I think there’s a lot of confusion about the p-zombie argument. The argument is that:

1. A p-zombie is physically identical to us but has no consciousness
2. P-zombies are not a metaphysical impossibility
3. Therefore consciousness, if it exists, is non-physical
4. Therefore either physicalism is false or nothing is conscious
5. We are conscious
6. Therefore physicalism is false

The p-zombie argument is a thought experience that intends to show that either substance or property dualism is correct. It isn’t a skeptical argument that suggests that p-zombies might actually exist.

If they do have beliefs, what do you think of the point I made a post ago? — RogueAI

If they do have beliefs then they’re conscious and so not p zombies.

If it doesn't believe it's in pain, the I and the p-zombie are no longer acting the same way, since we now have different beliefs. — RogueAI

The p-zombie doesn’t believe anything. It just burns its finger and cries out “that hurts”.

So a p-zombie can believe things as far as brain-activity is involved — Dawnstorm

I don’t think the meaning of the word “belief” can be reduced to an explanation of brain states, just as I don’t think the meaning of the phrase “phenomenal subjective experience” can be reduced to an explanation of brain states.

If we are p-zombies then we don’t have phenomenal subjective experiences and we don’t have beliefs. We just react to stimuli.

We might spend the rest of our life's allotment of time on this forum going back and forth with noAxioms and still not definitively figure out whether he is a p-zombie or not. — hypericin

I agree. If he were to just to say “I am a p-zombie” then I would accept that it’s possibly true. I am simply explaining that “I believe that I am a p-zombie” is false if he is a p-zombie and irrational if he’s not.

and the exact metaphysical status of possibility — Pantagruel

That’s a slightly different question.

The word "metaphysically" originated from metaphysics, and therefore the fact that you used the word necessitates its existence. It is a logical truth. :) — Corvus

Firstly, you claimed before that non-existence is logically possible but metaphysically impossible. Now you seem to be saying that it’s logically impossible.

Secondly, that something is true isn’t that it is necessarily true. P ⊨ □P is invalid.

You might as well argue that because the phrase “metaphysical necessity” is an English phrase then the existence of the English language (or at least the phrase “metaphysical necessity”) is a metaphysical (and logical) necessity. This is very obviously wrong.

The moment that you uttered the statement "X is impossible metaphysically" is doing metaphysics. — Corvus

So because intelligent life with an appropriately expressive language is required to “do” metaphysics then the existence of intelligent life with an appropriately expressive language is a metaphysical necessity?

I disagree.

It is metaphysically possible for intelligent life to not exist.

But logically, how can do you Metaphysics, if Metaphysics didn't exist? — Corvus

What do you mean by “doing” metaphysics?

Yes, iff X is not Metaphysics. — Corvus

You’re saying that the existence of metaphysics is a metaphysical necessity?

I don’t even know what this means. Are you arguing for the metaphysical necessity of Platonism?

A world where nothing exists (not even Metaphysics) is impossible Metaphysically, because without Metaphysics, Metaphysics is impossible. — Corvus

Then it must be that for at least one object X it is metaphysically impossible that at some future time T that object no longer exists.

Some object X’s existence is a metaphysical necessity. What is this object?

In this case we are talking about an object X(not a world), and it is possible for X to become non-existence through time T. — Corvus

So for each object that exists in some world it is metaphysically possible that at some future time T that object no longer exists.

Then it is metaphysically possible that at some future time T no object exists in that world because everything that once existed no longer exists.

Therefore it is metaphysically possible for there to be a world in which nothing exists.

It depends on what "destroying" means. — Corvus

To go from a state of existence to non-existence.

Are you saying that if some object X exists then it is metaphysically impossible that at some future time T object X no longer exists (unless some new object Y takes its place)?

It would still say "Well prove how spirits could be destroyed in a spiritual way." or "By its nature, spirits have no capability or property for destroying." Therefore nothing is destroyed. — Corvus

So you’re saying it’s metaphysically impossible for something to be destroyed (without creating something new in its place)?

Or, to phrase it a different way; is the law of conservation of energy a metaphysical necessity? If not then it’s metaphysically possible that there is a world of physical objects that can be properly annihilated without producing new particles and in such a world if all physical objects were to be annihilated then it would be a world in which nothing exists.

Well, Metaphysical enquiry would say, sorry mate, you cannot destroy non-physical existence in physical way — Corvus

I’m not saying that they’d be destroyed in a physical way. If they’re spirits then they’d be destroyed in a spiritual way. If they’re magic then they’d be destroyed in a magical way. Either way they’d be destroyed leaving nothing left.

So if we have some world within which exists only non-physical things, and if those non-physical things are destroyed (and in being non-physical are not subject to the law of conservation of energy), then what is left? I say that nothing is left.

It seems that either nothingness is metaphysically possible or (complete) destruction is metaphysically impossible.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-hitler-comparisons-doubles-down-1234932630/

Donald Trump accused immigrants of “destroying the blood of our country” during a campaign rally in Iowa Tuesday, repeating hateful rhetoric echoing white supremacists and genocidal Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.

“They’re destroying the blood of our country. That’s what they’re doing. They’re destroying our country. They don’t like it when I said that — and I never read Mein Kampf,” said Trump, referencing Hitler’s manifesto. “They could be healthy, they could be very unhealthy, they could bring in disease that’s going to catch on in our country, but they do bring in crime, but they have them coming from all over the world,” the former president continued. “And they’re destroying the blood of our country. They’re destroying the fabric of our country.”

Hitler, who repeatedly compared Jewish people to a blood poison within German society, wrote in Mein Kampf that “all great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning,” and blamed Jews and other “undesirable” groups for said contamination.

It is possible that nothing physical to exist metaphysically such as mind, spirit, concepts ...etc. — Corvus

Is it metaphysically possible for something that exists to be destroyed?

But because of the concept "a world" implying the ontological entity, "a world of nothingness" would be contradiction in metaphysics. — Corvus

Is it metaphysically possible for nothing physical to exist?

My problem is that if the word-forms conveyed meaning, we’d know what they meant by reading them. It is precisely because they do not convey meaning that we do not understand them, not unless some Rosetta Stone or human being is able to supply them with meaning. The drift of meaning over time suggests much the same. — NOS4A2

On the other hand, if they didn’t convey meaning then how could I learn something new by reading?

Yes, but a second ruling would be needed for that, although it’s almost certain that they’d rule the same way (unless one or more justice dies or retires and is replaced by then).

It should be noted that this ruling only applies to the Republican primary:

In this appeal from a district court proceeding under the Colorado Election Code, the supreme court considers whether former President Donald J. Trump may appear on the Colorado Republican presidential primary ballot in 2024. A majority of the court holds that President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because he is disqualified, it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Colorado Secretary of State to list him as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot.

It should also be noted that this case was brought by “both registered Republican and unaffiliated voters”, not by Democrats.

Are you saying that the "Disqualification from office for insurrection or rebellion" section of the 14th Amendment doesn't exist?

Or are you saying that this section doesn't apply to the Presidency?

Or are you saying that this section doesn't apply to Trump because he did not "[engage] in insurrection or rebellion against the [Constitution of the United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"?

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that that section of the 14th Amendment does exist, that it applies to the Presidency, and that Trump engaged in insurrection. If each of these is true then it follows that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for President.

Here's a really rubbish AI:


It doesn't seem at all appropriate to say that it believes or accepts or considers anything. That would be a very obvious misuse of language.

ChatGPT and p-zombies are just very complicated versions of the above, with p-zombies having a meat suit.

The relevant definition in Webster's is "something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion". This to me doesn't entail subjective state. — hypericin

What does it mean to "accept", "consider", or "hold as an opinion"? Again, these aren't terms that it makes sense to attribute to a p-zombie. A p-zombie is just a machine that responds to stimulation. It's an organic clockwork-like body that moves and makes sound.

It's quite ironic that you're anthropomorphising p-zombies.

The democrats refusing to enforce the laws of the country is poisoning the blood of the country. That’s what they’ve done. — NOS4A2

At best you can say that they're allowing the country to be poisoned, but the poison itself, according to Trump, is the illegal immigrants.

He has a problem with the foreign nationals who are coming into the country (illegally).

Are you saying that illegal immigrants have let people into the country? — NOS4A2

I'm saying that Trump said "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS POISONING THE BLOOD OF OUR NATION".

Illegal immigration is "the migration of people into a country in violation of that country's immigration laws".

Therefore, Trump was saying that the migration of people into the U.S. in violation of U.S. immigration laws is poisoning the blood of the U.S.

Illegal immigration is a process, an act, not a group of people. — NOS4A2

It's an act done by a group of people.

He was talking about Biden and his croneys. They are the direct cause of illegal immigration. — NOS4A2

He was talking about illegal immigrants. His Truth Social post makes that clear. You are misinterpreting his words at the rally.

But the article said he was talking about immigrants, not illegal ones. — NOS4A2

And you said he was talking about Biden.

At least the article was closer to the mark.

And his Truth Social post reaffirmed what he was saying earlier at the rally; that illegal immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our nation"

But wouldn't "belief", for a p-zombie, be precisely this "belief-analog"? — hypericin

"Belief" is a word in the English language that has a well-established meaning. If p-zombies are speaking English then the word "belief" means what it means in English.

Wouldn't it be preferable to say intentional attitude? That's the usual term used by philosophers, with a quite substantial backing in the literature. It avoids the problematic notion of the subjective. — Banno

Sure, I just grabbed that definition from Wikipedia.

The "they" he was speaking of were his political opponents, for instance "Biden and the lunatic left" and "the radical left democrats". He was saying they were poisoning the blood of the country — NOS4A2

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111593149429973351

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS POISONING THE BLOOD OF OUR NATION. THEY’RE COMING FROM PRISONS, FROM MENTAL INSTITUTIONS — FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Trump supporters don't seem ... cognizant — GRWelsh

:up:

along with the informational p-zombie belief-analog that they are p-zombies. — hypericin

Whatever "belief-analog" they have isn't belief.

If the p-zombies are speaking English then the words they use mean what they mean in English, and "belief" in English means something like "the subjective attitude that a proposition is true."

But the fact remains that they might be a p-zombie

Yes, which is why I said this.

Something inside their heads causes them to say things, just as it does for us. The only difference is the lights are out. — hypericin

Which is precisely why their claims, when made by them, are false.

"I am conscious" is false when said by a p-zombie.
"I believe that I am a p-zombie" is false when said by a p-zombie.

The words they use mean what they mean in ordinary English. They certainly don't have the intention to mean anything else.

"p-consider", "p-belief" is all the informational operations of "consider", "belief" without the conscious part. Like how a computer-vision program might "believe" it is looking at a table, without any conscious awareness of it. — hypericin

Something like "the computer algorithm inside my head has caused me to speak the phrase 'I am not a p-zombie'"?

Certainly that's possibly true, but anything that speaks like that isn't a very good facsimile of a real person, and so isn't a p-zombie.

If they're a convincing doppelganger, as p-zombies are, then they speak ordinary English, in which case the word "belief" that they use means what the word "belief" means in ordinary English. And so any self-proclaimed belief, as expressed by a p-zombie, is false. P-zombies, by definition, don't believe anything.

That is, when he says "I consider myself to be a p-zombie", what he really means (to you) is "I p-consider myself to be a p-zombie". — hypericin

What does “p-consider” mean?

P-zombies have no consciousness. They just have an outward appearance (including observable behaviour). You’ll need to explain it in these terms.

(By outward appearances I don’t mean to exclude muscles and bones and internal organs)