You and I have different ideas as to the meaning of “aware” and “conscious”. I won’t put words into your mouth, but when I argue from the dualist’s perspective, only a soul can be “aware” and “conscious”. What you say is obviously aware is not always, to me, obviously aware. I will go along assuming everyone is aware and conscious until I have a reason to believe otherwise - for example, if they are administered a drug that disconnects the soul from the body. I will keep an open mind but you will have to follow me further into the weeds.
Neither do I argue that torturing or otherwise (physically) harming a p-zombie is morally neutral. In our examples the soul is only temporarily disconnected from the body, and if they gave informed consent the soul expects its body back in good condition. My critique of Joe the Rapist in posts [POST=21597209]#28[/POST] and [POST=21597286]#29[/POST] are compatible with the form of dualism I am now advocating.
Even if the soul was permanently disconnected from the body, other people (and their souls) are still emotionally invested in the body as a symbol of the missing soul. Inflicting physical harm upon the zombie could be morally wrong as it inflicts emotional harm to other people. Mutilating a corpse is not morally neutral for similar reasons, though of a lesser degree.
Saying that a p-zombie can’t be aware or conscious is stringing words together in a way that doesn’t make sense, or at best utterly robs the words of meaning. By all definitions, p-zombies are aware of their surroundings and react to stimuli in a way that demonstrates that they are conscious of their surroundings, their thoughts, and their self. From a functional standpoint they must, and do, have awareness and consciousness driving their actions.
So it really comes down not to whether they have awareness and consciousness or not, but rather whether they have the right kind of awareness and consciousness. They’re people as much as somebody with a soul; just there are exceptions written into the moral system that declares that they, like accountants, are not subject to moral consideration and can be dealt with accordingly.
When I argue against dualism I have the same problem. None of the dualists I ask seem to stand up against the argument from simplicity.
Once we start talking about what the soul specifically does we move from mainstream dualism to my own personal form of it. I am fine with that but at this point the number of other people who share my views approaches zero, and besides, I am not myself convinced that dualism is true at all.
First I want to point out that your usage of the word “mind” is different than mine. In my form of dualism the “mind” is not the sum of brain states, and you can not simply “check to see if [the mind’s] strings have been cut.” The mind is the combination of a non-physical soul and a physical brain.
I don’t believe souls have any direct causal interaction with the physical world, hence souls themselves are non-falsifiable. In my interpretation of dualism, the physical realm can cause changes in the spiritual realm but not the other way around; however, physical beings by acknowledging the possibility of a spiritual realm adjust their behavior so as to sustain a moral society. I don’t justify dualism with the logical possibility of p-zombies (as David Chalmers might), but as the most intuitive and pragmatic basis for a moral society. P-zombies are a byproduct. Souls are important because of the physical world makes them important, and it is important that those in the physical world act as if souls existed because otherwise the moral basis of society collapses. Whether or not souls actually exist or dualism is actually true is unknowable and possibly immaterial. So in my interpretation dualism is not a lie, it is unknowable and yet necessary to act as if it were true.
I concede in advance that a more pragmatic basis for moral society would convince me to abandon dualism. I would do the same if I were convinced that a moral society were undesirable or unnecessary. Finally it is possible that my interpretation is self-defeating or inconsistent.
If you wish I can (or you can) make another thread dedicated to dualism so as not to further derail this one.
I’m thinking you’re a better one to start a new thread than I, since it would essentially be your version of dualism we’d be discussing. My version of dualism is “It’s bunk” - I’m an atheistic materialist. “Dualism is bunk - discuss” is not a top-quality OP.
I will note here that I’m completely thrown by these statements: “I don’t justify dualism with the logical possibility of p-zombies (as David Chalmers might), but as the most intuitive and pragmatic basis for a moral society,” and “it is important that those in the physical world act as if souls existed because otherwise the moral basis of society collapses.” To me that’s freakish - why would some weird extraphysical thing that doesn’t influence reality drive morality? What wrong with paying attention to the minds that physical things have? They have feelings too! (Even if they don’t remember those feelings later.)
Here is another hypothetical from the dualism thread (although I am no longer defending dualism):
Let’s say you need a major leg operation. For whatever reason, it is medically necessary for the doctor to use a combination of drugs that paralyze your legs, inhibit the formation of memories, and makes you very high. Maybe you have allergies to all the alternative drugs. That isn’t important to the hypothetical.
The doctor explains that there is a good chance that you will have a bad trip and start screaming to stop the operation. He has heard people call him a zombie trying to eat their flesh, or the devil burning their skin, or all sorts of crazy things. Sometimes people gather their senses and say it hurts too much, at which point the doctor stops the operation (if safely possible).
The doctor says before going into the operation, he would like you to waive your right to withdraw consent unless the doctor determines you are in your right mind. He shows you the hospital policy on determining competency to withdraw consent, and answers any specific hypotheticals you might come up with.
He also very clearly explains the point of no return, after which he cannot stop the operation without causing permanent harm. You and the doctor must agree whether or not he can stop the operation past the point of no return, thus causing permanent harm, in case you attempt to withdraw consent and the doctor deems you to be competent.
He reminds you that the drugs will inhibit the formation of new memories, so at any rate you will not remember any part of the operation.
There are two questions here. How should the doctor determine if you are competent to withdraw consent? Even in this hypothetical this is a standing policy from the hospital ethics committee, but I am interested in your opinions on how to formulate such a policy.
The second question depends on how we answer the first. Do you consent to the operation? If it depends on how badly you need it, how do you approach the decision?
Fascinating discussion. I’ve actually experienced something like this hypothetical, minus the part about being operated on. I struggle with insomnia and occasionally take Ambien. People have a range of reactions to this drug (and yes, it has been used by rapists), but I’m apparently totally normal till I fall asleep–except that I suffer partial to total anterograde amnesia starting from some vague point in time after I take it.
I used to post things on social media after taking an Ambien and wake up having no memory of writing those words. But my posts didn’t seem off in any way; they were exactly the sort of things I said while “sober,” phrased no more awkwardly than usual. I would have entire conversations (and, uh, other interactions) with my partner, who had no idea I’d taken a pill because I was acting normally. I’d even remember to brush my teeth before falling asleep! But the next day, I’d remember nothing.
This freaked me out and I decided to set some limits on what I did post-Ambien, so there wouldn’t be anything to forget. And I’ve been able to follow those rules, so I guess it’s still me in there. I like the way Mr.Dibble framed it in post #30; my clone had an experience separate from me, and then was erased. But right before that, she was me.
Sometimes I watch TV on Ambien, and sometimes I later go back to re-watch part of the last episode, trying to find the point where I stopped forming new memories. That point is never all that clear. Sometimes I’m re-watching and can’t remember what happens next, yet there’s a feeling of inevitability, of deja-vu, when that next thing happens.
The thought of someone doing something that would cause me suffering in that state, even if it doesn’t stick, is quite upsetting. Since the drugs previously mentioned apparently don’t quite work that way, would any of you accept Ambien in lieu of anaesthesia if it had the same effect on you it does on me?
In lieu of anaesthesia? Oh the hells no. I don’t like suffering, whether or not I’ll remember it later. And in the moment of suffering I’d definitely be suffering.
I would need an extremely compelling reason not to use anaesthesia instead. The doctor would need to justify going through the operation without any drugs, since anterograde amnesia is not a guarenteed effect of Ambien. According to the FDA, about 1% of patients in a 35-night controlled trial reported amnesia[1].
Certain death would do it, but I’m not sure what the minimum would be. My personal moral code is yet to be determined. I asked this question before and it is a tough question depending on lots of factors.