I read the paper. Literally nonsense. Even Chalmers himself argues that Zombie Chalmers would be making the exact same argument as Non Zombie Chalmers, so the actual question is what are we asking? Can I imagine a universe with P Zombies? Sure. I can imagine an ice cube that is hot. I can imagine a box that contains itself. Doesn't mean its possible or relevant to the conversation at all. What about this universe? Are we arguing there are P Zombies in this universe? If so, how? Are we simply arguing that consciousness may exist outside of the physical realm? If so, explain the mechanism that allows it to interact with the physical realm and cause physical effects on our brains.
You should def check out at least a lil Pre War Sartre. Its nuts. He basically makes the determination that almost ALL love is Bad Faith and both lovers are reducing the others freedoms... He basically sees Freedom as the one good thing humans should aim for because hes a privileged French fuck who skipped several steps on the hierarchy of needs. Post War he changed his tune realizing that, in fact, society is pretty impactful on determining ones freedom... Dipshit. Took an entire war to realize material conditions matter.
and honestly the fact that all these french fucks were morally justifying the grooming to themselves through their writings makes them even more interesting to read. You can really see where they went wrong.
I don't know if you want to learn about love from people who notoriously groomed their female students for Sartre's pleasure. Like, maybe it is a French v.s. American cultural difference, but the fact that they would usually completely abandon their protege professionally when the sexual relationship was done speaks volumes to what they actually cared about.
Sartre in particular is obviously a giant privileged, anxiety ridden, piece of shit and you realize that the moment you read a single thing he has to say about love. That's actually kinda why I like reading his work, it's like defining the color red by defining every color it's not.
Like... The Chomsky point is great. I've read a lot of Chomskys political theories and knowing they're all wrong while I was reading them gave them an entirely different meaning. I can logically follow some of Chomskys points but then have to contend with why they were inaccurate, which is useful philosophizing.
Like... Beauvoir was obviously more good faith with their approach to love and feminism but they were also a pedophile... That means somewhere in her writings is something that will maybe try to convince you to sign a French petition in 1977. Knowing that before engaging with their work lets you keep your guard up and actually intellectually engage with the material instead of subsuming your brain to it after you agree with them enough in the first chapter. You'll be critical throughout because you know they're a fucking pedo. And French.
I have golden splinter gun on YV which is basically like Auto Crossbow light as long as you get trigger fingers. Pure crack. My other characters have much less good golden weapons so YV is my go to.
Right. Again, I don't really know what we are disagreeing about. I acknowledge their is knowledge to be found in Vol 2. I am simply stating it isnt really that important to me right now, which is why I am posting about consciousness and trans liberation instead. I personally want to write a paper on Labor Theory of Value and the implications AI has on labor but I don't have the time or energy to do that so I focus on more frivolous shit.
I 100% recommend that you read Adam Smith and Ricardo as well, so you can even argue with Marx on his interpretation of it. Hell, I 100% recommend that you read Hegel, Schopenhauer, Kant, Hume, Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon, etc. We live in an age with access to archives of knowledge Marx would have literally killed for. Excersize it.
Yeah I hope to get to it someday. There is infinite to read and not infinite time. I can either learn lots of small things or deep dive into Vol 2 and probs be scratching my noggin for the next several months as I have to read supplementary works to make sense of what Marx was talking about, because that mother fucker used some very pretty language that doesn't translate too well to English all the time.
I still don't think Vol 2 is gonna teach me about Love like Sartre or Beauvoir...
When I say I've read enough Marx, what I mean is I have read enough Marx to get the gist and now possess the ability to use his works as a resource whenever I run into a question that stumps me. Basically like a Bible. I may not know everything in the Bible, but it has now transitioned from a roadblock to a stepping stone. Thats the important part.
You act as if Baudrillard, Debord, Sartre, or Beauvoir don't literally cite Marx directly constantly. Same is obviously true for Lenin.
Marx took someone else's Labor Theory of Value to prove his point about surplus extraction, do I need to read Adam Smith and Ricardo before I read Marx? No. They're baked into what Marx wrote. Would I understand more if I did? Sure, that's true for literally any damn pursuit of knowledge.
I legit don't understand what you're saying. I've read Vol 1. I've read various passages from the other volumes of capital, ive read critique of the gotha program, I've read Gundriss. I've done all of that and have defended Marx and Engels work to prove they did not sneak in teleology, in an academic setting.
I still think you're missing a whole world of philosophy by thinking Marx had everything figured out. He was clearly very bad at predictive history to say the least.
That's basically the question of a thought experiment. If it were possible for a being to exist that exhibits human behavior but isn't conscious, how would we be able to tell? What would need to be different? It's pointing to gaps in our current understanding.
They aren't gaps to a physicalist though. We would end up dissecting the P Zombies brain and concluding it's literally exactly the same as ours, and he was probably actually conscious.
We could even envision a technology that is able to capture, in data, the entirety of your brain state. We could then take a copy of your brain, and the p Zombies brain, and see if any differences exist. Once we determine that A = A (as the thought experiment claims at least) we would conclude the P Zombie is conscious.
This has actually happened before. People went diving for vital essences and came up with a better understanding of biology instead.
Instead of a computer with no processor we can just boil it down to what I actually think we are: biological agents with a proclivity for homeostasis. You remove the "agency" and you cannot achieve homeostasis. You can't achieve homeostasis you will not be a biological creature very long. The biological creatures that lack agency lose to my lawn mower every spring.
Consciousness simply is agency, which p Zombies lack in the thought experiment, but cannot lack in reality without being BTFO by the weather.
Imagine if Lenin decided to stand on the shoulder of giants instead of trying to make himself a giant. Idk seems like we can take what's work and try to improve it.
To never imagine yourself as a giant is selling yourself short. I am just as capable as Marx, as Marx was simply describing reality.
Yes there is no way to observe that something else has a conscious thought, but if we were to assume other highly complex possess similar means of consciousness as us, then we can look at outer phenomena to confirm it.
A philosophical zombie with my exact state but somehow no consciousness would be dead within the evening. They would have woken up this morning, completely failed to take any medication because they have no memory of medication (memory IS consciousness) no memory of glasses, no memory of what food is like in 2025... They would die. They would effectively be an infant.
To be agential in our universe is to be conscious. There is no distinction. The confusion comes when trying to separate agentiality from consciousness. A human has self diagnostic models, a mix of internal and external stimuli, and a whole host of chemical reactions that make up your consciousness. To say a P Zombie is not conscious is to say they would not receive an emotional improvement from my anti depressants in the morning. Emotion is consciousness.
The act of self modeling IS consciousness. There isn't anything else going on. It "feels" that way because "feeling" that way is *how" we self model. Consciousness isn't a thing its the sum total of all of your self modeling reified into a single experience to give you agency, which grants you an advantage in getting your fuck on.
Hell, I am not even sure a p zombie in my form could "wake up" in the morning. Waking up is an entirely conscious process...
I read the paper. Literally nonsense. Even Chalmers himself argues that Zombie Chalmers would be making the exact same argument as Non Zombie Chalmers, so the actual question is what are we asking? Can I imagine a universe with P Zombies? Sure. I can imagine an ice cube that is hot. I can imagine a box that contains itself. Doesn't mean its possible or relevant to the conversation at all. What about this universe? Are we arguing there are P Zombies in this universe? If so, how? Are we simply arguing that consciousness may exist outside of the physical realm? If so, explain the mechanism that allows it to interact with the physical realm and cause physical effects on our brains.