You accept that a p-zombie could recite the Gettysburg Address. Then you should accept that a p-zombie could recite the phrase "I feel good about X". All that is required is that the appropriate sounds are produced in response to the appropriate stimulation. — Michael
Both arguments are in the form:
If A then B
A
Therefore B. — Michael
But if you probe the zombie - why do you feel good about it? What do you like about it? What kinds of things do you like? - how long would it take to ascertain that you're speaking to a zombie? I think it wouldn't take long. How could it react spontaneously to a series of questions which it had no programming for? That is the point made by Descartes: ' For whereas reason is a universal instrument that can be used in all kinds of situations, these organs need a specific disposition for every particular action.'
Speech is more than stimulus and response - it relies on the ability to make inferences and connections, to interpret meaning. And those faculties are constitutive of 'the inner life' - there is no evidence they exist anywhere else (except for simulated in computers, which are instruments of human thought.)
So, yes, I can imagine a thing that looks like a human, and speaks, but I can't imagine where it would derive 'the ability to speak' when it is supposed that the very thing which underwrites that ability is not present in it. — Wayfarer
You are simply wrong. P-zombies are not conceivable unless consciousness is believed to be non-physical. Believing that consciousness is non-physical means you already believe physicalism to be false. — Real Gone Cat
How am I wrong? It's a straightforward modus ponens. — Michael
Obviously, an argument isn't sound just because it's valid. — Terrapin Station
I'm not saying that it's sound. I'm saying that it doesn't beg the question — Michael
He's saying that it begs the question as an argument for consciousness being non-physical because the only way that it's conceivable in the first place is if you already believe that consciousness isn't physical. — Terrapin Station
He's not saying that stated as a modus ponens it begs the question.
Then the same is true of the Socrates syllogism. Does it beg the question as an argument for Socrates being mortal because the only way that he's a man is if he's mortal? — Michael
Modus ponens arguments don't beg the question, — Michael
Jesus Christ. I JUST SAID that it's NOT the argument stated in the form of a modus ponens that's begging the question. No one is arguing that. — Terrapin Station
Then what are you saying? — Michael
it begs the question as an argument for consciousness being non-physical because the only way that it's conceivable in the first place is if you already believe that consciousness isn't physical. — Terrapin Station
If A then B. A. Therefore, B. Such arguments do not beg the question. — Michael
Do you understand that no one is saying that the modus ponens begs the question? — Terrapin Station
You didn't answer if you understand that no one is saying that the modus ponens begs the question.
Aren't you interested in understanding what we're saying? — Terrapin Station
Do A and B in the argument have any content? Or are they just A and B? — Terrapin Station
If we can conceive of p-zombies then consciousness isn't physical
We can conceive of p-zombies
Therefore, consciousness isn't physical — Michael
The second premise is not supported. To go down the same line of thought others have done in the thread (and at the risk of restating what has already been said), the premise is true if and only if physicalism is false. — Chany
There is nothing wrong with the form of the argument as stated (it's modus ponus), but to hold the second premise as true, we would have to assume the conclusion, and thus, we would be begging the question.
Michael is defending the classic p-zombie argument, which is not question-begging without further analysis to reveal hidden premises — jamalrob
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.