- #71
Fliption
- 1,081
- 1
Let me touch on the relevance of this particular definition of zombie. Isn't the conceivability argument about the idea that consciousness does not follow from the laws of the universe as we understand them? Is this the whole point? The whole idea to me seems to be claiming that consciousness is not explained or accounted for with a purely physical explanation. At least no one has been able to do it yet. So let's say we can create (or conceive of) a being where all the laws of nature are not broken. Is it conscious? We do not know because we do not understand how the laws of nature can lead to such a thing. This seems like the whole point to me. Correct me if I have misunderstood.
So why is it so relevant that this being must exhibit the exact same behaviour that I do? So what if he doesn't see the hard problem because he doesn't see anything that cannot be explained via the laws of nature. We cannot know for certain whether this being is conscious(he could just be lying) and have no reason to believe it is by simply looking at it's physical make-up which is still the point. What am I missing?
So why is it so relevant that this being must exhibit the exact same behaviour that I do? So what if he doesn't see the hard problem because he doesn't see anything that cannot be explained via the laws of nature. We cannot know for certain whether this being is conscious(he could just be lying) and have no reason to believe it is by simply looking at it's physical make-up which is still the point. What am I missing?