3 ms·

I don't. I think there's a conflation where "zombie" is interpreted as "lacking consciousness". But the description I'm seeing in the Encyclopedia, as well as L

I don't. I think there's a conflation where "zombie" is interpreted as "lacking consciousness". But the description I'm seeing in the Encyclopedia, as well as LW's definition and my own definition is closer to "entity that doesn't process what they feel" (doesn't feel what they process? Sees blindly? Blargh). > by definition there is ‘nothing it is like’ to be a zombie Non-conscious animals are still often perceived as processing feelings and therefore capable of the concept of suffering. You could try imagining being a simple animal, even if it's as simple as a single signal that goes 1 and 0. Zombies don't process any feelings and ethical consideration in their address wouldn't make much sense, it's like being concerned with the ethics relating to a sun or a hydroelectric dam.

ZeroFries 10y ago
Suffering would not exist without consciousness. You people are all conflating self-awareness and consciousness.
- projektir 10y ago
  Can't agree with you there. These terms are not exactly super solidly defined, but most uses of the term "consciousness" I've seen usually refer to something more advanced than basic signal processing. To quote Wikipedia: > It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. It's a sufficiently vague term that I can't use it to describe what I mean because it will most likely be misinterpreted, and it conflicts a lot with modern views on what is or isn't aware enough that its experiences happen, i.e., the Turing test and the current trend of concern as to whether or not a given animal is intelligent enough.
  - ZeroFries 10y ago
    I'm referring to consciousness as awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, not wakefulness, executive control, nor the sense of selfhood, since they all (except, arguably, executive control) depend on awareness. They're poorly defined because our culture has not thought a lot about this, IMO. Hindu philosophy has a much better conceptualization (like Inuit culture has a better conceptualization of the varying states of snow).

ZeroFries 10y ago

Suffering would not exist without consciousness. You people are all conflating self-awareness and consciousness.

projektir 10y ago
Can't agree with you there. These terms are not exactly super solidly defined, but most uses of the term "consciousness" I've seen usually refer to something more advanced than basic signal processing. To quote Wikipedia: > It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. It's a sufficiently vague term that I can't use it to describe what I mean because it will most likely be misinterpreted, and it conflicts a lot with modern views on what is or isn't aware enough that its experiences happen, i.e., the Turing test and the current trend of concern as to whether or not a given animal is intelligent enough.
- ZeroFries 10y ago
  I'm referring to consciousness as awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, not wakefulness, executive control, nor the sense of selfhood, since they all (except, arguably, executive control) depend on awareness. They're poorly defined because our culture has not thought a lot about this, IMO. Hindu philosophy has a much better conceptualization (like Inuit culture has a better conceptualization of the varying states of snow).