Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Behavioral equivalence to a minded system does not entail ontological equivalence with that system, as philosophical zombies illustrate (Chalmers, 1996).
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If zombies are truly inconceivable upon careful analysis, the premise of the argument collapses, making the distinction empirically unmotivated.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Ontological equivalence may follow if consciousness just is a higher-order functional property, making behavioral equivalence sufficient for mentality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The argument conflates epistemic limits (what we can know from behavior) with metaphysical facts (what actually exists), committing a modal fallacy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Conceivability of zombies (physically identical but non-conscious beings) is coherent, suggesting consciousness is metaphysically distinct from behavior.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Two systems can be functionally and behaviorally identical yet differ in intrinsic phenomenal properties like subjective experience or qualia.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Physical science describes structure and function, not subjective experience, so behavioral equivalence cannot logically entail consciousness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.