this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
47 points (100.0% liked)
philosophy
20296 readers
1 users here now
Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]
"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes
Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To provide some info to those unaware:
Pansychism is the philosophy that consciousness is at the root of the universe in the same way matter is. Everything has consciousness innately built into it, our brains just have the capabilities of harnessing that consciousness in particular ways.
This philosophy is popular because it helps address "the hard problem of consciousness" which is basically the question of why do we have subjective experience at all? If we are simply biological machines bumping against our environment why do we have subjective experience and why is that subjective experience so... Subjective?
Biology seems to explain this pretty simply: consciousness is the systems ability to take external and internal diagnostics and use it to make decisions that will help achieve homeostasis within the system, assuring system stability, improving evolutionary success...
To me, that explanation seems to cover all the bases. Why is my red different than yours? Because we are different physical constructs in different places in spacetime. We are different variables in the equation, we will have different outputs.
Why can't we locate that red in the brain? Because red isn't real, it's your experience piecing together a whole heap of sensory data and presenting it in an identifiable way, because being able to distingiush different wave lengths gives you an evolutionary advantage.
Evolution isn't teleological, so random shit just happens. If that mutation is beneficial it would lead to increased prosperity for the creature with said mutation. Some creature down the line developed eyes and it helped them get their fuck on and that's why we have consciousness.
Butterflies do fine without consciousness, but humans do a lot better (proof hexbear.net)
I legitimately cannot imagine a p zombie that would do okay in the modern world. You need consciousness to adapt.
When I say I don't think they can exist I mean I don't think they can exist in our actual reality. The thought experiment is usually that someone is literally a 1:1 copy of you but without consciousness: how do you figure out they're a zombie. My argument is that it is literally physically impossible to have my 1:1 brain and not have consciousness, as consciousness is derived from your brains processees.
When I say a p zombie could not exist because they need to adapt I am talking about a human p zombie in a modern city. They literally could not function. They would very quickly die.
And to use your example of "why consciousness". The p zombie paints the picture. Put a p zombie in a busy street in a busy city and they get hit by a car and die. The exact same person with consciousness can interpret the situation and avoid getting ran over. That's why consciousness came to be evolutionarily.
Imagining a p zombie is like imagining a computer that is supposedly running without an operating system... The operating system IS the computer... It can't run
That's not an "argument", that's literally the most text book example of begging the question that I can imagine.
They are literally behaviorally identical to a regular person. Jesus fucking Christ, this is such Reddit tier pseudo intellectualism. "I never bothered to actually comprehend the argument, but it's dumb and irrational anyway. Fucking no investigation, no write to speak, you self important chud
No. Imagining a p zombie is like imagining a computer that isn't conscious but still works. You know, the thing nobody has any problem doing!
Thats what I am saying: they can't. The P-Zombie you have invented in this thought experiment is question begging. We cannot have a behaviorally identical Pzombie because humans are driven by consciousness, which P-Zombies are incapable of. Category error. An unconscious human gets hit by a car if they're in the middle of the road.
This question only works if you believe in the P-Zombie. Its a non-starter if you don't.
Its the same problem I have with Mary's Room. If Mary has all knowledge of color she can perfectly imagine that color in her mind, because I am capable of doing so with my incredibly small knowledge of color... to say Mary would "learn something new" when she sees color for the first time is a category error. We are making semantic mistakes over the definition of "knowledge", not asking anything truly groundbreaking.
But not all at the same level of interior complexity. I think we can get a good estimate of that complexity by studying their cognition and behavior in comparison to ours.
But this is a semantic argument of what "Mary Had Knowledge" means, not what qualia is... When you say knowledge I am including the physical characteristics you have ascertained through your subjective experience. Defining knowledge otherwise seems tricky. To say Mary has knowledge of the color of red is basically saying Mary can recreate your memory of the color red. I don't see how you can recreate a memory without knowledge of what that memory contains, so that at least is where my logic is flowing. Red is an entirely subjective definition depending on your historic eyes' cones and your historic position in spacetime.
I vaguely get what you are saying: put a preying mantis' brain in a human and they could likely react to the moving car.... most animals on the planet earth do not react properly to a speeding car. I don't think a P Zombie could ever have this conversation. Is that a good distinction?
Yeah I just dont think P Zombies actual make sense as proposed. I don't think you can get a human in my exact form that exhibits the behaviors of a preying mantis. I think that my form is directly responsible for my behavior.
No, it's a terrible destination, because all you've done is articulate an inconsistent position.
Maybe you should actually make the smallest effort to understand what is being proposed, rather just assuming your some big smart boy who automatically knows better than all the dumb-dumb professional philosophers.
You're proposing an entity with my exact form that does not contain my exact mind state. That cannot exist. That is a category error. You are assigning a string variable to fucking integer.
You need to define what you mean by a P Zombie exactly like me that does not possess consciousness. What does that mean? I think consciousness is in the brain. Define how its not? Even if your argument is NOT a category error, what you are relaying to me is a category error. Should be solvable through syntax alone.
It does not contain the qualia associated with your mind state
You really love begging the question.
Fuck off back to reddit with these completely empty cliches.
Damn, I wonder if the original paper might have done that. Guess you'll never know, given your refusal to do any actual investigation before asserting your right to speak.
To me, entertaining the thought of a P Zombie is like asking me whether a unicorn can fart: sure why not but does that actually provide any utility to the conversation?
My belief is that consciousness is a result of your physical state, so asking me to make something with my physical state that isn't conscious is like asking me to imagine a computer that doesn't have a processor. That can't be. A computer is defined by its relationship to the processor!
How do we dissect a P Zombie that is fake conscious? How do we even suspect it's a P Zombie? Is the P Zombie dead after I take it's brain out?
They aren't gaps to a physicalist though. We would end up dissecting the P Zombies brain and concluding it's literally exactly the same as ours, and he was probably actually conscious.
We could even envision a technology that is able to capture, in data, the entirety of your brain state. We could then take a copy of your brain, and the p Zombies brain, and see if any differences exist. Once we determine that A = A (as the thought experiment claims at least) we would conclude the P Zombie is conscious.
This has actually happened before. People went diving for vital essences and came up with a better understanding of biology instead.
Instead of a computer with no processor we can just boil it down to what I actually think we are: biological agents with a proclivity for homeostasis. You remove the "agency" and you cannot achieve homeostasis. You can't achieve homeostasis you will not be a biological creature very long. The biological creatures that lack agency lose to my lawn mower every spring.
Consciousness simply is agency, which p Zombies lack in the thought experiment, but cannot lack in reality without being BTFO by the weather.
📽️
Literally question begging.
Thought terminating cliche.
This is so fucking stupid. So if a robot can avoid traffic, it's conscious then.
Or, you know, if you don't believe literally all animals, plants, and computers are conscious.
Name one color you've never seen but can perfectly imagine.
Whatever Mantis Shrimp got going on.
Did it spontaneously avoid traffic through a means of self preservation? If so, maybe. If not, and it was programmed to do so, we have a direct explanation as to why it wasn't.
That's not remotely the name of a color you've never seen but can perfectly imagine. Are you illiterate?
As much as a human does. Unless you're asserting the existence of a non-physical soul that transcends the laws of cause and effect.
What do mean "maybe"? Yes or No?
....
Oh. You literally are proposing that humans have a soul that transcends cause and effect and biological programming.
Biological programming dictates "dont die, and fuck*". My maybe is with the asterisk that avoiding that the biological imperative within the p zombie tells the P Zombie (unconsciously?) that ignoring the car leads to fucking.
You asked me to describe a color. I described a mechanism to achieve said color. Maybe its my CompSci brain but the Function returns the same value. Am I illiterate? I have had 9 alcoholic beverages.
Ok. So? Why does that particular programming make it conscious. And once again you're asserting that all life is conscious.
You're also just changing your argument on a whim now. First you said that pzombie wouldn't avoid traffic, because you need to be conscious to avoid traffic. Now you claim that a robot avoiding traffic isn't conscious because you don't need to be conscious to avoid traffic.
No. I didn't. For fucks sake, just fucking read other people's words for once, instead of being so arrogant.
I can't even perfectly imagine red. "Perfectly imaging" red does a lot of fucking heavy lifting. Again, you're describing an impossible task DUE TO SEMANTIC ISSUES.
PERFECT RED ISNT REAL. AHHHHH!!!!
Conscious life clearly has an advantage over unconscious life. If there is no DISTINCTION between conscious and non conscious life WHAT are you asking me to DESCRIBE?
Oh. So you did actually read it, you were just lying and pretending you didn't.
No it doesn't, and you've presented no argument that it does.
???????. I see you're back to not reading what I said
Gottem.
Consciousness, as it seems to function, is a means to model your internal and external data into a single experience that will help you dictate further success in getting your fuck on.
The P Zombie with my exact make and model right next to me would never consider that me stabbing him in the dumb redditor skull will allow me to get MY fuck on in place of HIM, yet there is evolutionary advantage to me doing so. For him to acknowledge that would be to exhibit what I would define as consciousness.
So any reproducing system is conscious now. And presumably after going through menopause, women cease to be conscious.
BEHAVIOURALLY. IDENTICAL. You illiterate child.
And yet you've already defined being part of an evolutionary dynamic as the thing that causes consciousness; literally implying that evolution causes teleology in the first place
Well that's the most unjustified leap of logic I've ever seen.
And ants do a lot better still. Are ants conscious? Is algae conscious? How are you even defining "better" here without makeing a teleological argument?
The whole bloody point of the p-zombie is that it's behaviour is identical to a regular person! It would by definition do exactly the same as anyone else. Maybe you should actually make a token fucking effort to understand an argument before you arrogantly dismiss it.
Source: it came to me in a cryptic dream. So all. Adaptive systems are conscious? Computers are conscious? Rivers are conscious?
I agree, that is seems like either a cheap way out and/or a simple play with words about how to define consciousness.
That's not nearly enough as a definition. A simple mechanical feedback loop can do it without any biology. It would totally have conciseness with this definition, which would pretty much amount to panpsychism, which you reject (and I agree). Anyway, it's also only a teleological definition (starting from the outcome) and not an explanation at all.
I think a good explanation of consciousness should involve an emergent process to explain the gradual scale of consciousness. Thoughts about thoughts about thoughts and so on. This should also explain unconscious mental states as simple thoughts without much meta states going on.
Thats not the usual question. It's: "Is my red different than yours? And how could I ever know if and in what way?"
We totally can and again, not the point that people who talk about qualia make. It's:"Can we objectify what it feels like to experience the red?"
It's your experience of what it feels like to be piecing together a whole heap of sensory data. It's not presented by anything to anything else.
The idea of objectifying a subjective experience that is entirely bound by time seems impossible on its face. We would have to simulate the universe forward and back, which isn't physically possible, let alone theoretically.
Can we objectify what it feels like to experience red?
What red? The Redness of Mars that only applies from certain positions in the universe? The redness of other galaxies that only applies based on the slight speed of your head movement at the moment of observation? Mars isn't Red on Mars.
There is far too much baggage loaded with the word Red to ever objectify it.
I'm not asking this question, so no need to answer it. I'm just correcting you on three wrong statements you made about the discours about qualia. About what questions are and aren't involved in the discours. Because you invented your own strawmen questions, and tried to answer those. Anyway, from your answer here and to other comments, it seems, like you completely accept everything that proponents of qualia say about them. They would answer the same way. Do you even have any critique of the concept as such?
I hope I didn't sound to critical, like I said, I mostly agree with your conclusions, I just think they need more careful arguments.
Oh yeah this aint no thesis paper or anything, I came here for discussion not preaching to the choir. I assume I am wrong but steelman my own beliefs, thats how you grow baby.
But in general I just think asking someone to objectively define red is nonsense. Any subjective agent is incapable of objectivity. Does this undermine my entire argument? Probably? Thats the fun of it.
Ah, I get it. Yes it's fun 😊
It literally is possible theoretically
Okay I am going out on a limb here... but i feel like the laws of thermodynamics disagree. To perfectly simulate our universe would require the same amount of energy that is put in.
This just sounds like idealism with a scientific veneer papered over it
So viruses are conscious? Prions? Stars?
You really didn't think this definition through