>day 114 439 

>the existence of matter has still not been proven

>>14966130 (OP)

You matter to me, anon.

>>14966130 (OP)

*kicks rock* I refute it thus

>day 114 439

>the existence of consciousness has still not been proven

Do you think p-zombies are metaphysically possible?

Nothing has proven to me the existence of minds other than my own either. Convince me, if you all really exist.

a p-zombie will be AI in a few years

I had sex with your mother last night

Cogito, Ergo Sum: Inference or Performance?

Author(s): Jaakko Hintikka

Prove to me that the body of flesh and organs I call my mom is actually conscious

The p-zombie thought experiment assumes an entity that is physically identical to a conscious human being.

A character in a novel saying "I do not exist" is a performative contradiction in the context of the novel, but it's still true that the character is not real.

No it's not. The character is not saying anything so there is no contradiction.

Relative to the fiction, they're saying something.

No they are not saying anything in reality. Relative to fiction = made up, not real.

Yeah, and if I don't exist, then I'm not actually saying anything in reality. I'm just like the character in the fiction. So, by your logic, there is no performative contradiction.

I had sex with her, and she said it felt good

Yes if you don't exist then nothing is true of you. It's just made up.

>>14966130 (OP)

>everything you can see, touch, hear, feel around you doesnt exist

>but some kind of magical ghost consciousness that nobody can see, touch, hear or feel exists

How do you know there was a "she" saying it and not just an unthinking android?

80% of philosophy from Descartes to Husserl, both included, is mass delirium, no matter how intelligent they all were.

philosophy of mind is the true heir to this delirious trend

>80% of philosophy from Descartes to Husserl, both included, is mass delirium, no matter how intelligent they all were.

>philosophy of mind is the true heir to this delirious trend

copious ammounts of copium



look at this smug prick kek

>>14966130 (OP)

>to be is to be perceived 

>b-b-but you can't perceive your spirit

complete retard like all that don't strongly reject him and his followers

>>14966130 (OP)

>the external world exists outside of minds and is material, which is what literally everyone acts on and intuitively feels

>the world is actually an elaborate simulation being beamed into our heads by God (but he’s not a deceiver) that doesn’t behave anything like ideas in a mind do

>>14966130 (OP)

Which one seems more likely?

I hate appeals to "likelihood" in philosophy. How do you plan to rate this probability? Is it based on anything but your feelings? Besides the point such appeals to probability are insincere because they are always attached to absolute arguments.

I mean arguments from logical necessity are ideal in philosophy but that’s not always possible. I think you can make arguments of likelihood not by numerical probability but by heuristics like Occam’s Razor.

Throw yourself in front of an oncoming bus, then
