Editing Philosophical zombie

{{Short description|Thought experiment in philosophy}}

{{Other uses|Zombie (disambiguation)}}

A '''philosophical zombie''' (or "'''p-zombie'''") is a being in a [[thought experiment]] in the [[philosophy of mind]] that is physically identical to a normal human being but does not have [[consciousness|conscious experience]].<ref name="plato.stanford.edu">{{cite encyclopedia |last=Kirk |first=Robert |title=Zombie |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/zombies/ |edition=Summer 2009s |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=2009 |editor-first=Edward N. |editor-last=Zalta}}</ref>

For example, if a philosophical zombie were poked with a sharp object, it would not feel any pain, but it would react exactly the way any conscious human would. Philosophical zombie arguments are used against forms of [[physicalism]] and in defense of the [[hard problem of consciousness]], which is the problem of accounting in physical terms for subjective, intrinsic, first-person, [[What is it like to be a bat?|what-it's-like-ness]] experiences. Proponents of philosophical zombie arguments, such as the philosopher [[David Chalmers]], argue that since a philosophical zombie is by definition physically identical to a conscious person, even its [[logical possibility]] refutes physicalism. This is because it establishes the existence of conscious experience as a [[further facts|further fact]].<ref name="Chalmers, D. 1996">Chalmers, D. (1996): The Conscious Mind, Oxford University Press, New York.</ref> Philosopher [[Daniel Stoljar]] points out that zombies need not be utterly without subjective states, and that even a subtle psychological difference between two physically identical people, such as how coffee tastes to them, is enough to refute physicalism.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Stoljar |first=Daniel |date=October 11, 2018 |title=The Epistemic Approach to the Mind-Body Problem. Daniel Stoljar |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqJFEWEi148&t=4319s |website=YouTube}}</ref> Such arguments have been criticized by many philosophers. Some physicalists, such as [[Daniel Dennett]], argue that philosophical zombies are logically incoherent and thus impossible, or that all humans are philosophical zombies;<ref name="Dennett1991" /><ref name="Dennett1995" /> others, such as [[Christopher S. Hill|Christopher Hill]], argue that philosophical zombies are coherent but metaphysically impossible.<ref name=":5" />

==History==
Philosophical zombies are associated with David Chalmers, but it was philosopher [[Robert Kirk (philosopher)|Robert Kirk]] who first used the term "zombie" in this context, in 1974. Before that, [[Keith Campbell (philosopher)|Keith Campbell]] made a similar argument in his 1970 book ''Body and Mind'', using the term "imitation man".<ref name="zombies-philpapers">{{Cite web|url=https://philpapers.org/browse/zombies-and-the-conceivability-argument|title=Zombies and the Conceivability Argument|last=Chalmers|first=David|date=21 March 2019|website=Phil Papers}}</ref> Chalmers further developed and popularized the idea in his work.

There has been a lively debate over what the argument demonstrates.<ref name="zombies-philpapers"/> Critics who primarily argue that zombies are not conceivable include [[Daniel Dennett]], Nigel J. T. Thomas,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Thomas |first1=Nigel |title=Zombie killer |year=1998 |publisher=MIT Press |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/THOZK |access-date=15 March 2019}}</ref> David Braddon-Mitchell,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Braddon-Mitchell |first1=David |date=2003 |title=Qualia and Analytical Conditionals |journal=Journal of Philosophy |volume=100 |issue=3 |pages=111–135 |doi=10.5840/jphil2003100321}}</ref> and Robert Kirk.<ref name=":2">{{cite book |last1=Kirk |first1=Robert |title=Zombies and Consciousness |date=2005 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780199229802}}</ref> Critics who assert mostly that conceivability does not entail possibility include Katalin Balog,<ref name=":3">{{cite journal |last1=Balog |first1=Katalin |title=Conceivability, Possibility, and the Mind-Body Problem |journal=Philosophical Review |date=1999 |volume=108 |issue=4 |pages=497–528 |doi=10.2307/2998286|jstor=2998286 |s2cid=170702148}}</ref> [[Keith Frankish]],<ref name=":4">{{cite journal |last1=Frankish |first1=Keith |title=The anti-zombie argument |journal=Philosophical Quarterly |date=2007 |volume=57 |issue=229 |pages=650–666 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.510.x|url=http://oro.open.ac.uk/2191/1/Antizombie_eprint_rev.pdf}}</ref> [[Christopher S. Hill|Christopher Hill]],<ref name=":5">{{cite journal |last1=Hill |first1=Christopher |title=Imaginability, conceivability, possibility, and the mind-body problem |journal=Philosophical Studies |date=1997 |volume=87 |issue=1 |pages=61–85|doi=10.1023/A:1017911200883 |s2cid=170606123}}</ref> and [[Stephen Yablo]].<ref name=":6">{{cite journal |last1=Yablo |first1=Stephen |title=Concepts and Consciousness |journal=Philosophy and Phenomenological Research |date=1999 |volume=59 |issue=2 |pages=455–463 |doi=10.2307/2653683|jstor=2653683}}</ref> Critics who question the argument's logical validity include [[George Bealer]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bealer |first1=G. |author-link1=Modal epistemology and the rationalist renaissance |editor1-last=Gendler |editor1-first=Tamar |editor2-last=Hawthorne |editor2-first=John |title=Conceivability and Possibility |date=2002}}</ref>

In his 2019 update to the article on philosophical zombies in the ''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', Kirk summed up the current state of the debate:
{{Blockquote|In spite of the fact that the arguments on both sides have become increasingly sophisticated—or perhaps because of it—they have not become more persuasive. The pull in each direction remains strong.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Kirk|first=Robert|date=21 March 2019|title=Zombies|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/|journal=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref>}}

A 2013 survey of professional philosophers by Bourget and Chalmers found that 36% said p-zombies were conceivable but metaphysically impossible; 23% said they were metaphysically possible; 16% said they were inconceivable; and 25% responded "other".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bourget |first1=David |last2=Chalmers |first2=David |title=What Do Philosophers Believe?∗ |url=https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP |website=PhilPapers |access-date=21 March 2019}}</ref> In 2020, the same survey yielded almost identical results: "conceivable but impossible" 37%, "metaphysically possible" 24%, "inconceivable" 16%, and "other" 23%.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Weinberg |first=Justin |date=November 1, 2021 |title=What Philosophers Believe: Results from the 2020 PhilPapers Survey |url=https://dailynous.com/2021/11/01/what-philosophers-believe-results-from-the-2020-philpapers-survey/ |access-date=March 20, 2022}}</ref>

==Types of zombies==
Though philosophical zombies are widely used in thought experiments, the detailed articulation of the concept is not always the same. P-zombies were introduced primarily to argue against specific types of physicalism such as [[materialism]] and [[behaviorism]], according to which [[mental state]]s exist solely as behavior. Belief, desire, thought, consciousness, and so on, are conceptualized as behavior (whether external behavior or internal behavior) or tendencies towards behaviors. A p-zombie behaviorally indistinguishable from a normal human being but lacking conscious experiences is therefore not logically possible according to the behaviorist,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hauser |first1=Larry |title=The Undead and Philosophy |chapter=Zombies, Blade Runner and the Mind-Body Problem |editor-last=Greene |editor-first=Richard |editor2-last=Mohammad |editor2-first=K. Silem |year=2006 |page=55 |publisher=Open Court |isbn=978-0-8126-9601-1 |quote=Philosophy zombies "eat brains" by seeming to be counterexamples to every attempt to identify mental states with adaptive behavioral output. Behavioralists propose to identify mental states with adaptive behavioral output.}}</ref> so an appeal to the logical possibility of a p-zombie furnishes an argument that behaviorism is false. Proponents of zombie arguments generally accept that p-zombies are not [[Modal logic#Physical possibility|physically possible]], while opponents necessarily deny that they are metaphysically or, in some cases, even logically possible.

The unifying idea of the zombie is that of a human completely lacking conscious experience. It is possible to distinguish various zombie subtypes used in different thought experiments as follows:

* A '''behavioral zombie''' is behaviorally indistinguishable from a human.
* A '''neurological zombie''' has a human brain and is generally physiologically indistinguishable from a human.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Harnad, Stevan |year=2000 |url=http://cogprints.org/2615/ |title=Minds, Machines, and Turing: The Indistinguishability of Indistinguishables |journal =Journal of Logic, Language and Information |volume= 9 |issue= 4 |pages= 425–445 |doi=10.1023/A:1008315308862 |s2cid=1911720 |author-link=Stevan Harnad|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
* A '''soulless zombie''' lacks a [[soul]].
* An imperfect zombie or '''imp-zombie''' is like a p-zombie but behaves differently than a human. It is important in the context of the mind-evolution problem.<ref>{{cite journal | pmc=6117425 | year=2018 | last1=Gutfreund | first1=Y. | title=The Mind-Evolution Problem: The Difficulty of Fitting Consciousness in an Evolutionary Framework | journal=Frontiers in Psychology | volume=9 | page=1537 | doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01537 | pmid=30197617 | doi-access=free}}</ref>
* A '''zombie universe''' is identical to our world in all physical ways, except no being in it has [[qualia]].

==Zombie arguments==
Zombie arguments often support lines of reasoning that aim to show that zombies are metaphysically possible in order to support some form of [[Mind-body dualism|dualism]]—in this case the view that the world includes two kinds of [[Substance theory|substance]] (or perhaps two kinds of [[Property (philosophy)|property]]): the mental and the physical.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Robinson |first=Howard |title=Dualism |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) |url= http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/dualism/}}</ref>

In physicalism, material facts determine all other facts. Since any fact other than that of consciousness may be held to be the same for a p-zombie and for a normal conscious human, it follows that physicalism must hold that p-zombies are either not possible or are the same as normal humans.

The zombie argument is a version of general [[modal logic|modal arguments]] against physicalism, such as that of [[Saul Kripke]].<ref>Kripke, Saul. ''Naming and Necessity'' (1972).</ref>{{page needed|date=January 2021}} Further such arguments were notably advanced in the 1970s by [[Thomas Nagel]] (1970; 1974) and [[Robert Kirk (philosopher)|Robert Kirk]] (1974), but the general argument was most famously developed in detail by [[David Chalmers]] in ''[[The Conscious Mind]]'' (1996).

According to Chalmers, one can coherently conceive of an entire zombie world, a world physically indistinguishable from this one but entirely lacking conscious experience. Since such a world is conceivable, Chalmers claims, it is metaphysically possible, which is all the argument requires. Chalmers writes: "Zombies are probably not naturally possible: they probably cannot exist in our world, with its laws of nature."<ref name="Chalmers2">Chalmers, 2003, p. 5.</ref> The outline structure of Chalmers's version of the zombie argument is as follows:

#According to physicalism, all that exists in our world (including consciousness) is physical. 
#Thus, if physicalism is true, a metaphysically possible world in which all physical facts are the same as those of the actual world must contain everything that exists in our actual world. In particular, conscious experience must exist in such a possible world.
#Chalmers argues that we can conceive of a world physically indistinguishable from our world but in which there is no consciousness (a zombie world). From this it follows that such a world is metaphysically possible.
#Therefore, physicalism is false. (The conclusion [[Logical consequence|follows from]] 2. and 3. by ''[[modus tollens]]''.)

The above is a strong formulation of the zombie argument. There are other formulations of zombie-type arguments that follow the same general form. The premises of the general zombie argument are implied by the premises of all the specific zombie arguments.

A general zombie argument is in part motivated by potential disagreements between various anti-physicalist views. For example, an anti-physicalist view can consistently assert that p-zombies are metaphysically impossible but that inverted qualia (such as [[inverted spectrum|inverted spectra]]) or absent qualia (partial zombiehood) are metaphysically possible. Premises regarding inverted qualia or partial zombiehood can replace premises regarding p-zombies to produce variations of the zombie argument.

The metaphysical possibility of a physically indistinguishable world with either inverted qualia or partial zombiehood implies that physical truths do not metaphysically necessitate phenomenal truths.

To construct the general form of the zombie argument, take the sentence P to be true if and only if the conjunct of all microphysical truths of our world obtain, and take the sentence Q to be true if some phenomenal truth that obtains in the actual world obtains. The general argument goes as follows.

#It is conceivable that P is true and Q is not true.
#If it is conceivable that P is true and Q is not true then it is metaphysically possible that P is true and Q not true.
#If it is metaphysically possible that P is true and Q is not true then physicalism is false.
#Therefore, physicalism is false.<ref name="Chalmers5">Chalmers, 2010, pp. 106–109.</ref>

Q can be false in a possible world if any of the following obtains: (1) there exists at least one invert relative to the actual world; (2) there is at least one absent quale relative to the actual world; (3) all actually conscious beings are p-zombies (all actual qualia are absent qualia).

Another way to construe the zombie hypothesis is [[Epistemology|epistemically]]—as a problem of causal explanation, rather than as a problem of logical or metaphysical possibility. The "[[explanatory gap]]"—also called the "[[hard problem of consciousness]]"—is the claim that (to date) no one has provided a convincing causal explanation of how and why we are conscious. It is a manifestation of the very same gap that (to date) no one has provided a convincing causal explanation of how and why we are not zombies.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Harnad | first1 = Stevan | author-link = Stevan Harnad | year = 1995 | title = Why and How We Are Not Zombies | url = http://cogprints.org/1601/6/harnad95.zombies.html | journal = Journal of Consciousness Studies | volume = 1 | pages = 164–167}}</ref>

The philosophical zombie argument can also be seen through the counterfeit bill example brought forth by Amy Kind. Kind's example centers around a counterfeit 20-dollar bill made to be exactly like an authentic 20-dollar bill. This is logically possible. Yet the counterfeit bill would not have the same value.

According to Kind, in her book ''Philosophy of Mind: The Basics'', the zombie argument can be put in this standard form from a dualist point of view:

{{blockquote| Zombies, creatures that are microphysically identical to conscious beings but that lack consciousness entirely, are conceivable. If zombies are conceivable then they are possible. Therefore, zombies are possible. If zombies are possible, then consciousness is non-physical. Therefore, consciousness is non-physical.<ref>Kind, A. (2020). ''Philosophy of Mind: The Basics'', Routledge.</ref>}}

==Responses==
[[Galen Strawson]] argues that it is not possible to establish the conceivability of zombies, so the argument, lacking its first premise, can never get going.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Strawson |first1=Galen |author-link1= Galen Strawson |editor1-last=Hameroff |editor1-first=S. |editor2-last=Kaszniak |editor2-first=A. |editor3-last=Chalmers |editor3-first=D. |title=Towards a Science of Consciousness III |date=1999}}</ref>

Chalmers has argued that zombies are conceivable, saying, "it certainly seems that a coherent situation is described; I can discern no contradiction in the description."<ref>Chalmers, 1996, p. 96.</ref>

Many physicalist philosophers{{who|date=January 2021}} have argued that this scenario [[Self-refuting idea|eliminates itself by its description]]; the basis of a physicalist argument is that the world is defined entirely by physicality; thus, a world that was physically identical would necessarily contain consciousness, as consciousness would necessarily be generated from any set of physical circumstances identical to our own.

The zombie argument claims that one can tell by the power of reason that such a "zombie scenario" is metaphysically possible. Chalmers writes, "From the conceivability of zombies, proponents of the argument infer their metaphysical possibility"<ref name="Chalmers2" /> and argues that this inference, while not generally legitimate, is legitimate for phenomenal concepts such as consciousness since we must adhere to "Kripke's insight that for phenomenal concepts, there is no gap between reference-fixers and reference (or between primary and secondary intentions)."

That is, for phenomenal concepts, conceivability implies possibility. According to Chalmers, whatever is logically possible is also, in the sense relevant here, metaphysically possible.<ref>Chalmers, 1996, pp. 67–68.</ref>

Another response is the denial of the idea that qualia and related phenomenal notions of the [[mind]] are in the first place coherent concepts. [[Daniel Dennett]] and others argue that while [[Subjective character of experience|consciousness and subjective experience]] exist in some sense, they are not as the zombie argument proponent claims. The experience of pain, for example, is not something that can be stripped off a person's mental life without bringing about any behavioral or physiological differences. Dennett believes that consciousness is a complex series of functions and ideas. If we all can have these experiences the idea of the p-zombie is meaningless.

Dennett argues that "when philosophers claim that zombies are conceivable, they invariably underestimate the task of conception (or imagination), and end up imagining something that violates their own definition".<ref name=Dennett1991>{{cite book|last=Dennett|first=Daniel C.|title=Consciousness Explained|year=1991|publisher=Little, Brown and Co.|location=Boston, Toronto, London|isbn=0-316-18065-3|url=https://archive.org/details/consciousnessexp00denn}}</ref><ref name="Dennett1995"/> He coined the term "zimboes"—p-zombies that have [[Second-order logic|second-order beliefs]]—to argue that the idea of a p-zombie is incoherent;<ref>Dennett 1995; 1999</ref> "Zimboes think<sup>Z</sup> they are conscious, think<sup>Z</sup> they have qualia, think<sup>Z</sup> they suffer pains—they are just 'wrong' (according to this lamentable tradition), in ways that neither they nor we could ever discover!".<ref name="Dennett1995"/>

[[Michael P. Lynch|Michael Lynch]] agrees with Dennett, arguing that the zombie conceivability argument forces us to either question whether we actually have consciousness or accept that zombies are not possible. If zombies falsely believe they are conscious, how can we be sure we are not zombies? We may believe we are experiencing conscious mental states when in fact we merely hold a false belief. Lynch thinks denying the possibility of zombies is more reasonable than questioning our own consciousness.<ref>Lynch, Michael P. (2006). Zombies and the case of the phenomenal pickpocket. Synthese 149 (1):37-58.</ref>

Furthermore, when the concept of self is deemed to correspond to physical reality alone (reductive physicalism), philosophical zombies are denied by definition. When a distinction is made in one's mind between a hypothetical zombie and oneself (assumed not to be a zombie), the hypothetical zombie, being a subset of the concept of oneself, must entail a deficit in observables (cognitive systems), a "seductive error"<ref name="Dennett1995">{{cite book|last=Dennett|first=Daniel C.|title=Darwin's Dangerous Idea|url=https://archive.org/details/darwinsdangerous0000denn|url-access=registration|year=1995|publisher=Simon & Schuster|location=New York|isbn=0-684-82471-X|page=[https://archive.org/details/darwinsdangerous0000denn/page/322 322]}}</ref> contradicting the original definition of a zombie.

[[Thomas Metzinger]] dismisses the zombie argument as no longer relevant to the consciousness community, calling it a weak argument that covertly relies on the difficulty in defining "consciousness" and an "ill-defined folk psychological umbrella term".<ref name ="Metzinger">{{cite web |last1=Harris |first1=Sam |author-link= Sam Harris |title=The Nature of Consciousness |date=September 10, 2017 |first2=Thomas |last2=Metzinger |url=https://samharris.org/subscriber-extras/96-nature-consciousness/ |work=Making Sense |publisher=Sam Harris |access-date=27 August 2020 |quote=(25.45) TM:I think it will not be a mystery. Life is not a mystery anymore, but a hundred and fifty years ago many people thought that this is an irreducible mystery. (25:57)  SH:So you're not a fan anymore, if you ever were, of the framing by David Chalmers of the Hard Problem of Consciousness? TM: No, that's so boring. I mean, that's last century. I mean, you know, we all respect Dave [Chalmers], and we know he is very smart and has got a very fast mind, no debate about that. But Conceivability Arguments are just very, very weak. If you have an ill-defined folk psychological umbrella term like "consciousness", then you can pull off all kinds of scenarios and zombie thought experiments. It doesn't really…  It helped to clarify some issues in the mid 90's, but the consciousness community has listened to this and just moved on. I mean nobody of the serious researchers in the field thinks about this anymore, but it has taken on like a folkloristic life of its own. A lot of people talk about the Hard Problem who wouldn't be able to state what it consists in now.}}</ref>

According to [[verificationism]],<ref name="plato.stanford.edu"/> for words to have meaning, their use must be open to public verification. Since it is assumed that we can talk about our qualia, the existence of zombies is impossible.

[[Artificial intelligence]] researcher [[Marvin Minsky]] saw the argument as circular. The proposition of the possibility of something physically identical to a human but without subjective experience assumes that the physical characteristics of humans are not what produces those experiences, which is exactly what the argument claims to prove.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky/minsky_p2.html |title=  Consciousness is a Big Suitcase - A Talk with Marvin Minsky [page 2] |work=  The Third Culture |publisher=edge.com |first1=John |last1=Brockman |date=27 February 1998 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230524005849/https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/minsky/minsky_p2.html |archive-date= May 24, 2023}}</ref>

Richard Brown agrees that the zombie argument is circular. To show this, he proposes two hypothetical beings: {{not a typo|zoombies}} and shombies. Zoombies are creatures that are ''non''physically identical to people in every way and lacking phenomenal consciousness. If {{not a typo|zoombies}} existed, they would refute dualism because they would show that phenomenal consciousness escapes the net of a complete dualistic science (involving, say, a nonphysical substance called [[Ectoplasm (paranormal)|ectoplasm]]). Shombies are creatures that are physically identical to people in every way and have the ''same'' phenomenal consciousness as them. If shombies existed, they would refute dualism because they would show that phenomenal consciousness can be explained by a complete physicalist science. Paralleling the argument from Chalmers: It is conceivable that {{not a typo|zoombies}}/shombies exist, so it is possible they exist, so dualism is false. Given the symmetry between the zombie and {{not a typo|zoombie}}/shombie arguments, we cannot arbitrate the physicalism/dualism question ''a priori''.<ref name="Brown2010">{{cite journal|last1=Brown|first1=Richard|title=Deprioritizing the A Priori Arguments Against Physicalism|journal=Journal of Consciousness Studies|date=2010|volume=17|issue=3–4|pages=47–69|url=http://philpapers.org/archive/BRODTA.pdf |via=PhilPapers |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240126233332/https://philpapers.org/archive/BRODTA.pdf |archive-date= Jan 26, 2024}}</ref>

Similarly, [[Gualtiero Piccinini]] argues that the zombie conceivability argument is circular. Piccinini questions whether the possible worlds where zombies exist are [[Accessibility relation|accessible]] from our world. If physicalism is true in our world, then physicalism is one of the relevant facts about our world for determining whether a possible zombie world is accessible from our world.  Therefore, asking whether zombies are metaphysically possible in our world is equivalent to asking whether physicalism is true in our world.<ref>Piccinini, Gualtiero (2017). Access Denied to Zombies. Topoi 36 (1):81-93.</ref>

[[Stephen Yablo]]'s (1998) response is to provide an [[error theory]] to account for the intuition that zombies are possible. Notions of what counts as physical and as physically possible change over time so [[conceptual analysis]] is not reliable here. Yablo says he is "braced for the information that is going to make zombies inconceivable, even though I have no real idea what form the information is going to take."<ref>Yablo, 2000, §XV.</ref>

The zombie argument is difficult to assess because it brings to light fundamental disagreements about the method and scope of philosophy itself and the nature and abilities of conceptual analysis. Proponents of the zombie argument may think that conceptual analysis is a central part of (if not the only part of) philosophy and that it certainly can do a great deal of philosophical work. But others, such as Dennett, [[Paul Churchland]] and [[W.V.O. Quine]], have fundamentally different views. For this reason, discussion of the zombie argument remains vigorous in philosophy.

Some accept [[Modal logic|modal]] reasoning in general but deny it in the zombie case. Christopher S. Hill and Brian P. McLaughlin suggest that the zombie thought experiment combines imagination of a "sympathetic" nature (putting oneself in a phenomenal state) and a "perceptual" nature (imagining becoming aware of something in the outside world). Each type of imagination may work on its own but not work when used at the same time. Hence Chalmers's argument need not go through.<ref name=HillMclaughlin1999>{{cite journal|author1=Christopher S. Hill|author2=Brian P. Mclaughlin|title=There are Fewer Things in Reality Than are Dreamt of in Chalmers's Philosophy|journal=Philosophy and Phenomenological Research|date=Jun 1999|volume=59|issue=2|pages=445–454|doi=10.2307/2653682|jstor=2653682}}</ref>{{rp|448}}

Moreover, while Chalmers defuses criticisms of the view that conceivability can tell us about possibility, he provides no positive defense of the principle. As an analogy, the [[Continuum hypothesis#The generalized continuum hypothesis|generalized continuum hypothesis]] has no known counterexamples, but this does not mean we must accept it. Indeed, according to Hill and McLaughlin, the fact that Chalmers concludes we have [[Epiphenomenon|epiphenomenal]] mental states that do not cause our physical behavior seems to be a reason to reject his principle.<ref name="HillMclaughlin1999" />{{rp|449–51}}
<!--
''Note: There was a lot of unsourced material that doesn't specify an author and has the tone of original research. I'm putting it here as a compromise between deleting it and leaving it visible.''

If one accepts two-dimensional semantics, Chalmers' argument is logically [[Validity (logic)|valid]]. Some philosophers accept its validity but dispute its soundness, arguing that its premises are false. Zombies might not actually be conceivable or, if they are, the mere fact that they are conceivable might not mean that they are possible.

One can hold that zombies are a [[logical possibility]] but not a [[metaphysical possibility]]. If logical possibility does not entail metaphysical possibility across the domain of relevant truths, then the mere logical possibility of zombies is not sufficient to establish their metaphysical possibility.

Under (reductive) [[physicalism]], one is inclined to believe either that anyone including oneself might be a zombie, or that no one can be a zombie – following from the assertion that one's own conviction about being, or not being a zombie is (just) a product of the physical world and is therefore no different from anyone else's.

P-zombies in an observed world would be indistinguishable from the observer, even hypothetically (when the observer makes no assumptions regarding the validity of their convictions).

A related argument is that of "zombie-utterance". If someone were to say they love the smell of some food, a zombie producing the same reaction would be perceived as a person having complex thoughts and ideas in their head indicated by the ability to vocalize it. If zombies were without awareness of their perceptions the idea of uttering words could not occur to them. Therefore, if a zombie has the ability to speak, it is not a zombie.

This leads to the questions of the relevant notion of "possibility": if something is conceivable, does that mean it is possible? Most physicalist responses deny that the premise of a zombie scenario is possible.
-->

==Related thought experiments==
[[Frank Cameron Jackson|Frank Jackson]]'s [[knowledge argument]] is based around a hypothetical scientist, Mary, who is forced to view the world through a black-and-white television screen in a black and white room. Mary is a brilliant scientist who knows everything about the neurobiology of vision. Even though she knows everything about color and its perception (e.g. what combination of wavelengths makes the sky seem blue), she has never seen color. If Mary were released from this room and experienced color for the first time, would she learn anything new? Jackson initially believed this supported [[epiphenomenalism]] (mental phenomena are the effects, but not the causes, of physical phenomena) but later changed his view to [[physicalism]], suggesting that Mary is simply discovering a new way for her brain to represent qualities that exist in the world.

[[Swampman]] is an imaginary character introduced by [[Donald Davidson (philosopher)|Donald Davidson]]. If Davidson goes hiking in a swamp and is struck and killed by a lightning bolt while nearby another lightning bolt spontaneously rearranges a bunch of molecules so that, entirely by coincidence, they take on exactly the same form that Davidson's body had at the moment of his untimely death, then this being, "Swampman", has a brain structurally identical to Davidson's and will thus presumably behave exactly like Davidson. He will return to Davidson's office and write the same essays he would have written, recognize all of his friends and family, and so forth.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Davidson|first=Donald|date=1987|title=Knowing One's Own Mind|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/3131782|journal=Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association|volume=60|issue=3|pages=441–458|doi=10.2307/3131782|jstor=3131782|issn=0065-972X|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

[[John Searle]]'s [[Chinese room]] argument deals with the nature of artificial intelligence: it imagines a room in which a conversation is held by means of written Chinese characters that the subject cannot actually read, but is able to manipulate meaningfully using a set of algorithms. Searle holds that a program cannot give a computer a "mind" or "understanding", regardless of how intelligently it may make it behave. [[Stevan Harnad]] argues that Searle's critique is really meant to target [[Functionalism (philosophy of mind)|functionalism]] and [[computationalism]], and to establish [[neuroscience]] as the only correct way to understand the mind.<ref>[http://cogprints.org/4023/ Harnad, Stevan (2001)], "What's Wrong and Right About Searle's Chinese Room Argument", in M.; Preston, J., Essays on Searle's Chinese Room Argument, Oxford University Press.</ref>

Physicist Adam Brown has suggested constructing a type of philosophical zombie using [[counterfactual quantum computation]], a technique in which a computer is placed into a superposition of running and not running. If the program being executed is a brain simulation, and if one makes the further assumption that brain simulations are conscious, then the simulation can have the same output as a conscious system, yet not be conscious.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Musser |first1=George |title=Schrödinger's Zombie: Adam Brown at the 6th FQXi Meeting |url=https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3345 |website=FQXi.org |access-date=9 September 2019}}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|Philosophy}}

{{div col|colwidth=20em}}
* {{annotated link|Artificial intelligence}}
* {{annotated link|Begging the question}}
* {{annotated link|Blindsight}}
* {{annotated link|Blindsight (Watts novel)|''Blindsight''}} — a novel involving intelligent entities without consciousness
* {{annotated link|Causality}}
* {{annotated link|Double-aspect theory}}
* {{annotated link|Ethics of uncertain sentience}}
* {{annotated link|Map–territory relation}}
* {{annotated link|Mind–body problem}}
* {{annotated link|Neutral monism}}
* {{annotated link|NPC (meme)}}
* {{annotated link|No true Scotsman}}
* {{annotated link|Problem of other minds}}
* {{annotated link|Quantum Night|''Quantum Night''}}
* {{annotated link|Reverse engineering}}
* {{annotated link|Sentience}}
* {{annotated link|Ship of Theseus}}
* {{annotated link|Solipsism}}
* {{annotated link|Swampman}}
* {{annotated link|Turing test}}
* {{annotated link|Vertiginous question}}
{{div col end}}

==References==
===Notes===
{{Reflist}}

===Bibliography===
*Bergson, Henri. 1911. 'Life and Consciousness', Conference given at the university of Oxford. Oxford: 	1911. (https://archive.org/details/hibbertjournal10londuoft/page/32/mode/2up?view=theater)
* [[David Chalmers|Chalmers, David]]. 1995. "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness", ''Journal of Consciousness Studies'', vol. 2,  no. 3, pp.&nbsp;200–219. [http://consc.net/papers/facing.pdf Online PDF]
* Chalmers, David. 1996. ''The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory'', New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hardcover: {{ISBN|0-19-511789-1}}, paperback: {{ISBN|0-19-510553-2}}
* Chalmers, David. 2003. "Consciousness and its Place in Nature", in the ''Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Mind'', S. Stich and F. Warfield (eds.), Blackwell. Also in ''Philosophy of Mind: Classical and Contemporary Readings'', D. Chalmers (ed.), Oxford, 2002. {{ISBN|0-19-514581-X}}, [http://consc.net/papers/nature.pdf Online PDF]
* Chalmers, David. 2004. "Imagination, Indexicality, and Intensions", ''Philosophy and Phenomenological Research'', vol. 68, no. 1. [http://consc.net/papers/perry.html Online text] {{doi|10.1111/j.1933-1592.2004.tb00334.x}}
*Chalmers, David. 2010. "the character of consciousness", OUP
* [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett, Daniel]]. 1995. "The Unimagined Preposterousness of Zombies", ''Journal of Consciousness Studies'', vol. 2, no. 4, pp.&nbsp;322–326. [http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/unzombie.htm Online abstract]
* Dennett, Daniel. 1999. "The Zombic Hunch: Extinction of an Intuition?", ''Royal Institute of Philosophy Millennial Lecture''. [http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/zombic.htm Online text]
* [[Robert Kirk (philosopher)|Kirk, Robert]]. 1974. "[[Sentience]] and Behaviour", ''Mind'', vol. 83, pp.&nbsp;43–60. {{JSTOR|2252795}}
* [[Saul Kripke|Kripke, Saul]]. 1972. "Naming and Necessity", in ''Semantics of Natural Language'', ed. by D. Davidson and G. Harman, Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, pp.&nbsp;253–355. (Published as a book in 1980, Harvard University Press.)
* [[Thomas Nagel|Nagel, Thomas]]. 1970. "Armstrong on the Mind", ''Philosophical Review'', vol. 79, pp.&nbsp;394–403. {{JSTOR|2183935}}
* Nagel, Thomas. 1974. "[[What Is it Like to Be a Bat?]]" ''Philosophical Review'', vol. 83, pp.&nbsp;435–450. {{JSTOR|2183914}}
* Thomas, N.J.T. 1998. "Zombie Killer", in S.R. Hameroff, A.W. Kaszniak, & A.C. Scott (eds.), ''Toward a Science of Consciousness II: The Second Tucson Discussions and Debates'' (pp.&nbsp;171–177), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [http://www.imagery-imagination.com/zom-abs.htm Online]
* Yablo, Stephen. 2000. "Textbook Kripkeanism and the Open Texture of Concepts", ''Pacific Philosophical Quarterly'', vol. 81, pp.&nbsp;98–122. [https://www.mit.edu/~yablo/tk.html Online text] {{doi|10.1111/1468-0114.00097}}

==External links==
* [https://philpapers.org/browse/zombies-and-the-conceivability-argument Online papers on philosophical zombies], by various authors, compiled by David Chalmers.
* [http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/zombies.htm Field Guide to the Philosophy of Mind] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061205234104/http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/kant/field/zombies.htm |date=2006-12-05}}
* {{cite SEP |url-id=zombies |title=Zombies}}
* [http://skepdic.com/zombies.html Skepdic entry on p-zombies]
* [http://chaospet.com/28-philosophical-zombies/ A Chaospet comic on the subject of philosophical zombies]
* [https://philpapers.org/archive/SILOTC-3 On The Conceivability of Zombies] Paper argues that Philosophical Zombies are not conceivable

{{Philosophy of mind|state=collapsed}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Philosophical Zombie}}

[[Category:Hypothetical life forms]]
[[Category:Internalism and externalism]]
[[Category:Philosophical arguments]]
[[Category:Physicalism]]
[[Category:Qualia]]
[[Category:Thought experiments in philosophy of mind]]