Consciousness has no effect: The zombie hypothesis is true.
Consciousness has an effect: There are two possibilities:
a. It’s logically possible for a universe to exist in which something else has the same effect: the zombie hypothesis is true.
b. It’s logically impossible for a universe to exist in which something else has the same effect.
2b is the only possibility in which the zombie hypothesis is false. I’ll examine that. I will not, however, make a pun about it.
Since nothing else can have the effect consciousness has, it can be defined by its effect. In other words, consciousness is whatever has that effect.
In other words, there’s some function, f(x), that’s conscious. No matter what physical method you use to compute f(x), if you put the right input into it, there will be qualia.
f(x) might involve mathematics more complex than we can make. Essentially, it would require an infinitely large lookup table. If it does, it can still be approximated within our universe to arbitrary accuracy using only a finite lookup table. I don’t see why the idea that a p-zombie can only act arbitrarily close to how you act would be any less unsettling. If they can’t do that, that means that f(x) is something you can write down using nothing more than basic arithmetic.
What function is it? Is there really any reason to believe that the result of f(x) will be “I am self-aware” rather than, say, “I am not self-aware”? How can you even begin to figure out what f(x) is?
Have you begun to figure out what f(x) is? If so, by all means, tell us. If not, you’re guessing. Not estimating; guessing. You are using some method that is simply wrong. In other words, “The internal narrative is mysteriously malfunctioning, but miraculously happens to be correctly echoing the justified thoughts of the epiphenomenal inner core”.
Does it matter whether it works in only our universe or all universes? Does it matter if it can be proven? You haven’t proven humans are conscious. It’s entirely possible that within the next 30 seconds, you will finally figure it out and elegantly prove, once and for all, that humans are not conscious.
Since nothing else can have the effect consciousness has, it can be defined by its effect. In other words, consciousness is whatever has that effect.
This is essentially behaviorism, which is now considered outdated and has largely been replaced by functionalism.
Consciousness is the result of many complicated processes working together in the brain. Even if you could create the function f(x) which has the same output as a human, it wouldn’t have the same structural organization that gives rise to that output: it would just be a giant lookup table. Consciousness is the result of all that structural organization.
The function f(x) with the same output as a human wouldn’t be a zombie, because it’s not physically identical to the human. It’s just a summary of the human’s behavior without the actual process that generates the behavior, and it’s the process that creates consciousness.
It’s more of a rant than a structured argument. I guess my main points are:
The only alternative to consciousness arising from some unknown and unknowable process is it being some unknown process.
Since you don’t know what consciousness is, you still have no more evidence that you’re actually conscious than you would if it was unknowable.
Also, the p-zombie argument isn’t just that we don’t see how lack of consciousness would lead to a contradiction. It’s that it’s totally unrelated to anything else. There is no axiom you can use to conclude something is conscious without already knowing what’s conscious. It’s similar to the is-ought problem.
Consciousness has no effect: The zombie hypothesis is true.
Consciousness has an effect: There are two possibilities:
a. It’s logically possible for a universe to exist in which something else has the same effect: the zombie hypothesis is true.
b. It’s logically impossible for a universe to exist in which something else has the same effect.
2b is the only possibility in which the zombie hypothesis is false. I’ll examine that. I will not, however, make a pun about it.
Since nothing else can have the effect consciousness has, it can be defined by its effect. In other words, consciousness is whatever has that effect.
In other words, there’s some function, f(x), that’s conscious. No matter what physical method you use to compute f(x), if you put the right input into it, there will be qualia.
f(x) might involve mathematics more complex than we can make. Essentially, it would require an infinitely large lookup table. If it does, it can still be approximated within our universe to arbitrary accuracy using only a finite lookup table. I don’t see why the idea that a p-zombie can only act arbitrarily close to how you act would be any less unsettling. If they can’t do that, that means that f(x) is something you can write down using nothing more than basic arithmetic.
What function is it? Is there really any reason to believe that the result of f(x) will be “I am self-aware” rather than, say, “I am not self-aware”? How can you even begin to figure out what f(x) is?
Have you begun to figure out what f(x) is? If so, by all means, tell us. If not, you’re guessing. Not estimating; guessing. You are using some method that is simply wrong. In other words, “The internal narrative is mysteriously malfunctioning, but miraculously happens to be correctly echoing the justified thoughts of the epiphenomenal inner core”.
Does it matter whether it works in only our universe or all universes? Does it matter if it can be proven? You haven’t proven humans are conscious. It’s entirely possible that within the next 30 seconds, you will finally figure it out and elegantly prove, once and for all, that humans are not conscious.
This is essentially behaviorism, which is now considered outdated and has largely been replaced by functionalism.
Consciousness is the result of many complicated processes working together in the brain. Even if you could create the function f(x) which has the same output as a human, it wouldn’t have the same structural organization that gives rise to that output: it would just be a giant lookup table. Consciousness is the result of all that structural organization.
The function f(x) with the same output as a human wouldn’t be a zombie, because it’s not physically identical to the human. It’s just a summary of the human’s behavior without the actual process that generates the behavior, and it’s the process that creates consciousness.
I can’t follow you at all. I don’t think that this is my fault, and I don’t think I’m alone.
It’s more of a rant than a structured argument. I guess my main points are:
The only alternative to consciousness arising from some unknown and unknowable process is it being some unknown process.
Since you don’t know what consciousness is, you still have no more evidence that you’re actually conscious than you would if it was unknowable.
Also, the p-zombie argument isn’t just that we don’t see how lack of consciousness would lead to a contradiction. It’s that it’s totally unrelated to anything else. There is no axiom you can use to conclude something is conscious without already knowing what’s conscious. It’s similar to the is-ought problem.