The Zombie Argument

1. Introduction

The Zombie Argument is a thought experiment and accompanying modal argument in the philosophy of mind. It is used to challenge physicalism, the view that all facts, including facts about consciousness, are fully determined by physical facts.

The argument focuses on the apparent conceivability of philosophical zombies: beings physically and functionally indistinguishable from ordinary humans who nevertheless lack any phenomenal consciousness—there is nothing it is like to be them. Proponents claim that if such zombies are genuinely conceivable, this strongly suggests that a zombie world is metaphysically possible. If a complete physical duplicate of our world might have no consciousness, then, on this line of reasoning, conscious experience does not logically or metaphysically supervene on the physical, and standard forms of physicalism are false or incomplete.

The Zombie Argument occupies a central place in discussions of:

• The hard problem of consciousness (why physical processes give rise to experience at all).
• The relation between conceivability and possibility.
• The adequacy of purely functional or structural accounts of mind.

It has motivated a range of nonreductive views, including property dualism and various forms of Russellian monism, while also provoking sophisticated physicalist responses that reject either zombie conceivability, the inference from conceivability to possibility, or the anti-physicalist interpretation of the conceivability.

Subsequent sections detail the historical development of the argument, the structure of the thought experiment, its formal reconstruction, and the main lines of support and criticism it has generated.

2. Origin and Attribution

The canonical formulation of the Zombie Argument is widely attributed to David J. Chalmers. While related ideas existed earlier, Chalmers systematized them into a precise modal argument against physicalism in the 1990s.

Chalmers’ Formulation

The argument is most fully developed in:

"

David J. Chalmers, The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory
(Oxford University Press, 1996), especially Chapter 3.

Here Chalmers defines philosophical zombies, articulates the link between conceivability and metaphysical possibility, and embeds the thought experiment in a broader case for property dualism and for taking consciousness as fundamental.

Precursors and Influences

Although Chalmers provides the now-standard version, several earlier discussions anticipate aspects of the zombie idea:

Chalmers credits these influences while distinguishing his own contribution: a modal argument framed in terms of logical/metaphysical supervenience and supported by a developed two-dimensional semantics.

Since the late 1990s, the Zombie Argument has been closely associated with Chalmers’ name, although contemporary discussions often acknowledge its roots in a broader tradition of conceivability-based challenges to materialist theories of mind.

3. Historical Context in Philosophy of Mind

The Zombie Argument emerged against a background of 20th‑century debates over the nature of mind and its relation to the physical world.

From Behaviorism to Physicalism and Functionalism

Mid‑century philosophy of mind was dominated by:

The rise of cognitive science and computational models of mind encouraged functionalist views; consciousness was often treated as a higher-level functional or representational phenomenon.

Qualia, Explanatory Gaps, and the Hard Problem

From the 1970s onwards, several influential arguments emphasized the phenomenal aspects of mind:

• Nagel highlighted what it is like to be a conscious organism.
• Kripke’s work on necessity raised questions about how identities involving mental states should be understood.
• Jackson’s knowledge argument and discussions of qualia suggested that physical accounts might leave out the qualitative character of experience.

These developments contributed to talk of an explanatory gap between physical processes and subjective experience. Chalmers’ later articulation of the hard problem of consciousness built on this sense that explaining function and behavior does not automatically explain experience.

Modal and Semantic Developments

Concurrently, work in modal metaphysics and philosophy of language (including Kripkean semantics and possible‑worlds frameworks) provided tools for reasoning about conceivability, possibility, and necessary identities. Chalmers draws on and extends these tools with two-dimensional semantics to argue that the apparent conceivability of zombies has direct implications for what is metaphysically possible.

Within this context—of robust physicalist theories on the one hand, and growing emphasis on qualia and modal reasoning on the other—the Zombie Argument crystallized as a focal challenge to reductive materialism.

4. The Zombie Thought Experiment Described

The core of the Zombie Argument is a specific thought experiment involving philosophical zombies (or p‑zombies).

The Basic Scenario

A philosophical zombie is defined as:

• Physically identical to a normal human in every microphysical respect.
• Functionally identical: same causal organization, neural processing, behavioral dispositions, and verbal reports.
• Phenomenally empty: there is no subjective experience—no felt pain, color experience, or inner awareness.

A zombie world is a possible world described as:

"

Physically indistinguishable from our world at every level of detail, obeying the same physical laws, containing molecule‑for‑molecule duplicates of all organisms and artifacts, yet devoid of phenomenal consciousness.

In such a world, “zombie you” talks about seeing red, complains of headaches, and publishes papers on consciousness, but, by stipulation, there is nothing it is like to be that being.

Philosophical Role of the Scenario

The scenario is used to elicit an intuitive judgment about conceivability:

• Is it coherent to imagine such a world without contradiction?
• Does a complete specification of all physical and functional facts leave open whether there is something it is like?

Proponents contend that many find it straightforward to mentally simulate or describe a zombie world. The thought experiment is thus designed as an intuition pump for the claim that:

• The physical and functional facts about a system might obtain without phenomenal consciousness, suggesting that consciousness is not fixed by those facts alone.

The scenario, as used in the subsequent argument, remains purely metaphysical and conceptual; it is not intended as an empirically realizable possibility in our universe, nor is it concerned with cinematic or folkloric “zombies,” which are behaviorally abnormal and not central to philosophical discussion.

5. Formulating the Zombie Argument

The Zombie Argument is typically presented as a deductive modal argument targeting physicalism about consciousness. While formulations vary, a standard version attributed to Chalmers has the following structure:

1. Conceivability–Possibility Bridge
   If it is (ideally) conceivable that there are beings physically identical to us but lacking phenomenal consciousness (zombies), then such beings are metaphysically possible.

2. Zombie Conceivability
   It is (ideally) conceivable that there are creatures physically identical to us but lacking phenomenal consciousness.

3. Supervenience Failure
   If zombies are metaphysically possible, then facts about phenomenal consciousness do not logically or metaphysically supervene on the physical facts: the physical truths do not a priori necessitate the phenomenal truths.

4. Anti-Physicalist Conclusion
   If phenomenal facts do not logically or metaphysically supervene on physical facts, then physicalism—understood as the thesis that the complete physical truth necessitates all truths, including phenomenal truths—is false or incomplete.

From these premises, proponents infer that consciousness must involve properties or facts not captured by the purely physical description of the world.

Key Features of This Formulation

• It relies on a specific, relatively strong understanding of physicalism: not just that everything is physically realized, but that all truths are a priori entailed by the total physical truth (sometimes called a priori entailment physicalism).
• It uses ideal conceivability (what would remain conceivable even under ideal rational reflection) rather than mere prima facie imaginability, to strengthen the link to metaphysical possibility.
• It operates at the level of logical/metaphysical necessity, not just nomological or physical law‑based necessity.

Alternative formulations adjust these elements—for example, focusing more directly on a priori entailment, or framing the conclusion as a challenge to reductive rather than to all forms of physicalism—but the core argumentative strategy remains centered on zombies as a test case for the relation between the physical and the phenomenal.

6. Logical Structure and Modal Commitments

The Zombie Argument’s force depends heavily on its logical form and its modal assumptions (assumptions about necessity and possibility).

Deductive Form

At a schematic level, the argument can be represented as:

On this reconstruction, the argument is generally regarded as valid: if the premises are true, the conclusion follows.

Modal Commitments

The argument invokes several distinct kinds of modality:

• Epistemic modality (conceivability): what can be coherently conceived or imagined without apparent contradiction, under conditions of ideal rational reflection.
• Metaphysical modality (possibility/necessity): what could exist or obtain in the broadest sense, often modeled using possible worlds.
• A priori modality: what can be known to be necessary or impossible purely by reasoning, without further empirical information.

Proponents commit to a relatively strong Conceivability–Possibility Principle: that ideal conceivability is a reliable guide to metaphysical possibility, at least for the sort of scenario described by the zombie world.

They also adopt a strong reading of physicalism as the thesis that the complete physical description of the world a priori entails all truths, including phenomenal truths. This links failure of metaphysical supervenience directly to the falsity or at least incompleteness of physicalism.

Role of Possible Worlds

In possible‑worlds terms, the argument claims:

• There is at least one possible world W that is physically identical to our world but phenomenally different (zombie world).
• Hence, across the space of metaphysically possible worlds, fixing all physical facts does not fix the phenomenal facts, indicating a failure of logical/metaphysical supervenience.

Critics often focus on denying or qualifying these modal commitments, either by questioning the bridge from conceivability to possibility or by proposing a weaker, non‑a‑priori form of physicalism.

7. Premises Examined: Conceivability and Possibility

The first two premises concern conceivability and its relation to metaphysical possibility.

Types of Conceivability

Discussions typically distinguish:

There is also a contrast between positive conceivability (being able to positively imagine or represent the scenario) and negative conceivability (not being able to rule it out a priori). Chalmers emphasizes that zombie worlds are at least negatively conceivable, and argues they are also positively representable.

Conceivability–Possibility Principle

The crucial bridge principle can be summarized as:

"

If a scenario S is ideally conceivable, then S is metaphysically possible.

Supporters argue that:

• Our best access to metaphysical space is through disciplined reflection on what we can coherently conceive.
• Many philosophical discoveries about necessity (e.g., that certain identities are necessary) rely on refining our judgments about what is truly conceivable.

Critics point to cases where conceivability and possibility diverge (discussed elsewhere in detail) and propose more restricted principles, for example:

• That conceivability is a fallible but defeasible guide.
• That the bridge may fail for cases involving a posteriori necessities or hidden essences.

The Claim that Zombies Are Conceivable

Proponents of the Zombie Argument contend that:

• One can coherently conceive of a complete physical duplicate of our world in which there is no phenomenal consciousness.
• This involves no explicit contradiction, since the concepts of “physical” and “phenomenal” are argued to be conceptually independent.

Opponents challenge this by suggesting that:

• Once we fully grasp the physical/functional truths about consciousness, the notion of a physical duplicate without experience will no longer be ideally conceivable.
• Our current sense that zombies are conceivable may stem from ignorance about the physical basis of consciousness or from misleading ways of conceptualizing experience.

The status of zombie conceivability, and of the conceivability–possibility bridge, remains one of the main fault lines in evaluations of the argument.

8. Premises Examined: Supervenience and Physicalism

The third and fourth premises concern supervenience relations between physical and phenomenal facts and the definition of physicalism.

Logical/Metaphysical Supervenience

Logical or metaphysical supervenience holds when there can be no change in higher‑level properties without some change in the base‑level properties, across all metaphysically possible worlds, purely as a matter of necessity.

Applied to consciousness:

"

Phenomenal facts logically supervene on physical facts iff any world that is a perfect physical duplicate of ours is automatically a duplicate with respect to all conscious experiences.

If a zombie world is metaphysically possible, then there is at least one world that is a physical duplicate of ours but not a phenomenal duplicate. This would mean phenomenal facts do not logically or metaphysically supervene on the physical.

Supervenience and Physicalism

Many formulations of physicalism invoke some form of supervenience:

• Strong (a priori) supervenience physicalism: the complete physical truth a priori entails all other truths, including phenomenal truths. There is no conceivable world physically identical to ours but differing in any respect.
• Weaker supervenience views: allow that the supervenience relation might be a posteriori, discovered empirically rather than knowable by pure reason.

The Zombie Argument targets particularly the strong, a priori form. Its reasoning is:

1. If zombies are possible, phenomenal facts do not logically supervene on physical facts.
2. If physicalism requires logical/metaphysical supervenience, then physicalism is false or incomplete.

Physicalist Responses via Redefining Physicalism

Some physicalists respond by:

• Accepting that zombies may be conceivable, perhaps even (in some sense) possible, but
• Denying that physicalism should be defined in terms of strict a priori supervenience.

Alternative proposals include:

On such views, the existence of a metaphysically possible zombie world (if granted) would be taken to show at most that certain strong reductive forms of physicalism fail, not that all physicalist positions are undermined.

The debate thus turns partly on how demanding the supervenience requirement for physicalism should be, and whether logical/metaphysical supervenience is the right standard.

9. Two-Dimensional Semantics and the Argument

Two-dimensional semantics is a framework developed by Chalmers and others to analyze how terms and sentences behave across possible worlds. It plays a central role in his defense of the Zombie Argument, particularly of the move from conceivability to possibility.

Primary and Secondary Intensions

On this approach, expressions have two modal profiles:

Chalmers applies this distinction to mental and physical vocabulary. He argues that while some identities (like water = H2O) are a posteriori necessary due to a shift between primary and secondary intensions, the situation with phenomenal concepts is different.

Application to Zombies

The zombie scenario is described using:

• A complete specification of the world’s microphysical facts and laws.
• A stipulation that phenomenal consciousness is absent.

Chalmers argues that:

• Under the relevant primary intensions, one can coherently conceive of the entire physical story being true while the phenomenal story is false.
• This indicates that there is no a priori entailment from the physical truths to the phenomenal truths, even at the level of primary intensions.

Hence, on his account:

"

If a zombie world is primarily conceivable (consistent under primary intensions), it is metaphysically possible.

This is intended to block physicalist appeals to Kripkean a posteriori necessities as a way of reconciling zombie conceivability with their impossibility.

Critical Reactions

Critics raise several concerns:

• Some question whether the primary/secondary distinction applies cleanly to phenomenal concepts, suggesting that our introspective concepts may be atypical.
• Others argue that even if zombie worlds are primarily conceivable, two‑dimensional semantics does not warrant the further claim that they are metaphysically possible.
• Some propose alternative semantic treatments (for example, treating phenomenal concepts as conceptually linked to physical/functional roles) that would undermine the key step from primary conceivability to possibility.

Thus, while two-dimensional semantics offers a sophisticated backing for the Zombie Argument’s modal claims, it is itself a contested tool, and debates about its soundness are tightly interwoven with debates about zombies.

10. Key Variations of the Zombie Scenario

Beyond the standard philosophical zombie, several variations and related scenarios have been developed to probe different aspects of the mind–body problem.

Behavioral and Functional Variants

Spectrum and Partial Cases

Some scenarios explore gradations rather than all‑or‑nothing absence:

• Partial zombies: beings with some but not all aspects of human experience (e.g., no color qualia, or no pain qualia).
• Inverted zombies: beings whose physical and functional states match ours, but whose qualia, if present, are systematically different or inverted (e.g., “inverted spectrum” cases).

These aim to raise questions about whether qualitative character is fully determined by physical/functional facts, even when experience is not entirely absent.

Time-Lag and Transformation Scenarios

Other variants involve temporal elements:

These thought experiments are often used to connect zombie considerations with questions about personal identity, continuity of consciousness, and the relevance of substrate.

Non-Human Zombies and AI

Extensions include:

• Zombie animals: physically identical to conscious animals but lacking experience, probing whether the issues generalize beyond humans.
• Zombie AIs or robots: systems that behave indistinguishably from conscious agents while lacking subjective experience, testing whether purely computational or algorithmic accounts suffice.

Although these variants differ in detail, they are unified by the central motif: holding fixed increasingly rich physical/functional descriptions while allowing phenomenal consciousness to vary, in order to stress-test the supervenience of the mental on the physical.

11. Comparison with Other Anti-Physicalist Arguments

The Zombie Argument is part of a broader family of anti-physicalist arguments centered on conceivability, explanatory gaps, and qualia. It is often compared with the following:

Knowledge Argument (Mary the Color Scientist)

Frank Jackson’s knowledge argument uses the case of Mary, a color scientist who knows all the physical facts about color vision but has never experienced color.

Some philosophers treat the two as mutually reinforcing; others accept one and reject the other, depending on how they assess the roles of knowledge and modality.

Explanatory Gap Arguments

Joseph Levine and others have articulated an explanatory gap between physical processes and phenomenal consciousness: even if all physical facts are true, it remains mysterious why those facts give rise to experience.

The Zombie Argument can be seen as a modalization of the explanatory gap:

• If physical explanations do not seem to necessitate experience, perhaps that is because experience is not metaphysically entailed by the physical.

Nagel’s Bat and Subjective Character

Thomas Nagel’s “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” emphasizes the subjective character of experience and the apparent inaccessibility of another species’ phenomenology from an objective standpoint. While Nagel’s argument is less explicitly modal, both it and the Zombie Argument stress a contrast between:

• Objective, third‑person descriptions.
• Subjective, first‑person experience.

Kripkean Modal Arguments

Kripke himself suggests, in passing, that psychophysical identity claims may differ from standard scientific identities (like heat = molecular motion). Some interpretations extend this into a more general argument that:

• Even if mental states are contingently correlated with physical states, they may not be identical to them.

The Zombie Argument can be seen as a more fully elaborated, systematic development of such modal reflections.

Taken together, these arguments form a network of challenges to reductive physicalism, differing in emphasis—epistemic, explanatory, or modal—but often used in combination by critics of purely physical accounts of consciousness.

12. Standard Objections and Physicalist Responses

A substantial literature presents objections to the Zombie Argument, many of them from physicalist perspectives. Several influential lines of response are commonly distinguished.

Inconceivability or Coherence Objection

Some critics argue that zombies are not genuinely coherently conceivable once the physical and functional facts about consciousness are fully appreciated.

• Daniel Dennett suggests that any purportedly complete description of a zombie’s functional organization that still allows one to subtract consciousness is self‑contradictory or underdescribed.
• On this view, the appearance of conceivability rests on conceptual confusion or on illicitly holding fixed both full functional richness and the absence of experience.

Conceivability–Possibility Bridge Objection

Others target the claim that even genuine conceivability yields metaphysical possibility.

• Drawing on Kripke’s discussion of a posteriori necessities, critics note that it once seemed conceivable that water is not H2O or that Hesperus is not Phosphorus, yet these scenarios are impossible.
• Applied to zombies, the thought is that we may be misdescribing the relevant facts: our seeming ability to conceive of zombies does not secure their metaphysical possibility.

Two-Dimensional Semantics Critique

Some philosophers accept two-dimensional semantics in other domains but question its application here.

• They challenge whether primary intensions of phenomenal and physical concepts are truly independent in the way Chalmers proposes.
• Others argue that even if zombie worlds are primarily conceivable, the semantic framework does not license the further step to metaphysical possibility.

Phenomenal Concepts Strategy

A prominent physicalist response grants much of the phenomenology of the debate but reinterprets it.

• The Phenomenal Concepts Strategy (PCS) holds that we possess special phenomenal concepts—direct, introspective ways of thinking about experiences—that are cognitively isolated from our physical concepts.
• Because of this isolation, it is understandable that zombies seem conceivable and that there is an explanatory gap; but this reflects features of our conceptual scheme, not the underlying metaphysics.
• On PCS, the epistemic and conceptual gaps do not entail any ontological gap, allowing physicalism to remain intact.

Modal Skepticism and Restrictive Principles

Some adopt a more general skepticism about modal intuitions, especially in complex domains like consciousness. They may:

• Treat conceivability judgments as unreliable, particularly under conditions of incomplete scientific knowledge.
• Propose restricted principles linking conceivability to possibility only in simpler or more purely logical cases.

These objections and strategies form the main physicalist toolkit for responding to the Zombie Argument, variously denying its premises or reinterpreting their significance.

13. Dualist, Panpsychist, and Russellian Reactions

While many responses to the Zombie Argument are physicalist, non‑physicalist positions often embrace it as supporting evidence, though they interpret its implications differently.

Property Dualism

For property dualists, the Zombie Argument is frequently a central plank:

• They accept that zombie worlds are metaphysically possible.
• They infer that phenomenal properties are not reducible to or identical with physical properties.
• However, they may still hold that there is only one kind of substance (typically physical), with both physical and nonphysical properties instantiated.

On this view, the argument motivates the idea that consciousness involves fundamental mental properties or psychophysical laws not captured in the physical description.

Substance Dualism

Some substance dualists also find support in the argument, though their commitments are stronger:

• They may take the possibility of zombies to suggest that minds or souls are distinct substances that can, in principle, be absent even when the body and brain are intact.
• In this reading, a zombie is effectively a body without a soul or nonphysical mind.

However, many advocates of the Zombie Argument (including Chalmers) stop short of substance dualism, preferring property dualism or related positions.

Panpsychism and Panprotopsychism

Some philosophers, notably Galen Strawson and others sympathetic to panpsychism, interpret the Zombie Argument as highlighting limitations in standard physicalism, but not as motivating an entirely nonphysical mind.

• Panpsychism: holds that conscious or proto‑conscious properties are fundamental and ubiquitous in nature.
• Panprotopsychism: posits fundamental protophenomenal properties that, when arranged appropriately, give rise to consciousness.

From these perspectives, zombie scenarios are used to argue that a purely structural–dispositional conception of the physical is incomplete; the intrinsic nature of the physical might itself be phenomenal or proto‑phenomenal.

Russellian Monism

Russellian monists combine insights from neutral monism and Russell’s analysis of physics:

• They maintain that physics captures only the relational and structural aspects of matter, leaving its categorical basis unspecified.
• They often accept that if the physical is understood purely structurally, zombie worlds seem possible.
• However, they propose that the intrinsic properties underlying physical structure are themselves phenomenal or proto‑phenomenal, thereby blocking the genuine possibility of zombies once the physical is fully specified.

On this view, the Zombie Argument is taken to show not that consciousness is nonphysical, but that standard physicalism—which neglects intrinsic properties—is incomplete, steering theorists toward an expanded, more “Russellian” conception of the physical.

These non‑physicalist and quasi‑physicalist reactions illustrate the diverse ways in which the Zombie Argument has been appropriated: as support for robust dualism, for panpsychist metaphysics, or for a monistic ontology that embeds consciousness within the intrinsic nature of the physical world.

14. Implications for Consciousness Studies and AI

Although the Zombie Argument is a work of armchair philosophy, it has influenced broader discussions in consciousness studies and artificial intelligence.

Methodological Implications for Consciousness Research

In consciousness science, the argument is often cited in debates over:

• Whether a complete functional or neural account of cognition would suffice to explain phenomenal consciousness.
• How to interpret neural correlates of consciousness (NCCs): as providing a full explanation or as correlational markers for an underlying, possibly nonreductive, phenomenon.

Some researchers draw from the argument a cautionary lesson:

• That behavioral and functional measures may not fully capture the presence or absence of consciousness.
• That first‑person data and subjective reports remain important, and potentially irreplaceable, for a science of consciousness.

Others downplay the metaphysical conclusions but treat the argument as highlighting conceptual challenges that empirical theories should address.

AI and Machine Consciousness

In AI, zombie reasoning is used to interrogate claims about machine consciousness:

• A system that passed all behavioral and functional tests for consciousness might still, on the zombie picture, lack any subjective experience.
• This raises questions about whether functional equivalence is sufficient for consciousness, or whether specific substrates (e.g., biological neurons) or intrinsic properties are required.

Different positions in AI debate the relevance of zombies:

Zombie considerations also influence ethical discussions: if AI (or animals) could in principle be “zombie‑like,” how should this affect moral status and responsibility attributions?

Conceptual Clarification in Interdisciplinary Work

Finally, the Zombie Argument has prompted interdisciplinary exchanges between philosophers, neuroscientists, and AI researchers about:

• The distinction between access consciousness (availability of information for reasoning and control) and phenomenal consciousness (what it is like).
• The limits of third‑person methodologies in capturing subjective experience.
• The plausibility of neutral monist or Russellian interpretations that might reconcile scientific practice with the apparent modal significance of zombies.

Whether or not practitioners accept its conclusions, the argument functions as a conceptual touchstone in framing what counts as a satisfactory explanation of consciousness in both biological and artificial systems.

15. Legacy and Historical Significance

Since its articulation in the 1990s, the Zombie Argument has become one of the most discussed thought experiments in contemporary philosophy of mind.

Impact on Philosophical Debates

The argument has:

• Solidified the hard problem of consciousness as a central issue, distinguishing it from more tractable “easy problems” of cognitive function.
• Provided a focal point for articulating and refining physicalist, dualist, panpsychist, and Russellian monist positions.
• Stimulated extensive work in modal epistemology and the theory of conceivability, prompting more sophisticated analyses of how intuition and imagination relate to metaphysical possibility.

It has also contributed to a shift in how physicalism is defined and defended, leading to more nuanced positions (e.g., those invoking phenomenal concepts or a posteriori necessity) that respond directly to zombie‑style challenges.

Influence Across Subfields

The Zombie Argument’s reach extends beyond metaphysics:

Ongoing Status

In contemporary philosophy, the Zombie Argument remains highly contested:

• Many philosophers regard it as a powerful intuition pump for the claim that consciousness is not reducible to the physical.
• Others see it as illustrating the pitfalls of relying on modal intuition in complex domains, or as mischaracterizing what a fully developed physicalist theory could achieve.

Despite disagreement about its soundness, there is broad consensus that the Zombie Argument has:

• Helped clarify what is at stake in theories of consciousness.
• Shaped the vocabulary and conceptual tools (e.g., supervenience, phenomenal concepts, a priori entailment) that structure current debates.

As such, it occupies a significant place in the history of late 20th‑ and early 21st‑century analytic philosophy, comparable in influence to classic thought experiments like Descartes’ evil demon, Nagel’s bat, and Jackson’s Mary.