“3. Intuitively, it sure seems like my inward awareness is causing my internal narrative to say certain things, and that my internal narrative can cause my lips to say certain things.
[...]
(3) seems to me to have a rather high probability of being empirically true. Therefore I evaluate a high empirical probability that the zombie world is logically impossible.”
7 only explicitly refers to 3, but it also requires 6 and 5 in order to actually refer to Zombie World. 1 and 2 are setting up definitions for 3. If you roll that in as understood already, then the short version is fine because the entire argument against Zombies really boils down to one point: the causal structure of P-braaains requires them to include consciousness.
That doesn’t mean that lines 1, 2, and 4-6 are pointless. It also doesn’t match what Phil is saying unless line 3 is both reaching outside of the realm of expertise and not emphasized. Line 3 is definitely not reaching outside the realm of expertise, and is emphasized.
If you want to raise a problem, it would be that line 4 is carrying all the weight, not 3 - except, he goes on to further talk about it for multiple paragraphs immediately afterwards.
I think lines 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 are related to the argument but 3 and 7 are the “crux” of it. I mostly meant that there is a great deal of fluff surrounding the “core argument”, eg the other 5 articles in the zombie subsequence.
This happens in the zombie sequence where the crux of the argument is largely 2 lines in http://lesswrong.com/lw/p8/zombie_responses/
“3. Intuitively, it sure seems like my inward awareness is causing my internal narrative to say certain things, and that my internal narrative can cause my lips to say certain things. [...]
(3) seems to me to have a rather high probability of being empirically true. Therefore I evaluate a high empirical probability that the zombie world is logically impossible.”
7 only explicitly refers to 3, but it also requires 6 and 5 in order to actually refer to Zombie World. 1 and 2 are setting up definitions for 3. If you roll that in as understood already, then the short version is fine because the entire argument against Zombies really boils down to one point: the causal structure of P-braaains requires them to include consciousness.
That doesn’t mean that lines 1, 2, and 4-6 are pointless. It also doesn’t match what Phil is saying unless line 3 is both reaching outside of the realm of expertise and not emphasized. Line 3 is definitely not reaching outside the realm of expertise, and is emphasized.
If you want to raise a problem, it would be that line 4 is carrying all the weight, not 3 - except, he goes on to further talk about it for multiple paragraphs immediately afterwards.
I think lines 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 are related to the argument but 3 and 7 are the “crux” of it. I mostly meant that there is a great deal of fluff surrounding the “core argument”, eg the other 5 articles in the zombie subsequence.
Most of it is nailing down what words mean, so that when that short argument is made, it isn’t dismissable.