why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?

[bennyboy]

There are a variety of evolutionary strategies.  Are you denying that consciousness is one of them?

We determine that the things we take to be real are real to whatever extent by taking a pragmatic, trial-and-error approach.  That approach has given us science and logic, since they work.  My construct of a mind in a body is based on observations, and my assertions regarding them are the simplest explanations in my opinion.  They also have the benefit of avoiding the qualia problem of consciousness studies.

I am not a philosopher, and I don't think a philosopher's ideal of absolute knowledge is relevant to what is most probably correct.  If you really think we are brains in vats, you have the burden of proof.

You speak pretty confidently. Okay, let's walk through this. First of all, given any system-- a computer, a highly-complex organism on a planet near Alpha Centauri, or a human brain-- how do you establish whether it is conscious or not? You know. . . using trial-and-error, observations, and so on?

How do you differentiate, scientifically, between a "real" subjective agent and a philosophical zombie-- a machine which simulates all the behaviors of a real subjective agent, but which has no more actual subjective experience than a rock? And actually, this is a non-trivial issue, unless you want perhaps within this lifetime to accept constitutional recognition to a billion Google-bots which smile at your dumb jokes and know what you want for breakfast before you do.

Second, given that 100% of your "objective" observations are necessarily made through the agency of mind, on what basis do you establish that the reality about which you are so confident consists of anything more than mind? Why do you choose a materialist monism rather than an idealistic one?

So far as I can tell, there is no scientific theory which explains why any system is conscious rather than not. The evolutionary narrative "Well, it's here, so must be evolution" is a cop-out. First you have to demonstrate that it is in fact here. So. . . how do you demonstrate that there is such a thing as consciousness at all, in order that it may sensibly be studied? Because if you cannot demonstrate consciousness to be a real thing, then you might as well say "Evolution. . . so unicorns were inevitable!"\

As for probability-- how do you attach probability to a philosophical position? From whence comes your sample? Compared to what other philosophical positions would you weigh such a position?