TheOtherDave comments on Zombies! Zombies? - Less Wrong

47 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 04 April 2008 09:55AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (129)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Richard_Loosemore 06 April 2012 06:08:59PM 7 points [-]

About Science making the claim "You're right, science does have something to say about conscious experience after all ... [namely] ... that a given physical state of the world either gives rise to conscious experience, or it doesn't; the same state of the world cannot do both."

This would just be Solution By Fiat. Hardly a very dignified thing for Science to do.

And don't forget: Chalmers' goal is to say "IF there is a logical possibility that in another imaginable kind of universe a thing X does not exist (where it exists in this one), THEN this thing X is a valid subject of questions about its nature."

That is a truly fundamental aspect of epistemology -- one of the bedrock assumptions accepted by philosophers -- so all Chalmers is doing is employing it. Chalmers did not invent that line of argument.

About the analogy. It only looks like a bait and switch because I did not spell out the implications properly. I should have asked what would happen if there was no possible way for internal inspection of mental state to be done. If, for some reason, we could not do any physics to say what went on inside the mind when it was either telling the truth or lying, would it be valid to deploy that appeal to preposterousness? You must keep my assumption in order to understand the analogy, because I am asking about a situation in which we cannot ever distinguish the physical state of a lying human brain and a truthtelling human brain, but where we nevertheless had privileged access to our own mental states, and knew for sure that sometimes we lied when we made a genuine protest of innocence. (Imagine, if you will, a universe in which the crucial mental process that determined intention to tell the truth versus intention to deceive was actually located inside some kind of quantum field subject to an uncertainty principle, in such a way that external knowledge of the state was forbidden).

My point is that if we lived in such a universe, and if Eliezer poured scorn on the idea of Appearance-Of-Innocence without Intention-To-Be-Genuine, his appeal would be transparently empty.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 06 April 2012 06:34:58PM 4 points [-]

I have no idea what dignity has to do with anything here.

As for the analogy... sure, if we discard the assertion that the two systems are physically identical, then there's no problem. Agreed. The idea that two systems can demonstrate the same behavior at some level of analysis (e.g., they both utter "Hey! I'm conscious!"), where one of them is conscious and one isn't, isn't problematic at all.

It's also not the claim the essay you're objecting to was objecting to.

That's why I classed it as a Bait and Switch.