3 ms·
> are discussing experiential consciousness: it "loops" back on physics, so to speak. It interacts with it. I think discussing it is independent of whether it
by Xcelerate 12y ago
> are discussing experiential consciousness: it "loops" back on physics, so to speak. It interacts with it.
I think discussing it is independent of whether it exists. For instance, you could imagine a society of p-zombies that behaves exactly like ours, discussing the fact that they experience existence, without actually experiencing it (or you could program some computers to say the same thing).
As a side note, is "experiential consciousness" an established phrase, or did you come up with it? I really like that term. It seems the neuroscientists have commandeered the term "consciousness" to refer to only neurobiological consciousness, so I like the "experiential" qualifier you've added.
- amelius 12y agoI thought of the "zombies" argument too. But I don't find it satisfying, because why would such zombies exist? It would go against Occam's razor. (Occam's razor does not offer a logical proof, but still has proven useful as a guidance). No, indeed. I came up with the "experiential" qualifier, because the term "consciousness" is highly overloaded indeed, and I do not know the generally accepted phrase.
- Xcelerate 12y agoWell, Occam's razor is very subjective, dependent on what each person finds the simplest explanation to be. Some people deny experiential consciousness exists at all (how they deny this, I'm not sure, because to me it is the one thing I am most certain exists), so to them the p-zombie argument would be the simplest.