why do we enjoy poetry From the perspective of neuroscience?

[bennyboy]

And yet I still think I just offered a probable explanation.  Go figure.

I would also suggest that consciousness is really just awareness filtered through a self-concept.  It is not a being at all, but a process of the body's brain.  So there is no actual subject aside from the body, as I said before.  That means the electrochemical events are necessarily experiences of brains in bodies, and are merely interpreted for content.

You seem not to be engaging with the philosophical questions that are being posed. You should take it for granted that we all know enough about the brain and evolution to understand your position.

What you aren't addressing are the important questions:
1) If science is about observation, what observations do you make to establish whether a given system does/doesn't have a subjective experience of reality?
2) Why is there any such thing as subjective experience in a material monist reality, in which all process are mechanistic?

You have said that awareness brings survival benefits. If by awareness, you mean the ability to process and interact with the environment, so as to maintain viability long enough to reproduce, fine-- but an advanced machine could do that. If by awareness, you mean the subjective knowledge of what things are like, then that is not really clear at all.

---

As far as I know, "philosophical zombies" are unknown in the real world.  Again, you have the burden of proof before I would deal with anyone as if they were such creatures.  As William James might say, what is the cash-value of such an idea?  How is it practical at all?

As far as you know, there is nothing BUT philosophical zombies. I'm not against taking a pragmatic approach to philosophy. If I felt that nobody else was really conscious, I could rape and pillage and generally have a great time of things. But I have the sense that people are conscious, and I act accordingly, and this defines my life.

The problem comes when you use that pragmatic assumption and attempt, as you are, to use it as the basis for proof or study of mind, because this is instantly and obviously self-referential: "Well, since I already know that all people are conscious, and that consciousness is in the brain, then when I study the brain, I'm studying the nature of consciousness." Yessssss, but. . . that circle is fine in and of itself, but not when you're attempting to access a level of truth one step beyond it-- like what is it about the Universe which is capable of sustaining consciousness at all, under any form? What, exactly, about the brain allows for consciousness-- is it certain chemistry, as you've asserted? Or is it certain kinds of self-referential information? Or do all energetic interchanges in the Universe represent some fundamental spark of awareness, as subtle to our senses as a single electron might be?

As for choosing material monism over idealism, that's a matter of probability.  The simplest explanation is the most probable.

I know I have consciousness, and assume since others are like me that they do too.  I don't have to prove it at all, since I typically avoid engaging philosophers with their thought experiments in pursuit of something I don't believe in -- their hypothesized absolute knowledge.

As I said above, I attach probabilities to philosophical positions based on their complexity.  I consider theism much less probable than atheism, for instance, since theism posits a whole other, spiritual level to reality which as far as I can see is unwarranted.  Similarly I dismiss alternative "brains in vats" scenarios and idealism as promoting unwarranted complexities.

Since everything from your perspective is experiential, then the simplest position is that reality is experiential. You have accepted quite a complex collection of philosophical assumptions in arriving at your "simplest explanation."