argumentative essay on zombies

Advertisement

Supported by

My Zombie, Myself: Why Modern Life Feels Rather Undead

• Share full article

By Chuck Klosterman

• Dec. 3, 2010

ZOMBIES are a value stock. They are wordless and oozing and brain dead, but they’re an ever-expanding market with no glass ceiling. Zombies are a target-rich environment, literally and figuratively. The more you fill them with bullets, the more interesting they become. Roughly 5.3 million people watched the first episode of “The Walking Dead ” on AMC, a stunning 83 percent more than the 2.9 million who watched the Season 4 premiere of “Mad Men.” This means there are at least 2.4 million cable-ready Americans who might prefer watching Christina Hendricks if she were an animated corpse.

Statistically and aesthetically that dissonance seems perverse. But it probably shouldn’t. Mainstream interest in zombies has steadily risen over the past 40 years. Zombies are a commodity that has advanced slowly and without major evolution, much like the staggering creatures George Romero popularized in the 1968 film “Night of the Living Dead.” What makes that measured amplification curious is the inherent limitations of the zombie itself: You can’t add much depth to a creature who can’t talk, doesn’t think and whose only motive is the consumption of flesh. You can’t humanize a zombie, unless you make it less zombie-esque. There are slow zombies, and there are fast zombies — that’s pretty much the spectrum of zombie diversity. It’s not that zombies are changing to fit the world’s condition; it’s that the condition of the world seems more like a zombie offensive. Something about zombies is becoming more intriguing to us. And I think I know what that something is.

Zombies are just so easy to kill.

When we think critically about monsters, we tend to classify them as personifications of what we fear. Frankenstein’s monster illustrated our trepidation about untethered science; Godzilla was spawned from the fear of the atomic age; werewolves feed into an instinctual panic over predation and man’s detachment from nature. Vampires and zombies share an imbedded anxiety about disease. It’s easy to project a symbolic relationship between zombies and rabies (or zombies and the pitfalls of consumerism), just as it’s easy to project a symbolic relationship between vampirism and AIDS (or vampirism and the loss of purity). From a creative standpoint these fear projections are narrative linchpins; they turn creatures into ideas, and that’s the point.

But what if the audience infers an entirely different metaphor?

What if contemporary people are less interested in seeing depictions of their unconscious fears and more attracted to allegories of how their day-to-day existence feels? That would explain why so many people watched that first episode of “The Walking Dead”: They knew they would be able to relate to it.

A lot of modern life is exactly like slaughtering zombies.

IF THERE’S ONE THING we all understand about zombie killing, it’s that the act is uncomplicated: you blast one in the brain from point-blank range (preferably with a shotgun). That’s Step 1. Step 2 is doing the same thing to the next zombie that takes its place. Step 3 is identical to Step 2, and Step 4 isn’t any different from Step 3. Repeat this process until (a) you perish, or (b) you run out of zombies. That’s really the only viable strategy.

Every zombie war is a war of attrition. It’s always a numbers game. And it’s more repetitive than complex. In other words, zombie killing is philosophically similar to reading and deleting 400 work e-mails on a Monday morning or filling out paperwork that only generates more paperwork, or following Twitter gossip out of obligation, or performing tedious tasks in which the only true risk is being consumed by the avalanche. The principal downside to any zombie attack is that the zombies will never stop coming; the principal downside to life is that you will be never be finished with whatever it is you do.

The Internet reminds of us this every day.

Here’s a passage from a youngish writer named Alice Gregory, taken from a recent essay on Gary Shteyngart’s dystopic novel “Super Sad True Love Story” in the literary journal n+1: “It’s hard not to think ‘death drive’ every time I go on the Internet,” she writes. “Opening Safari is an actively destructive decision. I am asking that consciousness be taken away from me.”

Ms. Gregory’s self-directed fear is thematically similar to how the zombie brain is described by Max Brooks, author of the fictional oral history “World War Z” and its accompanying self-help manual, “The Zombie Survival Guide”: “Imagine a computer programmed to execute one function. This function cannot be paused, modified or erased. No new data can be stored. No new commands can be installed. This computer will perform that one function, over and over, until its power source eventually shuts down.”

This is our collective fear projection: that we will be consumed. Zombies are like the Internet and the media and every conversation we don’t want to have. All of it comes at us endlessly (and thoughtlessly), and — if we surrender — we will be overtaken and absorbed. Yet this war is manageable, if not necessarily winnable. As long we keep deleting whatever’s directly in front of us, we survive. We live to eliminate the zombies of tomorrow. We are able to remain human, at least for the time being. Our enemy is relentless and colossal, but also uncreative and stupid.

Battling zombies is like battling anything ... or everything.

BECAUSE OF THE ‘TWILIGHT’ series it’s easy to manufacture an argument in which zombies are merely replacing vampires as the monster of the moment, a designation that is supposed to matter for metaphorical, nonmonstrous reasons. But that kind of thinking is deceptive. The recent five-year spike in vampire interest is only about the multiplatform success of “Twilight,” a brand that isn’t about vampirism anyway. It’s mostly about nostalgia for teenage chastity, the attractiveness of its film cast and the fact that contemporary fiction consumers tend to prefer long serialized novels that can be read rapidly. But this has still created a domino effect. The 2008 Swedish vampire film “Let the Right One In” was fantastic, but it probably wouldn’t have been remade in the United States if “Twilight” had never existed. “The Gates” was an overt attempt by ABC to tap into the housebound, preteen “Twilight” audience; HBO’s “True Blood” is a camp reaction to Robert Pattinson’s flat earnestness.

The difference with zombies, of course, is that it’s possible to like a specific vampire temporarily, which isn’t really an option with the undead. Characters like Mr. Pattinson’s Edward Cullen in “Twilight” and Anne Rice’s Lestat de Lioncourt, and even boring old Count Dracula can be multidimensional and erotic; it’s possible to learn who they are and who they once were. Vampire love can be singular. Zombie love, however, is always communal. If you dig zombies, you dig the entire zombie concept. It’s never personal. You’re interested in what zombies signify, you like the way they move, and you understand what’s required to stop them. And this is a reassuring attraction, because those aspects don’t really shift. They’ve become shared archetypal knowledge.

A few days before Halloween I was in upstate New York with three other people, and we somehow ended up at t he Barn of Terror , outside a town call Lake Katrine. Entering the barn was mildly disturbing, although probably not as scary as going into an actual abandoned barn that didn’t charge $20 and doesn’t own its own domain name. Regardless, the best part was when we exited the terror barn and were promptly herded onto a school bus, which took us to a cornfield about a quarter of a mile away. The field was filled with amateur actors, some playing military personnel and others what they called the infected. We were told to run through the moonlit corn maze if we wanted to live; as we ran, armed soldiers yelled contradictory instructions while hissing zombies emerged from the corny darkness. It was designed to be fun, and it was. But just before we immersed ourselves in the corn, one of my companions sardonically critiqued the reality of our predicament.

“I know this is supposed to be scary,” he said. “But I’m pretty confident about my ability to deal with a zombie apocalypse. I feel strangely informed about what to do in this kind of scenario.”

I could not disagree. At this point who isn’t? We all know how this goes: If you awake from a coma, and you don’t immediately see a member of the hospital staff, assume a zombie takeover has transpired during your incapacitation. Don’t travel at night and keep your drapes closed. Don’t let zombies spit on you. If you knock a zombie down, direct a second bullet into its brain stem. But above all, do not assume that the war is over, because it never is. The zombies you kill today will merely be replaced by the zombies of tomorrow. But you can do this, my friend. It’s disenchanting, but it’s not difficult. Keep your finger on the trigger. Continue the termination. Don’t stop believing. Don’t stop deleting. Return your voice mails and nod your agreements. This is the zombies’ world, and we just live in it. But we can live better.

Chuck Klosterman is the author of “Eating the Dinosaur” and “Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs.”

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

​Live-action manga and anime adaptations have found little success. But in a rare interview, Eiichiro Oda, the creator of “One Piece,” discussed why Netflix’s series could be the exception .

​With “Bottoms,” the director Emma Seligman took a big leap from her buzzy feature debut, “Shiva Baby.” But this is the film she wanted to make all along .

​HBO’s “The Righteous Gemstones” remains a surprisingly complex (and hilarious) take on American faith .

​“Suits” improbably became the show of the summer after it landed on Netflix. Here’s what to watch after you finish or just get tired of it .

If you are overwhelmed by the endless options, don’t despair — we put together the best offerings   on Netflix , HBO Max , Disney+ , Amazon Prime  and Hulu  to make choosing your next binge a little easier.

Sign up for our Watching newsletter  to get recommendations on the best films and TV shows to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.

Plagiarism checker

Writing help, paraphrasing tool, zombies and our culture.

• Consumerism , Monster , Zombie

How it works

In trying to understand the influence zombies have on the society, it is relevant to know the origin of zombies. The first mention of zombie was in Haiti to represent the returned body. Then films began creating this monsters, and one thing led to another. The word monster can be defined as fear taking a physical form. The society makes a physical form of something that is perceived to cause concern. Zombies, Vampires and even Godzilla’s are all created due to the common fear of something. The culture creates an obsession with a type of fear, and it is brought to life. Different forms of similar monsters exist this indicates that people have various kinds of obsessions. The modern-day zombies have a different outlook from the past zombies. The manner in which zombies have become popular goes to indicate the level of passion that our culture has with these monsters (Do Vale, 191).

Furthermore, the zombie obsession goes beyond just fear of zombies harming the society physically. It can be more about what technology and capitalism can do to the society mentally (Do Vale, 191). This goes to explain the process of becoming zombies differ in the modern era to the earlier days. Back then these monsters were created from voodoo or black magic. These were in most countries that practiced magic like West Africa and the Caribbean. Now zombies are set up in technological settings. The zombie obsession could be used to show how the society fears what technology does to them. Technology limits the human use of their abilities and becomes brain dead, just like zombies. This goes to represent human fear of technology destroying the society mentally.

The fear of consumerism. The society is afraid that consumerism is replacing our humanity (Harper, n.p). The zombies are a real representation of consumerism. These monsters are driven by the need to feed. Zombies are entirely monsters because of their insatiable appetite according to Harper. They just want to consume. Likewise, humans too when driven by consumerism become zombies in some sense. For instance black Friday shoppers. How many people do you witness getting trampled upon by others in the process of getting goodies? The human desire to consume is metaphorically represented by zombies.

That this desire may go as far as turning people into zombie-like if consumerism takes over. Zombies also represent the fear of terrorism. The setting of most zombie films is a contamination infects people, spreads, governments fall, and people turn against each other leading to the world ending. Post 9/11 signified the change of the general zombie outlook (Conrad, n.p). Before those zombies were cartoonish but after that, they took a more human-like form. They conform to become strategic and smart. This new monster signified the fear that people of the United States had, they represented fear coming from outside (Sills, n.p). Terrorism also represents infected individuals and how if not noticed early the world might get wiped out. Metaphorically zombies account for the decay of social order that might result from terrorism. This is one of the many fears that zombies represent in our culture.

Nonetheless, another reason that the society produces these monsters could be the desire to channel excess stress by all means. Fascination about zombies becomes a way to mass subconscious channels out societal problems related to life stress (Conrad, n.p). It is like that the reason why our culture is fascinated if not thrilled by zombie idea is that in the society observe and adopt things that are taken for granted or those issues that are not disputed. The popularity of zombies shows just how much the culture shares common morals and values.

In conclusion, monsters over the last decade have been created more in the popular culture. Monsters like vampires have been on the trend for a long while. However, the zombie effect has become more popular due to them signifying the end of the world. The reasons for this popularity remains open, and many reasons have been brought up in the attempt to explain it. The simplicity in zombies make the society associate zombies with anything they want. This makes understanding what zombies represent to be a difficult task. What remains for sure is that zombies represent our fears. Fear of many things ranging from technology, terrorism to science. In general, zombies account for the end of the world as the most feared anticipated event.

Works cited

Conrad, Peter. Zombies: A Cultural History Review“ a Grave Injustice. The Observer, Guardian News and Media, 17 Aug. 2015, www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/17/zombies-a-cultural-history-roger-luckhurst-review.

Harper, Stephen. “Zombies, malls, and the consumerism debate: George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead.” Americana: The Journal of American Popular Culture, 1900 to Present 1.2 (2002).

Sills, Davia. What Does the Zombie Say about Who We Are and What We Fear? “ Davia Sills | Aeon Essays. Aeon, Aeon, 26 Sept. 2017, https://aeon.co/essays/what-does-the-zombie-say-about-who-we-are-and-what-we-fear

The deadline is too short to read someone else's essay

Cite this page.

Zombies and our culture. (2019, Dec 30). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/zombies-and-our-culture/

"Zombies and our culture." PapersOwl.com , 30 Dec 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/zombies-and-our-culture/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Zombies and our culture . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/zombies-and-our-culture/ [Accessed: 6 Sep. 2023]

"Zombies and our culture." PapersOwl.com, Dec 30, 2019. Accessed September 6, 2023. https://papersowl.com/examples/zombies-and-our-culture/

"Zombies and our culture," PapersOwl.com , 30-Dec-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/zombies-and-our-culture/. [Accessed: 6-Sep-2023]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Zombies and our culture . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/zombies-and-our-culture/ [Accessed: 6-Sep-2023]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Make sure your essay is plagiarism-free or hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Plagiarized Text

Leave your email and we will send a sample to you., not finding what you need, search for essay samples now.

Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

Don't use plagiarized sources

Where do you want us to send this sample, attention this is just a sample..

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Argumentative Essay on Zombies

Jump ahead to:

Here you have an Argumentative essay on zombies with Pdf. You can Download it from here and take advantage of many more essays.

Introduction

The acquisition of technology is one of the most outstanding achievements in the world. It transforms all sectors and enables one to perform complex tasks. The influence of technology is reflected in the way a person thinks and acts in matters. It is noteworthy that the use of computers to perform various tasks has taken a heavy toll on a person. This means that we are entirely dependent on technology as a way of life. Therefore, there is a good chance that technology addiction has become commonplace. The level of computer use is alarming, and it is turning people into animals like zombies that are not sensitive to public health. Therefore, this discussion focuses on the influence of technology on the social individual.

A significant cause of road accidents today is cell phones while driving. It is also common to find a person focused on his cell phone while using dangerous equipment that requires total concentration. These activities are hazardous as when a person uses electronic devices such as a phone, he loses focus and becomes oblivious to the dangers of working equipment. It leads to hazards. These individual actions make them like zombies who do not value their lives.

Cohabitation is the foundation of humanity. Getting to know people close to a person helps people to help each other and solve problems in the neighborhood, community, or nation. With the social media platform launch, people are losing interest in connecting with other people around them who can see and hear. The social media platform has kicked off a person’s commitment to the area and killed a person’s ability to help neighbors. The fact that it is common for people to live with their neighbors for more than five years without speaking to them indicates the negative influence of technology. It transforms man into a ruthless creature.

One quality that makes a person unique is thinking and solving local problems. With the introduction of social media, most people do not find their time to think and focus on dealing with real environmental issues. Instead, less time is spent dealing with real-world problems than social media. So this technology creates half-baked adults who can change the world for the better by thinking of solutions. It indicates the negative impact of technology on a man’s ability to conceive.

In conclusion, there are many technological implications for the human environment. Without killing part of his life, one is ignorant of real nature. It is a factor that has led to many social ills, mainly due to the people’s negligence in handling the real issues in their area. Thus, technology transforms humans into robots like zombies with no ability to think and deal with real-world problems. Therefore, the impact of technology must be controlled to feel the truth of the world.

Pdf of Argumentative essay on zombies

If you want to Download the Pdf of Argumentative essay on zombies then click on the given link it is free of cost.

1 thought on “Argumentative Essay on Zombies in 500 Words | Free Pdf”

Hey! Thankyou for visiting our website. This is essay on “Argumentative Essay on zombies”. If you have any feedback or queries related to this blog then please comment below.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Photo by Angus Mordant/Bloomberg/Getty

The philosopher’s zombie

The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: physics alone can’t explain consciousness.

by Dan Falk   + BIO

In his book Until the End of Time (2020), the physicist Brian Greene sums up the standard physicalist view of reality: ‘Particles and fields. Physical laws and initial conditions. To the depth of reality we have so far plumbed, there is no evidence for anything else.’ This physicalist approach has a heck of a track record. For some 400 years – roughly from the time of Galileo – scientists have had great success in figuring out how the Universe works by breaking up big, messy problems into smaller ones that could be tackled quantitatively through physics, with the help of mathematics. But there’s always been one pesky outlier: the mind . The problem of consciousness resists the traditional approach of science.

To be clear, science has made great strides in studying the brain, and no one doubts that brains enable consciousness. Scientists such as Francis Crick (who died in 2004) and Christof Koch made great strides in pinpointing the neural correlates of consciousness – roughly, the task of figuring out what sorts of brain activity are associated with what sorts of conscious experience. What this work leaves unanswered, however, is why conscious experience occurs at all.

There is no universally agreed-upon definition of consciousness. Awareness, including self-awareness, comes close; experience perhaps comes slightly closer. When we look at a red apple, certain neural circuits in our brains fire – but something more than that also seems to happen: we experience the redness of the apple. As philosophers often put the question: why is it like something to be a being-with-a-brain? Why is it like something to see a red apple, to hear music, to touch the bark of a tree, and so on? This is what David Chalmers called the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness – the puzzle of how non-conscious matter, responding only to the laws of physics, gives rise to conscious experience (in contrast to the ‘easy problems’ of figuring out which sorts of brain activity are associated with which specific mental states). The existence of minds is the most serious affront to physicalism.

This is where the zombie – that is, the thought experiment known as the ‘philosopher’s zombie’ – comes in. The experiment features an imagined creature exactly like you or me, but with a crucial ingredient – consciousness – missing. Though versions of the argument go back many decades, its current version was stated most explicitly by Chalmers. In his book The Conscious Mind (1996), he invites the reader to consider his zombie twin, a creature who is ‘molecule for molecule identical to me’ but who ‘lacks conscious experience entirely’. Chalmers imagines the case where he’s ‘gazing out the window, experiencing some nice green sensations from seeing the trees outside, having pleasant taste experiences through munching on a chocolate bar, and feeling a dull aching sensation in my right shoulder.’ Then he imagines his zombie twin in the exact same environment. The zombie will look and even act the same as the real David Chalmers; indeed:

he will be awake, able to report the contents of his internal states, able to focus attention in various places, and so on. It is just that none of this functioning will be accompanied by any real conscious experience. There will be no phenomenal feel. There is nothing it is like to be a zombie.

Imagining the zombie is step one in the thought experiment. In step two, Chalmers argues that if you can conceive of the zombie, then zombies are possible. And finally, step three: if zombies are possible, then physics, by itself, isn’t up to the job of explaining minds. This last step is worth examining more closely. Physicalists argue that bits of matter, moving about in accordance with the laws of physics, explain everything , including the workings of the brain and, with it, the mind. Proponents of the zombie argument counter that this isn’t enough: they argue that we can have all of those bits of matter in motion, and yet not have consciousness. In short, we could have a creature that looks like one of us, with a brain that’s doing exactly what our brains are doing – and still this creature would lack conscious experience. And therefore physics, by itself, isn’t enough to account for minds. And so physicalism must be false.

The zombie argument has recently been taken up by Philp Goff , who explores it in his book Galileo’s Error (2019). Once again, the issue isn’t whether zombies are actually walking among us, but rather, whether they could exist. Goff writes:

Nobody thinks that philosophical zombies exist, any more than they think flying pigs exist. But there is no contradiction in the idea of a zombie, and hence if our universe had been very different, perhaps if the laws of nature had been different, there could have been zombies roaming our planet.

In other words, it’s not just a question of what one can imagine ; people can imagine all sorts of implausible things. As Goff put it to me during a recent Zoom call: ‘The question is, are they logically coherent, and ultimately, are they possible in this very broad sense of possibility.’

At first, this seems like a powerful argument. If you believe that zombies could exist, you’re forced to accept the possibility that matter-in-motion can’t explain everything. In particular, the thing we hold most dear – our actual experience of the world – is missing. And so physicalism falters.

Even those who aren’t swayed by the zombie argument acknowledge its intellectual allure. ‘It’s elegant because it’s a very simple argument,’ says Keith Frankish , a philosopher with appointments at the University of Sheffield and the University of Crete. ‘It seems like you can get to a really big conclusion – a big radical conclusion – from a couple of fairly straightforward and attractive premises. That’s the dream of philosophers – to have these revolutionary arguments on the basis of premises that you can ascertain just in your armchair, just by thinking about it … If that isn’t seductive, I don’t know what is.’

A s one begins to dissect the zombie argument, however, problems arise. To begin with, are zombies in fact logically possible? If the zombie is our exact physical duplicate, one might argue, then it will be conscious by necessity . To turn it around: it may be impossible for a being to have all the physical properties that a regular person has, and yet lack consciousness. Frankish draws a comparison with a television set. He asks if we can imagine a machine with all the electronic processes that occur in a (working) television set taking place, and yet with no picture appearing on the screen. Many of us would say no: if all of those things happen, the screen lights up as a matter of course ; no extra ingredient is required.

Turning back to consciousness, Frankish adds: ‘I think if you really could understand everything the brain is doing – its 80 billion neurons, interconnected in goodness knows how many billions of ways, supporting an unimaginably wide range of sensitivities and reactions, including sensitivities to its own activity … If you could really imagine that in detail, then you wouldn’t feel that something was left out.’ (At the very least, this objection highlights how careful we have to be when we say that we ‘conceive’ of something. Can any of us really conceive of 80 billion of anything ?)

Clearly, a great deal rests on the issue of ‘conceivability’. Sean Carroll , a physicist at the California Institute of Technology who weighed in on the zombie issue in a recent paper , gives an example from mathematics: ‘If you went back 10,000 years and explained to someone what a prime number is, and asked: “Is it conceivable to you that there’s a largest prime number?” Well, they might say “yes”; as far as they can conceive, there could be a largest prime number. And then you can explain to them, no, there’s a very simple mathematical proof that there can’t be a largest prime number. And they go: “Oh, I was wrong – it’s not conceivable.”’

It’s asking us to picture a bird that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and yet is not a duck

In a similar vein, geometers long imagined that it might be possible to ‘square the circle’, a task that was eventually shown (in 1882) to be impossible. The philosopher Massimo Pigliucci , reflecting on how once-conceivable things often get demoted to the realm of the inconceivable, has written that ‘conceivability establishes nothing’. At the end of the day, Carroll finds the idea of conceivability too fuzzy to do what philosophers want it to do. ‘I think that conceivability is just a misplaced concept to use in arguments like this,’ he says, ‘because it is leveraging fuzziness to reach sweeping conclusions far beyond what is warranted by one’s state of knowledge.’

A closely related issue is the problem of accepting the zombie thought experiment’s premises at face value. We’re told that the zombie is just like us, and yet lacks consciousness. Let’s put this into practice: we meet a creature that looks and behaves just like a human, but a philosopher assures us that it’s actually a zombie. What would we make of their claim? Rebecca Hanrahan, a philosopher at Whitman College in Washington State, argues that in such a situation we would not, in fact, accept the claim that the creature lacked consciousness. ‘If I go to another world and see a creature that looks like me and acts like me, then I’m going to have to conclude that it also has the same phenomenological sensations that I do,’ she says. In other words, the first premise of the zombie thought experiment never gets off the ground: Chalmers asks us to accept a human duplicate who lacks consciousness as though this is a straightforward request – but it is not. To put it somewhat crudely, it’s asking us to picture a bird that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and yet is not a duck.

The zombie argument seems to belong to a class of arguments that Daniel Dennett calls ‘ intuition pumps ’. These are arguments – typically thought experiments – that lead the reader toward a certain appealing but not necessarily warranted conclusion. (Problems involving the mind and the brain seem to spawn more than their fair share of these problematic thought experiments; a well-known example is John Searle’s ‘Chinese Room’ argument against the possibility of explaining the mind in terms of information-processing; Dennett has shown convincingly where the argument falters.) In the case of the zombie argument, it’s suggested that we can easily picture a creature that has all the outward attributes of a normal, thinking human being, yet is one that lacks consciousness. But it turns out that conceiving of such a creature is no mean feat.

A nother problem centres on what consciousness actually does . As a philosopher would put it, what causal role does it play? Does it cause matter to move about? Or to put it another way: does consciousness impact behaviour? By Chalmers’s account, the zombie is supposed to behave exactly like us – even though we have conscious experiences and the zombie doesn’t. The implication seems to be that conscious experiences play no causal role in the world. But in that case, why even postulate its existence? The usual response is that consciousness is something we immediately experience; we can’t be wrong when we claim to be conscious. But when we reach for a glass of water, aren’t we doing so because of the conscious experience of being thirsty? If we are, then consciousness does, in fact, seem to impact behaviour; and if we aren’t, then consciousness seems to be nothing more than what philosophers call an epiphenomenon , a kind of secondary phenomenon. As Hanrahan puts it, consciousness would be like the humming sound that your computer makes – it’s always there when the computer is on, but it has no bearing on what the machine is actually computing.

Carroll’s objections to the zombie argument focus on precisely this point. ‘The zombie concept is only coherent if you think that none of our conscious experiences have any influence whatsoever on our behaviour,’ he says. Goff disputes this point; in Galileo’s Error , he argues that there is ‘ no contradiction in the idea that something with the same physical nature [as a human being] could lack an inner subjective life ’ [Goff’s italics] and that ‘there is no inconsistency or incoherence in the idea of a zombie.’

Zombies are either inveterate liars or, at a minimum, they’re extremely confused about their condition

The difficulty comes to a head when we look at the things we say about our conscious experiences. If I’m sad, I’ll say that I’m sad – but the zombie, in the same situation, would also say it’s sad (if it didn’t, we’d spot it due to this difference in behaviour). For Carroll, this stretches the argument to its breaking point. ‘If someone says “I’m sad”, and you say “Describe to me your sadness” – well, if you believe in the possibility of zombies, and the conceivability of zombies, then that experience of sadness can’t actually be influencing or informing what you say about your sadness,’ says Carroll. ‘And whatever you think about consciousness, that’s not consciousness as I understand it. When I’m sad or when I’m seeing red or when I’m feeling hot, that influences how I talk and move and behave in the world.’

Again, Goff sees the situation differently. After a prolonged back-and-forth with Carroll on a recent episode of the Mind Chat podcast, hosted by Goff and Frankish, Goff Tweeted: ‘The same software can be run on different hardware, it obviously doesn’t follow that the hardware doesn’t do anything … Likewise, the thesis that human behavioural functions could be realised in non-conscious zombie stuff doesn’t entail that human consciousness doesn’t do anything.’ Carroll replied in a blog post, arguing that, sure, the same computer program can be run on different machines (this is what philosophers refer to as ‘substrate independence’) – but he notes that the substrate doesn’t affect the outcome of the calculations. Analogously, he writes, those who want ‘to differentiate between the software of reality running on physical vs mental hardware cannot claim that consciousness gets any credit at all for our behaviour in the world.’

H owever one frames the relationship between minds, brains and bodies, there seems to be no getting around the problematic nature of the descriptions zombies give of themselves: they’re either inveterate liars – they insist they’re enjoying the taste of a delicious apple even though, by the terms of the thought experiment, they’re experiencing nothing at all – or, at a minimum, they’re extremely confused about their condition. And if the zombie is confused about what it is or is not experiencing, perhaps we are too. In fact, with just a little effort, one can enlist the zombies in support of physicalism: however sincerely we might say ‘But I know I’m conscious; I feel it; I cannot be wrong about this,’ we must bear in mind that the zombie would utter the exact same words in the same situation.

Does this mean that consciousness is merely an illusion? Frankish believes it is; he describes conscious experience as ‘a fiction written by our brains in order to help us track the impact that the world makes on us’. Carroll, in his book The Big Picture (2016), takes a slightly different tack; he writes that consciousness is real ‘in exactly the same way as fluids and chairs and universities and legal codes are real – in the sense that they play an essential role in a successful description of a certain part of the natural world, within a certain domain of applicability’. Goff, in contrast, defends a view known as panpsychism – roughly, the idea that everything in the world has mental qualities, or, as he put it (along with two co-authors) in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ‘mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world’.

Physicalists who aren’t swayed by the zombie argument are left pondering the question we began with: how, in a purely physical world, do minds arise? In Until the End of Time , Greene – as ardent a physicalist as they come – writes that the existence of minds represents ‘a critical gap in the scientific narrative … We lack a conclusive account of how consciousness manifests a private world of sights and sounds and sensations.’

Centuries from now (decades if we’re lucky), people will no longer speak of the hard problem as a great mystery

A step in the right direction, at least for thinkers such as Frankish, is to view consciousness not as a thing but as a process. Consciousness is something ‘that a very complex kind of organism does’, he says. He cites Dennett, who has pointed out that the cells in your brain are not fundamentally different from the cells in a big blob of yeast. ‘There’s no real difference between them,’ says Frankish; brains don’t contain some extra, special ingredient. ‘It’s just that the cells of a human brain are connected up in a very, very special way, compared to the cells in the bowl of yeast. And it’s what those cells are doing that makes the brain conscious.’

Carroll holds a broadly similar view. As he put it recently in an episode of his Mindscape podcast: ‘I think the world is made of stuff, obeying the laws of physics, and that’s basically it. Except when that stuff comes together to form complicated things, like human beings, there can be new, emergent phenomena that arise, and consciousness is one of those.’ Like Dennett and many others in the physicalist camp, Carroll believes the hard problem will eventually fade away – that is, centuries from now (decades if we’re lucky), people will no longer speak of it as a great mystery. Eventually, we’ll have learned enough about the workings of brains and their billions of neurons, says Carroll, that we’ll just say ‘Well, this is what happens when people have conscious experiences’ – adding: ‘And then the whole problem will just kind of go away.’

While the zombie argument, and the philosophical problems raised by it, may seem like mere pie-in-the-sky exercises that keep philosophers (and a few scientists) up at night, they tie into questions that have real-world consequences. Thinking about zombies forces us to think about how we deal with beings whose status as conscious entities is unclear – such as animals , for example, and foetuses , or some future versions of robots or artificial intelligences.

We all seem to agree that human beings are conscious, but how widespread is consciousness in the animal kingdom? ‘Is my dog conscious? Absolutely,’ says William Seager, a philosopher at the University of Toronto. ‘What about my parakeet? I think so. A rat? Probably. What about a snake, or a spider? Spiders act – they seem to want things. They form plans, they hunt, they seem to like to eat things, and they avoid situations that are dangerous. Are they conscious?’

The question is even thornier when we get to octopuses , which have a far more distributed neural structure than mammals. Since we don’t know exactly what generates consciousness, we struggle to determine who or what has it. Insects, for example, ‘are way simpler than us’, says Seager. ‘But that’s not fair; just because they’re simpler doesn’t mean they’re unconscious. So we have a kind of real-world zombie issue when we think about where consciousness cuts out, or where it turns on.’ Parallel questions inevitably come up when considering human development. At conception, a human embryo ‘is definitely not conscious, and at birth it’s definitely conscious’, says Seager. ‘Somewhere in the middle, consciousness turns on. We don’t really understand how that works. Again, we don’t know what it is about the brain that generates consciousness. So we have these conundrums.’

The zombie argument provokes for the same reason that the larger puzzle of consciousness provokes: it forces us to confront problems that stymied everyone from the ancient Greeks to Descartes and Galileo. Even the most hardened of the hardcore physicalists admit that the puzzle of consciousness is, well, puzzling. The zombie argument, flawed as it is, deserves credit for helping to bring difficult questions into sharp relief, even if it’s not the knock-down argument against physicalism that its proponents imagine it to be.

Thinkers and theories

Why seek self-realisation?

In the face of climate crisis it might seem myopic but philosophers from Spinoza to Næss argue it is the only way forward

Helen De Cruz

Mood and emotion

When grief doesn’t end

Suffering the sudden death of a loved person leaves some survivors stuck in grief. Can they win their lives back – and how?

Martin W Angler

History of ideas

Equality without compromise

Liberal philosophy has clipped the wings of the egalitarian ideal. We should return to the bolder ideals of Iris Murdoch

Christine Sypnowich

Political philosophy

Liberalism against capitalism

The work of John Rawls shows that liberal values of equality and freedom are fundamentally incompatible with capitalism

Colin Bradley

Wittgenstein in the classroom

The philosopher understood that learning – of a concept, of ourselves, of each other – is the undertaking of a whole life

Calum Jacobs

Psychiatry and psychotherapy

Analysis for the people

Group therapy promised to be both democratic and radical, but it failed to take hold. Has its time finally come?

Jess Cotton

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essays Samples >
• Essay Types >
• Argumentative Essay Example

Mental Illness Argumentative Essays Samples For Students

7 samples of this type

During studying in college, you will certainly have to write a lot of Argumentative Essays on Mental Illness. Lucky you if putting words together and turning them into relevant text comes naturally to you; if it's not the case, you can save the day by finding a previously written Mental Illness Argumentative Essay example and using it as a model to follow.

This is when you will certainly find WowEssays' free samples collection extremely useful as it contains numerous professionally written works on most various Mental Illness Argumentative Essays topics. Ideally, you should be able to find a piece that meets your criteria and use it as a template to compose your own Argumentative Essay. Alternatively, our qualified essay writers can deliver you a unique Mental Illness Argumentative Essay model written from scratch according to your custom instructions.

Example Of Argumentative Essay On Effectiveness Of Non-Pharmaceutical Approaches To Mental Illness

Introduction, free argumentative essay on legal guardianship for mentally ill, free argumentative essay on solitary confinement: humane or inhumane.

Don't waste your time searching for a sample.

Get your argumentative essay done by professional writers!

Just from $10/page

Good Example Of “Madness And Civilization” Argumentative Essay

Example of zombies: fact or fiction argumentative essay, should canadian law recognize the defense of temporary insanity: a sample argumentative essay for inspiration & mimicking, name argumentative essay, ‘instructor’s name’.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline