Only conscious organisms possess true intelligence. — AlienFromEarth

From Wikipedia:

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie argument is a thought experiment in philosophy of mind that imagines a hypothetical being that is physically identical to and indistinguishable from a normal person but does not have conscious experience, qualia, or sentience. For example, if a philosophical zombie were poked with a sharp object it would not inwardly feel any pain, yet it would outwardly behave exactly as if it did feel pain, including verbally expressing pain.

An unself-conscious and unaware organism that acts as if it's self-conscious and aware in a way that cannot be detected either physically or by observing its behavior is conscious and aware.

observation holds no bearing over the fact that P-zombies are not truly intelligent therefore lack consciousness.

observation holds no bearing over the fact that P-zombies are not truly intelligent therefore lack consciousness. — AlienFromEarth

I disagree. The only way for us to determine whether an organism other than ourselves is self-conscious or not is through watching their behavior, including language. There is no difference between an organism which is self-conscious and one that appears self-conscious but is not unless we can observe a difference, either physical or behavioral.

There is no difference between an organism which is self-conscious and one that appears self-conscious but is not unless we can observe a difference, either physical or behavioral. — T Clark

This is an interesting one, because I think you’re right in that even if the p-zombie isn’t actually conscious it may as well be if this difference can’t to anyone be manifest—which is troubling; it makes consciousness seem less meaningful. But it doesn’t seem possible for p-zombies to exist, since there’d be no way for them to derive meaning from the “inputs” you gave them.

The only reason 2+2 means anything to a computer is that it meant something to the person who programmed it; the words and symbols mean nothing to the computer itself. A p-zombie would be a natural phenomenon, not programmed by an actual consciousness, and so wouldn’t have a way seemingly to derive meaning from words and symbols.

which is troubling; it makes consciousness seem less meaningful. — AJJ

I think making consciousness seem less meaningful is probably a good thing. Right now it's hard to talk about it reasonably because people approach the subject with the sense that it is somehow weird or magical. That consciousness doesn't fit in with the rest of our understanding of the world. That we need special explanations.

Well I am one of those who consider it weird and aberrant; whether it needs a special explanation I’m not sure (could be another thing that just is).

Can a non-conscious computer play an intelligent game of chess/go?

it's called artificial intelligence for a reason. It's because it's artificial. IE not real

Maybe, but for something that's not intelligent, they sure do wipe the floor with our best players. Soon, we'll have non-conscious computers that can have intelligent conversations with us. It will reach a point where it's obvious to everyone that there's some kind of intelligence at work, even if it's artificial.

It will reach a point where it's obvious to everyone that there's some kind of intelligence at work, even if it's artificial. — RogueAI

This is true, but an AI will always be an extension of the intelligences that programmed it; it won’t have its own mind.

If you can't tell the difference between truth and a lie, what is it? Is it dependent upon perception, and if so, who's? Are we to respect the perception of a lie or a truth, simply because we don't know it?

An Indian once told me that whenever we tell someone else they are wrong, we are stealing their perception. I had to think about that, and jettison some of my Eurocentric upbringing to arrive at what I think he meant. But I think he had a point. In this context, can't we afford to allow a P-zombie to have what we perceive, correctly or incorrectly, as perception? I do that with rocks all the time. After all, I'm not where they are, perceiving from "their point of view", and I'm not them. I'm not walking in their moccasins.

Such a stipulation does not prevent me from my own perceptions or reactions to the actions or inaction of a P-zombie. Or a rock, for that matter. I can still destroy them, or love them, or whatever. If they wish to change my perception of them, they can. Or not. But it won't be by telling me I am wrong. It will be by showing me who or what they are. If I wish to change their perception of me, I won't tell them they are wrong about me. I will show them who I am. Or not. Stealing another's perception shows others that you are a thief.

But, in the final analysis, if I kill a P-zombie I don't want to face a charge of murder. Destruction of property, maybe, but not murder. How to convince a judge or jury that it was a P-zombie and not a human? Perception matters. Truth matters. Lies matter. Or not.

If you kill a pzombie in self defense it isn't murder but preemptively killing a zombie wouldn't be fundamentally wrong but would definitely not fare well for you in court. Best to only react in self defense if necessary