You have misunderstood the argument completely. You say “I know I’m speaking from limited experience, here. But based on my limited experience, the Zombie Argument may be a candidate for the most deranged idea in all of philosophy.” Melodrama, this, but I would advise focusing on the first part of the phrase (“But based on my limited experience....”) if you want to make progress.
The ‘limited experience’ caveat serves to allow that Eliezer may be unfamiliar with something in philosophy that is even more deranged than the Zombie argument—a necessary concession if he is to make the claim ‘most deranged’. It isn’t intended to concede any ignorance of the zombie argument itself, which he quite clearly understands.
Your claim (”… the zombie argument itself, which he quite clearly understands....”) is entirely unsupported. I know many philosophers, on both sides of the debate about zombies, and consciousness in general, who would say that Eliezer’s claims are in a standard class of amateur misconstruals of the zombie argument.
Old, old counterarguments, in other words, that were dealt with a long time ago.
Your arbitrary declaration that he “quite clearly understands” the zombie argument do nothing to show that he does.
Your arbitrary declaration that he “quite clearly understands” the zombie argument do nothing to show that he does.
This is true. My arbitrary declaration of comprehension is very nearly as meaningless as your claim to the contrary. The two combined do serve to at least establish controversy. That means readers are reminded to think critically about what they read and arrive at their own judgement through whatever evidence gathering mechanisms they have in place.
I know many philosophers, on both sides of the debate about zombies, and consciousness in general, who would say that Eliezer’s claims are in a standard class of amateur misconstruals of the zombie argument.
I know many philosophers who would indeed dismiss Eliezer’s position as naive. And to be fair the position is utterly naive. The question is whether the sophisticated alternative is a load of rent seeking crock founded on bullshit. (And, on the other hand, I also know some philsophers whose thinking I do respect!)
The ‘limited experience’ caveat serves to allow that Eliezer may be unfamiliar with something in philosophy that is even more deranged than the Zombie argument—a necessary concession if he is to make the claim ‘most deranged’. It isn’t intended to concede any ignorance of the zombie argument itself, which he quite clearly understands.
Your claim (”… the zombie argument itself, which he quite clearly understands....”) is entirely unsupported. I know many philosophers, on both sides of the debate about zombies, and consciousness in general, who would say that Eliezer’s claims are in a standard class of amateur misconstruals of the zombie argument.
Old, old counterarguments, in other words, that were dealt with a long time ago.
Your arbitrary declaration that he “quite clearly understands” the zombie argument do nothing to show that he does.
This is true. My arbitrary declaration of comprehension is very nearly as meaningless as your claim to the contrary. The two combined do serve to at least establish controversy. That means readers are reminded to think critically about what they read and arrive at their own judgement through whatever evidence gathering mechanisms they have in place.
I know many philosophers who would indeed dismiss Eliezer’s position as naive. And to be fair the position is utterly naive. The question is whether the sophisticated alternative is a load of rent seeking crock founded on bullshit. (And, on the other hand, I also know some philsophers whose thinking I do respect!)