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

[Edwardo Piet]

I find Hammy's mannerisms in these discussions interesting.  That's how I manage it.

You have not shown that human consciousness actually does anything,

I certainly don't think that it's a free willing machine...and I guess if I limited what I would consider "doing anything" to being a free willing machine it would be easy for me to conclude that consciousness was, therefore, useless.  I don't have such a narrow definition of evolutionary utility, though.

You have not shown that it has any utility at all... evolutionary or otherwise. All I can concede is perhaps the fact we can have a conversation about it is the only effect (although the fact so many people fail to address it properly makes me wonder... and it reminds me of the jokes that perhaps Dennett is a philosophical zombie unlike the rest of us). If you want to call that a useful effect then go for it. But an evolutionary effect or any especially useful effect? You have not demonstrated any such thing. And how could you? Like I said, a behaviorally indistinguishable philosophical zombie can be conceived and that is precisely because it doesn't appear that consciousness is actually doing anything. If it was clear what consciousness did... such a zombie couldn't be conceived. And that is the point.

If I like to fuck real girls more than I like to fuck dolls....then the selective advantage of consciousness is demonstrated. 

That's a total non-sequitur that doesn't demonstrate anything about consciousness. A philosophical zombie could like to fuck real girls more than dolls. You are repeatedly missing the point.

I think consciousness contributes more than that, but that would be all that was required to reject the idea that consciousness is an effect without effects, or an effect without selectively relevant effects.

Let alone more than that, you haven't demonstrated that consciousness even demonstrates that... or how it could even demonstrate that.

You are simply begging the question by saying the equivalent "Of course you need consciousness for that and of course you need conciousness for art."

A robot could fuck a real a girl or produce art.

Are you building qualia into the definition of 'like' and hence begging the question perhaps? Hm?

Conveniently, I do prefer real girls..so... -shrug-..............?

Irrelevant.

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.

Oh, cmon, that can't be entirely true.  You're an empathetic guy, you probably care..at least a little bit..how I feel. 

What I'm clearly saying is it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

You might even be able to imagine yourself in my shoes. 

Actually that is something I can't do but I can spot your logical errors.

I make many assumptions..such as the necessary assumption of your consciousness in any empathetic analysis..commonly thought to be a selective advantage in populations capable of managing it.  I don;t actually make the assumption that consciousness is required for civilization, though I do note that our consciousness has contributed immensely to ours..and our civilization is widely regarded as a selective advantage for our species.  

You have not shown that any of those things require consciousness.

At least some of those effects seem to be selectively advantageous, even though there are other ways to achieve a similar effect.

You have not demonstrated that any of that has anything to do with consciousness or any way requires consciousness.

---

Here's an interesting question....though, about your main area of interest.

How can a wing be?

It evolved. Is this the part where you introduce your false analogy again? Wings demonstrably do something, but consciousness doesn't demonstrably do anything.