Posts
Comments
The problem being that its unclear that this materialistic notion of zombiehood does any justice to the Chalmerian notion of a zombie.
The notion that this could indeed qualify as a valid form of zombiehood arises if one views the priest's transformation as involving an absence of qualia; but there is no indication that the priest lacks qualia. The priest certainly appears to lack affect, but this is not the same as an absence of qualia. There are phenomenal properties associated with affective (emotional) states; but like all qualia, these would seem epiphenomenal, being neither necessary nor perhaps sufficient for the existence of affective states (which be characterised in (complex) functional terms).
To show that the priest was denuded of qualia, it would be necessary to show that, for example, when viewing a rose, the priest no longer had an occurent experience of phenomenal red. But, as noted by Andrew and Ciphergoth, if we assume a dualistic view of qualia, demonstrating this loss of qualia is just not possible. Zombies claim not to be zombies and therefore have no authority on their zombie-hood. By virtue of the same lack of empirical verifiability for zombie-hood, any claim by the priest to be a zombie would likewise lack authority.
An interesting further consequence is that, on some views (notably not the view taken by Chalmers), non-zombies (presumably, all of us) cannot authoritatively claim that they are actually conscious.