Zombies

[Gem]

A philosophical zombie is exactly like a person except that they have no conscious experiences. Their human behaviour is wholly explained in physical terms, the brain has electrical and chemical processes, and it processes the information gathered by the senses, but the zombie is not conscious of it. The zombie may actually think 'I am' but is not conscious of that thought, or indeed, that it exists at all.

The zombie world is taking place just as the human world, but if there's anyone there taking action (as humans would), the zombies don't know it. The whole operation occurs with no conscious experience of it.

We can explain the entire operating system of zombies in just the same way we can the mechanics of a human being, but we can not explain why humans are conscious and have a qualitative experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

[Dwerg]

Philosophical zombies or conscious humans, I would never know and it wouldn't make a difference. Imaginable? Sure. But so is the unstoppable force on the unbreakable wall, or that red is green. As far as I can know with a great amount of confidence there is no unstoppable force or unbreakable wall, and red being green is simply a matter of switching words. Language is abstract in that while several people can look at the color red and call it red the qualitative experience is irrelevant, even though it could possibly be different. In the case of colorblind I would imagine it as grey, but I know I can't know for sure. I know that because I can qualitatively tell them apart and every non-colorblind person would agree, given that they speak the same language and have associated the same words to the same objects in their qualitative experience.

Creativity is simply composing things that doesn't exist with parts that does exist. Like unicorns, a horse with a horn. Both things exists, but the combination as far as we know doesn't.

Without language and common agreement on what word refers to what observable or sensible thing there would be a breakdown of communication. I could create a new language if I wanted, or deny the one I'm using right now. I won't do it though, because I want to connect and using the current framework serves that purpose. Why connect? Simply because it feels good.

The simplest concept of connection to me is visualized as two dots and a line. Everything is a bunch of dots, and there are lines going between them all. Kinda like the structure of a brain, the internet, electrical wiring or any infrastructure.

Consciousness trying to be conscious of consciousness. Neurobiology, the brain learning about the brain. Meta-cognition, thinking about thinking. Metaphysics, physics about physics or the other meaning of the word meta which is beyond, thus making it beyond physics. What's physics anyways if not the simulation of observable phenomenons assumed to be repeatable? So then what is metaphysics if not the simulation of phenomenons that isn't observationally repeatable? Exactly what is repeatable? Nothing is, it just appears so. It appears so as we fit events into abstract concepts to make it comprehensible for other humans, but it's dependent on their mind to re-construct what is described in order to understand.

Talking about philosophy to a child gets me nowhere, because they don't understand that level of abstraction by words. However they associate new words with objects pretty much by pointing and asking "what is that?". So questioning is pretty much the most conscious action that can be done, I feel confident that Socrates would agree.

[Gem]

Conscious action would mean one is conscious of their activity, so if we relate to the heartbeat, one can be conscious of it beating without volitionally making it beat. Most of the bodily functions occur spontaneously without any 'doing' on the part of the person.

It's possible as far as I know that I'm the only conscious being, and this is a world of zombies. You might be conscious, but only you know that, so it could be fair to say that consciousness is individual, but on the other hand, if you are conscious, as I am, then that 'being consciousness' is not individual, but a trait common to all people prior to their respective personas. It seems to me that consciousness persists continually while everything else changes.

I don't know if you know the famous story about the blind physicist who specialised in light. She knew everything there is to know about it in physical terms, but still didn't know what red was like, then one day her blindness was healed and she was like, so this is what red is like. The qualitative experience is knowing what something is like... and that's not just the senses themselves... but what it is like to experience. I don't know what red is like for you, though, but we do agree when we both see redness.

OMG, don't get me started on dots (I have a whole theory on dots and that's just the kinda geek I am).

Sure, physics is a description of what we can predict using formula... and there's theoretical physics, which hasn't been tested...

Originally Posted by Dwerg

Philosophical zombies or conscious humans, I would never know and it wouldn't make a difference. Imaginable? Sure. But so is the unstoppable force on the unbreakable wall, or that red is green. As far as I can know with a great amount of confidence there is no unstoppable force or unbreakable wall, and red being green is simply a matter of switching words. Language is abstract in that while several people can look at the color red and call it red the qualitative experience is irrelevant, even though it could possibly be different. In the case of colorblind I would imagine it as grey, but I know I can't know for sure. I know that because I can qualitatively tell them apart and every non-colorblind person would agree, given that they speak the same language and have associated the same words to the same objects in their qualitative experience.

Creativity is simply composing things that doesn't exist with parts that does exist. Like unicorns, a horse with a horn. Both things exists, but the combination as far as we know doesn't.

Without language and common agreement on what word refers to what observable or sensible thing there would be a breakdown of communication. I could create a new language if I wanted, or deny the one I'm using right now. I won't do it though, because I want to connect and using the current framework serves that purpose. Why connect? Simply because it feels good.

The simplest concept of connection to me is visualized as two dots and a line. Everything is a bunch of dots, and there are lines going between them all. Kinda like the structure of a brain, the internet, electrical wiring or any infrastructure.

Consciousness trying to be conscious of consciousness. Neurobiology, the brain learning about the brain. Meta-cognition, thinking about thinking. Metaphysics, physics about physics or the other meaning of the word meta which is beyond, thus making it beyond physics. What's physics anyways if not the simulation of observable phenomenons assumed to be repeatable? So then what is metaphysics if not the simulation of phenomenons that isn't observationally repeatable? Exactly what is repeatable? Nothing is, it just appears so. It appears so as we fit events into abstract concepts to make it comprehensible for other humans, but it's dependent on their mind to re-construct what is described in order to understand.

Talking about philosophy to a child gets me nowhere, because they don't understand that level of abstraction by words. However they associate new words with objects pretty much by pointing and asking "what is that?". So questioning is pretty much the most conscious action that can be done, I feel confident that Socrates would agree.

[Dwerg]

I'm interested in hearing your theory on dots.

[blackraven]

Originally Posted by Gem

A philosophical zombie is exactly like a person except that they have no conscious experiences. Their human behaviour is wholly explained in physical terms, the brain has electrical and chemical processes, and it processes the information gathered by the senses, but the zombie is not conscious of it. The zombie may actually think 'I am' but is not conscious of that thought, or indeed, that it exists at all.

The zombie world is taking place just as the human world, but if there's anyone there taking action (as humans would), the zombies don't know it. The whole operation occurs with no conscious experience of it.

We can explain the entire operating system of zombies in just the same way we can the mechanics of a human being, but we can not explain why humans are conscious and have a qualitative experience.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo

Gem - I looked up philosophical zombie and after reading a bit on it, I was more confused than I thought I would be. But then after re-visiting the "conscious level" aspect of it I've come to the following conclusion. I've been a philosophical zombie at times. Not all my experiences are on a conscious level. Things that comes to mind are dreams or like Dwerg said, the creative process that seems to come from nowhere.

I don't know "why" humans are relatively conscious and have qualitative experiences, but I think it comes down to learning and soul advancement. That's oversimplifying things. Surely you'll get more scientific replies than this. My mind just can't grasp some deep things and so I'll leave it at that.

Thanks for introducing the term - philosophical zombie.

Blackraven

[linen53]

You call them zombies, I call them sheeple. If understand you correctly we are on the same page.

We co-exist on planet Earth. Those of us who think and those who go through the motions. Someday they will be us and we will have moved on beyond the earth plane.

[Gem]

Not one to compare between people, but people are the products of their past, so each one is quite different in persona but much the same in human nature. The zombies are the same as they are formed by their past and by their thoughts, dreams... and everything that ever occurred, but they aren't conscious of it. They are themselves in every regard except the awareness of their presence. They have no realisation of knowing.

It explains that all aspects of a person emerge from their physical or formal experience, informed through the senses, but this awareness of a presence that is prior to experience, and constantly enduring of experience, is not assumed, but known to be... whereas the self that is assumed because 'I' am the summation all I have sensed, is a thought that occurs to humans and zombies alike, though the human is aware of that thought, while the zombie isn't.

[Gem]

Zombies have a great life. What makes it so great is that they don't know it. Being alive isn't really the problem in itself, but being aware of living seems pointlessly cruel, or unnecessarily kind, either way, pointless and unnecessary.

If God wanted a universe, that's fine. He could have just made zombies; then he could have his little game just the same without inconveniencing all of us with it. I mean, I have better things to do than be aware of all this!

Look at what I'm saying, even. Even having this awareness all but forces me to assume that there is a God who bestowed this 'gift' upon me, but how is it that the one thing I am not actually aware of bestowed upon me, this gift (or curse, blessing or other arbitrary descriptor) ? That is indeed a masterful manipulation on the part of non-existence, God of the zombies...

This explains everything! God is a zombie. This pointess and unnecessary awareness and inconvenience of the universe is the creation of a zombie God, and the only reason He did it is, He knows not what He does.

[cathutch]

Why wouldn't consciousness be both, a primitive, and an acquired stuff.
Why not both?
A consciousness made from matter and a matter made from consciousness (like in buddhism).

A collective consciousness, built from day one from the differentiation of matter; A collective consciousness that brings forth our body to what it is (mind & matter), which in turn produces its self consciousness through inference and experience.

Then your "own" consciousness builds its own "matter" (work, invention, etc.), that is added to the collective consciousness.

The next embryo uploads the collective consciousness (with your work added); a collective consciousness which builds up its Ego (mental & body) through experience with matter, which in turn, blabla.

Then Qualia is just a stuff (material and/or "mere consciousness") that belongs first to the collective consciousness, and might be influenced by your own self.

__________

Note that if this scenario happened to be true, the future would be always a mere plunge in the past; with a false sentiment that our manipulation of symbols could lead us to some futurity.
E.g. going to Mars would be indeed going into the past. Space discovery would be a mere forward plunge in the past.

We are always trying to discover what has been created before us.

[cathutch]

Why wouldn't consciousness be both, a primitive, and an acquired stuff.
Why not both?
A consciousness made from matter and a matter made from consciousness (like in buddhism).

A collective consciousness, built from day one from the differentiation of matter. A collective consciousness that has evolved and build over the years, the world we know. A collective consciousness that brings forth our body to what it is (mind & matter), which in turn produces its self consciousness through inference and experience.

Then our "own" consciousness builds its own "matter" (work, invention, etc.), that is added to the collective consciousness.

Then, the next "embryo" starts to upload that collective consciousness (of which the achievements of all the previous characters are part) - a collective consciousness which builds up the developing individual (mental & body) through its experiences with matter, which in turn, blabla.

Then Qualia is just a stuff (material and/or "mere consciousness") that belongs first to the collective consciousness, and might be slightly influenced by your own self.
In any case, consciousness and qualia are plain materialistic induced phenomena.

I have a hard times seeing zombies not uploading some sort of an archaic form of collective consciousness.

__________

Note that if this scenario (zombies not included,) happened to be true, the future would be always a mere plunge in the past; with a false sentiment that our manipulation of symbols could lead us to some futurity.
E.g. going to Mars would be indeed going into the past. Space discovery would be a mere forward plunge in the past.

We are always trying to discover what has been created before us. A forward-moving attempt to know the bygone creative activity of collective consciousness. Yet, we never attempt to go beyond the farther side.