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

[Edwardo Piet]

Ostriches don't fly.  That doesn't make their wings useless....nor would pointing to some bird that did fly..or even a creature that took to the air without wings, demonstrate that an ostriches wings were selectively neutral.

Lol this is completely irrelevant. There's evidence that ostrich wings have a use. There isn't evidence that qualia has a use, and there's evidence to the contrary.

 Our art, our culture, our civilization, our ethics, our personal relationships are all colored by this thing we call experience.  There may be other ways to derive some of this..all of it, but this was our way.  

As I have said numerous times, those things require qualia to exist as phenomenal objects, but not to exist as noumenal objects.

We might be the only creatures that possess it..at least in meaningfully human terms.  Consider what an enormous coincidence it must have been that...after a few billion years of life slowly plugging along, with the appearance of a trait we recognize as a human consciousness 50k years ago (could have been earlier, hard to say..but no later),..the stage is set for the species in which that appears to utterly and completely outcompete every other species on the planet?  It takes us a short 40k  years to make another massive leap fundamentally tied to our experience..and this second appearence of a more elaborate consciousness derived framework is the death knell for literally every other living thing on earth, possibly even the earth, itself..in a sense.

More irrelevant bunk. Our brains are complex and a side effect of that complexity is human consciousness. You have not shown that human consciousness actually does anything, and is anything more than a byproduct, and there is very much evidence to the contrary.

All you have is your own incredulity... and how it seems to you personally that consciousness must be doing something. Sorry, but I don't care how you feel, I care about the actual evidence and the distinction between behaving conscious and actually being conscious, a distinction that appears to be completely beyond you. You merely assume that consciousness has evolutionary utility, and that consciousness is required for civilization and art, without any evidence to support that, and despite all evidence to the contrary. I provided a Strawson quote to point out how consciousness isn't required for those things, and like all my points you completely ignored Strawson's point as well.

That sounds like an awfully big effect, for an effect with no effects.

Another strawman and begging the question. Like I already admitted, consciousness doesn't have no effects whatsoever, it just has no useful effects. Obviously to talk about consciousnes we must be conscious. But there's no evidence that it has any effect on decision making, and there's evidence to the contrary. Futhermore, your claim that consciousness is required for civilization and art, is a claim that is completely unsupported. And by stating that art is perceptual you are simply begging the question. As I said, only the phenomenal objects of art are required for it, by definition, and the whole point is there's no reason to believe that objects of art couldn't exist without phenomenology or qualia at all.

My point still stands that you're not worth discussing with. I wanted to finish responding to that post, since you edited more stuff in, but it was still just more irrelevant strawmanning bullshit. You even made a very clear strawman by saying that consciousness isn't effects without any effects. I never said it was. In fact, in my OP I said the opposite: It was one of my core claims. You didn't even bother to quote and respond to my clear laid out points in my OP, that I laid out concisely line by line at the end of my OP.

You are not someone worth discussing with. You don't even interact with people properly in a debate. Bye.