Philosophy Now Forum

Zombies R Us

An irrefutable reality of life is that we humans have absolutely no say-so (no conscious control; no autonomy) over our bodily actions. N-o-n-e whatsoever. Although we like to believe otherwise, we are, in essence, just “zombies” (non-autonomous beings).

Most of us have been indoctrinated with the false belief that we are autonomous beings, with the ability to freely select our own thoughts, which in turn commands our bodily actions. For example, if I possess the thought “I will raise my arm” and then my arm raises, I then falsely believe that I had some say-so (autonomy; conscious control) over the raising of my arm.

But, the problem with the above example is that I never selected the thought that determined my bodily action. The thought “I will raise my arm” was given to me. I did not select it. I only became aware of this particular thought after it popped into my head.

From a logical perspective, it is impossible, via infinite regress, to select our own thoughts. In other words, and for example, if I were to possess the thought “I select the thought - ‘I will raise my arm’”, then I just kicked-the-can-down-the-road (I committed a “turtles-all-the-way-down” fallacy), as I would then need to account for the origination of this new thought that was given to me. So, no matter what, we can never self-originate (or have any say-so whatsoever!) over the content of our thoughts that in turn dictate our bodily actions.

Therefore, and to conclude, if we don’t select the thoughts that determines our bodily action, then we don’t have say-so (or autonomy, or conscious control) over our bodily actions. Hence, Zombies R Us.

accept moral responsibility for an action you had no choice in making...

-Imp

RG1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:14 am Zombies R Us

An irrefutable reality of life is that we humans have absolutely no say-so (no conscious control; no autonomy) over our bodily actions. N-o-n-e whatsoever. Although we like to believe otherwise, we are, in essence, just “zombies” (non-autonomous beings).

If 'this' is what you, really, want to believe is absolutely true, then okay. But, obviously, not every one believes nor agrees with and accepts your own personal belief, here, correct?

RG1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:14 am Most of us have been indoctrinated with the false belief that we are autonomous beings, with the ability to freely select our own thoughts, which in turn commands our bodily actions. For example, if I possess the thought “I will raise my arm” and then my arm raises, I then falsely believe that I had some say-so (autonomy; conscious control) over the raising of my arm.

But, the problem with the above example is that I never selected the thought that determined my bodily action.

Who and/or what is the 'I', here, exactly?

RG1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:14 am The thought “I will raise my arm” was given to me. I did not select it. I only became aware of this particular thought after it popped into my head.

1. Who, and/or what, is the 'I' word, here, referring to, exactly?

2. Who, and/or what, is the 'me' word, here, referring to, exactly?

3. Who, and/or what, is the 'my' word, here, referring to, exactly?

Work 'these' out, exactly, then 'you' will be much more enlightened, here, and then 'you' will not be so utterly lost and confused as 'you' obviously are, here.

RG1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:14 am From a logical perspective, it is impossible, via infinite regress, to select our own thoughts.

Who, and/or what, is the 'our' word, here, referring to, exactly?

RG1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:14 am In other words, and for example, if I were to possess the thought “I select the thought - ‘I will raise my arm’”, then I just kicked-the-can-down-the-road (I committed a “turtles-all-the-way-down” fallacy), as I would then need to account for the origination of this new thought that was given to me.

Who, and/or what, is the 'me' who is, supposedly, 'given thoughts'? And, who, and/or what, exactly, gives 'that me' 'new thoughts'?

Let 'us' see if 'you' really do know what 'you' are talking about and claiming, here.

RG1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:14 am So, no matter what, we can never self-originate (or have any say-so whatsoever!) over the content of our thoughts that in turn dictate our bodily actions.

Again, if 'this' is what 'you' personally want to believe is absolutely true, then 'that' is perfectly fine and okay, with 'us', here.

RG1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:14 am Therefore, and to conclude, if we don’t select the thoughts that determines our bodily action, then we don’t have say-so (or autonomy, or conscious control) over our bodily actions. Hence, Zombies R Us.

And, just because 'you' believe some thing is true, then 'that thing' 'must be' true, correct?

Age wrote:
“Let 'us' see if 'you' really do know what 'you' are talking about and claiming, here.”

——-
Response: No one knows what they are talking about. Any claim to know is a belief.

RG1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:14 am Therefore, and to conclude, if we don’t select the thoughts that determines our bodily action, then we don’t have say-so (or autonomy, or conscious control) over our bodily actions. Hence, Zombies R Us.

That isn't what the philosophical arguments to do with zombies are usually about. Philosophical zombies lack sense experience and consciousness but act in exactly the way that they would if they did have such experience and thus tend to believe that what they have going on mentally is indeed consciousness.

Here's a good Youtuber describing in more detail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLzmYjviDsk


Perhaps for your purposes, to avoid confusion, puppets or marionettes would be a good metaphor for your argument.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 6:49 am Age wrote:
“Let 'us' see if 'you' really do know what 'you' are talking about and claiming, here.”

——-
Response: No one knows what they are talking about. Any claim to know is a belief.

But, one could write, say, and/or claim, 'I know that 'thoughts' exist', which could not be refuted by absolutely any one, anywhere nor at any time, and still not have 'a belief'.

So, it is actually possible 'to know', and to 'not believe'.

In fact 'I' neither believe nor disbelieve absolutely any thing, except, of course, in the 'one thing', and yet still 'know' and 'claim' lots of other things.

But, the problem with the above example is that I never selected the thought that determined my bodily action. The thought “I will raise my arm” was given to me. I did not select it. I only became aware of this particular thought after it popped into my head.

Who gave you the thought "I will raise my arm”?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 10:16 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 6:49 am Age wrote:
“Let 'us' see if 'you' really do know what 'you' are talking about and claiming, here.”

——-
Response: No one knows what they are talking about. Any claim to know is a belief.

But, one could write, say, and/or claim, 'I know that 'thoughts' exist', which could not be refuted by absolutely any one, anywhere nor at any time, and still not have 'a belief'.

So, it is actually possible 'to know', and to 'not believe'.

In fact 'I' neither believe nor disbelieve absolutely any thing, except, of course, in the 'one thing', and yet still 'know' and 'claim' lots of other things.

Everyone knows thoughts exist. That’s irrefutable of course. But no one can prevent thoughts from existing, so this knower of thought cannot stop thoughts from appearing and cannot know what it’s like to never be aware of a thought.
I’ve never been aware of no thoughts ever appearing in my awareness, have you Age?

So it seems to be that nobody owns these thoughts. Thoughts just visit uninvited don’t they?

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:54 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 10:16 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 6:49 am Age wrote:
“Let 'us' see if 'you' really do know what 'you' are talking about and claiming, here.”

——-
Response: No one knows what they are talking about. Any claim to know is a belief.

But, one could write, say, and/or claim, 'I know that 'thoughts' exist', which could not be refuted by absolutely any one, anywhere nor at any time, and still not have 'a belief'.

So, it is actually possible 'to know', and to 'not believe'.

In fact 'I' neither believe nor disbelieve absolutely any thing, except, of course, in the 'one thing', and yet still 'know' and 'claim' lots of other things.

Everyone knows thoughts exist. That’s irrefutable of course.

Great, so once more 'we' are in agreement with and accepting of what I call the 'Right words'.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:54 pm But no one can prevent thoughts from existing, so this knower of thought cannot stop thoughts from appearing and cannot know what it’s like to never be aware of a thought.

1. The Knower of thoughts, or 'the One' who is Aware of all thoughts, is different from 'the ones' who are, actually, 'the thoughts', themselves. That is, 'you', people.

2. No person can prevent 'thoughts' from existing/arising. As to do so would be to prevent 'your very own existence'.

3. Thoughts will always keep existing as long as there are sensing and experiencing bodies.

4. Actually it is possible to stop thoughts from appearing, but for how long? is 'a question', and 'an ability' that 'I' have been able to do for about two, maybe three, seconds at the most.

5. And, by the way, when 'I' experience this 'no thought' experience, even though it is for a relatively nothing period, what 'it' is like, well to 'me' anyway, to be Aware and Existing in 'no thought' is absolute 'Pure Bliss'.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:54 pm I’ve never been aware of no thoughts ever appearing in my awareness, have you Age?

Yes, for about two seconds maybe, and if 'i' were to exaggerate, then maybe three seconds.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:54 pm So it seems to be that nobody owns these thoughts. Thoughts just visit uninvited don’t they?

'Thoughts', themselves, arise because of how the brain, and the Mind, work.

Whenever a human body reaches a 'certain age', the senses of 'that body' sends signals of 'information' to 'the brain'. 'The brain' then gathers, and stores, some of 'this information'. When 'a body' gets what is called 'older', then 'information' becomes 'thoughts', and/or 'thinking', itself. Which then can, and does, become 'knowledge', itself. The in-coming in-form-ation 'forms' 'the thoughts', with-in 'a body', and it is 'these thoughts', (and to a lesser extent 'the emotions'), which is what makes up 'you', 'the person'.

So, 'you' could, if 'you' like, say and claim that 'thoughts' just visit, just arrive, or just arise, 'uninvited'. But, because God/the Universe has created, through evolution, bodies, with the ability to gather, store, and obtain information, and knowledge, supposedly, 'in the brain', (just like a computer does), with also the ability to express and share 'in-coming information' with other 'bodies' with the exact same ability, then it could be said and argued, that through evolution the Universe, or God, has created a 'thought producing', (or 'thought provoking), species, with the ability to share 'thoughts' with other 'thought producing' bodies, and the ability to use 'those thoughts' to put a name and label to absolutely every thing, like there was some pre-destined plan that 'the I/Universe/God could, eventually, come to know thy Self, through what 'that species' calls "itself", 'the species human being'. And, when 'you', human beings, question others and/or ask "yourselves" questions, then are you, actually, inviting 'thoughts', within?

Now, as for who and/or what, so-calls, 'owns', then as it said and claimed that 'God' is 'the Creator' of every thing, then it could also be said and argued that God, Itself, is the 'Owner' of every thing. Which would obviously include all 'thoughts', themselves, as well.

RG1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:14 am Zombies R Us

An irrefutable reality of life is that we humans have absolutely no say-so (no conscious control; no autonomy) over our bodily actions. N-o-n-e whatsoever. Although we like to believe otherwise, we are, in essence, just “zombies” (non-autonomous beings).

Most of us have been indoctrinated with the false belief that we are autonomous beings, with the ability to freely select our own thoughts, which in turn commands our bodily actions. For example, if I possess the thought “I will raise my arm” and then my arm raises, I then falsely believe that I had some say-so (autonomy; conscious control) over the raising of my arm.

But, the problem with the above example is that I never selected the thought that determined my bodily action. The thought “I will raise my arm” was given to me. I did not select it. I only became aware of this particular thought after it popped into my head.

From a logical perspective, it is impossible, via infinite regress, to select our own thoughts. In other words, and for example, if I were to possess the thought “I select the thought - ‘I will raise my arm’”, then I just kicked-the-can-down-the-road (I committed a “turtles-all-the-way-down” fallacy), as I would then need to account for the origination of this new thought that was given to me. So, no matter what, we can never self-originate (or have any say-so whatsoever!) over the content of our thoughts that in turn dictate our bodily actions.

Therefore, and to conclude, if we don’t select the thoughts that determines our bodily action, then we don’t have say-so (or autonomy, or conscious control) over our bodily actions. Hence, Zombies R Us.

That might be irrefutable if you could prove that determinism flows from the past (instead of, say, from the present, or from nowhere/everywhere). But have you ever actually been to the past?

Age wrote: “Great, so once more 'we' are in agreement with and accepting of what I call the 'Right words'.”

——
Response: I understand what you mean now. Thanks for sparing so much of your time to explain things.

Much appreciated. I’ve never known anyone like you before so it’s been difficult for me to understand you, but you have helped me enormously.

Impenitent wrote:…accept moral responsibility for an action you had no choice in making...

Impenitent, we have no say-so in the matter. The acceptance, or non-acceptance of moral responsibility is determined by our thoughts (and beliefs and feelings), all of which are given to us.


**********

RG1 wrote:An irrefutable reality of life is that we humans have absolutely no say-so (no conscious control; no autonomy) over our bodily actions. N-o-n-e whatsoever. Although we like to believe otherwise, we are, in essence, just “zombies” (non-autonomous beings).

Age wrote:If 'this' is what you, really, want to believe is absolutely true, then okay. But, obviously, not every one believes nor agrees with and accepts your own personal belief, here, correct?

Age, yes, you are correct. Logically, it is impossible to select our own thoughts/beliefs. Therefore, what we think or believe (or agree to) is not only beyond our control, but is also individual to each and every one of us.

RG1 wrote:Most of us have been indoctrinated with the false belief that we are autonomous beings, with the ability to freely select our own thoughts, which in turn commands our bodily actions. For example, if I possess the thought “I will raise my arm” and then my arm raises, I then falsely believe that I had some say-so (autonomy; conscious control) over the raising of my arm.

But, the problem with the above example is that I never selected the thought that determined my bodily action.

Age wrote:Who and/or what is the 'I', here, exactly?

“I” am a human being; a non-autonomous ‘experiencer’ of physical bodily actions and reactions (such as thoughts, feelings, and sensory sensations).

RG1 wrote:From a logical perspective, it is impossible, via infinite regress, to select our own thoughts.

Age wrote:Who, and/or what, is the 'our' word, here, referring to, exactly?

“Our” refers to us humans; us “zombies”; us non-autonomous experiencers of life.

RG1 wrote:In other words, and for example, if I were to possess the thought “I select the thought - ‘I will raise my arm’”, then I just kicked-the-can-down-the-road (I committed a “turtles-all-the-way-down” fallacy), as I would then need to account for the origination of this new thought that was given to me.

Age wrote:Who, and/or what, is the 'me' who is, supposedly, 'given thoughts'?

“Me” is the experiencer of these thoughts.

Age wrote:And, who, and/or what, exactly, gives 'that me' 'new thoughts'?

Aah, that’s a great topic for a different discussion! Logically, we know with objective certainty that we are just the receivers; the experiencers of our thoughts. So then, who or what is the giver (or master controller) of these thoughts?

…could it be a mad scientist electrically prodding our brain (in a vat), creating the experiences (thoughts) that we experience?
…or could it be that we are simply game pieces in a massive gaming platform?
…or could it be that we are simply "amoeba" like organisms that auto-react to our environmental stimuli?
…or could it be…??

RG1 wrote:Therefore, and to conclude, if we don’t select the thoughts that determines our bodily action, then we don’t have say-so (or autonomy, or conscious control) over our bodily actions. Hence, Zombies R Us.

Age wrote:And, just because 'you' believe some thing is true, then 'that thing' 'must be' true, correct?

If logic is your guide to truth, then this is your truth. If you don’t believe logic provides truths (and falses), then you won’t believe this. It all depends on the thoughts you’ve been given!


**********

RG1 wrote:Therefore, and to conclude, if we don’t select the thoughts that determines our bodily action, then we don’t have say-so (or autonomy, or conscious control) over our bodily actions. Hence, Zombies R Us.

FlashDangerpants wrote:That isn't what the philosophical arguments to do with zombies are usually about. Philosophical zombies lack sense experience and consciousness but act in exactly the way that they would if they did have such experience and thus tend to believe that what they have going on mentally is indeed consciousness.

Flash, yes, you are correct, but my point is that (philosophical) zombies and humans both lack conscious control; autonomy. Neither of us have any say-so whatsoever in our actions and behaviors.

FlashDangerpants wrote: Here's a good Youtuber describing in more detail https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLzmYjviDsk Perhaps for your purposes, to avoid confusion, puppets or marionettes would be a good metaphor for your argument.

Thank you. And yes, puppets, or marionettes (or robots), may have been a better metaphor, but I liked the "zombie" word


**********

Atla wrote:That might be irrefutable if you could prove that determinism flows from the past (instead of, say, from the present, or from nowhere/everywhere). But have you ever actually been to the past?

It is “irrefutable” because of simple logic, not determinism. In other words, if we did not knowingly (consciously) create/author/script our thoughts, then logically, we can’t honestly claim that we did.


**********

phyllo wrote:Who gave you the thought "I will raise my arm”?

Great question. See my response above to Age.

RG1 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 5:27 pm

Atla wrote:That might be irrefutable if you could prove that determinism flows from the past (instead of, say, from the present, or from nowhere/everywhere). But have you ever actually been to the past?

It is “irrefutable” because of simple logic, not determinism. In other words, if we did not knowingly (consciously) create/author/script our thoughts, then logically, we can’t honestly claim that we did.

If determinism is out of the picture then you totally can't show that we didn't knowingly create/author/script our thoughts.

Atla wrote:If determinism is out of the picture then you totally can't show that we didn't knowingly create/author/script our thoughts.

Atla, 'logic' (not determinism) tells us that selecting our own thoughts is impossible.

• From a logical perspective, it is impossible, via infinite regress, to select our own thoughts. In other words, and for example, if I were to possess the thought “I select the thought - ‘I will raise my arm’”, then I just kicked-the-can-down-the-road (I committed a “turtles-all-the-way-down” fallacy), as I would then need to account for the origination of this new thought that was 'given' to me. So, no matter what, we can never self-originate (or have any say-so whatsoever!) over the content of our thoughts that in turn dictate our bodily actions.

phyllo wrote:
Who gave you the thought "I will raise my arm”?

Great question. See my response above to Age.

You mean these questions :

Aah, that’s a great topic for a different discussion! Logically, we know with objective certainty that we are just the receivers; the experiencers of our thoughts. So then, who or what is the giver (or master controller) of these thoughts?

…could it be a mad scientist electrically prodding our brain (in a vat), creating the experiences (thoughts) that we experience?
…or could it be that we are simply game pieces in a massive gaming platform?
…or could it be that we are simply "amoeba" like organisms that auto-react to our environmental stimuli?
…or could it be…??

1. It seems unlikely that someone would want to micromanage billions of beings down to the level of limb movement. That has to become boring pretty fast.
2. The 'giver' would be the programmer of the game. God?
3. A reaction to the environment can hardly be considered being given a thought. People with free-will also react to the environment.