This post isn’t terribly well-written if its main point is this well-concealed; but here it is (emphasis added) —
But the new version of the Anti-Zombie Argument still carries. You can say, “I don’t know what consciousness really is, and I suspect I may be fundamentally confused about the question. But if the word refers to anything at all, it refers to something that is, among other things, the cause of my talking about consciousness. Now, I don’t know why I talk about consciousness. But it happens inside my skull, and I expect it has something to do with neurons firing. Or maybe, if I really understood consciousness, I would have to talk about an even more fundamental level than that, like microtubules, or neurotransmitters diffusing across a synaptic channel. But still, that switch you just flipped has an effect on my neurotransmitters and microtubules that’s much, much less than thermal noise at 310 Kelvin. So whatever the true cause of my talking about consciousness may be, I don’t expect it to be hugely affected by the gravitational pull from that switch. Maybe it’s just a tiny little infinitesimal bit affected? But it’s certainly not going to go out like a light. I expect to go on talking about consciousness in almost exactly the same way afterward, for almost exactly the same reasons.”
This application of the Anti-Zombie Principle is weaker. But it’s also much more general. And, in terms of sheer common sense, correct.
If I had to sum this up, it would be something like:
“If I talk about consciousness, it’s because I am conscious. We don’t have to know exactly how that works to specify some limits on how it works, and on what can affect it. Specifically, consciousness is a process going on inside my body; just as you have an analogous process going on inside yours. And things that we don’t expect will interfere with a bodily process — e.g. flipping a disconnected switch — we shouldn’t expect will interfere with consciousness.
Or:
“Consciousness isn’t special. It’s something your body does, like digestion and reproductive fertility. Flipping a switch can’t make you puke or turn you sterile; it’s not going to turn off your consciousness either.”
This post isn’t terribly well-written if its main point is this well-concealed; but here it is (emphasis added) —
If I had to sum this up, it would be something like:
“If I talk about consciousness, it’s because I am conscious. We don’t have to know exactly how that works to specify some limits on how it works, and on what can affect it. Specifically, consciousness is a process going on inside my body; just as you have an analogous process going on inside yours. And things that we don’t expect will interfere with a bodily process — e.g. flipping a disconnected switch — we shouldn’t expect will interfere with consciousness.
Or:
“Consciousness isn’t special. It’s something your body does, like digestion and reproductive fertility. Flipping a switch can’t make you puke or turn you sterile; it’s not going to turn off your consciousness either.”
I do believe you’ve found it. Thank you!