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

[Edwardo Piet]

On the contrary, the scientific evidence actually supports the idea that consciousness doesn't do anything useful. For starters there's the scientific experiments I mentioned. And that's just the start.

Take a look at this for example:

Strawson is simply begging the question here.  Perhaps it's possible, perhaps it isn't.  He doesn't know.  Anyway, Khemikal's point is valid here, even if an alternative implementation is possible, that says nothing about the actual implementation, nor about it's relative position within naturally occurring selective pressures and the phenotypic space in play.

Then again, maybe I don't want to be a part of this discussion after all....

How is that begging the question? He's merely claiming it's possible in principle and we can't know that it isn't.

And again, the whole point is that the scientific evidence appears to support it. I merely quoted that to point out that consciousness isn't necessary to do some of the things required, then Khem jumps to the fact that that's how it's done in this case. So what? That wasn't my point. My point is it isn't required, and consciousness itself doesn't appear to actually be doing anything.

---

Neither of us thinks that consciousness is controlling those things.  I'm only suggesting that defining the evolutionary utility of consciousness so narrowly ensures that you see it as useless, but only in that you've defined it to be so.

Redefining consciousness says nothing about the actual consciousness we already know to exist, I've already laid out clearly the mistakes Dennett is making.. all of which you haven't addressed. I'm tired of all this bullshit about folk psychology... Dennett can make up his own definition of consciousness and talk about the things that can be known about the brain as much as he likes: it doesn't actually say anything about the consciousness that we do know to exist being illusory.

Then it's not a valid criteria for judging the evolutionary utility of anything. 

What are you talking about? You're the one who is claiming that consciousness has utility. 

It would be interesting to see what those experiments are.

The famous free will experiments that there have been multiple of that show that as much as 7 seconds before a decision is made, the unconscious aspects of the brain have already made that decision.

I don't think that they show that consciousness has no benefit, either.  They sometimes call into question benefits we assumed of consciousness....but that's not all that surprising, is it?  We thought there was a little man in there yanking levers, lol.  That's not how it works..or the benefit it provides.  That, however, does not mean it utterly lacks any evolutionary utility.

Again you're just talking about irrelevant shite again. The experiments precisely indicate that the unconscious aspects of the brain were already firing and making your decisions for you before you were aware of them.

Thanks, I always wondered but it's good to have confirmation. 

More disingenuous crap.

Here, try this question.  If you had to point to a single thing that, in your opinion (or..you know stats or whatevs) is the single greatest thing as far as preserving or advantaging human genetics..what would it be?

What's with the irrelevant question? Oh yeah, you love being totally irrelevant.

"advancing human genetics" talk about vague. Advance in what way? Are you just talking about spreading DNA? What the fuck has that got to do with anything? What are you, a social darwinist? No of course not. You're just being disingenuous and irrelevant again.

A load of vague, irrelevant crap, strawmanning bullshit, pretending to agree with me and then showing aggreement on extremely obvious crap everyone agrees with, while avoiding the actual important non-trival issues we disagree on. Or at least, not fucking trially true and boring. It's all just dodging and sophistry with you. Can I please discuss with someone who actually responds to me properly?

I'll get you started off, no wrong answers.  Let's say...opposable thumbs, or an upright stance.  Perhaps the creation of art and the communication of personal experience in language.  Or, maybe, sanitation....vaccination, or roads.

Things like that.

More irrelevant crap.

Wake me up when you actually address my arguments. Bah.