Christianity is heading for a full allegorization

[GrandizerII]

Well I would say, if you experience anything then you're not a PZ... because a PZ just does not experience, full stop. So if you have any kind of mental experience... of the unity, continuity, sense of self, experience of time and changing perceptions etc... then you're not a PZ.

The question by polymath257 is badly formed. He isn't asking what the definition of zombie is.
He is in fact asking, "How do I know that I am experiencing anything?"
How is that determined?
How does the human determine that he is experiencing things? Is he the judge of himself? He might say "He isn't experiencing anything." which means that he might be wrong.
How does the zombie determine that he is experiencing things? Is he the judge of himself? He might say "He IS experiencing things." which means that he might be wrong.

There is this claim that you can have a person who does not experience anything and that it behaves just as any other human.

If I ask you to ponder whether you experience things or not, wouldn't you know that you are? You're seeing the words on this screen, right? The color, the font, and all. You're seeing the screen. It's all out there in your face.

The most a zombie can do, on the other hand, is state - or even believe - that they do experience things, but they wouldn't really know it because they lack that intimate acquaintance with such experiences. There is nothing out there in their face. Now you might not be able to tell if the other person is a zombie or a conscious being since perhaps they still give you the same response no matter what. But from your perspective, you have the intimate acquaintance with your experiences, so you would know that you are indeed experiencing things.

Yes, you're the judge of yourself. And the zombie is the judge of their self. You would be correct in your judgement, but the zombie would have no idea what they're saying when they report having experiences, or they're thinking of a different sense of the word "experience", one that they can fathom. As an example of the latter sense, a rock in a river experiencing the splash of water against it. The rock most probably doesn't have a visual field or a first-person perspective. It's just interactions.

Anyway, such objection doesn't show that a zombie is incoherent, only that you can't infallibly know if someone else is a zombie or not.

1) 'seeing red' is the phenomenal aspect... consisting of let's say at the very least, the perception/illusion of an self/observor, and the experience of perceiving a colour in our visual field
2) the physical events of the environment interacting with our sense organs, in this case light interacting with the eyes, and the physical changes that causes in the neurons of the brain, is the physical/neural aspect.

It is my opinion that you can at least in theory have (2) without (1) and that in that case there would be no difference in the behaviour of the organism than if it had both (1) and (2)... and that such a being without (1) would be a philosophical zombie. I don't know how else I can say it.

How can you have 2 without 1?

More like why should there be a 1 at all?

---

I think you guys are thinking graphically. You are imagining that atoms/molecules are little balls moving around randomly and you want to call the average speed the temperature.

So far, it sounds like nobody is having difficulty in understanding this.

In this universe with its laws of physics and such, the temperature is the motion of those molecules. In another universe or world, perhaps temperature is something different, but that's not really the point.

The point is that, in this universe, this is all what temperature is. There is nothing else about temperature unless we also include our sensations of it, but then that is not really adding to what temperature is perse. That's just our experiences.

I’m not sure about GrandizerII.
Are you saying that consciousness is unrelated to the brain? It looks like you accept that you can have zombies.

Maybe. They certainly are logically possible. Are they metaphysically possible? Am agnostic about this.

Are they physically possible? Most likely not.