# The concept of a philosophical zombie makes no sense to me **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 4, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348 "2014-10-04T04:27:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/161 "2014-10-13T06:22:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The part about being on the right track? I get it from the fact that there is experimental and independent papers that showed that his ideas have merit when applied (so far) to visual pattern recognition. And that is one reason why IBM and DARPA are working with his products and ideas. None of which has anything to do with consciousness. Nor, I believe, would Hawkins claim so. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/162 "2014-10-13T06:25:51Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Now can you show me where is something similar from the ones proposing that there is something mysterious operating there? No, because nobody’s doing that. People are merely pointing out that we don’t understand what happens there. You’re setting up a false dichotomy, that everyone who dares point out that there are a lot of things that we don’t understand, that don’t seem to fit within the established paradigm, therefore postulates something irreducibly mysterious or ‘magic’. But the real discussion is considerably more subtle. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/163 "2014-10-13T06:27:37Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > None of which has anything to do with consciousness. Nor, I believe, would Hawkins claim so. Missing the point, his point is that there is no mystery that can stop us from getting there. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/164 "2014-10-13T06:34:21Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > No, because nobody’s doing that. And that is my point, I do not think there will be a problem or anything that will forbid progress towards artificial intelligence that is also conscious. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > People are merely pointing out that we don’t understand what happens there. You’re setting up a false dichotomy, that everyone who dares point out that there are a lot of things that we don’t understand, that don’t seem to fit within the established paradigm, therefore postulates something irreducibly mysterious or ‘magic’. But the real discussion is considerably more subtle. Well, I think you made the point early about being convincing, this is not really. I have already say that philosophical speaking you are ok, but I’m looking at more practical issues, it is really more likely that once we approach the Galileo point of reaching for the fruit bowl that only the not amused look of the cardinal will remain. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/165 "2014-10-13T06:49:28Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Sounds like the type of thing a p-zombie would say. Wouldn’t a p-zombie drone, “Illusions… Illusions…” ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/166 "2014-10-13T06:52:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Missing the point, his point is that there is no mystery that can stop us from getting there. OK, but what, if any, are his arguments for this position? How does he propose consciousness arises? Is it just, if you build it, it will come? Somehow? [quote=“GIGObuster, post:164, topic:700348”] And that is my point, I do not think there will be a problem or anything that will forbid progress towards artificial intelligence that is also conscious. [/QUOTE] Well, it’s fine to think so, of course, but the point of this discussion is—how? And it’s not clear by far that progress in AI will address this—it may be, for instance, that we succeed in creating a behavioral isomorph of a human being, say by direct brain simulation, and still don’t know how consciousness works, or even if there is any. The end goal is not to create a conscious entity, but to understand how consciousness works! ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/167 "2014-10-13T07:03:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, IMHO if this was equal we should had seen a lot of research that assumes that extra thing and showing progress. That has not been the case. I think we may be talking past each other. I’m not talking about positing additional entities. I’m saying that when it comes to subjective experience, pretty much everything we have has come up blank. As much as our understanding of the brain and behaviour has advanced, still subjective experience is a black box. So it’s a good thing that some people are trying out alternative models than rigidly sticking to a reductionist account. Maybe they’ll all come up blank too. But it’s worth a shot. > [@](#): > > Well, regarding consciousness Hawkins has been successful at least in showing that he is on the right track. After your back and forth with **Half Man Half Wit** , I see that boils down to Hawkins’ own _opinion_ is that he’s on the right track. > [@](#): > > Eventually someone like Galileo will wonder if Aristotle was right and see if the grape and the orange do fall at the same time. The point here is that it may be a nice philosophical idea to have, and that is nice, but it seems to me that the progress on this issue (as in practical applications) is telling me that we are close to continue to deal with matter and energy that is not mysterious at all. I’m not talking about leaving anything in the bowl. I’m saying science doesn’t need to make that kind of philosophical declaration. Nothing is to be gained from it. And potentially you could close lines of enquiry, the very thing you’re warning against. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/168 "2014-10-13T07:09:45Z")
[quote=“Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit, post:166, topic:700348”] OK, but what, if any, are his arguments for this position? How does he propose consciousness arises? Is it just, if you build it, it will come? Somehow? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > And that is my point, I do not think there will be a problem or anything that will forbid progress towards artificial intelligence that is also conscious. > [/QUOTE] > > Well, it’s fine to think so, of course, but the point of this discussion is—how? And it’s not clear by far that progress in > AI will address this—it may be, for instance, that we succeed in creating a behavioral isomorph of a human being, say by direct brain simulation, and still don’t know how consciousness works, or even if there is any. > > The end goal is not to create a conscious entity, but to understand how consciousness works! It is more complicated than this reports, but this is a basic early model: [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/jeff-hawkins-develops-a-brainy-big-data-company/](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/jeff-hawkins-develops-a-brainy-big-data-company/) > [@](#): > > Mr. Hawkins thinks that the human neocortex, that part of the brain that includes the perception and reasoning functions, itself works as a kind of pattern-seeking and predictive system. Brain cells, starting at some of their most elemental components, work together to build expectations, initially about things like light and dark, or near and far, that they gather from sensory organs. > > Patterns of one or the other are reinforced over time. As new data streams in, the brain figures out if it is capturing more complexity, which requires either modifying the understanding of the original pattern or splitting it into two patterns, making for new knowledge. Sometimes, particularly if it not repeated, the data is discarded as irrelevant information. Thus, over time, sounds become words, words occupy a grammatical structure, and ideas are conveyed. > > “The key to artificial intelligence has always been the representation,” he says. “You and I are streaming data engines.” > > It is a model of consciousness that Mr. Hawkins has promoted not just in the tech world, but to neuroscientists. While some have questioned the idea, he published a popular book on the rudiments of the subject, “On Intelligence.” Last spring he was invited to present the work at the Charles M. and Martha Hitchcock Lectures, at the University of California, Berkeley. Previous lecturers include Martin Rees, who Britain’s Astronomer Royal, and Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize winner and Energy Department secretary. > > Numenta’s product, called Grok, is a cloud-based service that works much the same way. Grok takes steady feeds of data from things like thermostats, Web clicks, or machinery. From initially observing the data flow, it begins making guesses about what will happen next. The more data, the more accurate the predictions become. > > It has been much more difficult to engineer than that sounds. Modeling itself on 40 sensory receptors feeding over 128 information-seeing dendrites on each cell of the brain, Mr. Hawkins put into Grok a mathematical algorithm that he says approximates the way brain cells work together, even sometimes canceling out each other’s signals to refine a sense of what’s going on. > > “There are the equivalent of 60,000 neurons, each one fairly sophisticated, in each Grok,” he said. That model of 300 million connections, he notes, is about one millionth the actual capability of the neocortex ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/169 "2014-10-13T07:17:31Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > After your back and forth with **Half Man Half Wit** , I see that boils down to Hawkins’ own _opinion_ is that he’s on the right track. Not so as IBM, DARPA and many others that looked at his theories and product so far can tell you. > [@Mijin](#): > > I’m not talking about leaving anything in the bowl. I’m saying science doesn’t need to make that kind of philosophical declaration. Nothing is to be gained from it. And potentially you could close lines of enquiry, the very thing you’re warning against. Not really, even if this is successful it does not mean that anything else will be shut down. That it can reach the levels of importance like old philosophical questions like “Can several angels be in the same place?” That could happen. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/170 "2014-10-13T08:22:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is more complicated than this reports, but this is a basic early model: > > [Jeff Hawkins Develops a Brainy Big Data Company - The New York Times](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/jeff-hawkins-develops-a-brainy-big-data-company/) And well, it talks about things like visual perception, pattern recognition, etc., and then all of a sudden jumps the gun and calls it ‘a model of consciousness’. But how things like visual perception and pattern recognition give rise to consciousness is exactly the problem! To just go ahead and baldly assert that it does simply doesn’t further the discussion. I think that you and Hawkins are really trying to solve a different question—which is fine, but it’s important not to fall prey to possible confusions. Hawkins wants to be able to build something that is ‘conscious’ in the ordinary sense, i.e. that is capable of acting as if it were conscious. But the question under discussion here is exactly how consciousness (in the somewhat more technical sense of there being something it is like to be a certain entity) arises from non-conscious matter, and in a wider sense, how that then relates to behaviour. Consider the following. We’ve been discussing about how flight for heavier-than-air objects works. We know it does work: there are birds. But we have no theory of flight, and are considering several possible explanations. In come you informing us about the groundbreaking work of Geoff Falcons, who thinks he is pretty well on his way in solving the problem. So we ask: – “Well, so how does he propose flight works?” – “He’s build a model plane, and if he throws it, it flies!” – "OK, interesting. So how does it fly?’ – “Like [this](http://www.boeing.com/images/feature_948x432/bds_washu_glider_948x432.jpg)!” – “But what keeps it up?” – “Well, its wings, I suppose.” – “But how do they do that?” – “Like [this](http://www.boeing.com/images/feature_948x432/bds_washu_glider_948x432.jpg)!” And so on. Even if Hawkins succeeds in building a conscious machine, he’s just created one more instance of the problem, but not gotten us any closer to a solution. Do you see the difference? There may be an account of conscious perception in terms of physical processes, or even of computational ones, but it’s still outstanding to give that account, or to even firmly establish that it is possible. When I ask about how a computer monitor produces a picture, I don’t want to be shown a computer monitor producing a picture, with a vague handwave of ‘here you go, that’s how’, I want to be explained the chain of causality that leads to pixels lighting up on the screen; it’s the same thing when asking about an explanation of consciousness—I want to be explained how things come to feel like something to me. To just handwave away the problems in giving this account accomplishes nothing. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/171 "2014-10-13T09:18:44Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > And well, it talks about things like visual perception, pattern recognition, etc., and then all of a sudden jumps the gun and calls it ‘a model of consciousness’. But how things like visual perception and pattern recognition give rise to consciousness is exactly the problem! To just go ahead and baldly assert that it does simply doesn’t further the discussion. > > I think that you and Hawkins are really trying to solve a different question—which is fine, but it’s important not to fall prey to possible confusions. Hawkins wants to be able to build something that is ‘conscious’ in the ordinary sense, i.e. that is capable of acting as if it were conscious. But the question under discussion here is exactly how consciousness (in the somewhat more technical sense of there being something it is like to be a certain entity) arises from non-conscious matter, and in a wider sense, how that then relates to behaviour. > > Consider the following. We’ve been discussing about how flight for heavier-than-air objects works. We know it does work: there are birds. But we have no theory of flight, and are considering several possible explanations. In come you informing us about the groundbreaking work of Geoff Falcons, who thinks he is pretty well on his way in solving the problem. So we ask: > > – “Well, so how does he propose flight works?” > – “He’s build a model plane, and if he throws it, it flies!” > – "OK, interesting. So how does it fly?’ > – “Like [this](http://www.boeing.com/images/feature_948x432/bds_washu_glider_948x432.jpg)!” > – “But what keeps it up?” > – “Well, its wings, I suppose.” > – “But how do they do that?” > – “Like [this](http://www.boeing.com/images/feature_948x432/bds_washu_glider_948x432.jpg)!” > > And so on. Even if Hawkins succeeds in building a conscious machine, he’s just created one more instance of the problem, but not gotten us any closer to a solution. Do you see the difference? Don’t see why this is not part of the solution. I think calling it “one more instance of the problem” is to demand that indeed we should forever discuss about the angels dancing on a pin. And I already acknowledge that we do not have it yet, the point stands, there is no reason to assume anything mysterious on the way to create a conscious machine. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > There may be an account of conscious perception in terms of physical processes, or even of computational ones, but it’s still outstanding to give that account, or to even firmly establish that it is possible. When I ask about how a computer monitor produces a picture, I don’t want to be shown a computer monitor producing a picture, with a vague handwave of ‘here you go, that’s how’, I want to be explained the chain of causality that leads to pixels lighting up on the screen; it’s the same thing when asking about an explanation of consciousness—I want to be explained how things come to feel like something to me. To just handwave away the problems in giving this account accomplishes nothing. Don’t think so, the fact that someone can not understand how a car works does not deny that others can design it and build it. People can indeed accomplishes a lot by not demanding others to know it all. And I do think a lot can be learned by reading the Chilton manual, 🙂 or in this case what has been published by Hawkins and checking the open source tools offered. Sure there is a lot to learn, but I think that is better than just thinking about a philosophical construct that according to the Stanford Philosophy dictionary has more philosophers now not agreeing with the idea of the Zombie. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/172 "2014-10-13T11:11:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Don’t see why this is not part of the solution. I think calling it “one more instance of the problem” is to demand that indeed we should forever discuss about the angels dancing on a pin. The thing is, we already have a way of producing conscious entities, and it’s a lot of fun, too. But we’ve still got no idea regarding how consciousness works. Being able to duplicate something does not entail understanding it. That’s not to downplay Hawkins’ research, it’s very interesting and important in its own right. But it’s really a (proposed) solution to a different problem. This might just be ‘angels dancing on a pin’ to you, but it’s just as legitimate an area of interest as any other. Personally, I don’t care much for mountaineering, but I don’t go around telling people they should stay on the ground. Nobody forces you to participate in the debate. But I’d like to point out that for some of us, the answer to this sort of question is indeed of great importance: it decides how we are to morally treat certain kinds of entities that might be possible in the mid-term future, such as e.g. autonomous artificial agents. Whether they are to be treated as persons, with the rights accompanying such a judgment, or one can use them as cheap, intelligent slave labor, is a question that might hold genuine real-world significance sooner or later; thus, writing off the questions surrounding this issue as immaterial sophistry and illusion has the potential of landing us in hot water later on (which is, of course, quite a well established pattern in the course of human civilization, regrettably). ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/173 "2014-10-13T16:19:58Z")
We already exploit vast numbers of living entities by domesticating and eating them, and many of those entities are far more conscious than any computer yet built. If we are going to start looking at sentient rights in the future we should be aware that this would not only affect the rights of robots, zombies and AI, but also cows, sheep and packhorses. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/174 "2014-10-13T16:35:21Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > The thing is, we already have a way of producing conscious entities, and it’s a lot of fun, too. But we’ve still got no idea regarding how consciousness works. Being able to duplicate something does not entail understanding it. The point was that just because one does not understand it it does not automatically follows that what the auto makers are an ignorant bunch. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > That’s not to downplay Hawkins’ research, it’s very interesting and important in its own right. But it’s really a (proposed) solution to a different problem. This might just be ‘angels dancing on a pin’ to you, but it’s just as legitimate an area of interest as any other. Personally, I don’t care much for mountaineering, but I don’t go around telling people they should stay on the ground. Nobody forces you to participate in the debate. No, no one, but where I’m coming from is close to what Lawrence Krauss realized after realizing that the evidence he found about the universe ran into many philosophical issues of the origin and nature of the universe. > **[The Consolation of Philosophy](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-consolation-of-philos/)** > > An update by the author of A Universe from Nothing on his thoughts, as a theoretical physicist, about the value of the discipline of philosophy > [@](#): > > Which brings me full circle to the question of nothing, and my own comments regarding the progress of philosophy in that regard. When it comes to the real operational issues that govern our understanding of physical reality, ontological definitions of classical philosophers are, in my opinion, sterile. Moreover, arguments based on authority, be it Aristotle, or Leibniz, are irrelevant. In science, there are no authorities, and appeal to quotes from brilliant scholars who lived before we knew the Earth orbited the Sun, or that space can be curved, or that dark matter or dark energy exist do not generally inform our current understanding of nature. Empirical explorations ultimately change our understanding of which questions are important and fruitful and which are not. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > But I’d like to point out that for some of us, the answer to this sort of question is indeed of great importance: it decides how we are to morally treat certain kinds of entities that might be possible in the mid-term future, such as e.g. autonomous artificial agents. Whether they are to be treated as persons, with the rights accompanying such a judgment, or one can use them as cheap, intelligent slave labor, is a question that might hold genuine real-world significance sooner or later; thus, writing off the questions surrounding this issue as immaterial sophistry and illusion has the potential of landing us in hot water later on (which is, of course, quite a well established pattern in the course of human civilization, regrettably). And this just ignoring that many that think that the philosophic zombies are silly do have ideas already of when to treat those new beings as having rights. The refusal to see this is one big mistake as what I do think is that in reality there will be a lot of philosophers (and that includes religions) that will not use reason nor evidence when deciding when and how we should grant those rights. - As an aside, you actually ran into one big reason I’m into this discussion, I have several ideas and research that I did and doing as I someday want to write/draw hard sci-fi that is very related to this. Besides caring for what it will happen to my fictional characters I do care what will happen to the real ones when the issue will ran into being more real. Asimov’s main fear was that many humans would be afraid and opposed to them with no good reasons, looking at how several soldiers in the ME showed empathy for what they are very simple automatons that dispose of bombs led me to think that it will not be as bad as Asimov feared. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/175 "2014-10-13T19:22:08Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > . . . Even if Hawkins succeeds in building a conscious machine, he’s just created one more instance of the problem, but not gotten us any closer to a solution. Do you see the difference? . . . Definitely. If it’s a machine – and if we’re horribly cold-blooded enough – we can perform carefully calibrated experiments of controlled destruction upon it. We can start getting reductionist. What if I remove this bit? What if I remove that bit? Oh, look, it can’t answer certain questions anymore. Nifty; we’ve isolated a link to some points of significance. (Obviously, a lot of this would have been accomplished during the building of the machine in the first place.) What we have to do with humans in a haphazard fashion – waiting for accidents and strokes, or experimenting with chemicals – we could now do in a highly controlled and repeatable manner. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/176 "2014-10-13T19:52:31Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Definitely. If it’s a machine – and if we’re horribly cold-blooded enough – we can perform carefully calibrated experiments of controlled destruction upon it. > > We can start getting reductionist. What if I remove this bit? What if I remove that bit? Oh, look, it can’t answer certain questions anymore. Nifty; we’ve isolated a link to some points of significance. > > (Obviously, a lot of this would have been accomplished during the building of the machine in the first place.) > > What we have to do with humans in a haphazard fashion – waiting for accidents and strokes, or experimenting with chemicals – we could now do in a highly controlled and repeatable manner. Hey! Stop reading my notes! 😃 I have to note here that Hawkins goal is not to do C3PO but what one could call brains in a box. Where I do think he is limiting I do think that others will look at the scenarios you are mentioning and the need for non human experimentation subjects will lead us to the androids that will run into the issue at hand. BTW **Trinopus** , I do think we will be cold blooded enough, but that is because there are many problems (of a psychological nature even) that artificial beings can help us solve. And reduce the time we spend on developing cures. My solution for the “cold blooded” issue regarding the gruesome experiments we will be able to make is that unlike humans (sorry you ‘downloading to an artificial brain’ trans human fans) the transfer and copying of their data/models/consciousness will be easy for the androids. I will not be surprised that it will be the bioroids the ones that will suggest -what for us- will be the most gruesome experiments that will be done for the common good. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/177 "2014-10-13T21:05:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point was that just because one does not understand it it does not automatically follows that what the auto makers are an ignorant bunch. There’s several sentences in your post that I’m having some trouble parsing, perhaps you could clarify. If I understand you correctly, then you’re still addressing the wrong question—I’m not interested in building cars, I merely want to know how they work. And even with a functioning AI in hand, without anybody coming up with an objective test for conscious experience (which strikes me as an oxymoron), we can’t even tell if there is any there, much less deconstruct it for study. > [@](#): > > No, no one, but where I’m coming from is close to what Lawrence Krauss realized after realizing that the evidence he found about the universe ran into many philosophical issues of the origin and nature of the universe. Well, let’s just say I’ve deplored Krauss’ philosophical innocence often enough on these boards to not want to go there again; but basically, he wrote an entire book on a topic he didn’t even understand well enough to know how to frame. He could have benefited greatly from just a little study of those philosophers he so readily dismisses, and could have saved himself quite a bit of embarrassment. But it’s unfortunately a sort of occupational hazard for physicists to consider themselves experts on everything, whether it’s the Hawkings, Weinbergs, Feynmans and Krausses that chide philosophers from a position of deep ignorance, or Michio Kaku waxing nonsensically about evolution, or whatever else. I try myself not to succumb to it. If you’re interested in discussing the value of philosophy generally, then I’ve got a [thread for that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=728881) (which also touches on Krauss a bit). Luckily, in recent years, at least a couple of prominent physicists (most recent examples are [George Ellis](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/07/22/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-free-will/) and [Carlo Rovelli](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/08/21/quantum-gravity-expert-says-philosophical-superficiality-has-harmed-physics/)) are starting to realize that especially in areas of fundamental epistemological and ontological relevance, collaboration with philosophers is in general a more fruitful approach than ignoring their contributions. Nevertheless, I still have to be careful to whom I confess having an interested in philosophy, rather than the scorn habitually heaped on the profession by many physicists. > [@](#): > > And this just ignoring that many that think that the philosophic zombies are silly do have ideas already of when to treat those new beings as having rights. For example? Most of the ideas I know of are behavioural in nature; but I’ve already elaborated on how that’s insufficient. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Definitely. If it’s a machine – and if we’re horribly cold-blooded enough – we can perform carefully calibrated experiments of controlled destruction upon it. But of course, this necessitates knowing that the machine is actually conscious. How do we do that? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/178 "2014-10-13T21:57:21Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > . . . But of course, this necessitates knowing that the machine is actually conscious. How do we do that? That was the premise. You said, “Even if Hawkins succeeds in building a conscious machine…” ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/179 "2014-10-13T21:57:59Z")
> [@](#): > > But of course, this necessitates knowing that the machine is actually conscious. How do we do that? Perhaps, when we know a little (or a lot) more about consciousness, we will have a ‘consciousness-meter’ that can easily detect the difference. I doubt it will be that simple. It seems more likely to me that we will eventually have to defer the argument, and assume that all beings which act as if they have consciousness actually have it (or that none do). How could you test for consciousness in another entity? You could never share the consciousness of another being without becoming them. Perhaps this is the only possibility open to us; if we really do believe that we ourselves are conscious, then by sharing that consciousness with another entity completely, so that two entities become a single mind - maybe that would be enough to determine whether the other mind were conscious. Quite how that could be done is another matter. I dont think that simply connecting two brains together via peripheral links would be enough; you could connect one person’s vocal centre to another’s auditory centre, and vice versa; the two could soundlessly whisper to each other to their heart’s content, but this would only be equivalent to a conversation involving vocal chords, sound waves and ears. To completely integrate two minds into one would require much deeper connections. But if it could be done, then you could be assured that any other entity that you were integrated with would share the same status as yourself. This seems like technology that is many centuries off, if it is ever possible; but this sort of integration might be relatively straightforward for artificially intelligent entities. AIs might routinely merge and split appart again to audit each others state of consciousness, something we may never be able to do. It may even be the case that our isolated, non-auditable status will make us the poor relations of mindkind. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2014, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348/180 "2014-10-14T00:07:43Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > There’s several sentences in your post that I’m having some trouble parsing, perhaps you could clarify. If I understand you correctly, then you’re still addressing the wrong question—I’m not interested in building cars, I merely want to know how they work. And even with a functioning AI in hand, without anybody coming up with an objective test for conscious experience (which strikes me as an oxymoron), we can’t even tell if there is any there, much less deconstruct it for study. But this is reaching for an argument from ignorance, AFAIK the effort of looking at the brain to then make effective AIs is getting results, BTW you are not getting the metaphor of the cars, you are actually demanding that experts in other fields should not bother making useful things just because you do not understand them. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Well, let’s just say I’ve deplored Krauss’ philosophical innocence often enough on these boards to not want to go there again; but basically, he wrote an entire book on a topic he didn’t even understand well enough to know how to frame. He could have benefited greatly from just a little study of those philosophers he so readily dismisses, and could have saved himself quite a bit of embarrassment. But it’s unfortunately a sort of occupational hazard for physicists to consider themselves experts on everything, whether it’s the Hawkings, Weinbergs, Feynmans and Krausses that chide philosophers from a position of deep ignorance, or Michio Kaku waxing nonsensically about evolution, or whatever else. I try myself not to succumb to it. > > If you’re interested in discussing the value of philosophy generally, then I’ve got a [thread for that](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=728881) (which also touches on Krauss a bit). Luckily, in recent years, at least a couple of prominent physicists (most recent examples are [George Ellis](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/07/22/physicist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knocking-philosophy-free-will/) and [Carlo Rovelli](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2014/08/21/quantum-gravity-expert-says-philosophical-superficiality-has-harmed-physics/)) are starting to realize that especially in areas of fundamental epistemological and ontological relevance, collaboration with philosophers is in general a more fruitful approach than ignoring their contributions. Nevertheless, I still have to be careful to whom I confess having an interested in philosophy, rather than the scorn habitually heaped on the profession by many physicists. I actually read those and they lost me the moment they used the examples of “Newton looking at philosophy before”, the problem is that he also **wasted a lot of time** with alchemy and the worst thing was that he hid any progress and most of the failures he had there. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > For example? Most of the ideas I know of are behavioural in nature; but I’ve already elaborated on how that’s insufficient. No convincingly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-concept-of-a-philosophical-zombie-makes-no-sense-to-me/700348.md?page=10)