Marchesk

I'm not sure why one should take a metaphor and use that as a standard for what demarcates appropriate philosophical inquiry. It is a metaphor afteral...

Alright, machines and fictional stories are just a tool to explore the p-zombie question, which is partly one about the conceivability of identical be...

But the complaint you and TGW lodged against movie/tv scenarios is that they're just fictional worlds with conscious machines (actors playing those ro...

What Chalmers does is imagine that you can subtract consciousness and behavior will remain the same, because physicalism can account for all behavior....

Movies are just a means of discussing the p-zombie/consciousness question put forth in the OP. The scenarios are fictional, but so is p-zombieland.

Neither movie presents a dumbed down Turing Test. Anyway, there's plenty of examples in literature and movies. Some of the machines are very human lik...

Not indistinguishable, but rather fully capable. Data wouldn't pass a Turing Test (too easy to tell he is a machine the way he talks), but he is consc...

But not all behavior is linguistic.

My argument is that you can't have a system behave in a way indistinguishable from one that is conscious without being conscious, because doing so req...

Ex Machina does provide an explanation for how consciousness was built into the robot, even if it's somewhat dissatisfying. There is a fair amount of ...

I don't see how you can watch the entire move and think that she's just Scarlett Johansson. Did you not catch the ending?

Except that Samantha is disembodied, and acts disturbed by this at first, even contacting a surrogate female partner for Joaquin Phoenix to make love ...

There's two recent AI movies that do a good job with this sort of thing. One is 'Her' and the other is 'Ex Machina'. In the second one, a programmer a...

The problem for p-zombies is accounting for behavior which requires an understanding of first person. Perhaps Chalmers and those who agree with his ar...

It's also because external devices are often more reliable than our internal cognition. Writing something down on paper makes it easier to retain.

I can make the statement that "Unicons exist". But it's not true. Therefore, there has to be more to disquotation than it being a linquistic account. ...

Alright, but I'm wondering how you are able to behave as if you understand.

I, for one, welcome our new sexy refrigerator overlords.

Right, but I'm wondering how you understand the illusion, since as you admit, it doesn't work on you. It's the same thing as reading a book from a par...

That doesn't mean anything. That's the reason for using disquotation. Notice the difference if you substitute unicorns. "Chairs exist" is true, but "U...

What if the purpose of memory isn't to be a faithful recording, but rather a tool for future action?

The implication of the chair existing is that it's something in the world which, in the case of chairs, is empirically verifiable. Thus, disquotation ...

Ever seen Terminator? Remember the scene where you get to see things through the eyes of cyborg Arnie that includes the normal visual field plus vario...