Timeline for Why do people hide the assumption contained in the philosophical zombies question/idea?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
39 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 1, 2023 at 9:54 | answer | added | Meanach | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 25, 2023 at 18:04 | comment | added | SystemTheory | In my view Dennet argues that consciousness is an illusion which arises as the product of an underlying unconscious process. But then everything I know would be an illusion arising as the product of an unconscious process which means my conscious distinctions between reality and illusion are illusions! Philosophical zombies have no meaning except to infer that an unconscious human or humanoid machine could in theory behave and act like a conscious human even though we regard that as a "brain dead living human or humanoid" rather than a "brain dead dead human". Let the dead bury their own dead. | |
| May 25, 2023 at 16:49 | answer | added | SystemTheory | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 25, 2023 at 15:44 | answer | added | Kristian Berry | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 25, 2023 at 15:33 | answer | added | A Raybould | timeline score: -1 | |
| May 24, 2023 at 12:41 | comment | added | A Raybould | See Dennett's Quining Qualia for examples of him using the word. My reading of it is that if you take a broad selection from all the ways the term 'quale/qualia' is used in academic philosophical literature, no unified coherent concept emerges. Saying "we're all zombies" is a tongue-in-cheek way of summarizing and emphasizing this position. Note that, where he wrote this (in 'Consciousness Explained'), he attached a footnote: "It would be an act of desperate intellectual dishonesty to quote this assertion out of context!" | |
| Apr 18, 2023 at 17:44 | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 17, 2023 at 10:08 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added Keith Frankish's name
|
| Apr 16, 2023 at 16:17 | answer | added | Speakpigeon | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 16, 2023 at 12:24 | answer | added | CriglCragl | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 16, 2023 at 10:39 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Edited the title to make the meaning clearer.
|
| Apr 16, 2023 at 9:54 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed some harmless typos.
|
| Apr 16, 2023 at 9:53 | comment | added | tkruse | Descartes wrote "I think, therefore I am" and not "Uhm, so am I actually thinking? i don't know not sure really if I think, let me think about it first..., Ok, my thinking result is, let's assume that i am thinking. Then i exist." | |
| Apr 16, 2023 at 8:19 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added some text.
|
| Apr 16, 2023 at 7:35 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Changed title in light of this Philosophy Meta answer: https://philosophy.meta.stackexchange.com/a/5470/58715
|
| Apr 15, 2023 at 3:41 | comment | added | Ameet Sharma | Yeah, I can't make heads or tails of Keith Frankish's view. I've made a kind of related topic here: philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/98660/… I don't see why illusionists and eliminativists can accept the data of science if they truly believe this. | |
| Apr 15, 2023 at 2:03 | comment | added | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | @AmeetSharma My apologies, I had neglected to link to to Frankish's lecture series. I added the link a minute ago. | |
| Apr 15, 2023 at 2:01 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added two links
|
| Apr 15, 2023 at 1:48 | comment | added | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | @AmeetSharma I absolutely am in doubt about that and I think you will be if you watch Keith Frankish's lecture series that I linked to in the question. It's completely counterintuitive, but completely logical, just like relativity or quantum mechanics. What verbiage? The gist of which idea? | |
| Apr 15, 2023 at 0:15 | comment | added | Ameet Sharma | @MatthewChristopherBartsh, are you in doubt of whether you are a zombie or not? Never mind the verbiage... do you get the gist of the idea? | |
| Apr 14, 2023 at 22:32 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 23, 2023 at 3:03 | |||||
| Apr 14, 2023 at 22:07 | comment | added | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | @JKusin I am puzzled when I hear Dennett use the word "qualia", since he has said the word does not refer to anything. | |
| Apr 14, 2023 at 21:41 | comment | added | J Kusin | @MatthewChristopherBartsh The assumption that humans have qualia, the one you bring up. Clearly Dennett does not assume humans have it and yet he can reasonably make statements about the idea of zombies. Zombies and humans could not have qualia and yet something could have qualia. Being able to talk like this does not assume humans have it. | |
| Apr 14, 2023 at 20:29 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added some text.
|
| Apr 14, 2023 at 20:14 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added some text.
|
| Apr 14, 2023 at 19:59 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added some text.
|
| Apr 14, 2023 at 19:24 | comment | added | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | @DavidGudeman I have added some more discussions to the question, including how Chalmers himself introduces the zombie idea on his website. Thanks for the feedback. | |
| Apr 14, 2023 at 19:20 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added some text.
|
| Apr 14, 2023 at 19:13 | answer | added | Professor Sushing | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 14, 2023 at 19:12 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added some text.
|
| Apr 14, 2023 at 19:01 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added some text.
|
| Apr 14, 2023 at 18:55 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added some text.
|
| Apr 14, 2023 at 18:26 | comment | added | David Gudeman | "an assumption that seems to be hidden in the famous philosophical zombie question". There is nothing implied by "the famous philosophical zombie question" than a discussion of the possibility. A particular discussion of the question might make the assumption you mention, but you are pointing to all discussions in general. | |
| Apr 14, 2023 at 18:08 | comment | added | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | @JKusin You wrote, "Since Dennett denies qualia and can speak about the ideas of zombies and qualia as he did, the idea of zombies doesn't require such an assumption." Please state explicitly the assumption that you are referring to, so that I can understand and respond. | |
| Apr 14, 2023 at 17:57 | comment | added | J Kusin | No the idea doesn't contain that assumption going off what you wrote. If that quote is attributable to Dennett, "Some physicalists like Daniel Dennett argue that philosophical zombies are logically incoherent and thus impossible, or that all humans are philosophical zombies", the emphasized part (me), shows a qualia denier, Dennett, knows what it means to speak of qualia regardless. To say zombies brings in the notion of qualia. Since Dennett denies qualia and can speak about the ideas of zombies and qualia as he did, the idea of zombies doesn't require such an assumption. | |
| Apr 14, 2023 at 17:53 | history | edited | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added some text.
|
| Apr 14, 2023 at 17:45 | comment | added | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | @DavidGudeman Where did I say or imply that it does? | |
| Apr 14, 2023 at 17:42 | comment | added | David Gudeman | How does the mere act of discussing something constitute an assumption that the thing being discussed doesn't exist? | |
| Apr 14, 2023 at 17:37 | history | asked | Matthew Christopher Bartsh | CC BY-SA 4.0 |