[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 39 KB, 480x360, hqdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20154945 No.20154945[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What does /lit/ think of zombies (philosophical)?

>> No.20154956

>>20154945
I don't think it's possible, I don't see how mental states can be anything but an emergent property of physical states.

>> No.20154962

Not as good as zombies (brain eating)

>> No.20154987

>>20154945
so npcs?

>> No.20154989

>>20154945
I think people become NPCs, hylics, p-zombies, whatever, because they're just fucking busy and tired. Most people work all the time. The pandemic proved pretty conclusively that once people have time to think, they realize that they're unhappy, but they also start taking up hobbies and trying to self-actualize in ways beyond work.

>> No.20154990

Obvious (you) farmer. It’s just emojis my guy.

>> No.20155078

>>20154989
> <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="25" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/1ee7c5a1_Pepega.png"> I think people become p-zombies
You clearly don't know what that word means.

>> No.20155087

>>20155078
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/c69a1ef1_cia.png">

>> No.20155110

>>20155078
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/24edafcc_wojakNPC.png">

>> No.20155168

>>20154945
so a BAPtranny?

>> No.20155183

>>20155110
>>20155087
>>20155078
Emojis are terrible

>> No.20155184

>>20154945
People who shop at Target, Starbucks and Chipotle while using an iPhone to look what new product is vogue.

>> No.20155196

that pic is beyond dumb. wtf is up with all the bait today. Oh, right...

>> No.20155200

its referencing this, retards

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/

>> No.20155226

>>20154956
'emergent' is a useless term. why not just say 'a property of physical state's ?

>> No.20155229

>>20154945
Basically everyone who believes in "simulation theory" or people who convinced themselves there is no free will.

>> No.20155240

>>20155226
not him, but "emergent" typically refers to a property that is irreducible to its base realizer and/or exerts causal influence "downward" onto its base realizer.

>> No.20155251

>>20155226
Well because your physical state forms a system of its own that can, at times, produce mental states. Nothing can claim mental states as an inherent property.

>> No.20155276

>>20154945
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/24edafcc_wojakNPC.png"> wouldn't know

>> No.20155355

>>20154956
The parts of the brain controlling movement and basic social functioning are present but the parts that make consciousness emerge aren't.

>> No.20155360

>>20155355
Then the physical state is different, so it's not a p zombie, that would just be a kind of lobotomy.

>> No.20155400

>>20155360
Humans are different so no two people have "the same physical states" if you're being pedantic about it. The sets of people who are conscious or not conscious could still be impossible to distinguish from our perspective based on some tiny variation in wiring.

If you ignore that and assume the physical world being the only thing that exists then yeah, you're tautologically correct.

>> No.20155414

>>20155183
<img class="xae" data-xae width="30" height="29" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/59b6bba6_FeelsBadMan.png">

>> No.20155443

>>20155400
The point isn't that only one specific physical state will produce mental states, the point is that mental states are produced by physical states. One is contingent on the former. In your example mental states are terminated because sections of the brain necessary for cognition have been removed so mental states can't be produced.
The point of the p zombie hypothetical is to argue against mental physicalism. If it's conceivable that a seemingly conscious and alive person could actually have no conscious experience at all, like an unthinking zombie, then mental states must be something other than physical.

>> No.20155451

>>20154945
Circular argument.

>> No.20155474

>>20154956
It's a retarded thought experiment because it's not falsifiable in any way, so it's not worth entertaining. No different from solipsism.

>> No.20155487

>>20155474
Fag analytic professors aren't going to accept that though.

>> No.20155493

>>20154945
I hate niggers

>> No.20155504

>>20155443
>If it's conceivable that a seemingly conscious and alive person could actually have no conscious experience at all, like an unthinking zombie, then mental states must be something other than physical.
That doesn't follow at all. People behave in different ways that everyone regards as normal and human. Some subset of those behaviors could be unconscious and some subset could require consciousness. Any time your situation contains the word "seem" you're dragging yourself back to reality where you have no magic machine that can determine the consciousness level of a certain behavior and the question is no longer instantly resolvable as a mathematical tautology.

>> No.20155515

>>20154956
Bait

>> No.20155521

>>20154945
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/0ee48fb4_longcat.png">
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="30" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/95c37417_longcata.png">
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/e77bc341_longcatb.png">

>> No.20155536

>>20155504
But you agree, mental states are an emergent property of physical states. It's impossible that a p zombie could actually exist.
Really a p zombie is just the complete reversal of the concept of a ghost, but no academic philosophers try to hypothetically use ghosts to attack physicalism because it would look ridiculous.

>> No.20155563

>>20155536
>But you agree, mental states are an emergent property of physical states
I never said that. I agree that if you make all the assumptions you are that the answer is a boring mathematical tautology. I don't agree that this is interesting at all or something worth talking about.

I guess you're responding to some specific argument you saw this concept in. In which case congrats you won that argument. That doesn't mean the only possible reason to use the concept is supporting the straw man you've been fighting.

>> No.20155602

>>20155563
Maybe you're a different anon but if the only way something like a p zombie is possible (taken from here >>20155355 ) is by removing the parts of the brain responsible for cognition then you agree with physicalism,
In case you yourself make use of the p zombie hypothetical, I want to hear this. How can you possibly connect the conceivability of p zombies with any insight into factual reality?

>> No.20155722

>>20155602

>>20155355 was me. I trying to point out that tiny, imperceptible changes in brain structure could cause the loss of consciousness even if we did assume the physical world is the only thing that exists.

>How can you possibly connect the conceivability of p zombies with any insight into factual reality?
You could be wrong and the universe might not be completely physical. We could be making false assumptions about the exact set of physical structures 'consciousness' is emerging from. This could help us better predict behavior that requires 'consciousness'.

>> No.20155784

>>20155722
That's still a purely physicalist analysis of mental states and not what a p zombie is,
>You could be wrong and the universe might not be completely physical. We could be making false assumptions about the exact set of physical structures 'consciousness' is emerging from. This could help us better predict behavior that requires 'consciousness'.
All that could be true. But the conceivability of p zombies has no bearing on the matter anymore so than the conceivability of anything else.

>> No.20155803

>>20155521
<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/b674048b_MikuStare.png">

>> No.20155840

>>20155784
You assumed the second part of OP's image should be taken exactly literally, then assumed it was wrong, then went
>Haha such a thing can not exist because i assume so!

The question of whether things that seem human can lack consciousness is more interesting.

>> No.20155859
File: 1.66 MB, 1280x7779, arguing with zombies.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20155859

>>20154945
Daniel Dennett is almost certainly a philosophical zombie

>> No.20155883
File: 256 KB, 2047x788, chad rationalist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20155883

>>20155226
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence

>The failures of phlogiston and vitalism are historical hindsight. Dare I step out on a limb, and name some current theory which I deem analogously flawed?

>I name emergence or emergent phenomena—usually defined as the study of systems whose high-level behaviors arise or “emerge” from the interaction of many low-level elements. (Wikipedia: “The way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions.”)

>Taken literally, that description fits every phenomenon in our universe above the level of individual quarks, which is part of the problem. Imagine pointing to a market crash and saying “It’s not a quark!” Does that feel like an explanation? No? Then neither should saying “It’s an emergent phenomenon!”

>It’s the noun “emergence” that I protest, rather than the verb “emerges from.” There’s nothing wrong with saying “X emerges from Y,” where Y is some specific, detailed model with internal moving parts. “Arises from” is another legitimate phrase that means exactly the same thing. Gravity arises from the curvature of spacetime, according to the specific mathematical model of General Relativity. Chemistry arises from interactions between atoms, according to the specific model of quantum electrodynamics.

>Now suppose I should say that gravity depends on “arisence” or that chemistry is an “arising phenomenon,” and claim that as my explanation.

>The phrase “emerges from” is acceptable, just like “arises from” or “is caused by” are acceptable, if the phrase precedes some specific model to be judged on its own merits.

>However, this is not the way “emergence” is commonly used. “Emergence” is commonly used as an explanation in its own right.

>I have lost track of how many times I have heard people say, “Intelligence is an emergent phenomenon!” as if that explained intelligence. This usage fits all the checklist items for a mysterious answer to a mysterious question. What do you know, after you have said that intelligence is “emergent”? You can make no new predictions. You do not know anything about the behavior of real-world minds that you did not know before. It feels like you believe a new fact, but you don’t anticipate any different outcomes. Your curiosity feels sated, but it has not been fed. The hypothesis has no moving parts—there’s no detailed internal model to manipulate. Those who proffer the hypothesis of “emergence” confess their ignorance of the internals, and take pride in it; they contrast the science of “emergence” to other sciences merely mundane.

>And even after the answer of “Why? Emergence!” is given, the phenomenon is still a mystery and possesses the same sacred impenetrability it had at the start.

>> No.20155900

>>20155840
Yes, OP's image got the right of it, p zombies are a thought experiment from dualists, not sure what you think it is but the whole point is if we can separate mental states from physical states rather than one emerging from the other.
>The question of whether things that seem human can lack consciousness is more interesting.
Like the NPC meme, for example?

>> No.20156198

>>20155451
>hypothetical concept
>circular argument
okay retard

>> No.20156222

>>20155883
The linguistic turn and its consequences was a disaster for the human race.