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
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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at