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

[The Grand Nudger]

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. 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.

Sure, they could do that, and that would describe the evolutionary utility of however -they- did that...not at all unlike the evolutionary utility of an ant colony.  

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.

Sure, and if it liked to fuck real girls more than dolls then being a real girl is selectively advantageous for the real girl.   

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."

Evolutionary utility isn't a matter of necessity.  It's a matter of what you do with what you've got.  You don't need a birds wings to take flight.., there are other ways to achieve that effect.  Nevertheless..if the way -you- do it involves wings...and taking flight is advantageous...that is a description of evolutionary utility.  

A robot could fuck a real a girl or art.

Yes..there are many evolutionary pathways to commonly advantageous behaviors and abilities.  This isn't a problem for any given representative apparatus.  

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.

I think that it's more important than it may seem.  AST posits consciousness as internal modeling, and also the ability to model other "selves".  If empathy is advantageous...and if consciousness is internal modeling...then this...again, is a description of evolutionary utility.  

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.

b-mine.

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

It;s the former..not the latter..I'm commenting on, and I simply don't agree.  Perhaps..though, you could suggest some specific advantage that you'd consider a credible answer?