The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.

[Mister Agenda]

Speaking of science fiction, Dmitri might enjoy this book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight_(Watts_novel)

[The Grand Nudger]

It's certainly true that subjective experience isn't necessary for survival.  OFC, that's true for every single trait that any animal might possess.  Being able to breathe underwater isn't necessary for survival.  Being able to fly?  Not necessary.  Eyes, mammary glands, bones, photosynthetic tissues, hydraulic joints, all of these are optional - as plenty of creatures survive without any of them..and every living thing still here is just as good at surviving as we are and as good at surviving as any of the creatures that possess any of those traits.  

As for relative advantages to subjective experience, human subjective experience in particular, or at least to whatever gives rise to reports of subjective experience (leaving room for us being the hypothetical p-zombie or having been one at some point in our development ourselves) well....just take a look at the state of this place.  We seem to be doing well.  By we I don't just mean human beings, but human beings with a rich internal life, specifically.  It's not exactly a secret that we're selected for.  Sometimes, the selective factor isn't how much a thing x contributes to an individual cracking open a nut, but how desirable it is to a potential sexual partner, or how tightly it bonds members of a social group.   If rich internal reports were nothing more than a way to flex our thinker for an audience or build intimacy, we'd expect them to have some effect on sexual selection, like any other display.

As far as we can tell, that's not actually what happened, ofc. There appears to have been subjective experience in our lineage long before we show up, and long after that same lineage demonstrated it's ability to survive.

[Paleophyte]

I believe consciousness is a byproduct of a highly evolved brain - one that requires us to have a sense of self and inner dialog for survival. 

Since p-zombies don't need qualia to survive what is the evolutionary advantage of having subjective experience?

Are you honestly using one non-existent entity to try and prove another non-existent entity? Or were you suggesting that creationists are mindless beasts that are merely mimicking sentience?

P-zombies are the sort of rubbish that can only be produce by assuming that we're the pinnacle of creation and that sentience is a binary, all-or-nothing trait. They fall to shambling pieces the moment you realize that sentience is a sliding scale. Humans may be further up that scale than most of our evolutionary brethren but we're by no means at the top. In fact there may not be a top to be at. Since some degree of sentience has been demonstrated in a wide variety of animals (primates, canines, felines, cetaceans, corvids, octopi, etc...) you have to go an awfully long way down toward single-celled organisms to find much of anything too dim to experience "qualia" of some form. And that makes all this blather of "p-zombies that are kinda like humans but not" look like it was dreamt up by somebody whose brains had already been snacked upon.

[Anomalocaris]

he is probably under the influence of a certain Russian christian mystic

[GrandizerII]

If consciousness is an inevitable (but otherwise unnecessary from an evolutionary perspective) by-product of the workings of something complex like the brain, then evolution would still carry on, albeit with this practically unnecessary by-product called consciousness tagging along for the ride.

Subjective experience seems to be too complex to be just a by-product. We can't even reproduce a single artificial quale.

Maybe, but we don't know. Nobody has a clue how consciousness works, and while it seems like consciousness is not necessary for our survival, maybe one day this will be shown to be false.

Either way, your argument isn't a compelling defeater of human evolution. It's just a reminder that consciousness continues to be a baffling mystery.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Subjective experience seems to be too complex to be just a by-product. We can't even reproduce a single artificial quale.

Personal credulity isn't an argument and the inability to replicate something doesn't make it the product of magic.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If consciousness is an inevitable (but otherwise unnecessary from an evolutionary perspective) by-product of the workings of something complex like the brain, then evolution would still carry on, albeit with this practically unnecessary by-product called consciousness tagging along for the ride.

Subjective experience seems to be too complex to be just a by-product. We can't even reproduce a single artificial quale.

Some very clever philosophers have made some very clever arguments that qualia either don’t exist or are a null concept. If they’re correct, this would explain why we can’t reproduce artificial qualia.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

Subjective experience seems to be too complex to be just a by-product. We can't even reproduce a single artificial quale.

Some very clever philosophers have made some very clever arguments that qualia either don’t exist or are a null concept. If they’re correct, this would explain why we can’t reproduce artificial qualia.

Boru

Clever maybe, but that's not the same thing as plausible. Appearance/seemingness of qualia is still actual qualia (which is exactly what is being questioned about in the first place). Qualia is not something that is beyond its appearance/seemingness.

[Dmitry1983]

Either way, your argument isn't a compelling defeater of human evolution. 

It's a good argument to be skeptical of the theory of evolution. It's not settled science as atheists claim

[Dmitry1983]

Some very clever philosophers have made some very clever arguments that qualia either don’t exist

Prick yourself with a needle