On 9/27/2012 10:22 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

    This is to equate reasoning to automatically following an
    algorithm. This implies perfect predictability at some level and
    thus the absence of any 1p only aspects. Additionally, the recipe
    is some thng that needs explanation. How was it found...?
        This kind of zombie reasoning is an oxymoron as it assumes the
    possibility of evaluations and yet disallows the very possibility.
    Zombies have no qualia and thus cannot represent anything to
    itself. It has no "self" and thus lacks the capacity to impress
    anything upon that non-existent self.

Here, I disagree. If a you ask a zombie to solve a riddle, and it ponders it for several minutes and then gives you the correct answer, how can you say it was not reasoning? It is like saying a computer is not multiplying when you ask it what 4*4 is and it gives you 16.

Note that I think we agree (some forms of reasoning probably require consciousness), which only provides another reason to doubt the consistency of the definition of zombies. I don't think reasoning is normally assumed to require consciousness, which is why someone who defines zombies as non-conscious may still hold that they have a reasoning ability.

Hi Jason,

OK, but isn't that the point I made? Automaton behavior is per-scripted. It is not the result from an internal self-model. Is there some point where the two are identical in the 3p sense. Certainly! But only in that special case does your claim follow, but it does not follow generally as we need to take into account "novel" behavior.




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