this is ridiculous and you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
what I mean by p-zombies being impossible is that if you created something with the capabilities of a p-zombie it would be conscious
then prove the bolded claim, don't just state it. what exactly about information processing on the level of humans produces subjectivity and experiential aspects of cognition? you may as well have re-stated your original position. the point of the p-zombie is simply to elucidate the difference between information processing and subjective experience, the 'intuititive conclusion' being that if a p-zombie did not have internal subjective experience, it would intuitively seem that it would not be able to perform our information processing tasks - so what, other than information processing capabilities, is the P-zombie lacking? subjectivity, exactly the phenomena physics and materialism cannot account for or explain.
saying evolution "created" something is a widely-used convenient shorthand for the long pedantic explanation
i was criticizing the way you compare the progress of 'evolution', an asocial, thoughtless, natural process, directly to the progress of human science, an intentional, socially constructed/mediated activity, which is quite absurd. not the specific choice of words used. they operate on fundamentally different processes.
Science and physics are not logical systems that are subject to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, which you straightforwardly do not understand
I was paraphrasing with the understanding that we were familiar with the developments and implications Godel had on others. If Godel's theroems aren't to your taste, try the related Tarski's undefinability theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem) which applies to any semantics whatsoever.
the rest of your post is irrelevant metaphysics. Yes of course the definition of matter is a function of a particular physical theory, read Kuhn.
it is absolutely not irrelevant, metaphysics is in fact the very thing we are discussing, whether or not our system of physics can accurately describe an important aspect of human experience enough to successfully replicate it with technology, or to even know if we have replicated it with technology. the fact is that claiming the universe is made of 'matter' is equally unfalsifiable as claiming the universe is made of 'mind that behaves like/is experienced as matter at least sometimes', both are metaphysical claims, both are unfalsifiable. they are both empirically neutral claims as of now - except only one of these (of these two in specific, others exist and can be reasonably - as in without contradicting any empirically verified facts - formulated) can explain or account for the experience humans have of their subjectivity. read literally any philosopher other than kuhn plz. i wasn't quoting no one and nothing, i wasn't referencing uneducated amateurs, i have sourced most of my claims or they are trivially researched. you don't have to agree but this is a real philosophical position which has yet to be comprehensively 'debunked' or anything like that. metaphysics is as valid of a meta-criticism as any other - physics is not an inhuman thing beyond reproach, its a human activity we have to constantly update and revise over time, and we have to do metaphysics to do that updating and revision in a rigorous and thoughtful way, the same way we use meta-analyses for literally every other area of human study and knowledge.
You don't understand Gödel and you don't understand Tarski. Stop trying to pretend you do. Like I doubt you could even define what a formal language is, let along a semantics, let alone connect these to something as nebulous as science, physics, and consciousness.
this is ridiculous and you clearly don't know what you are talking about.
then prove the bolded claim, don't just state it. what exactly about information processing on the level of humans produces subjectivity and experiential aspects of cognition? you may as well have re-stated your original position. the point of the p-zombie is simply to elucidate the difference between information processing and subjective experience, the 'intuititive conclusion' being that if a p-zombie did not have internal subjective experience, it would intuitively seem that it would not be able to perform our information processing tasks - so what, other than information processing capabilities, is the P-zombie lacking? subjectivity, exactly the phenomena physics and materialism cannot account for or explain.
i was criticizing the way you compare the progress of 'evolution', an asocial, thoughtless, natural process, directly to the progress of human science, an intentional, socially constructed/mediated activity, which is quite absurd. not the specific choice of words used. they operate on fundamentally different processes.
I was paraphrasing with the understanding that we were familiar with the developments and implications Godel had on others. If Godel's theroems aren't to your taste, try the related Tarski's undefinability theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_undefinability_theorem) which applies to any semantics whatsoever.
it is absolutely not irrelevant, metaphysics is in fact the very thing we are discussing, whether or not our system of physics can accurately describe an important aspect of human experience enough to successfully replicate it with technology, or to even know if we have replicated it with technology. the fact is that claiming the universe is made of 'matter' is equally unfalsifiable as claiming the universe is made of 'mind that behaves like/is experienced as matter at least sometimes', both are metaphysical claims, both are unfalsifiable. they are both empirically neutral claims as of now - except only one of these (of these two in specific, others exist and can be reasonably - as in without contradicting any empirically verified facts - formulated) can explain or account for the experience humans have of their subjectivity. read literally any philosopher other than kuhn plz. i wasn't quoting no one and nothing, i wasn't referencing uneducated amateurs, i have sourced most of my claims or they are trivially researched. you don't have to agree but this is a real philosophical position which has yet to be comprehensively 'debunked' or anything like that. metaphysics is as valid of a meta-criticism as any other - physics is not an inhuman thing beyond reproach, its a human activity we have to constantly update and revise over time, and we have to do metaphysics to do that updating and revision in a rigorous and thoughtful way, the same way we use meta-analyses for literally every other area of human study and knowledge.
You don't understand Gödel and you don't understand Tarski. Stop trying to pretend you do. Like I doubt you could even define what a formal language is, let along a semantics, let alone connect these to something as nebulous as science, physics, and consciousness.