why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?

[Belacqua]

But the examples you give aren't cases of skepticism.

No, but they are examples of how skepticism about face-value claims can lead to giving too much weight to what are really unwarranted beliefs.

One of the things philosophy does is to question face-value claims. A lot of things seem obvious that turn out to be more complicated. 

I am against unwarranted beliefs, but, again, I don't know of anyone who really believes in p-zombies, etc. Granted, there will always be dumb people. 

While I appreciate your critiques of philosophical thought experiments as valid explanations within the philosophical community which understands the words games being played, the effects of such ideas on people at large are not healthy in far too many cases.  

I guess so. But what's the alternative? Should we ban these ideas from people without advanced degrees? If people get them wrong but debate them, there is some change of getting corrected.

In the context of arguing with Bennyboy over panpsychism and p-zombies, what I said makes sense.

I haven't read every post, but I don't see Bennyboy as being overly gullible. It looks to me as if he has discussed p-zombies just as they are meant to be discussed -- as mental constructs used to show the difference between an experiencing subject and a non-experiencing object dressed up to look like one. 

Granted, such thought experiments can get frustrating. The truth seems, as you say, to be at face-value, yet we find that we have no way to prove it. Zeno's paradoxes come to mind. At this point we are all tempted to just stomp our feet and say, "But that's just the way it is, goddammit." Philosophers tend not to be satisfied with this answer.

---

bennyboy, have you ever suggested that p-zombies roam among us, for real? 

Or are you just using them as a thought experiment? 

It seems to have been suggested that you take your skepticism too far.