(April 18, 2014 at 10:38 am)rasetsu Wrote: Evidence, not proof. The introduction of the concept of philosophical zombies shifts the burden of proof to those who suggest there can be such a thing. Failing that, we fall back on uniformitarianism which is generally assumed.Proof and evidence have a complicated relationship with context-- the context set by philosophical assumptions. Mundane proofs must be viewed with suspicioun when the philosophical context is changed.
For example, does gravity affect all physical objects? Evidence for this idea is obvious-- that many objects have been seen to be affected by gravity, and very few not. But this truth only works in the context of a world view in which objects and their properties exist as more than my experiences.
Is there an objective world, which is not dependend on my experience of it? It would seem so-- I often have experiences which I did not expect, which is quite the mental feat if I'm God of a universe of my own making. Yet this truth only works in the context where my perceptions are considered a valid measure or indicator of anything at all.
The case of consciousness is a special one, right here, right now. That's because we look to certain behaviors as evidence supporting non-philosophical-zombiism, and because we are approaching the point at which man-made machines will be able to mimic those behaviors more and more effectively. Will this shift in available evidence change what philosophical assumptions we're willing to make? Are we just going to throw up our hands and extend "rights" to every physical system which can tug at our evolved heartstrings?
