The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

zombie world is conceivable and therefore possible

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,228 times Debate No: 116546
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




The debate will cover the philosophical zombie argument.
I will argue against. My opponent will debate for.
For the first round, just accept the debate.


In the beginning, Zombies were just an imagination of a writer. Fiction. However, Aliens were also imagination, but now there is a possibility they are real and out why cant Zombies...
Of course i dont mean Zombies are already out there...ready to eat our brains out for dinner...I mean they are possible.
There are 2 ways they could be possible --> 1) Drugs 2) Disease

1) Drugs: Drugs like "FLAKKA" have already made people go crazy, and many people are starting to compare them with zombies due to their actions. A person victim to FLAKKA was first sited in Brazil....He was breaking the windows of a transport Bus..

2) Disease: Fortunately there are no diseases discovered that make people act like "Zombies"...but its possible and logical.
Waiting for Round 2 and i hope you see my point of view...
Debate Round No. 1


Well, This debate takes into account only 2-4 rounds and philosophical zombie argument. By accepting the debate my opponent has agreed to these terms.

Core Definition. Zombies are philosophical creatures that lack consciousness and have a physical body as humans.

Philosophical zombies are different from those zombies to which audience of Hollywood films are use to. Their appearance is not a sign of an apocalypse and further destruction but rather it encompasses debate on what human consciousness is and its relation to a physical world. In fact, a philosophical zombie lacks consciousness: it is nothing to be like a zombie by definition, the inner life of this creature lacks feelings, thoughts and experience (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2015).

A zombie looks and behaves exactly like people from the perspective of a third person. The elements of zombie’s body structure are the same as well as functions of it comparing to a human being. Their body and organs consist from the same elements and molecules as humans. Skin and bones comprise his body. He breathes air into his lungs, eats when his body lacks fuel, walks from point A to point B. Zombies even go to work and can have a family. These creatures laugh if someone tells them a joke. However, zombie does not feel joy and happiness while returning to their family or friends. In fact, zombies have no system of causal relationship between body and mind. There are only physical properties in them. Therefore, a zombie lacks phenomenal consciousness and does not have an ability to experience things in a subjective manner or gain knowledge. From the perspective of a conscious being, zombies look the same as the ordinary human being that is capable of having inner thoughts and body sensations.

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,

The simplest version of the conceivability argument goes:

  1. Zombies are conceivable.
  2. Whatever is conceivable is possible.
  3. Therefore zombies are possible.

The first premise of a zombie argument is that we can conceive a creature without consciousness that is microphysically identical to a structure of a human being (Montero, 2009). In fact, there are two types of conceivable objects: negatively and positively conceivable ones. If the state of affairs cannot be ruled out a priori and has a contradiction inside of its hypothesis that it has obtained than it is negatively conceivable. However, if a person can imagine a scenario in which state of affairs holds and we can continue this perspective to an arbitrary degree of detail - it is positively a conceivable object. For instance, it is impossible to conceive a square circle. However, we can imagine how the house that will look like after the process of redesigning. As I have already discussed a zombie looks the same as an ordinary human being. Therefore, the first premise looks plausible. Nevertheless, it can be argued that it is not as easy as it might seem from the first sight to imagine such creature without complete knowledge of our physical world. Such perspective is called Russelian monism and I will discuss it latter.
The second premise of the conceivability argument follows the idea that we can conceive zombie and therefore there is probability that such object can exists metaphysically. In fact, given the laws of our natural world zombies do not exist. Any being that has identical mental properties to me or you will have consciousness.
In fact, most of the objections to my position are based on a posteriori necessity. Even if we agree that zombies are conceivable, it does not derive a possibility of existence of such creatures. In fact, to conceive an object is an epistemic notion, while possibility is related to metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2015). To discuss, if we can conceive a flying pig, it does not logically mean that this pink flying object can exist. Given that, a duplicate world of our physical world is based on the same positive facts in relation to states of the body that are responsible for the sensory experience. Thus, the duplicate world of zombies might be only a fantasy and not metaphysically possible. In fact, it has different natural laws from our world by its definition that violates the inner construction of a human being.

Intrinsic properties organize the system of our realm, while science (physics, chemistry, etc.) is used to discover them from the dualism perspective (O'Hear, 1998). In fact, we do not know everything about our physical world. Therefore, zombie argument can not be sound if we can not be sure on how to conceive a zombie due to the lack of knowledge. In fact, it might seem that we can imagine zombie that are physical duplicates of people but without minds. However, if do not have complete knowledge and can not properly understand how human body works, the creature that we have imagined might not be possible. Possible mistakes made by imagination are crucial for opponents of zombie argument to consider that we can not conceive zombies adequately. Actually, we can make an analogy with making an architecture plan of a building. An architect might not know the correct properties of landscape and ground on which building is going to be built. Thus, physically constructing such building that does not fit in the place will most likely result into a catastrophe. Therefore, we can not state that imagining a zombie is an easy work for our minds. While, the whole idea of zombie appears controversial.

Montero, B. (2009). On the philosophy of mind. 1st ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.

O'Hear, A. (1998). Current issues in philosophy of mind. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ravenscroft, I. (2005). Philosophy of mind. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2015). Zombies. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 Apr. 2017].



let alone this is all copy pasted but ok ......
How do you know if a zombie is told a joke he would laugh?
How do you know he breathes like we do?
How do you know he only lacks consciousness?
How do you know they can go to work?
If they can do all that...why do you call them creatures instead of humans?

Thats my round..... and i want answers.....
Debate Round No. 2


The objections from my opponent who argues in favour of conceivability and possibility of philosophical zombies:
1. Plagiarism
Rebuttal: my argument if 100% unique according to plagiarism checker.
Besides, I am a university student that has successfully finished philosophy module.
2. The nature of philosophical zombies
Rebuttal: I have successfully discussed limitations of conceivability argument to prove possibility of existence of zombies in the previous round. In fact, I am arguing against that we can properly conceive these creatures and prove their existence.

My objections to the conceivability argument initiated in the second round stay untouched by my opponent. He has not defended the premises of the argument or provided arguments in favour of his position. Thus, the conceivability argument is not enough to prove possibility of zombie world.
I advise my opponent to at least try to make one point in this debate. Actually, in the second round my opponent has scored in his own goal by objecting to the nature of the zombie world.


I am not a university student and i have never studied philosophy.. so my information is limited
I cannot lie... i hardly understood what you wrote.. but i have put forward evidence that zombies can exist and may exist currently.. due to the Drug called FLAKKA.....
Debate Round No. 3


This is the final round of the debate. In which I will summarize the content.
I have successfully argue against the premises of conceivability and possibility of a zombie world.
I have provided objections to the premises and elaborated objections with the use of colourful examples.
Whereas, My opponent has not defended any of the premises that point in the other direction.
In fact, in the second round he has questioned sanity of his own perspective. Besides, he was unable to provide genuine evidence(only pseudo evidence) or framework for explanation of his position.
Therefore, I am very certain about winning this debate.


thats was just i didnt understand
Victory to you my friend
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by PavelFedotov 3 years ago
This is a very interesting topic to me. I would appreciate any feedback on the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.