‘a “logically possible” but fantastic being’ [Dennett]
I don’t see where the top posting is going on the whole. P-Zombies are always supposed to logically possible, as Dennet says. There may be a lot of things wrong with logical possibility: it may be imposssible to derive real-world consequences from it, it may not exist..but whatever it is, it is not a level of probablity, even a small one. Tell a zombiephile that p-zombies are highly unlikey, and she’ll reply “sure, but they’re still logically possible”.
GLUTs pose a challenge to the GAZP because they make a kind of p-zombie (not exactly: I call them c-zombies) remotely
plausible to people with phsycialist and computationalist inclinations. Finding the mistake that makes c-zombies seem likely does a certain amount of work towards the GAZP, but it does nothing at all to refute the claim that zombies of some
sort are logically possilble. Becuase logical possibility is not a level of probability—even a small one.
I don’t see where the top posting is going on the whole. P-Zombies are always supposed to logically possible, as Dennet says. There may be a lot of things wrong with logical possibility: it may be imposssible to derive real-world consequences from it, it may not exist..but whatever it is, it is not a level of probablity, even a small one. Tell a zombiephile that p-zombies are highly unlikey, and she’ll reply “sure, but they’re still logically possible”.
GLUTs pose a challenge to the GAZP because they make a kind of p-zombie (not exactly: I call them c-zombies) remotely plausible to people with phsycialist and computationalist inclinations. Finding the mistake that makes c-zombies seem likely does a certain amount of work towards the GAZP, but it does nothing at all to refute the claim that zombies of some sort are logically possilble. Becuase logical possibility is not a level of probability—even a small one.