3 ms·

See my reply to Bakkot. No amount of science can prove or disprove a p-zombie. Since it's unfalsifiable, it cannot possibly belong in the domain of science.

See my reply to Bakkot. No amount of science can prove or disprove a p-zombie. Since it's unfalsifiable, it cannot possibly belong in the domain of science. (Again, I should note that I am referring more to "experience" than "consciousness").

thaumaturgy 14y ago
I don't understand. You used the P-Zombie as a reference for believing that there's something "magical" about consciousness. The magic of consciousness is quickly giving way to the research of neuroscience. So, why are you injecting an unfalsifiable philosophy -- which, by the way, is indistinguishable from religion -- into a scientific discussion? To respond directly to your hypothetical apple, there are so many myriad ways of testing the existence or not-existence of a thing that hand-waving science away as agreement-by-consensus is premature (and wrong). Your hypothetical crazy dude could try immersing his apple in water and see if there is displacement; he could try burning it, measuring the light of the flame using a spectrometer, ask others to burn apples in the same way, and compare the output; he could attempt to infect it with insect larvae; he could attempt to power a small device with it; and so on. Science is not merely a matter of consensus, it is a matter of ever-rigorous testing. Or, to put it another way: the closest thing that scientists have found so far to a "consensus" reality is relativity, and they found a way to test and verify it. If scientists can come up with a way to test whether or not time itself actually speeds up or slows down according to frame of reference, don't you think they could come up with a way to test for the existence of a magic invisible apple? To get back to the article, I have to defer to Descartes: I think, therefore I am. And, I have thought about such things as MRI machines that verify the consciousness of the beings around me; their brains, the existence of their consciousnesses, is no longer a magical thing to me. I suppose it is possible that I am an element of some kind of incredible extra-dimensional simulation, but that's a very boring thing to imagine, because it doesn't in any way affect who I am or what I will do, or have done. And besides, I think that one day scientists will be able to test that, too. edit: here, I read the WP article you linked more thoroughly, so I'll just reference it back: I believe I would fall into the reductive physicalist camp, where p-zombies are impossible by definition. Furthermore, I think that the relatively recent work done in neuroscience -- work more recent than the idea of p-zombies, I would point out -- provides strong support for reductive physicalism.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  We're probably just having a semantic disagreement. I suppose I am referring more so to the act of experiencing something. P-zombie's are hypothetical people that lack a certain "property" (for lack of a better word) that other people have. This property is only testable on an individual basis. Since this property is not reproducible for agreement by consensus, you're right -- it isn't science. But it was never a purely scientific discussion to begin with anyway as we were debating the nature of consciousness/experience; no scientist does this as part of their job. If you are referring to "consciousness" as a specific pattern of neural activity that occurs within the brain that can be studied, and from which additional correlations and predictions can be made, then yes, of course we are learning about that. We may even be able to simulate a brain in its entirety one day (heck, my research is in simulation so I can certainly see where it's headed [hundreds of years down the road I might add]). I don't think anyone on HN would dispute the improving science of neural analysis.

thaumaturgy 14y ago

I don't understand. You used the P-Zombie as a reference for believing that there's something "magical" about consciousness. The magic of consciousness is quickly giving way to the research of neuroscience. So, why are you injecting an unfalsifiable philosophy -- which, by the way, is indistinguishable from religion -- into a scientific discussion? To respond directly to your hypothetical apple, there are so many myriad ways of testing the existence or not-existence of a thing that hand-waving science away as agreement-by-consensus is premature (and wrong). Your hypothetical crazy dude could try immersing his apple in water and see if there is displacement; he could try burning it, measuring the light of the flame using a spectrometer, ask others to burn apples in the same way, and compare the output; he could attempt to infect it with insect larvae; he could attempt to power a small device with it; and so on. Science is not merely a matter of consensus, it is a matter of ever-rigorous testing. Or, to put it another way: the closest thing that scientists have found so far to a "consensus" reality is relativity, and they found a way to test and verify it. If scientists can come up with a way to test whether or not time itself actually speeds up or slows down according to frame of reference, don't you think they could come up with a way to test for the existence of a magic invisible apple? To get back to the article, I have to defer to Descartes: I think, therefore I am. And, I have thought about such things as MRI machines that verify the consciousness of the beings around me; their brains, the existence of their consciousnesses, is no longer a magical thing to me. I suppose it is possible that I am an element of some kind of incredible extra-dimensional simulation, but that's a very boring thing to imagine, because it doesn't in any way affect who I am or what I will do, or have done. And besides, I think that one day scientists will be able to test that, too. edit: here, I read the WP article you linked more thoroughly, so I'll just reference it back: I believe I would fall into the reductive physicalist camp, where p-zombies are impossible by definition. Furthermore, I think that the relatively recent work done in neuroscience -- work more recent than the idea of p-zombies, I would point out -- provides strong support for reductive physicalism.

Xcelerate 14y ago
We're probably just having a semantic disagreement. I suppose I am referring more so to the act of experiencing something. P-zombie's are hypothetical people that lack a certain "property" (for lack of a better word) that other people have. This property is only testable on an individual basis. Since this property is not reproducible for agreement by consensus, you're right -- it isn't science. But it was never a purely scientific discussion to begin with anyway as we were debating the nature of consciousness/experience; no scientist does this as part of their job. If you are referring to "consciousness" as a specific pattern of neural activity that occurs within the brain that can be studied, and from which additional correlations and predictions can be made, then yes, of course we are learning about that. We may even be able to simulate a brain in its entirety one day (heck, my research is in simulation so I can certainly see where it's headed [hundreds of years down the road I might add]). I don't think anyone on HN would dispute the improving science of neural analysis.