[SEQ RERUN] The Generalized Anti-Zombie Principle

[MinibearRex]

Today’s post, The Generalized Anti-Zombie Principle was originally published on 05 April 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

The argument against zombies can be extended into a more general anti-zombie principle. But, figuring out what that more general principle is, is more difficult than it may seem.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we’ll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky’s old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Zombie Responses, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.

Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day’s sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.

[David_Gerard]

This post I found a bit of a ramble. I’m not clear from it what the GAZP actually is, except “if you reach any variety of dualism, it’s a reductio ad absurdum on your argument.”

[fubarobfusco]

This post isn’t terribly well-written if its main point is this well-concealed; but here it is (emphasis added) —

But the new version of the Anti-Zombie Argument still carries. You can say, “I don’t know what consciousness really is, and I suspect I may be fundamentally confused about the question. But if the word refers to anything at all, it refers to something that is, among other things, the cause of my talking about consciousness. Now, I don’t know why I talk about consciousness. But it happens inside my skull, and I expect it has something to do with neurons firing. Or maybe, if I really understood consciousness, I would have to talk about an even more fundamental level than that, like microtubules, or neurotransmitters diffusing across a synaptic channel. But still, that switch you just flipped has an effect on my neurotransmitters and microtubules that’s much, much less than thermal noise at 310 Kelvin. So whatever the true cause of my talking about consciousness may be, I don’t expect it to be hugely affected by the gravitational pull from that switch. Maybe it’s just a tiny little infinitesimal bit affected? But it’s certainly not going to go out like a light. I expect to go on talking about consciousness in almost exactly the same way afterward, for almost exactly the same reasons.”

This application of the Anti-Zombie Principle is weaker. But it’s also much more general. And, in terms of sheer common sense, correct.

If I had to sum this up, it would be something like:

“If I talk about consciousness, it’s because I am conscious. We don’t have to know exactly how that works to specify some limits on how it works, and on what can affect it. Specifically, consciousness is a process going on inside my body; just as you have an analogous process going on inside yours. And things that we don’t expect will interfere with a bodily process — e.g. flipping a disconnected switch — we shouldn’t expect will interfere with consciousness.

Or:

“Consciousness isn’t special. It’s something your body does, like digestion and reproductive fertility. Flipping a switch can’t make you puke or turn you sterile; it’s not going to turn off your consciousness either.”

[David_Gerard]

I do believe you’ve found it. Thank you!

[MinibearRex]

I agree. The post leaves quite a bit to be desired. Part of that is because (I suspect) EY thought he couldn’t explain all of it yet until he’d done his posts on quantum mechanics, which are coming up soon.

[atorm]

My initial reaction is that Charles might be right, but Bernice probably isn’t. Maybe if I think/​read more my thoughts will evolve.