Let's suppose Dennett etc. were right to claim P-zombies are incoherent. But the P-zombie is basically a strawman. What stops me from inventing a better zombie that conforms to materialist assumptions while undermining them? For the sake of argument, I'll adopt these criteria:1. Subjective experience necessarily reflects brain processes2. External behavior necessarily reflects brain processes3. Altering or removing any aspect of experience implies relevant and observable changes in brain structure and external behaviorFair? Fair. Now forget about P-zombies. What about N-zombies? The N-zombie "mind" operates in purely abstract, relational terms. To it, "red" is defined entirely by how it relates to other abstract ideas: it's the label for a certain stimulus, the opposite of blue, "the color of passion" (which, in turn, is the emotion of red) etc - it's whatever can be analyzed and communicated, but not an aspect of direct experience. Same goes for any other concept normally relating to experience.By definition (which I made up) the N-zombie lack a "subjective experience" in any meaningful sense; there's nothing analogous in his "mind". If the notion of qualia is a misunderstanding, it lacks the necessary ingredients to form such misunderstandings.The N-zombie is artificial. It doesn't have a brain identical to a human's. Instead, it has precisely the kind of brain needed for the aforementioned mode of cognition, abiding criterion #1 by definition. Externally, the N-zombie is (almost) indistinguishable from a normal human. Its behaviors (including "subjective" reports) are driven by some abstract model of the world/the self, which is (almost) structurally idential to a normal human's. Anything of a purely relational nature can be faithfully captured and reproduced by the N-zombie's cognition.(1/2)
>>18526275However, there ARE some things humans do, that the N-zombie won't do. It will never independently come up with the idea of qualia. It will never claim to have a soul. It will never spontaneously form metaphysical beliefs. The N-zombie is an innate materialist who can't trick himself with nonsense like consciousness and P-zombies. Therefore he conforms to the 2nd and 3rd criteria: granted, individual humans can be like that, but it's not uniformly characteristic of humanity, the way it is with N-zombies.Since a N-zombie is mostly indistinguishable from a human, you'd expect its neural architecture to be analogous on some level of abstraction; particularly, the level where materialists start throwing around terms like "substate independence" and "functionalist equivalence". Now here's the thing: neuroscientists can't just look at a biological brain and take it in wholly, with every physical detail figured in on every level. Finite minds have to rely on abstractions and create models to deal with complexity. But models are all about structure and relationships. Since the N-zombie retains all the proper relational aspects of cognition, and they're the only ones a subject can communicate and the experimenter can confirm, one can start with a normal human brain and happily abstract things away, accidentally arriving at the N-zombie. If that happens, how would materialists know it? The only observable difference would be that if one were to manufacture such a brain from scratch, according to the model, they'd sometimes get a synthetic Dennett but never a synthetic Chalmers.(2/2)
>>18526275I think P-zombie opponents would just re-use the same strawman as they always do:>you can't say that>because it sounds like you're assuming this is possible to begin with>and you'd have to prove thatThe entire concept of a thought experiment and its implications for falsifiability of a view is lost on many. Especially on those whose worldview depends on assuming physicalism.
>>18526275>1. Subjective experience necessarily reflects brain processesNo. Subjective experience IS brain processes.>Since the N-zombie retains all the proper relational aspects of cognition, and they're the only ones a subject can communicate and the experimenter can confirm, one can start with a normal human brain and happily abstract things away, accidentally arriving at the N-zombie. No. You can't "abstract things away" from a brain. The function of the brain is based on its material structure. A brain is not a metaphorical structure of ideas.
>>18526286>No. Subjective experience IS brain processes.That's obviously retarded and Dennett would call it a strawman.>No. You can't "abstract things away" from a brainFunctionalism implies you can.
>>18526286>Subjective experience IS brain processes.The question posed through the p-zombie thought experiment is "how would you even check if that's true?"
>>18526293It's just trivially false to identify what the neurologist observers with what the subject experiences, even if you think both are views on the very same process. In my post, "brain processes" obviously refers to the external neurological perspective. Why start pointless tangential arguments with someone who can't into basic reading comprehension?
>>18526294I don't know that it's trivially false. It might be a leap, just like proposing a soul or some qualia-carrying middleman are leaps, but the question we're all after is one of falsification.
>>18526295>I don't know that it's trivially falseIt is trivially false. What the neurologist observes has different characteristics from what the subject observes therefore they are not identical therefore you can't identify one with the other by shouting IS!
>>18526275>>18526276You're an idiot
>>18526297Yes, you will not see identical things when you look two different ways. When I was diagnosed with pneumonia, the infection was both heard via a stethoscope and seen via x-ray. The difference in datapoint characteristics (audio distortion vs radiation obstacle) were entirely method-based and they ultimately tracked the same phenomenon - infection.I'm not arguing this identification is warranted for neurology and qualia. I just don't see how this leap is any greater or smaller than all the alternatives.
>>18526307> I was diagnosed with pneumonia, the infection was both heard via a stethoscope and seen via x-ray. And how many doctors did you hear claiming that an audio signal "IS!!!!!!" an image, or that either of them "IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" pneumonia?
>>18526313As many as I've heard neurologist point to the fMRI and say the oxygenation is qualia. Nobody claims this. What is claimed is that neurological activity, tracked by MRI, are qualia.
>>18526318This is truly an 80-IQ board...
>>18526275>>18526276Souls don't exist buddy. You need to grow up.
>>18526318>neurological activityThat's an external view of consciousness.>are qualiaThat's an internal view of consciousness.Haven't we already established that these are different? You even went out of your way to provide an example of how different ways to "track the same phenomenon" are not to be identified with each other.
>>18526327Yes, my point was that different methods commonly produce different views of the exact same phenomenon, so it cannot be trivially false to draw that conclusion with consciousness. I'm not a physicalist but we don't have grounds to exclude >>18526286's claim as trivially false.
>>18526334>different viewsOk.>it cannot be trivially falseAre different views the same?
>>18526343Of course not, why would different views be the same views? "Subjective experience IS brain processes" is not about views.
>>18526346It clearly is in the context of the OP but even if you're too low-IQ to figure this out, it's already been spelled out multiple times to you.
>>18526351And I've responded, perhaps too subtly until now, that most of this thread really isn't about "different views are the same view" lol. OP might put a lot of stock in ruminating about that, but >>18526286 was obviously not meant this way and >>18526293 obviously doesn't develop it in that direction. A word to the wise, if you see an interaction and your best interpretation of it is that they're arguing an obvious contradiction, chances are good you've missed a point or two. That is the gap between mid-IQ and a midwit.
>>18526366His inability to do basic reading comprehension and your inability to do anything except follow your preprogrammed routine about muh p-zombies don't constitute any "points" that I've missed. It's a simple case of two 90 IQs getting completely filtered by the premise of the thread and reverting to preconditioned rhetorical patterns as a cope.
Not reading all of that. I'm happy for you though.Or sorry that happened
>>18526370I apologize on mine and the othe Anon's behalf that we had an exchange in your thread outside your mandated perspective on the topic. Than you for enriching our lives with "different views are not the same view" four times in a row, a feat of true intelligence.Sincerely,Anon
>>18526366And I guess I might as well note that "subjective experience IS brain processes" is only true for in the trivial case where you use two different phrases to mean the same thing, not one where "brain processes" actually refers to the model neurologists infer from empirical data.
>>18526374>Than you for enriching our lives with "different views are not the same view" four times in a row,You're welcome, but I know you still can't grasp this fact, because you'd deny >>18526377.
>>18526377The legitimacy of including the word"only" was the subject of discussion for quite some while, but thank you for the note.>>18526378>you still can't grasp this fact, because you'd deny >>18526377.You do understand that what you just said right? That grasping the fact you present leads to denying a post you made.You really are high IQ if you're trolling, because up until now I didn't think that's likely.
>>18526382>the subject of discussionIt was only ever a relevant subject of discussion for fuckwits online. Everyone else understands that you can't identify subjective experiences with "brain processes" for any scientifically meaningful definition of "brain processes", because if "brain processes" are something you can externally observe, they by definition lack the qualities of subjective experience.
Why does the notion that your qualitative experiences are just illusions of information processing of a brain cause so much seethe?
>mentally challenged bio-LLM tries to soothe itself by playing out the preconditioned rhetorical pattern
>>18526392What’s experiencing the illusion?
>>18526388This wasn't the topic of discussion.It's permissible to just stop, Anon.
Oh, it's a moldovan schizo thread. I thought it could actually be an interesting discussion.
>>18526399>mentally challenged bio-LLM devolves into incoherence
>OP's high intelligence proven by continuously not understanding basic posts
>>18526388>you can't identify subjective experiences with "brain processes" for any scientifically meaningful definition of "brain processes", because if "brain processes" are something you can externally observe, they by definition lack the qualities of subjective experience./threadimagine thinking all the philosophical debate around the subject was about this simple equivocation fallacy
>>18526276>how would materialists know it?By analysing the brain structure and realizing they're different. Nice blog post, but you BTFO yourself the second you admitted the brains have to be similar but not identical.
>>18526439>getting filtered this hard
>>18526452>y-you got filteredAnd yet can't even explain how because nobody got filtered and you just need to cope
>>18526472It's pretty funny how you think you're refuting anything by simply parroting back to me something that's already given in the OP and screeching "BTFO".
>>18526472>>18526439Any material difference at all is a difference in structure on a low enough level of abstraction. But if you subscribe to substrate independence (as most materialist accounts of consciousness do) you have to rely on empirical evidence to judge what differences are actually relevant to consciousness. What empirical evidence would they have to claim objectively that the N-zombie lacks anything, when everything they can probe is within (what they believe to be) the norm for a conscious human?
>>18526502>What empirical evidence would they have to claim objectively that the N-zombie lacks anythingThe different structure >when everything they can probe is withinIt's not though
>>18526509>makes no attempt to read or comprehend the post>shits out irrational and irrelevant replyYou're clearly mentally ill. Next.
>>18526511>REEEEEE *ad hominem* I get your argument just fine, all the word salad trying to obscure it doesn't help. Your argument is basically this:>the structure of something determines its output >consciousness is a result of this structure>you could make a similar structure that would have no consciousness but behaves very similarly >...>HOW COULD WE KNOW THE SIMILAR STRUCTURE IS NOT CONSCIOUS?? ARENT I SMART?!The problem with this argument is two fold:1) it uses the assumption that consciousness is some on/off switch, meaning just slightly rearranging everything a little means no consciousness and not slightly different higher/lower consciousness2) it is highly debatable if the behavior is a bad representation of consciousness, most scientists would argue that consciousness heavily affects behavior. Meaning if you do come up with a highly intelligent structure but no consciousness, it would behave completely differently
>>18526559>your argument is basically [my hallucination]
>>18526275>>18526276If your zombies, as a collective, lack the variety seen in humans, wouldn't that imply there's something different in the structure of their brain development process? Your argument talks about brain structure as in a static snapshot but consciousness is a process that you can't separate from brain development. Any differences in the latter should count as structural differences as well. Anyway, nice effortposting but you shouldn't expect any kind of intelligent discussion in this shithole.
>>18526393kek
>>18526638>wouldn't that imply there's something different in the structure of their brain development process?True by definition. The thought experiment is about manufacturing a synthetic brain from the best possible model of biological brains developed enough to fully represent consciousness.>Your argument talks about brain structure as in a static snapshot but consciousness is a process that you can't separate from brain developmentBut under materialism, putting a brain with the right structure in the right state should kick-start the process of consciousness regardless of how the brain in that state.
>>18526704how the brain got in that state*
What seems like subjective experience is simply the lack of a system for tools to interpret the specific format of memories of other systems.The spotlight of the brain can interpret the pain signals themselves because they are formatted for the brain, but it cannot experience what it's like to be your foot over the lego. The brain itself is many systems, but subjective experience is the maximum combination of these systems that produce an image for the self assessing part of the brain.This explains why compulsive behaviors exist outside of our insider awareness but yet can be observed by an experiment. These parts of processes are not subject to the self assessing function of the brain at least the "unconscious" parts of them are not.The fact that humans are social animals probably provide a reason for why this self assessment part reviews our own language and sense of identity, hence why we can communicate on our perceived subjective experience. This probably creates a feedback loop that deludes us into thinking there is something in there that is immune to a scientific experiment.We are still affected by outside informations in many forms, but it is obviously not usable for review, or else we would "feel" like the rocks we step on, or literally experience the perspective of other people.To test my assertions, I propose that in the next hundreds of years or so, if technology allows, we must try to wire two human brains together so that the self assessment parts of A's brain, can access B's brain from usable information.Maybe brain augmentation might work too as a part of the proof. Like converting the information from a digital camera to a cable that goes in the brain and can be reviewed by the self part of the brain
>>18526722Nice sci-fi ideology and a very original subjective opinion. This definitely deserves its own thread.
>>18526722>wire two human brains together so that the self assessment parts of A's brain, can access B's brain from usable informationThe reverse is already observable, a corpus callosotomy creates two separate conscious centers that cannot access each other's information. The physicalist answer is the simplest here: brain generates consciousness, cut brain, consciousness is now disconnected. Seems a little more straightforward than assuming the surgeon uses an enchanted dagger +5 that can cut into the spirit realm and cleave a soul in two or whatever.
>>18526395Nothing. there is no "center" of it.
>nothing is experiencing something
>>18526286You could draw this further and say you cannot abstract away from having access to Water, or to White people. It’s useless to say “matter over mind” because it’s unfalsifiable.It would require re-capitulating our world models and that’s not something any individual can just do. It’s an act of collective expression, it requires civilization wide difference.
>>18526815Define nothing
>you need to define the terms I used to express "my" incoherent """opinion"""
>>18526826Actually it's always the metaphysicians who use the term nothing outside of its casual use.No positivist here have asserted or assumed tgat something comes out of nothing or something of the sort.The only work they do is relate things and thing being a casual term too, the only thing they do is study relationships and make them robust.That's the nut of doing logic.Just as math is relating elements together and sometime agreeing on the fundamental axiomsHere, we posit that subjective experience is emergent and not an axiom, just like how addition and multiplication is emergent from peano's succession
>>18526848>irrelevant word saladWhat's experiencing the illusion?
>>18526848>subjective experience is emergentReminder that there is no evidence of anything ever "emerging" except within subjective experience itself.
>>18526815There is no "center" of the experience. This is really easy to understand.
>>18526862>There is no "center" of the experienceThat's not a coherent answer to the question: what's experiencing an illusion? Try again.
>>18526851>Argumentum ex retardatio>>18526853Actually it does there are papers published everywhere that encode information about emergent patterns, and these papers sit outside of your "subjective" experienceAnd this assertion does not even need to presuppose a realist interpretation, since these papers can eventually come to "your" awareness
>>18526864Again, there is no "central thing" experiencing the illusion. There is a bundle of processes recursively interacting with no "center" to it.
>>18526865You said consciousness is an illusion. What's experiencing the illusion?>there are papers published everywhere that encode information about emergent patternsThat only implies that high-level descriptions are possible (stating the obvious). It doesn't imply anything "emerging" in any real sense. Scientific papers about "emergent phenomena" are compatible with mereological nihilism.
>>18526866Notice how your psychotic illness is causing you to shit out incongruent answers repeatedly.>there is no "central thing" experiencing the illusionWhat's experiencing it, then? Do you understand the meaning of the word you used?
>>18526866/threadAs I see more and more people fail to grasp this point, I'm starting to have proportionally more respect for Nietzsche.
>>18526874>slashing your own threadI can tell you're hurt.
>>18526877I'm not OP or really even part of this exchange. Focus rather on being able to tell what the Anon is saying.
>>18526870It's a completely coherent response. There is no center to it. It's similar to a strange attractor.
>>18526275>>18526276I don't get it
>>18526566>y-you don't get it Explain your argument then if my understanding is wrong. Or at least explain how my understanding of it is wrong
>>18526888>>18526891You have a profound mental illness and nothing you shit out matters. Bottom line: talking about an illusion implies a subject, but under your incoherent worldview, the subject himself is an illusion, meaning either an infinite regression or some retarded bootstrapping paradox.
>>18526901>Explain your argumentI did:>>18526275>>18526276>>18526502
>>18526909>You have a profound mental illness and nothing you shit out mattersNope>Bottom line: talking about an illusion implies a subject, but under your incoherent worldview, the subject himself is an illusion, meaning either an infinite regression or some retarded bootstrapping paradox.There is literally nothing wrong with infinite regression.
>engaging with the moldovan schizo
>There is literally nothing wrong with infinite regression.It never takes long for a mentally ill retard like you to out itself with an unnecessary 1+1=3 statement and automatically invalidate everything else it's been arguing for. You just can't help these rhetorical tics and they're so easy to induce. :^)
>>18526909Sadly, false on all counts.
>>18526930You have a profound mental illness and nothing you shit out matters. Bottom line: talking about an illusion implies a subject, but under your incoherent worldview, the subject himself is an illusion, meaning either an infinite regression or some retarded bootstrapping paradox.
Shit, we broke him
>we>r-r-right, g-guise?>w-we!The absolute desperation.
>>18526933He will now reply to the same posts again, but this time pretending to say something different.
I know you're losing your mind with rage. The more you updoot your own posts, the more you signal your emotional distress, the more I'm satisfied. :^)
>>18526940Anon, the picrel in >>18526930 shows you that you are (or at least were) talking to two different people, both of which calmly expressed the same point to you; one which has been around for about 150 years since Nietzsche made it as a reaction to Descartes' cogito. I'm not sure what this thread is devolving into now, it's been quite some time since I've seen something like this, but please be aware of the argument you might be trying to address or not.
>>18526949>the picrel showsYour desperation is palpable.>I'm not sure what this thread is devolving into nowIt's devolving into mentally ill retards shitting out their irrelevant, generic and basically incoherent opinions.
>>18526959>It's devolving into mentally ill retards shitting out their irrelevant, generic and basically incoherent opinions.At least we agree on that.If you have any arguments, I'll be roaming around. Cheers.
>OP gets BTFO >proceeds to pretend nobody understand him and/or call everyone mentally ill who dares to refute him
>>18526963My argument is in the OP. Your psychotic drivel about subjects hallucinating subjects all the way down doesn't relate to it in any way.
>>18526916>There is literally nothing wrong with infinite regressionFirst of all yes, there are things like recursive patterns that can be assumed like they can ibfinitely regress>>18526925But also infinite regression is not a necessary position to posit existence. We can assume retrocausality at least when it pertains to the present, concepts like the anthropic principle or simply natural selection can show how one thing existing presupposes the necessary conditions for it existing, and a thing that "cannot be being selected out" is another way of saying that.This would mean that things don't go towards a "goal" but actually, the present is a function that collapses all probable things so that they have a consensus of causes in the "past".The percieved progress from one state to the other implies that there is a memory of what the state was before, then an other after that, then another etc... The perceived arrow of time is just the difference between what we know had happened, and what is probable to happen from that state. The perception that a precedent state causes the future stems from the fact that from our experience and scale, it is improbable and negligible that something unexpected happens from the total product of improbabilities
>>18526981>literal schizophasia
>>18526970That's the moldovan schizo for ya
>>18526992I know that you're a shit for brained moron, but there are at least 3 different people arguing with you, schizo faggot.
>>18526994>peopleYou're not a person, but it's acceptable for human garbage like you to keep bumping my thread until someone at least sentient comes along.
>>18526975Then why argue?
>>18526999>another incongruent spasmDon't care. My argument is in the OP and it stands completely unchallenged.
>>18526995I am far more intelligent than you are. You're a subhuman who has spent at least 5 years on these boards engaging and losing the same debates over and over. You think we don't remember when you used to post about how the "owners and programmers have marked you for extermination" back when you were raging at the covid lock downs? (Here's where you pretend this never happened like the schizo that you are). How'd that work out?
>>18527008>psychotic rage intensifiesYou're not a person, but it's acceptable for human garbage like you to keep bumping my thread until someone at least sentient comes along.
>>18527006You challenged >>18526866. Why did you do that if it doesn't relate to your argument?
>>18527012I just thought you should know the idea of subjects hallucinating subjects hallucinating subjects ad infinium doesn't answer any questions about consciousness.
>>18527014Is that what you think >>18526866 proposed? Just a yes or no will do, I'm not interested in publicly flogging you or in convincing you one way or another.
>>18527011Keep seething, schizo>>18527016He doesn't understand basic concepts or words. His tactic is to lose the debate and then claim that the person "didn't respond" to him despite the person directly responding to his posts and quoting him. He does it with everyone when he loses.
>>18527016That post doesn't "propose" anything, it's a desperate attempt to save face. But the claim that subjective experience is an illusion at best implies the infinite regress I just described. Alternatively, it implies that the subject needs to exist before it can exist, which is a contradiction.
>>18527027That's not what it implies.
>>18527024>psychotic practically patient begs for emotional supportYou're not a person, but it's acceptable for human garbage like you to keep bumping my thread until someone at least sentient comes along.
>>18527031That's exactly what it implies given the normal meaning of the word 'illusion', which refers to a mistaken perception, which implies a perceiver (i.e. a subject). The mistaken perception of a subject therefore requires a subject.
>>18527032Keep seething, schizo. You lost, again.
Notice how your psychotic disease forces you to keep addressing me.
Notice how you remain a schizo
Why do low-IQ people struggle to put "their" ideas into words? You can claim perception is an ensemble of processes that present themselves as a unified subject when that's not their real nature (if you weren't too dumb to articulate it), but that doesn't really help with any of the materialist contentious ("perception isn't real", "perception is reducible to particle interactions" etc.) and it doesn't really matter for the OP.
>>18527027>That post doesn't "propose" anythingThen .... why did you argue against it.
>>18527127I didn't. I argued against >>18526392 because whoever posted it is a faggot and I was bored. Feel free to consult >>18527037, >>18527118 for the final word on your retarded take. Moving on.
>>18527145So just to be clear: >>18526866 claims nothing, you still call it "incongruent"(>>18526870) despite it not claiming anything... and after this you deny arguing against it (>>18527145). Is that what you're hoping I'll believe? Again, just clarifying, I won't be trying to convince you either way, a yes or no is fine.
>>18526868The illusion just is , that's the experience of the illusion . It doesn't require an experiencer . Buddha figured this out 2500 years ago and you're still too stupid to figure this out. The eye just sees.
>>18527206Bro let it go, he's not gonna get it. If he defines that illusions require a subject and a dog and a lemon cheesecake, then that's what illusions will necessarily entail in his mind. Or rather ... in a mind.
>>18527206>Buddha figured this out 2500 years agoThe Buddhists see my point and concede it readily because unlike you, they actually thought about this.
How would Dennet respond?
>>18527248Dependent origination is incompatible with mind-body dualism.
>>18527280The actual idea of an illusion is incompatible with Buddhist nondualism and that's something they are well-aware of.
>>18527250>How would Dennet respond?My guess is that he'd say the difference in behavior is not a "real" difference if it can't be scientifically attributed to something lacking in the N-zombie's mind, so I'm just trying to sneak the P-zombie back in with fresh makeup.
>>18526275>Catholic seethe detected >
>>18526704Then how is N-zombie behavior significantly different? You admit it would be similar to some people. The lack of variation is an artifact of how your thought experiment manufactures them.
The exact same incoherency objections applies, unless the differences are explained by the... differences Else, you could have the difference be literally anything, like the equinox of Jupiter - that somehow causes people to be zombies.Wouldn't need to be anything about the brain.
>>18528082>Then how is N-zombie behavior significantly different?>>18528205>The exact same incoherency objections appliesThe whole point is that there doesn't appear to be a significant difference as far as scientists are concerned. Yet there is a physical difference due to the model's inherent need for abstraction, causing a difference in internal perception with externally detectable consequences. But the scientists wouldn't be able to diagnose the symptoms for what they are. They may think the N-zombie talks like a total NPC, but there's plenty of people who also talk that way. As far as the Functionalist framework is concerned, the N-zombie is as conscious as a person and also conscious in the same sense - a false conclusion in this thought experiment.This possibility is consistent with physicalism. You can doubt it and try to look for technical reasons why an N-zombie wouldn't work, but it's not incoherent and it's not even that implausible anymore, what with statistical token guessers being able to write original poems about how things "feel".
>>18528259>there doesn't appear to be a significant difference as far as scientists are concernedThis is such a retarded argument, you're basically saying "science will never be good enough to detect my made up hypothetical differences". Why wouldn't it be?>But the scientists wouldn't be able to diagnose the symptoms for what they areWhy not >N-zombie is as conscious as a person and also conscious in the same sense - a false conclusion in this thought experimentYour conclusion is based on the assumption that the differences are undetectable but you don't explain why.
>>18528283>t. 80 IQAsk a chatbot for help and can back when you have some questions that aren't directly addressed by the posts you're questioning.
>>18528289Yeah, every single time. Instead of actually engaging with my points and questions you just seethe and cope and throw insults around.
>>18528310You're literally having a breakfast problem here. There's a difference by the construction of the hypothetical, with consequences on every level, from brain structure to perception to behavior, consistent with materialist thinking, so muh incoherence dismissal doesn't work here.
>>18528315The dismissal isn't in terms of incoherence, it's in terms of the supposedly logical consequences you pull from the hypothetical. See >>18526559
>>18528337>The dismissal isn't in terms of incoherence>>18528205>The exact same incoherency objections appliesMeds ASAP.
>>18528343>schizo thinks everyone disagreeing with him is one single person
>>18528345Why did you start sperging out when I wasn't talking to you?
>>18528348I initially responded here >>18528283Because your point was presuppositionalistIt's not my problem you're too retarded to distinguish people from each other
Mental patient >>18528377, I remind you that you responded to a post refuting a dismissal on the grounds terms of incoherence and you were taking issue with it.
Can't we just ask the guy telling the story about zombies if the zombieness in the story is caused by difference in the brain or not?If the zombieness is caused by the difference in the brain, that's compatible with naturalism/physicalism/whateverIf the zombieness isn't caused by the difference, then the story is presupposing the falsity of naturalism/physicalism/whatever
>>18528480>If the zombieness is caused by the difference in the brain, that's compatible with naturalism/physicalism/whateverGood job figuring out a basic premise that's explicitly spelled out.
>>18526283Physicalism is unfalsifiable in terms of just pondering about it. I think we will eventually physically (kek) demonstrate it false.
>>18526744>>18526722Interesting formulation but even the split brain theory experiments dont necessarily disprove 'souls' or prove physicality, only some sort of strawmanned, absolute Platonic ideal version of it. Many have argued that matter and spirit aren't opposite or strictly separate states of existence since then, especially spinoza.
>>18530036Is there anything we could observe that would disprove souls?
>>18530047The existence of niggercattle like you empirically disproves souls.
>>18530047Ironically something closer to an antisoul rather than decisive mental/physical proof of the lack thereof (aka simulation theories where we dont have 'soul' but 'code')
>>18526392Because reactions have to retreat into idealism to escape the progressive conclusions of material reality to continue to justify the ild class hierarchy. Tale as old as time.
>>18530075>physicalism being pro left/equality and whatnotYou realize that it's universalist religions like Christianity that have done more for the good of the lesser peoples than anything else right? Look what happens with Revolutionary France, USSR, Nazis, eugenic programs today etc
>>18526275>>18526276Suppose the non-subjective experience of the non-subject that would be at the center of the illusion that is not actually happenin but would require a subject to experience it writes a book detailing how, from its understanding, patterns somehow seems to arrange into some kind of "universal other" that always interacts in specific ways with the non-subject. Suppose further this attempt at expression requires a new languagr which explicitly relies on the subject which learns it to pretend to understand what it is like to not have subjective experience, but "the structure" prevents this, such that non-subjective causal chains get reified as containing a subject that "experiences" these causal chains "from the inside", which authority should one appeal to if OP is always a faggot?
>>18530103>schizo word salad
