Humans are not Zombies

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#121  Postby romansh » Oct 05, 2019 7:28 pm

jamest wrote:
romansh wrote:Could a p zombie claim to have consciousness (and the trappings that go with it)?
Could a p zombie end up creating a chocolate factory of some sort chaotically?

Is consciousness all that is cracked up to be?

How could an entity which doesn't exist make a claim?

Only an entity which exists can create a factory!

While it is reasonable to claim that entities that don't exist ,don't actually do anything, it does beg the question.
I am sure you came across this in your level three course.

I can dismiss idealist gods as simply not existing on this basis. They can't build chocolate factories, because they don't exist.
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2740

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Humans are not Zombies

#122  Postby GrahamH » Oct 05, 2019 8:32 pm

romansh wrote:
jamest wrote:
romansh wrote:Could a p zombie claim to have consciousness (and the trappings that go with it)?
Could a p zombie end up creating a chocolate factory of some sort chaotically?

Is consciousness all that is cracked up to be?

How could an entity which doesn't exist make a claim?

Only an entity which exists can create a factory!

While it is reasonable to claim that entities that don't exist ,don't actually do anything, it does beg the question.
I am sure you came across this in your level three course.

I can dismiss idealist gods as simply not existing on this basis. They can't build chocolate factories, because they don't exist.


Flip that around.

Idealist gods create everything.
Entities that don't exist don't do anything.
Chocolate factories exist.
Therefore god exists.

No worse that jamest's arguments! (which are utter bollocks)
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20399

Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#123  Postby romansh » Oct 05, 2019 9:12 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Flip that around.

Idealist gods create everything.
Entities that don't exist don't do anything.
Chocolate factories exist.
Therefore god exists.

No worse that jamest's arguments! (which are utter bollocks)

:lol:
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2740

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#124  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 06, 2019 8:37 am

Level 3 qualification...

It's really bemusing. I've worked in and around tertiary education most of my life, and I have never heard of this numerical system, not in the UK or anywhere else.

But James keeps appealing to his qualification...

https://www.distancelearningcollege.co. ... valent-to/

NQF qualification levels can be compared with ‘traditional’ qualifications as follows:

Entry level qualifications are equivalent to studying at Foundation Diploma level.

A Level 1 qualification is equivalent to GCSE grade D-G level.

A Level 2 qualification is equivalent to GCSE grade A*-C level.

A Level 3 qualification is equivalent to A Level.



Now this makes perfect sense in so many ways.

James' Philosophy course was equivalent to A-level. That's the depth of knowledge he possesses from the course. It's not a degree level, it's not any actual expertise, and it's typically studied alongside 2 or 3 other qualifications. As I mentioned in another thread; he has the certainty of limited knowledge more typically found in teenagers, and it just so happens that the majority of us do our A-levels when we're 16-18.

So James is a philosopher in the sense that an 18 year old who studied Biology, Economics and History at A-level is a biologist, economist and historian. That is, none of those things.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27416
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#125  Postby zerne » Oct 06, 2019 10:13 am

jamest wrote:You're not talking to a parrot here; it's me, james. I don't give a fuck about "P-zombies" and haven't even used that term!!!!

I'm presenting myself here as a philosopher in his own right. Though I may sometimes discuss concepts used by philophers in history, I am only EVER going to discuss my own conceptualisation of those concepts within threads such as these.

For verification of my occasional challenge to concepts/people of [deemed] importantance, research my threads/posts. I'm not shy, where need demands. Kant/Einstein/Newton etc. have all been under the hammer.

Go and research your philosophy and see which famous philosopher has discussed chocolate factories. NONE!

I don't give a fuck about a 'p-zombie' nor the philosopher/whoever who coined the term. I'm not here to defend them nor their term. Have you got that, squire? Or do you need me to scream this post into your dulled eyes?


Um. If you're not referring to p-Zombies in the OP, may i ask what you are referring to when you talk about zombies, because they are fictional and have many variants only limited by the author's imagination.

http://zombie.fandom.com/wiki/Types_of_Zombies

Chocolate loving zombies are easily imagined, just have them hunger for a particular compound that is in abundant in chocolate.
User avatar
zerne
 
Posts: 888
Age: 46
Male

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#126  Postby aban57 » Oct 06, 2019 10:44 am

Spearthrower wrote:
So James is a philosopher in the sense that an 18 year old who studied Biology, Economics and History at A-level is a biologist, economist and historian. That is, none of those things.


In French we call that "philosophe du dimanche" :)
aban57
 
Name: Cindy
Posts: 7304
Age: 40
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#127  Postby felltoearth » Oct 06, 2019 10:54 am

aban57 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
So James is a philosopher in the sense that an 18 year old who studied Biology, Economics and History at A-level is a biologist, economist and historian. That is, none of those things.


In French we call that "philosophe du dimanche" :)


Does that apply to drunk posting at night?
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 13449
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Humans are not Zombies

#128  Postby aban57 » Oct 06, 2019 11:00 am

Nope.
aban57
 
Name: Cindy
Posts: 7304
Age: 40
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#129  Postby zoon » Oct 06, 2019 12:01 pm

Thommo wrote:One of the fundamental problems with approaching this from science though is that even if we could prove consciousness (or qualia, or subjectivity or any of the other related concepts) is not a physical thing (and I don't think science claims that at this point in time) that doesn't mean it proves that consciousness is a non-physical thing.

The "thing" part is an assumption - it might be that we are predisposed to reify certain models or mental functions and it might be that this has evolutionary benefit. That isn't the same as establishing the ontological status of those models or functions.

As an example, suppose I could prove a shadow is not a physical thing (for example by having it move faster than the speed of light and "break" the laws of physics), what now? It's still fully explained by physics and physical phenomena. Or in the parlance of certain philosophical views supervenient on them. The problem arises purely through our erroneous description of the phenomenon at play and the shortcuts we take in describing it.

I certainly agree with you that there is at present no credible evidence for immaterial consciousness. I would also agree that even if, for example, something were shown to move faster than the speed of light, this would still not be evidence for immaterial consciousness, only that the current laws of physics needed revision.

Evidence in favour of non-physical mental powers would need to be more specific, for example, if Uri Geller’s spoon-bending claims had survived rigorous investigation instead of being quickly shown to be fraudulent. While the possibility of such new evidence can never be entirely ruled out, it doesn’t seem any more likely than evidence for gods or flying spaghetti monsters.

Richard Dawkins argues in his book “The Blind Watchmaker” that before Darwin and Wallace came up with the theory of evolution by natural selection, the strong appearance of teleology in living things did constitute good rational evidence for some kind of creator which could plan ahead, like human minds. Since the laws of physics as developed by scientists such as Newton were essentially non-teleological, the creative power behind living things would need to have at least some non-physical aspect? The theory of evolution by natural selection does manage to resolve this apparent difficulty for physicalism, but as Dawkins points out it’s the only theory which anyone has yet thought of which would resolve it. If the theory of evolution by natural selection were to be shown not to hold, there’s no alternative physicalist hypothesis waiting in the wings to save physicalism from the apparent purposefulness of living things. I presume this is why people such as Jayjay4547 and jamest who are arguing for gods or idealism attempt to attack the evidence for evolution by natural selection: if they were successful, they would indeed have powerful evidence that the apparent purposefulness or rationality of living things is essentially outside the laws of physics, non-physical. They have not come close to succeeding.

(I do agree that our tendency to reify forward planning as consciousness is a mental quirk which probably evolved because it promotes the survival of the individual’s genes, but that argument starts with the evidence-based assumptions that we evolved and that physicalism is correct.)
User avatar
zoon
 
Posts: 3214

Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#130  Postby Thommo » Oct 06, 2019 3:01 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Level 3 qualification...

It's really bemusing. I've worked in and around tertiary education most of my life, and I have never heard of this numerical system, not in the UK or anywhere else.

But James keeps appealing to his qualification...

https://www.distancelearningcollege.co. ... valent-to/

NQF qualification levels can be compared with ‘traditional’ qualifications as follows:

Entry level qualifications are equivalent to studying at Foundation Diploma level.

A Level 1 qualification is equivalent to GCSE grade D-G level.

A Level 2 qualification is equivalent to GCSE grade A*-C level.

A Level 3 qualification is equivalent to A Level.



Now this makes perfect sense in so many ways.

James' Philosophy course was equivalent to A-level. That's the depth of knowledge he possesses from the course. It's not a degree level, it's not any actual expertise, and it's typically studied alongside 2 or 3 other qualifications. As I mentioned in another thread; he has the certainty of limited knowledge more typically found in teenagers, and it just so happens that the majority of us do our A-levels when we're 16-18.

So James is a philosopher in the sense that an 18 year old who studied Biology, Economics and History at A-level is a biologist, economist and historian. That is, none of those things.


I don't think any of this is right.

It'll be this (well the version from a few years ago), if you're interested:
http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/qualifications/qd
http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/qualifica ... ce?orig=qd
http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/qualifica ... tails/a333
What you will study

The five topics are addressed via the module books, which are described below. The discussion in the module books is supported by extensive audio interviews with prominent present day philosophers and by a selection of interactive online activities. The module develops the skills and confidence needed for independent study in philosophy in a gradual and supported way.

The value of the skills and topics taught is not limited to academic study, though the module does give a sound basis for further study in philosophy and other subjects.

Book 1: Truth in fiction
When people read novels or watch films, they often become emotionally involved with the story. Yet this phenomenon can seem quite puzzling. How can it be rational for people to feel happy or sad about events that never actually happened or to care about the fate of people who do not exist? Why do people seem to seek out stories that make them feel frightened or sad? As you will discover, these questions lead on to some broader issues about the purpose and value of narrative art. This opening book will allow you to explore these questions through readings from two classic texts – Plato’s Ion and David Hume’s essay Of Tragedy – as well as addressing the contemporary debate.

Book 2: War
Can there be justice in war? Is there a clear moral distinction between killing combatants and killing non-combatants? Are there circumstances – situations of supreme emergency – in which it is justifiable to suspend the accepted conventions of war? Should all soldiers be treated in the same way, regardless of whether their cause is just? This book will guide you through some of the core ideas of Just War Theory and recent criticisms of this approach.

Book 3: Reason in action
We tend to assume that people are, by and large, rational agents, their actions guided by reason. This shows up in our readiness to reason with one another over how best to proceed, and to hold people responsible for what they do. But what does rational agency really amount to? The module book explores this topic through three related questions: Are some goals more rational than others, and if so, which ones? How is it that we sometimes seem to act contrary to our better judgement (‘weakness of will’)? When we act collectively, who is responsible: is it the individuals involved or a ‘group agent’ – an organisation, a country, a family?

Book 4: Life and death
You'll explore four questions about the value of life and the significance of death. People sometimes say that life is sacred – but how should we understand this claim? Is death bad for the person who dies, or only for the people who are left behind? Is it good to be born? Can we make any sense of the idea that a life might (or might not) be meaningful?

Book 4: Knowledge and reason
Just as we might assume that people are, by and large, rational agents, so we might assume that people are, by and large, capable of thinking rationally and forming rational beliefs. Could scientific research into the ways in which people actually reason undermine this assumption? Do we have good reasons to believe what we are told? Is science itself a fully rational enterprise? You'll explore these questions through a variety of texts, including extracts from works by David Hume and Thomas Reid, as well writings by a number of contemporary thinkers.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26919

Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#131  Postby Thommo » Oct 06, 2019 3:25 pm

zoon wrote:Evidence in favour of non-physical mental powers would need to be more specific, for example, if Uri Geller’s spoon-bending claims had survived rigorous investigation instead of being quickly shown to be fraudulent. While the possibility of such new evidence can never be entirely ruled out, it doesn’t seem any more likely than evidence for gods or flying spaghetti monsters.


That's an interesting point. It's certainly evidence for either a non-physical explanation or an unexplained physical effect (obviously in his case it was initially the latter, and later it was an explained physical effect - he'd simply been hiding known processes). Of course, if we take the success of such challenges to be evidence for the non-physical then the failure of such challenges is evidence against by the same token and simple probability theory. After you accumulate enough of that evidence your posterior probability for non-physical explanations is going to be microscopically small, which means that even an unexplained Geller, whilst providing evidence for both non-physical explanations and unexplained physical effects, would lean with unimaginably greater levels of probability towards unexplained (which can include hidden) physical effects.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26919

Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#132  Postby Evolving » Oct 06, 2019 3:47 pm

I too have a degree from the OU; mine is a BSc in physics. In the diction of the OU, level 1 is the introductory courses (I did two of those, one in maths and one in experimental science), level 2 is an intermediate undergraduate level (most of my courses were at that level), and level 3 is actual degree level. In my degree I had to do (and pass) four level three courses.

If I've pontificated in the past about quantum mechanics and electromagnetism on this forum, that was based on my degree studies, and my level in those subjects was level 3.
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11913
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#133  Postby felltoearth » Oct 06, 2019 3:53 pm

Evolving wrote:I too have a degree from the OU; mine is a BSc in physics. In the diction of the OU, level 1 is the introductory courses (I did two of those, one in maths and one in experimental science), level 2 is an intermediate undergraduate level (most of my courses were at that level), and level 3 is actual degree level. In my degree I had to do (and pass) four level three courses.

If I've pontificated in the past about quantum mechanics and electromagnetism on this forum, that was based on my degree studies, and my level in those subjects was level 3.

I certainly hope you don’t allow the know-nothings who came before you dictate what you think. Don’t be a parrot, or a sheep, or a sharrot, or a pareep, or something.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 13449
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#134  Postby Evolving » Oct 06, 2019 3:59 pm

Baa!
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11913
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#135  Postby Evolving » Oct 06, 2019 4:01 pm

The OU helpfully gives out a "supplement" explaining that a bachelor's degree (whether with or without honours) is level 6 in something called the "Framework for Higher Education Qualifications". In other words, level 3 at the OU is level 6 in whatever that is.

http://msds.open.ac.uk/your-record/extra/diploma-supplement-part2.pdf
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11913
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Humans are not Zombies

#136  Postby Fallible » Oct 06, 2019 4:12 pm

That goes to a login page...I always thought the OU looked interesting. I got my degree and MA in the ‘usual’ way, then a level 2, level 3, Level 4 and level 5 in the psychotherapy/counselling area - CPCAB levels there. I can’t be arsed to go any further with that at the moment, at this stage the CPD plus thousands of therapy hours put in is quite enough for me. I’m still intrigued by the OU however. One day, maybe. My sister calls me “the perpetual student”. Bit mean...
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51391
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#137  Postby Thommo » Oct 06, 2019 5:37 pm

Wait, wait, wait. You have a *sister*?

This is a shocking revelation. I demand to know more! Like, did you always have a sister? Or is this a new development? Is she also fallible, or is she infallible (in which case I certainly couldn't argue that you're not a perpetual student)?
Last edited by Thommo on Oct 06, 2019 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26919

Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#138  Postby Evolving » Oct 06, 2019 5:38 pm

Fallible wrote:That goes to a login page...


Sorry. It’s a pdf, without any personal information. I’d attach it, but I don’t know how.

I’ve already written the central piece of information, anyway.
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11913
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#139  Postby Evolving » Oct 06, 2019 5:40 pm

Fallible wrote:That goes to a login page...I always thought the OU looked interesting. I got my degree and MA in the ‘usual’ way, then a level 2, level 3, Level 4 and level 5 in the psychotherapy/counselling area - CPCAB levels there. I can’t be arsed to go any further with that at the moment, at this stage the CPD plus thousands of therapy hours put in is quite enough for me. I’m still intrigued by the OU however. One day, maybe. My sister calls me “the perpetual student”. Bit mean...


I started a degree in the usual way (maths, in Germany), but when my first daughter unexpectedly arrived, I put it on hold, for quite a long time.
How extremely stupid not to have thought of that - T.H. Huxley
User avatar
Evolving
 
Name: Serafina Pekkala
Posts: 11913
Female

Country: Luxembourg
Luxembourg (lu)
Print view this post

Re: Humans are not Zombies

#140  Postby Fallible » Oct 06, 2019 6:33 pm

Thommo wrote:Wait, wait, wait. You have a *sister*?

This is a shocking revelation. I demand to know more! Like, did you always have a sister? Or is this a new development? Is she also fallible, or is she infallible (in which case I certainly couldn't argue that you're not a perpetual student)?


Yes, I’ve always had her. She’s 12 years older than me. She’s cleverer than me in all things numerical and extremely organised (was an accountant), got accepted at 4 of the 5 universities she applied to but decided to get married instead. She’s a carrot top and I have a nephew who is 33 and a great niece who is 3. She’s definitely fallible, but less so than me. Is that sufficient to slake you, kind sir?
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51391
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest