The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential

[Edwardo Piet]

Your issues with dennet are your issues with dennet.  I've given up on trying to crack that nut.  I'm simply pointing out that you interpretation of science being "on your side" begins with a fundamental, but subtle mistake.  That if there were some other way to achieve x, or that if x had bundled risks or functional defects..x would be useless.

It's useless as the scientific experiments show... that people make all their decisions before they are conscious of them.

My issue with Dennett is that he at best defines his ontology in a ridiculous overly pramgatic way that only deals with reality when he thinks it is useful (putting him in the yucky Jordan Peterson camp) and at worst he makes a categorical logical error by equivocating on two different definitions of "real". And he makes the total non-sequitur that because conscious experience is a "user illusion" that subjectivitiy itself isn't really there. Which is just a total non-sequtiur and subjective experience is the one thing that MUST be real. He says there is no real seeming, but that is more absurd than saying there is no real objective universe.

There's no need for me to strawman you, because I agree with you...there are many ways life has found to achieve behavior x.

Oh right now it's back to your annoying tactic of saying you agree even when we plainly disagree. Literally, I don't care if you say you agree, you're saying things I disagree with, so we don't agree whether you like it or not. We may agree on one point, but we fundamentally disagree on many. And once again, you're being misleading. I am thoroughly convinced that you won the best debater category by fooling, misleading and stawmanning people because in a debate it's all your ever seem to fucking do. I'm not dense enough to miss it.

Let me ask you this, would you consider a brainless consciousness ( or intelligence, for that matter) useful.if it produced the behaviors, or at least some behavior, we take to be useful in ourselves?

No I wouldn't consider it useless if it actually did... but it doesn't. Once again, you're being irrelevant and misleading. My point is that the scientific evidence supports consciousness not actually influencing behavior.

 In a previous context, are wings the benefit, or is flight the benefit?

Crap analogy. Scientific experiments don't show that flight or wings have no benefit.