= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Decius comments on By Which It May Be Judged - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (934)
Well, it's proving hard to explain.
It's observable. The cats are epiphenomenal, and thus unobservable, except to themselves.
Pardon?
Well, if they can tell you what the problem is then they clearly have some control. More to the point, it is a known feature of the environment that all observed cats are actually illusions produced by fairies. It is a fact, although not generally known, that there are also epiphenomenal (although acted upon by the environment) cats; these exist in exactly the same space as the illusions and act exactly the same way. If you are a human, this is all fine and dandy, if bizarre. But if you are a sentient cat (roll with it) then you have evidence of the epiphenomenal cats, even though this evidence is inherently subjective (since presumably the illusions are also seemingly sentient, in this case.)
How could you tell if you were experiencing something differently from the way a p-zombie would (or, if you are a p-zombie, if you were experiencing something differently from the way a human would)?
In every meaningful way, the cat fairy is a cat. There is no way for an epiphenomenal sentient cat to differentiate itself from a cat fairy, nor any way for a cat fairy to differentiate itself from whatever portions of 'cats' it controls (without violating the constraints on cat fairy behavior). Of course, there's also the conceivability of epiphenomenal sentient ghosts which cannot have any effect on the world but still observe. (That's one of my death nightmares—remaining fully perceptive and cognitive but unable to act in any way.)
I am experiencing something, therefore I am not a p-zombie.
Consider the possibility that you are not experiencing everything that humans do. Can you provide any evidence, even to yourself, that you are? Could a p-zombie provide that same evidence?
How is this relevant? My point is that I'm experiencing what I'm experiencing.
And p-zombies are experiencing what they're experiencing. You can't use a similarity to distinguish.
P-zombies aren't experiencing anything. By definition.
Those two statements are both tautologically true and do not contradict one another.
What would be different, to you, if you weren't experiencing anything, but were physically identical?
I wouldn't be experiencing anything.
I thought it had been established that wasn't a difference.
Are you asking what I would experience? Because I wouldn't. Not to mention that such a thing can't happen if, as I expect, subjective experience arises from physics.
Sorry, I thought you were disagreeing with me.
It is relevant because i you cannot find any experimental differences betweenn you and a you NOT experiencing, then maybe there is no such difference.
I cannot present you with evidence that I am experiencing, except maybe by analogy with yourself. I, however, know that I experience because I experience it.
You seem to be somewhat confused about the notion of a p-zombie. A p-zombie is something physically identical to a human, but without consciousness. A p-zombie does not experience anything in any way at all. P-zombies are probably self-contradictory.
Because p-zombies aren't conscious. By definition.
Well, the cat does have an associated cat fairy. So, since the only cat fairy who's e-cat it could observe (its own) has one, I think it should rightly conclude that all cat fairies have cats. But yes, epiphenomenal sentient "ghosts" are possible, and indeed the p-zombie hypothesis requires that the regular humans are in fact such ghosts. They just don't notice. Yes, there are people arguing this is true in the real world, although not all of them have worked out the implications.
What would be the subjective difference to you if you weren't 'conscious'?
To have a subjective anything, you have to be conscious. By definition, if you consider whether you're a P-zombie, you're conscious and hence not one.
Now conceive of something which is similar to consciousness, but distinct; like consciousness, it has no physical effects on the world, and like consciousness, anyone who has it experiences it in a manner distinct from their physicality. Call this 'magic', and people who posses it 'magi'.
What aspect does magic lack that consciousness has, such that a p-zombie cannot consider if it is conscious, but a human can ask if they are a magi?
Who said consciousness has no effects on the physical world? Apart from those idiots making the p-zombie argument that is. Pretty much everyone here thinks that's nonsense, including me and, statistically, probably srn347 (although you never know, I guess.)
Regarding your Magi, if it affects their brain, it's not epiphenomenal. So there's that.
The point I am trying to make is that P-zombies are nonsensical. I'm demonstrating that they are equally sensible as an absurd thing.
And the point I am trying to make is that p-zombies are not only a coherent idea, but compatible with human-standard brains as generally modelled on LW. That they don't in any way demonstrate the point they were intended to make is quite another thing.
Yes, it merely requires redefining things like 'conscious' or 'experience' (whatever you decide p-zombies do not have) to be something epiphenomenal and incidentally non-existent.
How is it that something which is physically identical to a human and has a physical difference from a human is a coherent concept?