Posted: Oct 07, 2019 7:30 am
by GrahamH
jamest wrote:
No, I got a first for my average performance throughout 6 courses. The irony is, no surprise, that whomever marked my particular assignment relevant to zombies for that course didn't like my answer/attitude, just like yourself.

They probably found your position on this to be ill-considered and not well argued.

Do you really find P-Zombies conceivable (I think you do not) but P-Zombies creating chocolate factories inconceivable?
There would be a lot to discuss there, but I doubt we could even agree on the definition of P-Zombie.

To expand on the point, by definition P-Zs are behaviourally indistinguishable from "real humans" and "real humans" create things like chocolate factories therefore, by definition, P-Zs create things like chocolate factories. P-Zs can converse entirely convincingly about an "inner subjective life" of wants and desires, tastes and emotions. That is required by the definition. You obviously reject that so you find P-Zs so defined are inconceivable.

From the OP:

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.

That is to say, P-Zs would not behave like humans, which is a contradiction of the definition of P-Zs.