On 4/8/2012 5:52 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2012/4/8 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

    On 4/8/2012 6:04 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

        On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 6:30 AM, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net
        <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>  wrote:

            But is it an empirical question?  What would it mean for 
"neuroscience to
            find zombies"?  We have some idea what it would mean to find a 
soul: some
            seemingly purposeful sequence of brain processes begin without any 
            cause.  But I'm not sure what test you would perform on a zombie to 
            that it was not conscious.  I think if we had a very detailed 
            of the human brain we might be able to study and intelligent robot 
or a
            zombie android at the same level and say something like, "This 
            probably experiences numbers differently than people."  But if it 
            acted exactly like a human, we wouldn't be able to say what the 
            was.  Of course humans don't all act the same, some have 
synesthesia for
            example.  So we might be able to say this zombie sees numbers with 
colors -
            but this would show up in the zombies actions too.

        It's not an empirical question since no experiment can prove that it
        isn't a zombie. However, I think that the question can be approached
        analytically. If zombies were possible then zombie brain components
        would be possible. If zombie brain components were possible then it
        would be possible to make a being that is a partial zombie;

    That doesn't follow.  It assmes that zombieness is an attribute of 
components rather
    than of their functional organization.  There can obviously be zombie 
    components (e.g. quarks and electrons) which when properly assembled produce
conscious beings.

I could only say you're right and you're wrong. Consciousness and being is "lived" as a whole. From your own POV, you can't say "zombieness is an attribute of components rather than of their functional organization", because you feel it.

I didn't say it.  I said that was what Stathis argument assumed.

Whenever you say such thing, you can't be honest with yourself... that's not an argument. It's just proper English


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to