>>741>>748The problem with those proposed zombies is the same one that AIs that pass the Turing test or identical copies of artworks have. There is no distinction that can be made to discern two things that are nonetheless declared to be "different". It's like suggesting that some mirrors are actually paintings, but they shift their colours around with your movements to seem real, and also otherwise feel and act like one (they break into shards, reflect sheen, etc.). Such an assumtion is essentually unusable, since it eliminates any difference aside from supposed "essence" or, worse, "true nature" which is something postulated and deliberately stated to be undiscernable.
It's, in a way, an interesting thought experiment, and I'd suggest you check out Hilary Putnams suggested "Twin Earth". But in my opinion, the novelty of these thoughts essentially boil down to how we can differentiate things, and that question becomes obsolete when possibilities to differentiate are eliminated or stated to be impossible. That is why I have no qualms dismissing the notion.
This is probably not the demonstration that you refer to, since I'm not actually familiar with Chalers at all.
As for your second point; It frustrates me too that people seem to think philosophy is either blind following of the philosophers deemed important or influential, or simple opinion (read; unfalsifiable assertions) flung at one another. In truth, the bulk of philosophy is rigorously tearing the important philosophers, and indeed any philosopher, apart.