3 ms·

> The p-zombie concept always struck me as stupid solipsism. If you can't tell the difference doesn't that mean there is no meaningful difference? That's a ver

by hnarn 7y ago

> The p-zombie concept always struck me as stupid solipsism. If you can't tell the difference doesn't that mean there is no meaningful difference? That's a very strange argument. If you hold your nose and you taste a piece of potato and then a piece of apple, you can't tell the difference. So now suddenly the difference is meaningless because the sense required to tell the difference is removed from the equation? The apple is still (in a, to you, non-observable reality) an apple, regardless of how your perception changed.

d0mine 7y ago
There is a big difference between "don't know" under specific set of circumstances and "can't know" ever. There is obviously a difference between an apple and a potato (and in more aspects than just smell).
- jpttsn 7y ago
  I still think the difference is there even if we can’t know it. It’s the whole tree-woods-nobody thing, isn’t it? Of course the tree makes a sound. If all intelligent life in the universe was wiped, a falling rock would still make a sound.
manifestsilence 7y ago
But in the case of the potato and apple, one has the ability to unplug the nose and tell the difference. If no one had any senses that could distinguish them under any circumstances, then it would be different. This comes down to something akin to Einstein's problem with quantum physics, that it didn't make aesthetic sense to have something be fundamentally random. That it is the same, and philosophically preferable, to say that something is fixed, but cannot be measured, than to say it is actually random. Now, I hear that with quantum stuff they somehow have proved it to be fundamentally random, but the point is that if you really can't tell in any way, the difference doesn't matter at all. At least to a reductionist viewpoint. I feel that philosophies about "what if reality is a simulation or a dream?" are dumb for the same reason. Unless there's a way to wake up, who cares?
- xamuel 7y ago
  But we don't know that we can't ever possibly test consciousness, we just don't know how to test it yet. Before Archimedes, the problem of determining the purity of a golden crown was intractable. Archimedes' solution was not arrived at by brute force concentrating on the problem, but rather by an epiphany (leading to the famous story of him shouting "Eureka" and running out of the house naked). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(word)#Archimedes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(word)#Archimedes It's possible that someday someone like Archimedes will realize a way to test consciousness, and it'll be something ridiculously simple (like Archimedes' submerging the crown in water and seeing how much water it displaces), and we'll all kick ourselves for not thinking of it first :)
- jpttsn 7y ago
  > Now, I hear that with quantum stuff they somehow have proved it to be fundamentally random, but the point is that if you really can't tell in any way, the difference doesn't matter at all. Someone said that quantum should not be brought up in discussions about consciousness because it’s way too easy to misconstrue the quantum maths about probabilities and observations as somehow relevant on macro scale.

by hnarn 7y ago

d0mine 7y ago

There is a big difference between "don't know" under specific set of circumstances and "can't know" ever. There is obviously a difference between an apple and a potato (and in more aspects than just smell).

jpttsn 7y ago
I still think the difference is there even if we can’t know it. It’s the whole tree-woods-nobody thing, isn’t it? Of course the tree makes a sound. If all intelligent life in the universe was wiped, a falling rock would still make a sound.

manifestsilence 7y ago

But in the case of the potato and apple, one has the ability to unplug the nose and tell the difference. If no one had any senses that could distinguish them under any circumstances, then it would be different. This comes down to something akin to Einstein's problem with quantum physics, that it didn't make aesthetic sense to have something be fundamentally random. That it is the same, and philosophically preferable, to say that something is fixed, but cannot be measured, than to say it is actually random. Now, I hear that with quantum stuff they somehow have proved it to be fundamentally random, but the point is that if you really can't tell in any way, the difference doesn't matter at all. At least to a reductionist viewpoint. I feel that philosophies about "what if reality is a simulation or a dream?" are dumb for the same reason. Unless there's a way to wake up, who cares?

xamuel 7y ago
But we don't know that we can't ever possibly test consciousness, we just don't know how to test it yet. Before Archimedes, the problem of determining the purity of a golden crown was intractable. Archimedes' solution was not arrived at by brute force concentrating on the problem, but rather by an epiphany (leading to the famous story of him shouting "Eureka" and running out of the house naked). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(word)#Archimedes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(word)#Archimedes It's possible that someday someone like Archimedes will realize a way to test consciousness, and it'll be something ridiculously simple (like Archimedes' submerging the crown in water and seeing how much water it displaces), and we'll all kick ourselves for not thinking of it first :)
jpttsn 7y ago
> Now, I hear that with quantum stuff they somehow have proved it to be fundamentally random, but the point is that if you really can't tell in any way, the difference doesn't matter at all. Someone said that quantum should not be brought up in discussions about consciousness because it’s way too easy to misconstrue the quantum maths about probabilities and observations as somehow relevant on macro scale.