3 ms·
As a professor of philosophy, I very much doubt he's ignorant of Philosophical Zombies. He probably just disregards them; they're not universally accepted as re
by rosser 12y ago
As a professor of philosophy, I very much doubt he's ignorant of Philosophical Zombies. He probably just disregards them; they're not universally accepted as remotely meaningful, or even possible. (Note that the most meaningful forms of the zombie argument require them to be metaphysically possible, not merely logically.)
They're also not one of "the most basic concepts in philosophy of mind." They're a very pointed way of illustrating the Hard Problem of Consciousness, and specifically Epistemic Asymmetry, but it's the latter two that are fundamental to modern philosophy of mind, not zombies.
- baddox 12y agoHe still doesn't even recognize that the idea exists. He just claims that "winning" requires internal emotion, without any support or recognition that other opinions might exist. To me, that sounds philosophically ignorant.
- rosser 12y agoHe still doesn't even recognize that the idea exists. Do you somehow not see the fundamental disconnect between making an argument based on p-zombies and attributing internal state to someone else?