Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Peterdjones comments on GAZP vs. GLUT - Less Wrong

33 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 April 2008 01:51AM

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

Comments (166)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Peterdjones 23 November 2012 07:28:05PM 0 points [-]

'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.