4 ms·

The point is that the hypothesis that animals are philosophical zombies is just as untestable, but we're married to the opposite conclusion for no good reason.

burkaman 10y ago
I don't think that's true. We have lots of evidence that other humans are not philosophical zombies, we just technically can't rule it out. We can look for similar evidence that animals feel emotion, even though it's always possible that we're just seeing convincing imitations.
- niccaluim 10y ago
  I don't agree that we have any evidence that other humans aren't p-zombies. The whole point of the exercise is that it's logically impossible for such evidence to exist. If you're aware of any, I'd love to hear it. (FWIW I don't personally believe that people are p-zombies, but I believe that purely on faith, and because the alternative is too horrifying to contemplate.)
  - burkaman 10y ago
    It's logically impossible for proof to exist, but I think observation and comparison count as evidence. For example, if I see your signature on a document, that's evidence that you signed it, even though I can't prove that it's not forged. Similarly, if I see you act distressed after touching a hot stove, that's evidence that you felt pain, even though I can't prove it. The only thing you need to take on faith is that your perception of the world is not simulated. Assuming that your experiences are real, every comparison of yourself to other people is evidence that you work the same. You can compare behavior, MRIs, xrays, whatever.
    - niccaluim 10y ago
      Ah, I think I understand what you're saying now. I think where we're parting ways is that when I say "evidence" I mean unambiguous evidence. There's definitely evidence that people aren't p-zombies, like your example (other people react to certain things the same way I do and it's reasonable to assume those reactions are accompanied by similar experience). There's just not unequivocal evidence. Have I understood your view correctly?
      - burkaman 10y ago
        Yes, definitely. But from a certain point of view, almost nothing is unambiguously true, right? You have to set a bar, and accept anything below that bar as a fundamental assumption that you take on faith. And if your bar is so low that other people might not be conscious, then you know, maybe nothing is real. You definitely can't believe in the existence of anything you haven't seen with your own eyes. I know nobody here actually believes in p-zombies, I'm just making a point in response to the original comment that it's totally reasonable to be sure that other humans are conscious, and not sure that animals are. Those positions are consistent if you're operating with a usable definition of evidence and truth. It's philosophically possible that other people are zombies, but it's practically possible that some animals are zombies.

burkaman 10y ago

I don't think that's true. We have lots of evidence that other humans are not philosophical zombies, we just technically can't rule it out. We can look for similar evidence that animals feel emotion, even though it's always possible that we're just seeing convincing imitations.

niccaluim 10y ago
I don't agree that we have any evidence that other humans aren't p-zombies. The whole point of the exercise is that it's logically impossible for such evidence to exist. If you're aware of any, I'd love to hear it. (FWIW I don't personally believe that people are p-zombies, but I believe that purely on faith, and because the alternative is too horrifying to contemplate.)
- burkaman 10y ago
  It's logically impossible for proof to exist, but I think observation and comparison count as evidence. For example, if I see your signature on a document, that's evidence that you signed it, even though I can't prove that it's not forged. Similarly, if I see you act distressed after touching a hot stove, that's evidence that you felt pain, even though I can't prove it. The only thing you need to take on faith is that your perception of the world is not simulated. Assuming that your experiences are real, every comparison of yourself to other people is evidence that you work the same. You can compare behavior, MRIs, xrays, whatever.
  - niccaluim 10y ago
    Ah, I think I understand what you're saying now. I think where we're parting ways is that when I say "evidence" I mean unambiguous evidence. There's definitely evidence that people aren't p-zombies, like your example (other people react to certain things the same way I do and it's reasonable to assume those reactions are accompanied by similar experience). There's just not unequivocal evidence. Have I understood your view correctly?
    - burkaman 10y ago
      Yes, definitely. But from a certain point of view, almost nothing is unambiguously true, right? You have to set a bar, and accept anything below that bar as a fundamental assumption that you take on faith. And if your bar is so low that other people might not be conscious, then you know, maybe nothing is real. You definitely can't believe in the existence of anything you haven't seen with your own eyes. I know nobody here actually believes in p-zombies, I'm just making a point in response to the original comment that it's totally reasonable to be sure that other humans are conscious, and not sure that animals are. Those positions are consistent if you're operating with a usable definition of evidence and truth. It's philosophically possible that other people are zombies, but it's practically possible that some animals are zombies.