Humans are not Zombies

jamest · **#81** by **jamest** » Oct 05, 2019 2:54 am

Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:You are of course free to respond or not respond to anything I write, but thus far you have only been keen to score points against philosophy that I have never presented, or against me as an individual (about my degree etc.). It's pathetic, even desperate.

I am an individual in my own right and am not here supporting the claims/concepts of any philosohers. Is there a point where you might grasp this point, or are you just going to reparrot your arrogant biases interminably?

Are you even capable of having this discussion with me any more? Something is wrong with you. When intelligence and morality implode at the same time...

Every single other poster has understood what I've meant.

Devoid of any proof/testament/poll, your faith in sheep-speak is all you have to go on.

Perhaps that's something you should reflect on rather than just throwing around more of these insults in an entirely offtopic post that also manages to complain we're not on topic?

I think you've heard enough about my reflections of sheep and parrots around these parts. It makes me sad to see so many, legion, devoid of a voice.

The truth is that I could, very succinctly explain what I think has gone wrong here. I just can't do it within the bounds of the FUA, sorry.

The difference hetween me and you is that my next ban could be very long or even permanent, whereas yours would be "Oh Thommo, please don't do that again, otherwise we'll have to give you 24 hours to think about it". Grow a fucking pair of balls, squire.

You're a smart geezer, for sure, but you're far from genuine. As I said, I don't care any more. i'll continue to use you as a wall, so keep spraying the bullshit.

jamest · **#82** by **jamest** » Oct 05, 2019 3:04 am

Thommo wrote:"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

True philosophers are not parrots.

Iirc there was a thread I started here several years ago, to substantiate the meaning of an omnipotent God (or omnipresent, my memory is fading), different to all other meanings.

The point is that I bring my own food to the table, always.

What sort of an idiot would come to an intelligent guy such as yourself and say "I've read that so-and-so said this, therefore God"?

Not me. Never. Ever!

Whatever you take from this discussion, please take from it that "so-and-so" has never been the basis for anything that I've ever said.

Sleep well!

Thommo · **#83** by **Thommo** » Oct 05, 2019 3:11 am

Did you know that you've made over 80 posts parroting the word parrot? Did you know that for me to have a "next" ban that would be part of a pattern of me being excused I'd have to have had a ban? Or a warning? Or even a not-a-warning but I'm watching you mod note?

This is the point. You seem genuinely perplexed that when you break the FUA you get warned under that same FUA's warning system. And doubly perplexed that people who don't break the FUA don't get warned.

And as for genuine:
Here's a "genuine" promise from you:

jamest wrote:I'll apologise to you all if someone can prove to me that KIR "has a history of expressing distaste for transexuals" (Hermit).

And your "actual" response when you were asked why you hadn't kept your "genuine" promise full of "sincerity" (parroted in over 140 and 40 posts each respectively), days and days after extensive evidence was provided by the victim:

jamest wrote:I haven't done or said anything to aban to apologise for.

I wouldn't even know how to begin to be as insincere and disingenuous as that. Or as in the example Jennifer just put to you.

I also don't *quite* see what this has to do with the debate on P-zombies you started the thread ostensibly to have and expressed so much concern over staying on the topic of, earlier in the evening.

romansh · **#84** by **romansh** » Oct 05, 2019 3:19 am

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?

jamest · **#85** by **jamest** » Oct 05, 2019 3:23 am

Whether I apologise to aban over something I haven't actually done or said to aban, has got fuck all to do with you. What it tells me though, is where your head is at. And that's not in a philosophical discussion, but a political discussion. Your head is up your arse, just like Corbyn.

He's the biggest cunt I've seen on tv, including Trump.

I'll see you on the fields of the upcoming revolution, squire.

Thommo · **#86** by **Thommo** » Oct 05, 2019 3:29 am

jamest wrote:What sort of an idiot would come to an intelligent guy such as yourself and say "I've read that so-and-so said this, therefore God"?

I don't know that that would be any worse than what happened, so I won't speculate about what sort of idiot would do it. None, I hope.

The point is that we have a common lexicon. If I start to complain that Manchester United are performing poorly this season because Jurgita Dronina's Grande Jetés and Pliés haven't been wholly convincing I'm not being clever, I'm just misapplying words which have common referents and confusing football with ballet. And probably irritating and misleading everyone I'm talking to in the process.

Whether or not I meant ballet all along is irrelevant. It's just a mistake either way. And if I clearly meant football when I started out and then just start pretending half way along I meant something else? That's worse.

You don't need to think the same as everyone (or anyone) else to use words in a recognisable fashion, or deploy philosophical concepts in novel ways to construct creative new arguments. It's a total non sequitur to link misunderstanding basic terminology with creative thinking. They are not the same.

The same goes for using valid logic, eschewing basic principles of reasoning just makes you illogical, not creative. A good argument consists of clearly stated premises, with clear steps of inference each of which is justified. It does not consist of stating your conclusion or indeed stating one conclusion and then later swapping in an entirely different one about God that was never discussed.

I didn't assume you were talking about God when we were talking about P-zombies because they are two different things. Not everyone only has one topic and one talking point they parrot in every single thread like a soothing mantra they need to get themselves off to sleep.

Edit: Typo.

Thommo · **#87** by **Thommo** » Oct 05, 2019 3:30 am

jamest wrote:Whether I apologise to aban over something I haven't actually done or said to aban, has got fuck all to do with you. What it tells me though, is where your head is at. And that's not in a philosophical discussion, but a political discussion. Your head is up your arse, just like Corbyn.

He's the biggest cunt I've seen on tv, including Trump.

I'll see you on the fields of the upcoming revolution, squire.

I see, so my head is up my arse and I'm just like Corbyn who is a cunt.

I bet you'll be surprised if the mods see the personal attack you've so cleverly hidden in there. :roll:

Anyway whether or not a conversation I was part of, in which you made a promise to all present (which included me) to apologise (your words, your promise, not mine, not forced on you by me - entirely volunteered by you) if proof of transphobia was presented (which I did, providing something like 20 direct citations) has anything to do with me, the point was that you bang on and on about being sincere and genuine. There you were with a promise you made and which you haven't kept. I really think you can understand how that falls short of (the commonly accepted meaning of) being genuine.

Have a sincere think about it when you're calm and sober and have had some time out. Genuinely think about what sort of person you aspire to be and whether that person makes promises they have no intention of keeping.

Spinozasgalt · **#88** by **Spinozasgalt** » Oct 05, 2019 3:32 am

jamest wrote:I wrote in a level-3 philosophy course (philosophy of mind) stating why I thought no zombie could have created a chocolate factory as a ruse to proving why humans could not be zombies in the general sense of what that concept implied. I did NOT write about certain philosophers nor about their own perceptions of what zombies were, because if I did I wouldn't have been writing about chocolate factories.

No. I doubt that, jamest. Because...

Spinozasgalt wrote:...if you did study philosophy of mind and were tasked with writing a piece about zombies, the zombies referred to in the piece would be p-zombies: these are the zombies relevant to philosophy of mind. We can see quite clearly that you've mistaken the concept for something else when you write the following to Thommo:
jamest wrote:Don't be a dingbat. As you must know, the ONLY point of the zombie debate in philosophy is to undermine the notion of spirit/mind, rather to undermine the notion that 'we' are more than physical/chemical/robotic beings. It's basically a physicalist counter to idealism!!

Nevertheless, there is more to discuss here than our behavioural similarities. Hence, chocolate factories. For I put it to you that we cannot be equated to zombies in any form due to the FACT that we have created chocolate factories. Zombies would never have done this, even in an eternity!!!

And that's the point of the debate, because it puts the zombie argument to bed for an eternity!!!

Rather than admit your mistake, you've apparently decided to change tack and say you were never talking about the same concept because you didn't specifically use the term "p-zombie". But discussing the concept is not the same as naming it and you clearly thought you were discussing the concept.

jamest · **#89** by **jamest** » Oct 05, 2019 3:37 am

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!

Spearthrower · **#90** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 05, 2019 3:38 am

jamest wrote:Wow, people here just want to talk about me,

I'm just that special!

jamest · **#91** by **jamest** » Oct 05, 2019 3:45 am

Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:Whether I apologise to aban over something I haven't actually done or said to aban, has got fuck all to do with you. What it tells me though, is where your head is at. And that's not in a philosophical discussion, but a political discussion. Your head is up your arse, just like Corbyn.

He's the biggest cunt I've seen on tv, including Trump.

I'll see you on the fields of the upcoming revolution, squire.

I see, so my head is up my arse and I'm just like Corbyn who is a cunt.

I bet you'll be surprised if the mods see the personal attack you've so cleverly hidden in there.

Anyway whether or not a conversation I was part of, in which you made a promise to all present (which included me) to apologise (your words, your promise, not mine, not forced on you by me - entirely volunteered by you) if proof of transphobia was presented (which I did, providing something like 20 direct citations) has anything to do with me, the point was that you bang on and on about being sincere and genuine. There you were with a promise you made and which you haven't kept. I really think you can understand how that falls short of (the commonly accepted meaning of) being genuine.

Have a sincere think about it when you're calm and sober and have had some time out. Genuinely think about what sort of person you aspire to be and whether that person makes promises they have no intention of keeping.

You're a very devious person, Sir. To imply that I should be dealt with by the mods, by associating you with Corbyn, who I obviously dislike, is utterly disingenuous on your part.

I'm left with a sense of disgust, I'll leave you alone after that. :nono:

Thommo · **#92** by **Thommo** » Oct 05, 2019 3:46 am

Spearthrower wrote:
jamest wrote:Wow, people here just want to talk about me,

I'm just that special!

Hold your horses, it gets "better" between there and here...

Hermit · **#93** by **Hermit** » Oct 05, 2019 3:47 am

jamest wrote:
Hermit wrote:
jamest wrote:Wow, people here just want to talk about me, not my philosophy.

JamesT, you might get more talk about what you regard as your philosophy if you replied to more posts that do address it.

Pardon me, but when I start philosophy threads 90+% of the responses usually involve talking about and taking the piss out of me.

That is no surprise to anyone but you. 90+% of what you regard as your philosophy is utter nonsense - and what's more, ridiculously argued for nonsense - that we readers find it difficult to react in any other way than take the piss out of it. Your reaction to ours is to get upset and react with aggression and self-assurance that is only equalled by your ignorance. That in turn result in people taking the piss out of you personally.

You keep reminding us how you have espoused your nonsense for 20 years without being able to get anyone to agree with it. This only heightens the comedic effect. Instead of stopping to wonder "In light of my singular failure to convince anyone of the validity of what I regard as my philosophy for 20 years, is there possibly something wrong with it?" you accuse everyone else of being ignorant numpties.

jamest wrote:
Hermit wrote:
jamest wrote:My bottom-line, if you've read the link, is that zombies wouldn't have created chocolate factories. Why? Because they're neither creative nor have sensations such as those associated with specific substances such as chocolate, which we generally love.

For the purpose of a thought experiment by Karlyn Campbell, Robert Kirk, David Chalmers, et al., entities, eventually named p-zombies, have been proposed to conceivably exist. Those p-zombies are defined by those philosophers as indistinguishable from humans in terms of behaviour. You come along and assert that no p-zombie, as defined by the above philosophers, could ever create a chocolate factory, thus denying that p-zombies could conceivably exist. According to you. p-zombies can be distinguished from humans. By rights that ought to be the end of any discussion involving p-zombies.

Stop wasting my fucking time. I'm not any of those dicks and at no point have I mentioned p-zombies.

Wake the fuck up. This is me, james, and I am not a parrot, nor brainwashed. I am here to discuss my own ideas. You wanna talk to me? Then don't insult me again by insinuating that I'm a parrot!!

JamesT, you are talking about the same zombies as the philosophers I mentioned. No matter whether they are called p-zombies, the living dead, Imitation Man, or simply zombie, all philosophers are agreed that "zombie" is defined as 1) being behaviourally indistinguishable from a human, 2) having a human brain and being generally physiologically indistinguishable from a human, 3) lacking a soul, and 4) living in a zombie universe that is identical to our world in all physical ways, except no being in that world has qualia. The difference between you and them is that you want to chip in on the discussion about zombies without accepting the definitions of what a zombie is. You know what this means, don't you? Yes, more cause for taking the piss out of what you regard as your philosophy, and yes, more laughter ensuing by how you react to that.

Thommo · **#94** by **Thommo** » Oct 05, 2019 3:48 am

jamest wrote:You're the Jeremy Corbyn of the philosophy forum

jamest wrote:
jamest wrote:Your head is up your arse, just like Corbyn.

He's the biggest cunt I've seen on tv

You're a very devious person, Sir. To imply that I should be dealt with by the mods, by associating you with Corbyn, who I obviously dislike, is utterly disingenuous on your part.

I'm left with a sense of disgust, I'll leave you alone after that.

Yep. All my imagination. Clearly.

Just for the record, how do you think it reads when you say I'm Corbyn and then a few minutes later say Corbyn is a cunt? Friendly and reasonable?

Spearthrower · **#95** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 05, 2019 3:49 am

jamest wrote:
I'm presenting myself here as a philosopher in his own right.

See? This is where it all goes wrong.

Underpinning every single post from you is this endless self-promotion about who you are and why that should be relevant.

Consequently, people talk about you... with ironic comparisons between your arrogant self-declarations and the actual value of what you post.

You are not a philosopher, Jamest. You are not. You need to stop deceiving yourself about your brilliance because no one else shares your opinion of you. If you act like this in the real world, then it's no wonder you're friendless, and it's not because you're an intellectual lone-wulf plumbing the trackless depths of reality.

None of the people are still here whose comments evoked in you this need to portray yourself as something you're not. You're an actor so lost in his own drama, you haven't realized your audience left long ago.

You want to do philosophy? Start with Know Thyself.

Spearthrower · **#96** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 05, 2019 3:52 am

jamest wrote:
Why don't you just respond directly to my claim that there can be no chocolate factories unless we are God?

It's philosophy Jim, but not as we know it.

Spearthrower · **#97** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 05, 2019 3:53 am

jamest wrote:
I wrote in a level-3 philosophy course...

What's a 'level 3', James?

There's no such numbering in degrees.

jamest · **#98** by **jamest** » Oct 05, 2019 3:55 am

Spinozasgalt wrote:
jamest wrote:I wrote in a level-3 philosophy course (philosophy of mind) stating why I thought no zombie could have created a chocolate factory as a ruse to proving why humans could not be zombies in the general sense of what that concept implied. I did NOT write about certain philosophers nor about their own perceptions of what zombies were, because if I did I wouldn't have been writing about chocolate factories.

No. I doubt that, jamest. Because...
Spinozasgalt wrote:...if you did study philosophy of mind and were tasked with writing a piece about zombies, the zombies referred to in the piece would be p-zombies: these are the zombies relevant to philosophy of mind. We can see quite clearly that you've mistaken the concept for something else when you write the following to Thommo:
jamest wrote:Don't be a dingbat. As you must know, the ONLY point of the zombie debate in philosophy is to undermine the notion of spirit/mind, rather to undermine the notion that 'we' are more than physical/chemical/robotic beings. It's basically a physicalist counter to idealism!!

Nevertheless, there is more to discuss here than our behavioural similarities. Hence, chocolate factories. For I put it to you that we cannot be equated to zombies in any form due to the FACT that we have created chocolate factories. Zombies would never have done this, even in an eternity!!!

And that's the point of the debate, because it puts the zombie argument to bed for an eternity!!!

Rather than admit your mistake, you've apparently decided to change tack and say you were never talking about the same concept because you didn't specifically use the term "p-zombie". But discussing the concept is not the same as naming it and you clearly thought you were discussing the concept.

I need more than you "doubt it". I don't come here as often as I used to. When I do come, if you want my attention, please be more convincing.

Spearthrower · **#99** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 05, 2019 3:55 am

jamest wrote:Whether I apologise to aban over something I haven't actually done or said to aban, has got fuck all to do with you. What it tells me though, is where your head is at. And that's not in a philosophical discussion, but a political discussion. Your head is up your arse, just like Corbyn.

He's the biggest cunt I've seen on tv, including Trump.

I'll see you on the fields of the upcoming revolution, squire.

Where's that wanking emoticon?

Spearthrower · **#100** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 05, 2019 3:57 am

Thommo wrote:
jamest wrote:Whether I apologise to aban over something I haven't actually done or said to aban, has got fuck all to do with you. What it tells me though, is where your head is at. And that's not in a philosophical discussion, but a political discussion. Your head is up your arse, just like Corbyn.

He's the biggest cunt I've seen on tv, including Trump.

I'll see you on the fields of the upcoming revolution, squire.

I see, so my head is up my arse and I'm just like Corbyn who is a cunt.

I bet you'll be surprised if the mods see the personal attack you've so cleverly hidden in there.

It must be perplexing to be so brilliant and misunderstood, yet have all your deep subtlety seen through by everyone all the time.

Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Re: Humans are not Zombies

Who is online