Heidegger

Zombie Psycho-Philosophy

gevans613 at aol.com wrote:

>I would remind you that a definition of a zombie is that of a dead
>body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force, a
>spirit or supernatural force that reanimates a dead body, a god of
>voodoo cults of African origin worshipped especially in West Indies

>Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that I, a grown, educated man, should
>amend my scientific statement that: Only matergy exists* on the basis
>of the weirdo beliefs of some Caribbean islanders based upon the
>ancient witch-doctory of I9th century Black Africa?

Jud,

according to your definition of ‘exists’ (exists as matergy), ‘only
matergy exists’ is tautalogous. what is in question is your assumption
that all there is is matergy. until you state your case for this claim,
it is … unproven, undefended and unsupported.

as you well know, the philosopher’s zombie is “a creature that is
physically identical to you in every way, goes through exactly the same
actions, and says exactly the same things as you but that lacks
conscious experience” [Freeman, Anthony. 2003. Consciousness: A Guide to
the Debates. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO p. 226].

>For me what you dualistically call *the experiencer* I distinguish as
>the (monistic) experiencing brain, which, apart from the profusion of
>neurological cells that characterise that organ, ontologically, and in
>some ways physiologically is no different from the/ experiencing
>tongue/ or the experiencing eyes, which in my opinion are adjuncts of
>the brain anyway if one views the human ( as I do) as a holism.

it is just such a definition (of the experiencer as the experiencing
brain) that unconceals the fact that you define a human in a way that is
co-extensive with the definition of a zombie. zombies have human bodies
and human brains; and, according to you, the human is nothing but a
human body

>Eliminativist man thinks, feels, speculates, loves, hates, wishes, is
>interested, is bored, believes, disbelieves just like any other member
>of human society. To reject the invisibles (which you claim *are* or
>*exist*) does NOT mean that there is a need for the eliminativist to
>eradicate some notion in such a way that their semantic implications
>become inaccessible at all. I thought that you were quicker on the
>uptake, but I was mistaken.

the eliminativist man claims that he thinks, feels, loves, hates and so
on; but, according to you love does not exist; nor, presumably, does
hate, compassion and so on. true?

now, I’m not claiming that love exists as a physical object. I’m asking
whether it exists in some other sense. you’ve already given your answer:
there is nothing that exists in any sense other than existence as
matergy. that’s zombie talk.

!!! Pop Quiz for List Members !!!

here is a test that will help you decide whether you talk people-talk or
zombie-talk.

look at a bright colored surface for a while and then look away. you’ll
see an afterimage of the complementary color. I just stared at a bright
pink, rectangular index card; and, when I looked away, I saw a forest
green afterimage having the same shape as the index card.

now, when I say ‘I saw a forest green afterimage’ in *people-talk* I’m
referring to the patch of green; but, when I say ‘I saw a forest green
afterimage’ in *zombie-talk* I’m referring to the neuro-chemical events
correlated with the (report of having seen an) afterimage.

well, Jud, which is it?

do you talk people-talk or zombie-talk?

Joe

–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
 http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

Posted on Sunday, October 5th, 2008 at 6:01 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback