Talk:Philosophical zombie

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Oh man, memories...many drunken conversations about p-zombies...that was back in my youth before my hardcore logical positivism kicked in. tmtoulouse frustrate 17:03, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Despite the site founder loving this, what is this crap? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a rather brilliant comic awhile back that mocked the arrogance of this philosophy and said it was much more likely that you were someone else's mental simulation than the universe revolved around you. Wish I could find it again. --Dr. Swordopolis (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Detecting differences[edit]

There appears to be a confusion between detectable differences and actual differences. If consciousness has a material basis there are certainly material differences between conscious and unconscious beings regardless of whether or not scientists can detect these differences.

Would anyone care to proffer a difference between "detectable" and "actual" differences here? If something has an actual effect then we can detect that effect. If the effect cannot be detected, i.e., experienced, directly or indirectly, it is not consequential, meaningful nor is it "actual". The ultimate gold standard test for an effect is the effect itself; so therefore "no detection" = "no effect" = "not existing". Or "no detectable difference between people and p-zombies" means that there is no difference between people and p-zombies. It's not that the difference is on a higher plane of existence, or outside of reality, or only visible to God, the difference is simply Not There. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 01:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I see the text has remained the same for 9 years. I edited it to try to clarify that point, which I think is simply current technology and practice vs. the ideal theoretical means of measurement, along with trimming some repetition in surrounding text. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

No big deal[edit]

I work with a bunch of them. --Q4 (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Zombie politicians[edit]

Quite a few politicians #appear# to be p-zombies, or possibly robots: totally expressionless faces and backstories that have limited contact with reality. (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Does not require dualism[edit]

It's possible to conceive of a machine built to pass an arbitrarily extended Turing test, to the point that one could interact with it for an extended period of time without realizing that it is simply playing back canned behaviors and responses. This doesn't require there be a soul or spirit separate from the body, consciousness could still be created by some computational process that is merely excluded from this machine.

I personally don't find this argument convincing, but it is a viable one that doesn't require dualism. Examples of such p-zombies in literature include the members of Julian Jaynes' bicameral civilizations, Peter Watt's vampires, and Karl Schroeder's various explorations of non-human-like minds in Ventus, Permanence, and the Candesce trilogy. -- Resuna (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

An odd point[edit]

In the article, it says "A p-zombie may be in every way equivalent to a human being, but only be simulating the exact way a human would react instead of actually feeling emotion". But, isn't that a known mental issue? Not sociopathy, which is different, but I have read about people that have little-to-no emotion, and have some personal experience with one as well. My ex, a paranoid schizophrenic, hated taking her meds for numerous reasons, but one she cited was the fact that her already dullened emotions (flat affect, a thing with schizophrenia) pretty much became non-existent. Just Googling, I find people that describe themselves as having no emotions or barely any and having to fake it to fit in, and it seems more common than just a few people. So, is it just me, or does point seem both ableist (or, if you hate the word, just oppressive towards those with certain mental illnesses, literally saying they're not human) and, because saying people aren't human because of their mental illness is just wrong on so many levels, outright wrong? I'm not sure if there should be a section there explaining all these issues with that idea, but from how I see it, there's a lot of issues with it. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The original sentence was badly phrased. Only lacking in emotions isn't enough to count as a p-zombie; the lack has to be more categorical; e.g. a complete lack of conscious experience. (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Turing test[edit]

Could the Turing test be adapted to p-zombies? Anna Livia (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The quacking zombie[edit]

How do the PZ and the Duck Test ('If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.') interact or differ? Anna Livia (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)