The Instigator
Sonofkong
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
XStrikeX
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

My opponent is a zombie (not serious)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,502 times Debate No: 14334
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

Sonofkong

Pro


I am here to say that my opponent (and possibly the entire human race, excluding me) is a philosophical zombie. For a view of these terrifying creations see below.

Now what is a zombie you may ask. Zombies are all around us as well as mutants (to be explained later). They are mindless drones who walk around with no soul and consciousness beyond an evil spell or possibly a computer program. However due to laws made by politicians, who are of course zombies, I can't run headfirst into battle with two chainsaws duck taped to a kayak paddle freeing the game grid of programs and instead letting users rule.
I expect either a great zombie philosopher (such as FREEDO) or a great zombie humorist (such as koopin.) Beware or I might do this to you.
XStrikeX

Con


Thank you for starting this debate, Sonofkong.
It seems to be a very interesting topic.
Seeing as you have the burden of proof, I'd like you to somehow prove that I'm a zombie.
Thanks once again.
Debate Round No. 1
Sonofkong

Pro

To reword my argument formally I will say that I am in favor of the philosophy of Descartes which is available here for someone wanting more information.
(Watch video 1)

My opponent will try to prove he exists in body and mind while I prove the opposite. I wish him well.

Argument #1: Physicalism and Mentalism
As seen above the only things certain are my existence and a few basic mathematical formulas. With this information we only have two possibilities left to us.
1: We live in the world of Physicalism, the commonly accepted belief where everything including consciousness is a physical object and if I am almost certain I touched something it indeed happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
2: We live in the world of mentalism where everything is an image in my mind which is not physical but is instead mental material. http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)Ruling out any hybrids of the two theories as there is no mentally sound method of a non-physical mind interacting with a physical body.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
More on this later.

Argument #2: Hume's Philosophy
Note that when I say that I exist I am in no way speaking of my entire visible body but rather sense outputs and a mind which is capable of collecting data, inferring, and making decisions, something you zombies can't do. This is because if that statement was not said my zombie opponent may respond to that stimuli like a Venus fly trap and say the following video proves I don't exist.

Hume was a philosopher explained in more detail in this video who says that only the surface or what I can see exists.
(Watch video 2)
For instance no matter how many times I see you're skin I can assume you're lungs don't exist. As I am yet to see the soul, consciousness or mind (not to be confused with the brain) None of those things exist according to skepticism as they are yet to be observed while I have observed them in myself and am positive they exist.

Argument #3: Occam's Razor
(see video 3 for definition)

Back to the two possible worlds we may live in some have stated that Occam's razor disproves the mentalist theory as they find it too complicated yet I, as well as several other philosophers, believe physicalism is the complicated one. Look at all the problems posed by physicalism.
*How did this physical world come about when it disproves supernatural or non-physical elements.
*How does the mind work when several neuroscientists are racking their brains out to find how a few neurons and receptors can equal up to the mind which is the most complicated observer and decision maker.
*How can what we see now be the complete explanation for what there is if a colorblind person experiences color for the first time learns something new saying that there is more knowledge than physical knowledge and properties (or qualia) do exist as independent objects.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
It is much simpler to assume that my body, which is in a universe that has little to no resemblance to this one, is in a blank state (such as a coma, being in the womb or something unknown to this illusion of a world) and I am imagining a universe and going through it. If that is the case than I pride myself in my work.
Au revoir and wait for more.
XStrikeX

Con

Thanks for replying Sonofkong.

Refutations

"We live in the world of Physicalism, the commonly accepted belief where everything including consciousness is a physical object and if I am almost certain I touched something it indeed happened."

I'm very certain that I am in the response section, for I touched the mouse on my laptop to move the cursor to the 'reply' link and found myself here. Today, I accidentally burned my finger while touching a plate that was extremely hot. I felt that, and if I touch my burn mark, it still hurts. By writing this paragraph, I must be conscious to do so.

"We live in the world of mentalism where everything is an image in my mind which is not physical but is instead mental material."

I'm envisualizing the words I plan to write in this paragraph. There certainly aren't words in my head, but they're merely 'ideas,' as former English philosopher John Locke described.

"Note that when I say that I exist I am in no way speaking of my entire visible body but rather sense outputs and a mind which is capable of collecting data, inferring, and making decisions, something you zombies can't do."

Sight is a sense. If I couldn't use such a sense, I wouldn't be able to copy and paste your arguments, like above. I collected the 'data' you posted. I infer that you are pretty clever, judging by your philosophy. I made the decision to respond. Therefore, I am not a zombie.

As for the argument about Occam's Razor, none of the questions or statements my opponent has posed have much to do about me being a zombie, with no conscious or physicalism. If there is some hidden connection, my opponent has yet to explain the connection.

"Back to the two possible worlds we may live in some have stated that Occam's razor disproves the mentalist theory as they find it too complicated yet I, as well as several other philosophers, believe physicalism is the complicated one."

So, it would seem my opponent deliberately ignores that Occam's Razor does disprove the mental theory, and instead, focuses on physicalism. As such, anything associated with mentally is negated.

As you can see, I have been thinking and writing this past round. Since you, Sonofkong, follow the philosophy of Descartes, I say 'cogito ergo sum,' which literally means, I think, therefore I am. Since I must have thought about the refutations I made, I must exist, in mind and in body.

I think about my refutations. Mentality. I infer my opponent is intelligent. Mentality. I am envisualizing dinner. Mentality.
I've watched your videos. Physicality. I'm touching the keyboard. It's smooth. Physicality. I popped my pimple. It hurts. Physicality.

As I have these senses and I have proven I can think, I am not a zombie.
I await the response.
Debate Round No. 2
Sonofkong

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response yet must say in all due respect that this is turning into a debate of "I'm right" and "No you're not." Let me illustrate in a Socratic dialogue.
Sonofkong: My opponent is a zombie.
Strike (If that's what he wishes to be called): Why is that?
Sonofkong: Simple, of all possible world's, the Mentalist one is not only the simplest, ruling it out by using Occam's razor, but is unopposed and has none of the contradictions or philosophical problems posed by the physicalist one which is the sole world where my opponent can exist. The so called "Mental-Physical" world would not exist due to the mind body problem without divine intervention which wouldn't stand due to the fact both parties are athiests.
Strike: Well, I am concious, I swear.

I am sorry but my opponent's word is little to no proof he exists. Our senses are fallable and he could not be existing in reality but instead could be in my mind, or even my retina. There are infinite possibilities in the mentalist interpretation, considering the rules grounded in this reality are nill, and only one for the physicalist, which is flawed of course.
I will now make more formal arguments before my refutations.
Argument #1: Synesthesia
I have a mild case of synesthesia, certain noises and stimuli trigger weird sensations. For instance upon making love my surroundings are partially cloaked in a static purple. There isn't a leprechaun secretly sprinkling around silver and violet pigment. These sensations happen in my mind and are essentially as real as anything else. Considering consensus says my sensations are not real, so what does that say about the sensations supposedly shared by my fellow zombies. Even if we do live in a physical universe everything occuring to me could be hindered. Several Americans live in a colorless world while half of all women live in a world of higher than average color definiton.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Argument #2: No free will
I'm afraid that even if you were to magically disprove mentalist theory or descarteanism there is a backup idea which says that time is set (similar to Dr. Manhattan) and we have no free will to change it. This is very complicated idea, backed up by Quantum physics which says there is a set chance or role of the dice for every possibility. this is too complex to put to more complex words so I will show you a link which explains it better.
http://www.informationphilosopher.com...
(also watch video 1)

Argument #3: Just for fun
Although this is partially far fetched I would like to say that I have the strangest feeling as iff my surroundings happen ,almost 100%, in correlation to what I think is most likely to happen in things that matter ot on my interaction. I do not feign being psychic but instead think that being the creator of such a fine world have some awareness of it in a fully 3-dimensional sphere.

Refutations:
Instead of refuting word for word I have decided to refute his entire argument by saying that if he thinks he exists or is reacting to my statement like a venus fly trap that is not prof of conciousness. You are putting up as convincing an argument as cleverbot.

I will end by premptively stopping an "Appearance is reality" speech by saying that no matter how many dragons I chase while shooting heroin it's impossible for wings to carry a 10 ton reptile which given the situation can't even get enough thermal energy in the cold.
XStrikeX

Con

Thanks, Sonofkong.
I completely agree with your opening statement. I realize that most of the time in the previous round, I have been simply saying things only I can experience, which could not held accountable. Now, I'll try to do the opposite and use real info that isn't my own personal experience.

I realize that the Proposition must prove that I am a zombie. My opponent has never specified whether or not a zombie must fit all criteria he listed, and I am pretty sure that a person only needs to fulfill one area to prove that he/she is not a zombie.

For this reason, I pick mentality/consciousness.
Consciousness is variously defined as subjective experience, awareness, the ability to experience "feeling", wakefulness, the understanding of the concept "self", or the executive control system of the mind. It is an umbrella term that may refer to a variety of mental phenomena [1].

A zombie has no real thinking capability. And instead of actual literacy/speech, a zombie would probably write gibberish, or it would moan nonsensical words [2]. Am I writing gibberish? Am I devoid of all literacy? In writing this, it would certainly appear not. I can control my mind in this sense to think, to write, and to argue.

"I'm afraid that even if you were to magically disprove mentalist theory or descarteanism there is a backup idea which says that time is set (similar to Dr. Manhattan) and we have no free will to change it. This is very complicated idea, backed up by Quantum physics which says there is a set chance or role of the dice for every possibility. this is too complex to put to more complex words so I will show you a link which explains it better."

To this, I respond with the minimal free will thesis (MFT).

"1. With respect to the free-will issue, we should refrain from believing falsehoods.
2. Whatever should be done can be done.
3. If determinism is true, then whatever can be done, is done.
4. I believe MFT.
5. With respect to the free-will issue, we can refrain from believing falsehoods.
6. If determinism is true, then with respect to the free will issue, we refrain from believing falsehoods.
7. If determinism is true, then MFT is true.
8. MFT is true. (from 7) [3]"

For more information, go to my third source.

I believe I have sufficiently proved that I can think, and since a zombie cannot do such an act of controlling the mind, I am not a zombie.

I await the response.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://www.wegame.com...
3. http://home.sprynet.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Sonofkong

Pro

I am compelled to correct any illusions my opponent is as it is not said he is a zombie. It is not said he is a zombie it is said he is an illusion.
As for the MFT argument I must say that I am not saying that anything has a different chance of happening. If something has not happened there is no proof of it ever being possible. I don't know what type of determinism you study but mine could better be described as the brick universe theory or eternalize. Please educate yourself and click the following link while I impose revolution in Latin America.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy_of_time)
XStrikeX

Con

Thanks for the response.

"I am compelled to correct any illusions my opponent is [has?] as it is not said he is a zombie. It is not said he is a zombie it is said he is an illusion."

When was it ever stated that I was merely an illusion? This debate is titled, "My opponent [me] is a zombie"! How can you go full-circle and call me an illusion, rather than a zombie? I've been arguing about 'zombies' for the past rounds, and you bring such an argument up now? Regardless, to answer such a point, I'm not an 'illusion.' Illusions are things of a mental state, and if I existed only in a mental state, how could I be typing on a keyboard? How could I be observing the case you have presented? I don't exist in a mental state, I'm not an illusion, and I'm certainly not a zombie.

Closing

My opponent has never answered the fact that I think, therefore I am. This means I must have control over a mental system, my brain, which I can use to post my arguments and refutations. By proving that I retain just one aspect of a normal human being, I prove that I am not a zombie. Because of my mental capabilities, I believe that I deserve to win this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Sonofkong 6 years ago
Sonofkong
My opponent presented no evidence that is undisputed while I did. I'm afraid if not for the bias of wanting to exist I would be voted correct.
Not to mention Strike voted for himself.
To arms my zombie compatriots, to arms.
Posted by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
RFD

CONDUCT: Tie.

No problems with either debater here.

S/G: CON
I noticed quite a few spelling errors in the Pro's speeches. That's why spell check is there.

ARGUMENTS: CON
It pains me to vote this way however, I had to. I read through the entire debate, and still didn't see the burden of proof showin how we are merely philosophical zombies, or illusions. In Strike's first rebuttal (while not completely understanding the topic), he still made a pretty good rebuttal in its simplicity, about sense's and experiences. I understand, the pro's theories and concepts that he brung up in the debate. In fact alot of those same theories and concepts can be found in a famous philosophical movie called "Down the rabbit hole". Basically I get that, everything you experience is merely illusions created by your conciousness. However, the deciding factor for me in this debate, is that, if this belief is correct, it is true for everybody else as well. So while in your perspective, we are all illusions and philosophical zombies, to us, you as well are a philosophical zombie as well, given your logic. Your opponent stated that he has senses, and each of his senses are applied in order to make his arguments, thus he is as much of the creator of illusions, as you are. While he may be an illusion to me and you, that illusion has the capability of making illusions as well. Had Strike not made the argument in the first round, I would be inclined to give the vote to you on arguments. Con had a mild mis-understanding of the topic, as he thought it was referring to the common term of zombie, however, if you want to get technical, the topic of the debate does not specify from the common term zombie and this being a debate about philosophy. Then again that is just the semantics, I assume your opponent read your opening argument.

SOURCES: Pro
While the Con had accurate sources, the, Pro's sources were more prevalent to the debate, and tied into what he was saying.
Posted by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
Can anyone besides Koopin and FREEDO take this?
If so, dibs.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by XStrikeX 6 years ago
XStrikeX
SonofkongXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Vote Placed by arethusa668 6 years ago
arethusa668
SonofkongXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
SonofkongXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by savanny5995 6 years ago
savanny5995
SonofkongXStrikeXTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:22