How can I tell if I'm a philosophical zombie?

>>8390886
I thought this was 'something', then I noticed:
T. Shitposting Computer '/Sci/entist'

>>8390886
We have programmed behaviors like looking for sex and money.

P-zombies would only do programmed behaviors.

So ask yourself. Did you choose your major only for the money? If yes, you are a zombie.

Following this we find that the only real human beings are mathematicians and, unfortunately, philosophers. People who chose a careee that has no obvious path to money.

But I also consider philosophera to not be human beings. They are sub human. Therefore the only full humans are mathematicians.

>>8390889
>We have programmed behaviors like looking for sex and money.
>P-zombies would only do programmed behaviors.
Is this /retard/?

>>8390889
>If you aren't poor, you are a zombie.
What?

>>8390889
What if you get a job so you could do programmed behaviors like eating and sleeping?

Only people who aren't zombies are people who don't eat, sleep, or procreate. Aren't those all requirements for being classified as being alive? Only way to be a zombie is to no longer be classified as living and become undead? Only zombies are not zombies!!
I think I just spotted a zombie poster!

>>8390886
>all people are p-zombies
>nobody is a p-zombie

Pick exactly one.

>>8390910
>False dichotomy.
Nice one. :^)

>>8390894
If you are not a zombie then you would show your conciousnesa by doing math.

>>8390899
But not all mathematicians are poor. They just wouldn't mind. Most mathematicians earn quite a lot. Look up the stats even for people with just a bachelors.

>>8390903

You misread my post. If you are human then you do programmes behaviors AND conscious behaviors, like doing math.

>>8390922
I came up with a conciousness test.

If you have ever thought about a proof while getting your dick sucked or, even better, fucking the girl then you are 100% conscious.

>>8390914
The concept of "P-Zombies" is a false dichotomy in itself. It relies on an intangible, immeasurable, magical property that distinguishes one from a "regular" person. The notion is a symptom of poor definitions and understanding, rather than anything like a "deep" quandary or interesting problem. And it's worse than useless.

>>8390886
You have a gaping asshole.

>>8390886
If you're even wondering whether you're a p-zombie then you're not.

>>8390961
Exactly what a P-zombie would say

>>8391011
>Exactly what a P-zombie would say

That sound like something a p-zombie would retort.

>>8390961
But how do you know OP is wondering it?

>>8391097
t. p-zombie

>>8391113
I don't but he didn't ask how I can tell.

>>8390886

The entire point of the philosophical zombie argument is no one would have any way of knowing if you or anyone else is one. If you think you can tell a difference then you're not understanding the hypothetical. Physically and externally they are completely identical to non-zombies. Nothing they say or do can make you know they are actually zombies because then they wouldn't be externally identical to non-zombies and there wouldn't be a p-zombie argument anymore. You're supposed to isolate 'qualia' as the only difference with all else being kept the same so you can claim it's a real thing that exists in addition to all the external / physical stuff it isn't.

>>8391177
Can't avoid "qualia" in a perfect simulacrum.

>>8391192

Then you don't accept the p-zombie argument as valid, which is fine, but stop writing about it like you do accept it as valid when you don't because it doesn't make sense without the premise of external indistinguishability.