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

[Edwardo Piet]

That's what I just said. There's no evidence of it, and there's evidence to the contrary. The onus is on you to show that there is (I'm not expecting you to be capable of doing that). The point is that your position is most likely the incorrect one, and goes against the evidence. 

I present.....all of human civilization.  You don't think that's good enough to declare our conscious perception as selectively advantageous..but I really couldn't present a grander or more powerful example of something that is definitely -not- selectively neutral, that is a product of our conscious perceptions (defined however you want them to be).... so we're at an impasse.  

You are simply begging the question here. My entire point was that that can happen without qualia, there's no evidence or reason to believe it can't, and there is evidence to the contrary.

You are doing the equivlanent of repeating "But it seems to me that human consciousness is special and does do something and it's required for civilization!" over and over. We are only at an 'impasse' because you don't understand Strawson's point.

I was trying to be generous.  I could just call you a loon who's wedded to his anxieties about free will and other people being wrong about everything, lol.

I do have a point. And you don't understand. I'm being generous by considering you a dishonest fuckwit, most likely. Because the truth of the matter appears to be that you're a dishonest fuckwit who is also inacapable of understanding some very simple points and distinctions.

Anyway, you have no argument. And that's clear. You just keep repeating your own increduility, flying in the face of the evidence.

What makes you think qualia has anything to do with human civilization, or is anything more than a byproduct of the unconscious aspects of the brain which is indeed useful? 

Is there any point in asking these questions if you're gonna repeat over and over the equivalent of "BUT DUH CONSCIOUSNESS IS REQUIRED FOR HUMAN CIVILIZATION!" You don't understand at all. It's clearly all entirely beyond your grasp.

I also find it unlikely that you could think that human culture and human civilization isn't advantageous, or that they are not..in human beings, a product of our conscious experiences.....but I've been wrong before.  

Those things are advantagous your moron. But no they are not a byproduct of conscious experience. Again, are you talking about them as phenomenal or noumenol objects? You are going to ignore that point again aren't you? (it's pathetic of you) .You're just barely asserting over and over that consciousness is required for them.

You completely ignored my point about the distinction between phenomenal and noumenal objects... after I said I'd explain it if you didn't understand that point. I'll have to conclude that you're too dense to understand it and ignored it because you're too embarrassed to admit that.

Obviously the phenomenal objects of civilization wouldn't exist, by definition, without consciousness... but the noumenal objects of civilization would. Once again, do you understand this? Or are you just going to ignore it because you don't? Do you know what the distinction I'm speaking of is? I'm happy to explain it to you don't know about it. Just let me know. You're clearly not up to the task for thinking about this sort of thing all on your tod.

---

but I've been wrong before.  

You're wrong frequently and attacking a strawman doesn't make you right, or smart.

---

-as an addendum to the above.  We know that it must have happened -no later- than 50k years ago at full modernity.  We know that, in the space of the intervening 40k years..it;s derivative product became more complicated, more elaborate, more competent.  We know that by full sociological modernity...we were the apex species of the planet.

Learn to be clear. Define you terms. Go beyond irrelevant equivocation and babbling.

If you say so...

Nope. It has nothing to do with me saying so. It has to do with me defining my terms clearly, and you not doing so, so you can switch back and forth between different definitions of the same thing. And you ignore the majority of what I say.

whether or not some other x can do art is..however, irrelevant to us.

How many times do I have to ask you whether you're talking about the phenomenal objects of art or the noumenal objects of art?

  We "do art" in our specifically human and perceptualyl conscious style.

You're talking about the phenomenal objects of art, and building "perceptual" and "conscious" into it as you're talking about it. Totally begging the question. Why can't you see all the fallacies you're making? Oh yeah, you're either stupid, dishonest or both. Seems to be clearly both.

  Our art, our communication, our culture, our civilization..our personal relationships...all of it positively steeped in consciousness and extinction inducingly advantageous.  

Again, if you're talking about the phenomenal objects of art... make that clear. Because if you are then you're begging the question and if you're not you're talking about things that are beyond experience and you don't actually know about.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too by not even being clear or defining your terms. Why do you even deserve to debate with me if I make my terms clear and you just attack my position without characterizing it accurately, and equivocate back and forth between different senses and bounce up and down between different levels (such as the noumenal and phenomenal level)?

No wonder you get voted as the best debater if no one else notices that you just debate from a double standard. You're just an equivocal mess. I am being clear, you are not, and you're attempting to use my clarity against me, because your own points are too vague to attack. It's pathetic.

Here's a challenge.... characterize my own position clearly for me in your own words, so we can see if you actually understand it. If you can do that, then it's clear you've been being dishonest because it will be the first time you've done it, and you clearly only characterized it fairly to give the illusion that you've been being fair the whole time when I can see that you haven't. If you don't characterize it fairly, then you just make it even more clear that you're not interacting with my actual position.

Define your terms. Be clear. Stop bouncing up and down like a turd.

Your perpetual rejoinder can be reduced to:  "There may be other ways to do this, and x can't even free will, therefore x is evolutionarily useless".  I consider this to be self evidently false.

You're being as bad as the theist when he builds God into the definition of what he's trying to prove. You're assuming the conclusion before even getting started. You're talking about art being necessarily consciously perceptual, which just assumes what you are supposed to be trying to prove. It's pathetic. You're supposed to show how it requires conscious perception, not talk about how it does and say that's proof that it does. Totally begs the question.

As I said the phenomenal objects of art and civilization obviously require conscious experience by definition. But the noumenal objects of art dont. And there's absolutely no evidence that phenomena does anything, it's just how noumenal reality is experienced. To a non-conscious robot, a painting it interacts with is only a noumenal object, it's not experienced as a 'painting' like it is to us.

I think you should just go and read some philosophy because you clearly don't seem to understand the distinctions I'm making as you're completely ignoring them.