'What is your name?' 'Zeb Haradon.' 'IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR NAME IS!!!':
> So, a zombie might deceive others in convincing them that he is conscious,
> but you cannot be a zombie and deceive yourself into believing that you are
> not, because you know (in a deeper sense, you are) your feelings. I would
> indeed "say exactly that", but I wouldn't think exactly that. You are
> looking for evidence that I can convince you that I am not a zombie. There
> is none. This is an entirely different issue from that of what evidence you
> can present yourself that you are not.
Actually, I don't agree with the way you're using the word "thinks." I
use the word in the functionalist sense: you're "thinking" if you're
exhibiting the right sort of functional properties. You seem to be using
the word in some "deeper sense."
But you claim that the fact that you're Thinking, in whatever sense of the
word you're using, shows that you must not be a zombie, and that this
disproves my argument. But you DON'T have absolute knowledge that you are
Thinking. You could be "thinking" (in the functional sense) but not
Thinking in the spooky sense. How do you Know that you're Thinking when
you could just "think" that you're Thinking?
This is not an idle skeptical concern. I really DON'T think that you're
Thinking. I think that you're "thinking." If you're Thinking, then we as
> >If you think that if "you" were a zombie, there would be no "you," then I
> >think the "you" you're referring to doesn't exist. When I say "you," I
> >mean that thing sitting in front of a monitor reading this. Whether that
> >thing has qualia or not is therefore up for grabs.
>
> ok. What I meant was my mind or consciousness.
Right. That's what I meant to deny.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings