Survey atheist vs theist ability to imagine a philosophical zombie.

[someone]

Here are a couple of articles regarding a thought experiment in which there are philosophical zombies.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

Regarding the wiki article, I'm referring to what they call a neurological zombie. Although the idea assumes physicalism (the idea that only the physical exists), and that the feature that the zombie lacks is ephiphenomenal (makes no difference to behaviour), and the theists may well be dualists (believe that it isn't only the physical that exists) and that the feature a zombie is imagined to lack isn't epiphenomenal, I was wondering if any on the forum would be prepared to take part in a quick survey, where you state whether you are a theist or an atheist, and whether you can understand the non-behavioural feature that a zombie is imagined to lack. So a response might be something like "Atheist - no" for example. Post isn't intended as a discussion, but just a quick survey if those on the forum are willing to participate.

[Bill Rogers]

So much easier when you can limit the sorts of responses you get.

[solar penguin]

Depending on my mood, I'm sort of "new-age spiritualist with strong
atheist tendencies." I'll leave you to decide whether to pigeon-hole me
as an atheist or not.

And I have a very strong idea of the feature philosophical zombies are
imagined to lack, but I think it's epiphenomenal, so it's probably
different from the feature _you_ imagine them to lack. I'll leave you to
decide whether to pigeon-hole that as a "yes" or "no".

Hope that helps.

[Dale]

agnostic - not according to your definition, but MAYBE if the
definition is sentience within determinism or sentience over
determinism

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[William Morse]

Agnostic, but I agree with Dennett that a philosophical zombie is
logically incoherent. And we know from studies of people who have
suffered brain damage (somewhat dated, but Carter's "Mapping the Mind"
is an excellent discussion of this) that brain damage affects
personality. Which indicates that "conscious experience" is not
independent from the physical mind.

[solar penguin]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 17:21:27 +0000, solar penguin wrote:

>
> And I have a very strong idea of the feature philosophical zombies are
> imagined to lack, but I think it's epiphenomenal, so it's probably
> different from the feature _you_ imagine them to lack. I'll leave you
> to decide whether to pigeon-hole that as a "yes" or "no".
>

Just to be clear, I only think the version of consciousness in the
"philosophical zombies" thought experiment is epiphenomenal. But I
_don't_ think that's true of consciousness in the real world.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my last post.

BTW from this, you can probably see that I don't think the "philosophical
zombies" thought experiment tells us any useful stuff about consciousness
in the real world.

Again, hope that helped you.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Drinking liquor affects behavior, so spiritualism is true.

[Burkhard]

theists, no, not coherent concept, but it also doesn't matter.

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Atheist, no. No brain, no consciousness.

gregwrld

[Öö Tiib]

Atheist, no.
Gaining familiarity, memories and skills of handling a subject
or event by being exposed to it and recalling and reasoning about it
(conscious experience) is clearly behavior.
If the zombies can do it then I can't understand what the zombies are
supposed to lack.
If the zombies can't do it then I can't understand how the zombies are
hard to detect by external observation.

[J. J. Lodder]

solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 06:14:22 -0800, someone wrote:
>
> > Here are a couple of articles regarding a thought experiment in which
> > there are philosophical zombies.
> >
> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
> >
> > Regarding the wiki article, I'm referring to what they call a
> > neurological zombie. Although the idea assumes physicalism (the idea
> > that only the physical exists), and that the feature that the zombie
> > lacks is ephiphenomenal (makes no difference to behaviour), and the
> > theists may well be dualists (believe that it isn't only the physical
> > that exists) and that the feature a zombie is imagined to lack isn't
> > epiphenomenal, I was wondering if any on the forum would be prepared to
> > take part in a quick survey, where you state whether you are a theist or
> > an atheist, and whether you can understand the non-behavioural feature
> > that a zombie is imagined to lack. So a response might be something like
> > "Atheist - no" for example. Post isn't intended as a discussion, but
> > just a quick survey if those on the forum are willing to participate.
>
> Depending on my mood, I'm sort of "new-age spiritualist with strong
> atheist tendencies." I'll leave you to decide whether to pigeon-hole me
> as an atheist or not.

Sounds like an ietsist,

Jan

[solar penguin]

On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:42:16 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Depending on my mood, I'm sort of "new-age spiritualist with strong
>> atheist tendencies." I'll leave you to decide whether to pigeon-hole
>> me as an atheist or not.
>
> Sounds like an ietsist,
>

Interesting. Never heard that term before.

I know the politically correct term for people like me is "secular
pagan," but I don't like that and prefer to avoid using it. The "pagan"
bit makes it sound like I ought to be burning people alive in a wicker
man, while the "secular" suggests I'm cold-bloodedly burning them as an
experiment just to see what happens...

[J. J. Lodder]

solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:42:16 +0100, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > solar penguin <solar....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Depending on my mood, I'm sort of "new-age spiritualist with strong
> >> atheist tendencies." I'll leave you to decide whether to pigeon-hole
> >> me as an atheist or not.
> >
> > Sounds like an ietsist,
> >
>
> Interesting. Never heard that term before.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism>
Wiki also gives 'Spiritual but not religious' as similar.

> I know the politically correct term for people like me is "secular
> pagan," but I don't like that and prefer to avoid using it. The "pagan"
> bit makes it sound like I ought to be burning people alive in a wicker
> man, while the "secular" suggests I'm cold-bloodedly burning them as an
> experiment just to see what happens...

It is a useful term to add to religiosity surveys,
since ietists can be classified both ways,
as suitable for pushing towards the desired result.

A Dutch survey (2014) found 27% ietsists,
31% agnostics, 25% atheists and 17% theists.

So if you want to see a non-relious coutry
you say that there are only 17% theists left.
OTOH it isn't to bad yet for religion,
for there are only 56% atheists and agnostics,

Jan

[Bill]

Since the mind builds on the physical senses to create
something other than the physical senses, damage to the
physical brain changes the inputs. Changed output is to be
expected. The person affected retains his personhood even
though modified. The duality of physical brain and extra-
physical mind remains. This duality cannot be objectiviely
examined becuase it is fundamentally subjective.

Bill