do you prefer should have won WW2, the Allies or Axis?

It's not my fault if you require an answer I am unable to give. — AmadeusD

Do you really not have a preference over who should have won WW2, the Allies or Japan and Nazi Germany? I find that hard to believe.

The right to access abortion services was settled law until it wasn't. — BC

And yet Ohio of all places just codified abortion rights. Trump carried Ohio by ten points! Dobbs was clearly a setback, but paradoxically, it's making abortion rights stronger in certain states.

My overall point though, is the prediction made in 1998 that "One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out." was very wrong. Wouldn't you agree that that prediction failed? Since 1998, we've seen the legalization of gay marriage, the first black president, first woman presidential nominee (who then won the popular vote), first black woman VP, first black woman Supreme Court Justice, etc.

Two teachers making $66k a year is a very good household income. You can live quite well on it. And that's only for 185 days a year. And the retirement and health benefits are great. I'm going to retire at 55. It is also not hard to become a teacher and there's a very severe teacher shortage nationwide. The average pay for teachers in California and NY is over $80,000. Those two states represent a fifth of the country.

I point this out to push back against 180's doom-and-gloom. There are still good jobs out there if people want them, and are willing to go back to school for four years. That's not so expensive if you go the community college-state college route. School districts aren't picky about where degrees come from.

I don't know what you mean about China. In its current form, it's hard to imagine the Chinese establishment agreeing with a bill of rights that would enshrine free speech protections. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's what I meant. Chinese leadership won't buy into a world government with rights like Vera Mont linked, so it seems the whole thing is DOA until China reforms.

I was more focused on

Mostly for whom? To the extent "capitalism" has "increased standards of living", this has happened – "trickled down" – unevenly, cyclically, and at the cost of mass alienation – what John Dewey aptly describes as industrial feudalism – the return of "Gilded Age" wealth inequality (e.g. T. Piketty)¹ accelerated by the last half century of neoliberal globalization and fiscal austerity policies. — 180 Proof

This doesn't track with my own experience. I'm a teacher, a career open to anyone who can go to two years of community college, two years of state college, and pass a few tests. Plenty of teachers make over six figures, and teachers are desperately needed. Making six figures for working 185 days a year does not seem like "industrial feudalism". I live quite well on that.

It's pretty good.

Hasn't capitalism increased the standard of living immeasurably over the last 100 years?

A world government without some Bill of Rights similar to what America has is a non-starter. I don't see the current Chinese leadership agreeing to that.

"One thing that is very likely to happen is that the gains made in the past forty years by black and brown Americans, and by homosexuals, will be wiped out. Jocular contempt for women will come back into fashion. The words [slur for an African-American that begins with “n”] and [slur for a Jewish person that begins with “k”] will once again be heard in the workplace. All the sadism which the academic Left has tried to make unacceptable to its students will come flooding back. All the resentment which badly educated Americans feel about having their manners dictated to them by college graduates will find an outlet."

That hasn't aged well. The gains made by minorities and LGBTQ aren't even close to being wiped out.

I'm very frustrated. Going after an ex-president means there shouldn't be even a hint of impropriety. Hopefully, there's no there there.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/politics/nathan-wade-fani-willis-da-georgia-election-subversion-case/index.html

"The allegations, if true, may not derail the prosecution, but multiple lawyers tell CNN that the appearance of a conflict of interest could hurt Willis’ chances of securing a conviction before a jury.

The judge overseeing the case said on Friday that he planned to hold a hearing on the allegations in early February."

I don't know who should have won WWII, because I don't have the requisite information to answer the question. — AmadeusD

:roll:

↪RogueAI I don't care. It was seventy years ago, and I wasn't there, nor do i have accurate understanding of the circumstances beyond the macro, and in the macro, it doesn't matter. The allies won. — AmadeusD

Like I said, they won't answer that very simple question: who should have won WW2?
That tells you everything about their position.

Who should have won WW2? The Axis or Allies?

...So proportionality applies only to Israel and not the US in 1941? Why do you apply this principle so selectively?

Hamas aims to eliminate Israel/Jews; Israel aims to eliminate Hamas. Perfectly proportional. In the long run it works out better for the Palestinians who will no longer be oppressed by Hamas. Call it liberation. — BitconnectCarlos

Of course you have a good point and of course your opponents won't address it. America and UK killed so many women and children in WW2 they make Israel look like pikers. Were these Allied bombings disproportional? Maybe. Does it matter? No. The Axis started the war and they reaped the consequences. Same with Hamas.

But if you press the Hamas sympathizers here on who should have won WW2, you won't get an answer. The logic of their position forces them to be silent on that, for obvious reasons. Whereas the pro-Israel side can answer confidently, "Yes, the Allies should have won WW2", which is of course the right answer.

Why would I want to waste any more time, trying to explain the physical working of things, to someone who denies there is any physical working of things? — wonderer1

I am not the one claiming that some assemblages of valves, pipes, etc. are possibly conscious and some are impossibly conscious. I think it's all impossible. When you claim that this heap of matter over here is possibly conscious, but it is impossible for that heap of matter over there to be conscious, that begs certain questions. You don't want to answer them, OK. But that weakens your case.

No one has suggested the possibility of NY sewers being conscious, so that is just a strawman. — wonderer1

So it's impossible for certain conglomerations of plumbing to be conscious? Which systems of valves, pipes, pumps, etc. are possibly conscious and which aren't and how do you know?

I don't see any reason to think such a system couldn't in principle be conscious, but it would be an extremely low temporal resolution sort of consciousness, and would require an enormous input of energy to power the pumps. This is related to what I pointed out Kastrup showing ignorance about, with his claim that the relationship between fluid flowrate and pressure, is the same as the relationship between voltage and current expressed by Ohms law.

So your conciousness detector would need to be able to detect a consciousness, for which one of our years was but a moment. — wonderer1

This is where we disagree. I don't see a compelling reason to think the needle of the consciousness meter would move at all if we pointed it at a conglomeration of pipes, pumps, and valves. Science, so far, has not come up with a compelling reason why I should think there's something it's like to be New York City's sewer system. There's been plenty of research establishing brain-consciousness correlations (if one assumes materialism is true), but nothing so far on the causal front. I think Kastrup is clearly correct here.

It's also kind of head scratching that the same people who shout "Woo!" at the drop of a hat would entertain the notion that plumbing might be conscious.