Πώς να δημιουργήσει κανείς ένα φιλοσοφικό ζόμπι / How to create a philosophical zombie

How to create an unpersonhooded (ontologically impersonal) philosophical zombie?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

The criteria of zombieness versus the criteria of personhood (actually it's more complicated than a mere versus case, because the philosophical zombie meets most of the criteria of personhood, but it can be done in a diffused data collection mechanism that will generate minimal personhood but not zero personhood due to the gradient nature of personhood. Imperfect mood and emotional mechanisms are required, but that increase autism/autistic behaviour. A coherent-charactered low-autism brain, which in the effort to be created as a philosophical zombie, doesn't have a fine-tuned limbic and mood-pattern system, isn't a good philosophical zombie (it has enough genuine personhood via its complex diffused network; in that case its creator failed to achieve maximal zombieness [maximal zombieness = very coherent personality and very low autism [autisticity] but also very low genuine self-experienced genuine personhood].

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Philosophical zombie vs personhooded mind

(I have long texts on the subject or personhooded/personhood-yielding minds/brains. Search in the discussion forums (searchwords/keywords: personhooded/personhood-yielding.)

How to create an unpersonhooded philosophical zombie?

Mimic the behavioural outcomes of personhood-yielding human minds (not all humans are personhooded or personhooded enough [gradient view on personhood; also keep gradience for other subjects of study] with a computer which acts as a big library, pattern producer, heuristic machine, etc. If you build too well the system it means you created a very coherent system, thus you failed to create a philosophical zombie mind (see my text about the difference between mind and brain; the brain is the physical personhood-yielding calculator, and the mind its outcome which creates a self-experience. The brain includes also components that do not contribute much to the thinking process [thus there is a distinction between brain and mind], but due to causopermeability that distinction isn't absolute. A cable or a vein (any brain hardware and software is examined) might miswork and change some calculations; there is a gradience of mind contribution per different brain element.).

A philosophical zombie should appear very autistic in the autistic spectrum and exhibit non-character elements (changing easily too many opinions, including for things it once deemed important, for no obvious reason). If the brain architecture and/or programme create a very coherent personality then you failed (you created a brain not highly philosophical-zombie-like; because personhood and philosophical zombieness are gradient), but you probably didn't fail miserably/absolutely because you skipped creating limbic-system and other emotional mechanisms. Statistically realistic behaviours aren't enough for full personhood. A genuinely personhooded brain—mind system should also have pain internalisation units and procedures. On the other hand skipping the limbic-like system and other pain internalisation and mood creation mechanisms doesn't mean you surely created a perfect philosophical zombie according to the gradient view. The brain–mind system should be tested in many ways according to a list of alloneuroscientific (allo- means different; we'll have to create a brain science for each brain architecture; information theory will act as the hypernym) criteria that will scientifically evolve separately for each brain–race/genre/category (in order we scientifically examine its degree of personhood and/or zombieness we'll have to build at least 3000 different brain units). The brains should be tested in any possible way: 1. emotional tests, 2. character coherence tests, 3. IQ tests (not the most significant test in this case, but surely not useless), 4. athletic tests or motion tests if the individual has a motile body (more criteria should be added later).

Finally if someone created a new brain–mind system, hardware and/or software, its patent should be accessible for dissection, data analysis etc. to examine how it produces the self-references, mood and emotions (emotions are calculational patterns in processing subunits, some more dedicated than others).

Each brain region (even if it's a subroutine in a program) has its operational algorithm (we should mention what it does, but it's hard with some artificial neural networks [but mathematicians and computer scientists work on the subject]; watch: 2021's Biggest Breakthroughs in Math and Computer Science - Quanta Magazine - YouTube), its connections (including the strength and density towards different targets) and if it has enough self-feedback (that's not always necessary including in some human brain regions; there is no general rule for all brain regions).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

For how to create a personhood-yielding/personhooded brain–mind system see my older texts on the matter.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

For why supernaturalism/antiphysicalism/unprocedurality/causal incoherence/illogic/magic/substantial divine immateriality is ontologically (not merely phenomenologically/observationally/epistemologically) impossible, see my older texts on the subject.

## comment 1:

There isn't a single personhood-yielding brain design like there isn't a single omniontoaxiomatics = single possible omniontophysics of any possible spacetime = there is no theory of everything.