That said, speaking for myself, I would fall in love with a p-zombie despite the fact that in movies you shoot zombies in the head, even children shoot zombies without anyone batting an eyelid! — Agent Smith

He's the real question. Would Jesus die for p-zombies?

He's the real question. Would Jesus die for p-zombies? — Marchesk

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

If p-zombies exist, physicalism would be false. Quite a riddle, this!

God is to humans as humans are to stones! And yet...

If p-zombies exist, physicalism would be false. Quite a riddle, this! — Agent Smith

Well, what if the only universe that existed was the p-zombie one? Then physicalism would have to be true! I swear that sometimes Dennett and friends come awful close to arguing for that universe.

"Are you awake?" the first aider asks the patient. "No." responds the patient, and the first aider is reassured.

But is it odd to say that my phone has no awareness of feeling cold when it tells me it's cold outside? I don't think so, because phones don't have sensations. — Marchesk

How does your phone know what it tells you? I imagine it does not know at all whether it is telling you it is cold outside or that happiness is a warm gun... because phones don't have sensations. But humans do, and they have arranged sensors compute and relay a weather report to you via your phone. Again the confusion between thought as the manipulation of information and awareness as presence in the world.

Well, what if the only universe that existed was the p-zombie one? Then physicalism would have to be true! I swear that sometimes Dennett and friends come awful close to arguing for that universe. — Marchesk

That possibility is moot as even in a world where p-zombies are ~◇, we would be mere stones, not even p-zombies, relative to divine consciousness.

Again the confusion between thought as the manipulation of information and awareness as presence in the world. — unenlightened

Alright, so a p-zombie would be the functional equivalent of the first since it lacks awareness.

That possibility is moot as even in a world where p-zombies are ~◇, we would be mere stones, not even p-zombies, relative to divine consciousness. — Agent Smith

At least p-zombie Jesus wouldn't feel pain on the cross. In fact, there were Docetists who argued that Jesus didn't suffer.

Alright, so a p-zombie would be the functional equivalent of the first since it lacks awareness. — Marchesk

Yes. A p-zombie would be like a phone, not like a partner.

At least p-zombie Jesus wouldn't feel pain on the cross. — Marchesk

Why? He wasn't a p-zombie!, Post-crucifixion, all bets are off. I recall reading someone calling Jesus a zombie! :snicker:

In my imaginary scenario I have the power to stipulate whatever I wish. But please, "dissent" away. Is that you I see with the tin foil hat and cardboard sign?

You did stipulate what you wished, and it ended up implying dissent is lies and consensus is truth. I would wear a tinfoil hat and cardboard sign if it meant I didn’t have to agree with such absurdities.

I've no idea what you're talking about. — 180 Proof

Well, that's sad. I was writing about your writing style, and pointed out some fundamental mistakes in it.

But since you did not get it, there must be some fundamental problems in my writing style, too.

:up:

You did stipulate what you wished, and it ended up implying dissent is lies and consensus is truth. I would wear a tinfoil hat and cardboard sign if it meant I didn’t have to agree with such absurdities. — NOS4A2

Not necessarily lies, I apologize. I left out other possibilities.
"Dissent" from universal expert consensus, i.e. climate deniers (are you one?), is either lies, or Dunning-Kreuger idiocy. Of course there is always the theoretical possibility of "Maverick Genius", but for our purposes we can ignore that one.

However, you have taken it one step further. I say, "Let X be true...", and you immediately raise your finger and say "I dissent! This contradicts my experiences and intuitions!". I don't know what to say, other than you must have been a joy to teach.

I neither claimed nor implied that color-signedness "serves no function". — 180 Proof

How else can I interpret

Sentience" may be epiphenomenal and serve no more of a function than color-sightedness. — 180 Proof

Also, what you say about "love" is a non sequitur with respect to the question posed in the OP. — 180 Proof

My OP was about "Loved Ones", so really it was your talk of loving teddy bears and sports teams that was a non sequitor.

I would thoroughly enjoy abusing them, although I'm not sure I would enjoy it actually, knowing that they aren't actually suffering.

I neither claimed nor implied that color-signedness "serves no function". — 180 Proof

It was a natural interpretation of your words.

I would thoroughly enjoy abusing them, although I'm not sure I would enjoy it actually, knowing that they aren't actually suffering. — bert1

You can never know that anyway. It's why revenge is such a drag.

A quick test is developed for the presence of this structure. You take it, and of course, you are positive. Unfortunately, your loved one is negative: They are a P Zombie.

How would you respond? — hypericin

People tend to treat others like zombies anyway: "You are whatever I say that you are. You feel whatever I say that you feel. Your intentions are whatever I say that your intentions are." People tend to treat others as if those others don't really exist, as if they are merely shells with no inner life, other than the one stipulated by other people.

Alexa, I love you.

I.e. a misinterpretation.

a misinterpretation. — 180 Proof

For which you bear partial responsibility

Yeah, so I cleared up some ambiguity by pointing out that I've been misinterpreted. Try again, context matters.

Not necessarily lies, I apologize. I left out other possibilities.
"Dissent" from universal expert consensus, i.e. climate deniers (are you one?), is either lies, or Dunning-Kreuger idiocy. Of course there is always the theoretical possibility of "Maverick Genius", but for our purposes we can ignore that one.

However, you have taken it one step further. I say, "Let X be true...", and you immediately raise your finger and say "I dissent! This contradicts my experiences and intuitions!". I don't know what to say, other than you must have been a joy to teach.

There is no evidence or compelling argument for the existence of p-zombies in your scenario. Unfortunately the assertion that something is true is not enough to convince me or many others. If you had some evidence or reasonable arguments it would be a different story.

That basic awareness should be absent while memory and identification is fully functional simply makes no sense to me. — unenlightened

Computers have memory, and they identify themselves, but they have no awareness. Think of a p zombie as a perfect computer simulation of how a human behaves, without any of the internal stuff.

would thoroughly enjoy abusing them, although I'm not sure I would enjoy it actually, knowing that they aren't actually suffering. — bert1

Are you a sociopath then?

People tend to treat others as if those others don't really exist, as if they are merely shells with no inner life, other than the one stipulated by other people. — baker

I do not. Is this projection?

Are you a sociopath then? — hypericin

Oh, I don't know. Maybe, but I was joking I think. I started off not joking thinking it would be fun, then realised it might not be fun at all, then further realised that what fun was to be had would likely be in the suffering of another, and then I decided to stop thinking about it.

So technically speaking, a p-zombie would have to be a sociopath, although they probably would behave normally, statistically speaking.

My OP was about "Loved Ones", so really it was your talk of loving teddy bears and sports teams that was a non sequitor — hypericin

A teddy bear is a "loved one" to a child (and some teens / adults). And try telling a group of "Cheese-heads" tailgating out at Lambeau Field with windchill @ -20° F that they doesn't really love the Green Bay Packers. :sweat:

Back to the OP, which seems to have holes.

Scientists make an astonishing discovery: a certain microstructure in the brain, previously believed to be vestigial, is in fact responsible for consciousness. — hypericin

Exactly what evidence was collected to suggest this conclusion? Your implications are that the lack of this kind of consciousness would make no external difference, which leaves little to nothing for the scientists to measure.

I've stated elsewhere that I am one of those lacking in this "consciousnes" (yes, scary air quotes), since I've never been able to figure out what people have that a machine cannot. Sure, I see red, but only by processing the data coming from my red receptors, and any computer with a camera can do that.

Salient points:

1. To physicalists/nonphysicalists, to make your case prove p-zombies are impossible/possible (respectively).

2. The catch: P-zombies and normal people are indistinguishable.

Possible/impossible, to make the distinction, we must resort to a reductio ad absurdum i.e. the premises must entail a contradiction. Does this contradiction require an observation? If it does then such a proof is ~◇ (vide 2). In other words, the proof hasta be a priori (independent of experience). What's the nature of a priori proofs? Definitions? Play around with definitions? Pathetic!?