Main problem of the zombie argument is that counter factual/counter physical conceptions only successfully occur because they aren’t detailed enough to enable deduction of their proper consequences, or perhaps mislabel the elements of the conception, and in that way it actually is possible to conceive the logically impossible. I would say that actually a fully detailed conception of a physical copy of a live human would entail that they are conscious, that the “lights are on” inside.
Am I missing something? I don't find the idea of a p-zombie all that coherent. Follow me here: Joe, a real human (not a zombie) is a recent widower. His beloved wife died last week in a sudden and unexpected embolism. Naturally, he's grief-stricken and has been crying himself to sleep due to the depth of his grief. In a parallel universe, a zombie who is a physical duplicate of Joe has also lost his wife suddenly. Now, when he's alone does he also exhibit grief behavior in the absence of actual grief? Based on what? He's not experiencing a sense of loss and grief, lacking any corresponding inner experience. It's easy to imagine a zombie behaving in a cause/effect way and living out a sophisticated program responding to real world stimuli/causes. But without an inner life, what would be the cause of acting agrieved be when the only conceivable cause would need to be from an inner conscious life?
Dear friends, if you haven't read any papers or actual books on these matters and you are coming to listen to these videos, you will miss ssoooooo much henceforth going on into the comments section and just say pure dogshit
Dear Matt McCormick, let me see if you visit here, and see whether you will interact with me. Tell me, what is your choice to these two mutually contradictory statements: 1a There has always been existence. 1b There has never been existence. Tell me which one is true, or you prefer to evade and run away, in which case you are a coward like Dawkins, no matter that you teach philosophy etc. I will be visiting this place to see whether you have answered my message here.
I am obviously not Matt, but i do want to satisfy my curiosity, so I'm answering to your comment -Two sentences being mutually exclusive does not mean one of them is true. Take for example "water is at least twice as dense as oil" and "oil is at least twice as dense as water". They can't both be true, but they can both be false, which happens to be the case. You cannot commit others to false dichotomies. I am inclined to believe that this is a false dichotomy as well: what about "there has only sometimes been existence"? -Furthermore, i do not understand. What does it mean for existence to always be? Does it make sense to talk of temporal predicates if nothing is? What sort of picture of time do you have that makes these questions sensible? -What is your taunting for? He isn't obliged to entertain you with a response, maybe he doesn't get comment notifications or is occupied with more imporant business than the youtube comment section.
