why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?

[bennyboy]

That's right. A p-zombie wouldn't be said to have a self, even if it behaved exactly as a sentient agent would.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why do you think this is a problem?  Why -should- consciousness be required, is everything that exists a required or needful thing?  

If you are making a model of reality, and the leftover piece of the puzzle is the central feature of our existence, and also the means by which we investigate and formulate that model, then yes.  Everything is needed.

Leftover piece of a puzzle?  I asked you why you thought that consciousness would have to be necessary.  Necessity is not at all how we understand evolution to operate, is why I ask.

More broadly....unless you think that you live in a world where there is no thing that exists that didn't -have- to exist, this whole "necessity" bit is just you tying yourself into knots.  Pet rocks would need to be equally necessary, or there could be no explanation for the existence of pet rocks..under this conjecture.

Are pet rocks necessary? Do they exist? Is their existence explicable? Are they, instead..some "leftover piece"?

I'm going to point out here that in some scenario where you happened to be right with a conjecture that the physical does not explain consciousness (which is a shady conjecture all by it's one-sies with reference to what we do know regardless of what we don't, lol)..the above would still have been an exceedingly poor reason to think so. Maybe consciousness isn't necessary, it would just be one more unnecessary thing in a world full of such things. Isn't that the contention of the p-zombie thought experiment in the first place? If we're going to contend that it's possible for a p-zombie to act like us..then we don't get to quibble about the lack of necessity that we have, ourselves, asserted. We live in such a world, or so we've maintained.

This actually wouldn't be a problem for consciousness or the world at large, just another mundane case of there being thirty ways to skin a cat. Honestly, we already see that without any reference to hypothetical p-zombies. Plants accomplish much of what we do without the possession or even means of possession of a conscious experience -at least like we envision it-.

The fuckers might even be better at it than we are. Who really works for who, here, anyway?

(further things to think about, consider the implications of this necessity trap. If consciousness would have to be necessary, well..necessarry to and for what? Would the necessity of consciousness insist that all things possess it? Pet rocks..conscious agents by necessity?)

[bennyboy]

If you are making a model of reality, and the leftover piece of the puzzle is the central feature of our existence, and also the means by which we investigate and formulate that model, then yes.  Everything is needed.

Leftover piece of a puzzle?  I asked you why you thought that consciousness would have to be necessary.  Necessity is not at all how we understand evolution to operate, is why I ask.

Sure, it's a leftover piece. It is not accounted for in any physical description of the world, and is not required for any of the calculations. And yet, here it is.

I don't much feel like arguing the semantics of the term "necessary," but I can repeat what I already said about evolution.
1) If qualia adds something beyond material mechanism, then the Universe is not material monist
2) If qualia adds nothing beyond mechanism, then there's no reason for it to have evolved

If you want to contend that qualia are a coincidental supervenient property of the evolved brain, then I'd say that's quite the fantastic coinkydink.

[Alan V]

Plants accomplish much of what we do without the possession or even means of possession of a conscious experience -at least like we envision it.  

Consciousness is a very successful evolutionary strategy. It has obviously evolved in various ways for various creatures. That being the case, I wonder how anyone can assert it is a non-material process.

[The Grand Nudger]

Leftover piece of a puzzle?  I asked you why you thought that consciousness would have to be necessary.  Necessity is not at all how we understand evolution to operate, is why I ask.

Sure, it's a leftover piece.  It is not accounted for in any physical description of the world, and is not required for any of the calculations.  And yet, here it is.

Well, two things, the same things as before.  One..that's not strictly true, and two...I still don't know how (or even why) necessity is informing you here.  

I don't much feel like arguing the semantics of the term "necessary," but I can repeat what I already said about evolution.
1)  If qualia adds something beyond material mechanism, then the Universe is not material monist

Okay?

2)  If qualia adds nothing beyond mechanism, then there's no reason for it to have evolved

This is a reassertion, not an explanation.  So what if there are 29 other ways to skin a cat...Benny?  Things don't evolve for the kind of "reason" you seem to be referring to in the first place.....meanwhile, plenty of ways to skin a cat have evolved.

Even more fundamentally, just speaking to the coherence of your objection..you don't get to quibble about what hasn't been added once you assert the possibility of p-zombies..either. Qualia has been added...requirement met...so..doa?

If you want to contend that qualia are a coincidental supervenient property of the evolved brain, then I'd say that's quite the fantastic coinkydink.

Is it, care to show your math..or why you think that....?

[bennyboy]

Plants accomplish much of what we do without the possession or even means of possession of a conscious experience -at least like we envision it.  

Consciousness is a very successful evolutionary strategy.  It has obviously evolved in various ways for various creatures.  That being the case, I wonder how anyone can assert it is a non-material process.

How can you assert that the experience of qualia exists at all, or ever did, using evolutionary science or any other kind of scientific inquiry?

---

This is a reassertion, not an explanation.  So what if there are 29 other ways to skin a cat...Benny?  Things don't evolve for the kind of "reason" you seem to be referring to in the first place.....meanwhile, plenty of ways to skin a cat have evolved.

Hiding behind the evolutionary narrative isn't good philosophy, and I'd say it's not even good science. "Well. . . it's here, so it must have evolved, and that's why it's here" is an explicit begging of the question. Until you can demonstrate that the ability to experience qualia is real in animals, and that despite only being a byproduct corollary of brain function, it somehow provides an advantage in reproductive fitness, then you are saying Evolutiondidit in the same way that Christians say Goddidit. Statements of faith in your world view are highly valued in religion-- but not so much in science, or at least in good science.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who'se hiding behind any evolutionary narrative...and I still don't know how or why necessity is informing you.

I don't recall saying "here it is, so it must have evolved" I recall having suggested to you that this question of necessity is out of your own left field..and nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Needful things is not how evolution proceeds. Nor does evolution care whether or not there are other ways of doing something. You expressed personal incredulity on account of irrelevant criteria.

Imagine if I had told you that I couldn't see how a bee evolved flight? It doesn't need to fly, and the manner in which it flies adds nothing, it's accomplished in other and better ways in the absence of the bee flight mechanism. You'd think I was a fucking loon..right?

Here, lets try another one. I can't believe babe ruth was the greatest player who ever lived. His name was ruth, after all.

[bennyboy]

Who'se hiding behind any evolutionary narrative...and I still don't know how or why necessity is informing you.

I don't recall saying "here it is, so it must have evolved"  I recall having suggested to you that this question of necessity is out of your own left field..and nothing to do with evolutionary biology.  Needful things is not how evolution proceeds.  Nor does  evolution care whether or not there are other ways of doing something.  You expressed personal incredulity on account of irrelevant criteria.

Imagine if I had told you that I couldn't see how a bee evolved flight?  It doesn't need to fly, and the manner in which it flies adds nothing, it's accomplished in other and better ways in the absence of the bee flight mechanism.  You'd think I was a fucking loon..right?

Here, lets try another one.  I can't believe babe ruth was the greatest player who ever lived.  His name was ruth, after all.

These aren't very coherent answers to a very simple question-- in the objective mechanistic world described by science, in which all outcomes are possible without reference to the subjective, and in which the brain is a material mechanism which processes and outputs behaviors which favor reproductive fitness, what role does the experience of qualia serve? What's wrong with high-functioning p-zombies?

A better analogy would be if you speculated that bees have anti-gravity force fields (though you couldn't demonstrate the existence of those fields scientifically), then I'd say-- ummm. . . wings are sufficient, why you talking about anti-gravity force fields, dude? If you then went on to say that anti-gravity force fields were an evolved property (still not demonstrating they existed), and you could do science on force fields it by measuring wing function, then I'd say-- I don't think you're studying what you think you're studying.

Ridiculous, right?

[The Grand Nudger]

Who'se hiding behind any evolutionary narrative...and I still don't know how or why necessity is informing you.

I don't recall saying "here it is, so it must have evolved"  I recall having suggested to you that this question of necessity is out of your own left field..and nothing to do with evolutionary biology.  Needful things is not how evolution proceeds.  Nor does  evolution care whether or not there are other ways of doing something.  You expressed personal incredulity on account of irrelevant criteria.

Imagine if I had told you that I couldn't see how a bee evolved flight?  It doesn't need to fly, and the manner in which it flies adds nothing, it's accomplished in other and better ways in the absence of the bee flight mechanism.  You'd think I was a fucking loon..right?

Here, lets try another one.  I can't believe babe ruth was the greatest player who ever lived.  His name was ruth, after all.

These aren't very coherent answers to a very simple question-- in the objective mechanistic world described by science, in which all outcomes are possible without reference to the subjective, what role does the experience of qualia serve?

At the very least they're memories of what our brains picked out as relevant sensory input. I'm not sure if that's a "role", if it fits whatever you happen to be looking for?

I like the forcefield thing..but, do you understand what I was saying with those? I respect that you don't think qualia is necessary. You certainly aren't alone in thinking that. Only that this position doesn't support evolutionary or existential incredulity.

[bennyboy]

I'd support the evolution of consciousness-- defined as the ability to interact with the environment via sensory input, processing, and behavioral output with enough complexity to adapt to environmental pressures-- as being pretty obvious. That includes the idea of the evolution of DNA, of the brain, and so on.

I'd even say that the particular way in which humans experience must be unique to the sensory apparatus, including the brain.

But I'm really not convinced that in a material monist Universe, there's any place for subjective awareness-- unless we're talking about material which is intrinsically mental in nature. I'd very much look to panpsychism or idealism as better world views, especially given some of the things we know about QM.

And here's the bonus. In panpsychism, evolution of mind makes sense.