On 8/2/2011 2:58 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I've been repeating this over and over but nobody seems to recognize
it. Whether or not something is deemed to be 'acting like a conscious
being' just means that something resembles yourself in it's physical
appearance and behavior enough that you infer it to have an interior
environment similar to your own. It has little to do with whether or
not arithmetic can be made to feel or believe something. That is what
I am saying is a category error.
You have to keep repeating it because you also keep repeating that an
artificial being can't really appear to be conscious (to his wife).
This implies that is something more than physics and chemistry behind
the behavior that we (and his wife) interpret as consciousness; because
the physics and chemistry can be simulated computationally. I
understand that you deny the simulated physics and chemistry would
instantiate consciousness. But you don't seem to recognize that this
implies that the real physics and chemistry couldn't either.
So which is it. Can there be a philosophical zombie or not?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at