3 ms·
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
by 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 agoYes, 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.