Eliezer’s argument could have been made in a much simpler way; there is no difference between pointing to a human being and a zombie each saying, “I am conscious,” and pointing to a human being and a zombie each saying, “I see the color red,” or “I plan to post this comment on the blog to see how people respond.”
In other words, the causally closed process that results in the words “I see the color red,” is not based in any way on the color red, just as it is not based on consciousness. And the causally closed process that results in posting a comment on a blog has nothing whatever to do with people reacting, since the laws that govern quarks do not have purposes such as seeing how people respond.
Unfortunately for Eliezer, seeing these parallel cases should also show why he is not giving anything remotely close to a reductio, nor showing that the position is improbable (after someone thinks about these cases for a bit, this should become clear). And he has given no direct response whatever to Chalmers’ arguments, except by saying that the position doesn’t make sense to him.
Eliezer’s argument could have been made in a much simpler way; there is no difference between pointing to a human being and a zombie each saying, “I am conscious,” and pointing to a human being and a zombie each saying, “I see the color red,” or “I plan to post this comment on the blog to see how people respond.”
In other words, the causally closed process that results in the words “I see the color red,” is not based in any way on the color red, just as it is not based on consciousness. And the causally closed process that results in posting a comment on a blog has nothing whatever to do with people reacting, since the laws that govern quarks do not have purposes such as seeing how people respond.
Unfortunately for Eliezer, seeing these parallel cases should also show why he is not giving anything remotely close to a reductio, nor showing that the position is improbable (after someone thinks about these cases for a bit, this should become clear). And he has given no direct response whatever to Chalmers’ arguments, except by saying that the position doesn’t make sense to him.