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

[The Grand Nudger]

It's useless as the scientific experiments show... that people make all their decisions before they are conscious of them.

My issue with Dennett is that he at best defines his ontology in a ridiculous overly pramgatic way that only deals with reality when he thinks it is useful (putting him in the yucky Jordan Peterson camp) and at worst he makes a categorical logical error by equivocating on two different definitions of "real". And he makes the total non-sequitur that because conscious experience is a "user illusion" that subjectivitiy itself isn't really there. Which is just a total non-sequtiur and subjective experience is the one thing that MUST be real. He says there is no real seeming, but that is more absurd than saying there is no real objective universe.

Realtime control of decisions is not a requirement for usefulness.  I would suggest that you consider the benefits of reflective observation, memory, and long term planning..which don't necessarily inform our immediate actions, but have a cumulative baseline setting effect on future action.

Oh right now it's back to your annoying tactic of saying you agree even when we plainly disagree. Literally, I don't care if you say you agree, you're saying things I disagree with, so we don't agree whether you like it or not. We may agree on one point, but we fundamentally disagree on many. And once again, you're being misleading. I am thoroughly convinced that you won the best debater category by fooling, misleading and stawmanning people because in a debate it's all your ever seem to fucking do. I'm not dense enough to miss it.

I think it's important to focus on the things we don't disagree about in a conversation about disagreement.   You and I both agree that there are a range of potential biological solutions to specific problems.  You and I agree that there may be other ways that some behavior x is achieved.  We do not agree on this summary of potential biological solutions and functional alternatives to consciousness as indicative of the uselessness of x.  

No I wouldn't consider it useless if it actually did... but it doesn't. Once again, you're being irrelevant and misleading. My point is that the scientific evidence supports consciousness not actually influencing behavior.

Is your support for this limited to being useful at realtime decisionmaking?  I agree that this is an interesting subject, we agree that consciousness plays far less of a role in that than it seems, or that we expected to find.  I'm cautioning against defining evolutionary utility so narrowly.  

Crap analogy. Scientific experiments don't show that flight or wings have no benefit.

We come to the first special pleading case.  Wing/flight is somehow different from brain/mind.

[Edwardo Piet]

Realtime control of decisions is not a requirement for usefulness.  I would suggest that you consider the benefits of reflective observation, memory, and long term planning..which don't necessarily inform our immediate actions, but have a cumulative baseline setting effect on future action.

They're all predetermined by prior unconscious causes, including unconscious aspects to the brain (as the experiments showed).

This 'control' you speak of... isn't control.

I think it's important to focus on the things we don't disagree about in a conversation about disagreement.

Fair enough but don't tell me I agree with things I clearly disagree with. If you can't spot the disagreement, that's not my problem.

   You and I both agree that there are a range of potential biological solutions to specific problems. 

So we both agree on something incredibly vague and trivally true that isn't even worse discussing you mean? The response to that is "DUH who doesn't?". Besides maybe a creationist.

You and I agree that there may be other ways that some behavior x is achieved.

Another incredibly vague trivially true and completely pointless point.

  We do not agree on this summary of potential biological solutions and functional alternatives to consciousness as indicative of the uselessness of x.

True, and that part is actually interesting and non-trivial. And my point is my position has evidence to back it up. I've also made a bunch of arguments, none of which you have addressed. All you do is strawman your opponent.  

Is your support for this limited to being useful at realtime decisionmaking? 

What decision making? Do you mean the illusion of decision making? That's something that really is an illusion.

I agree that this is an interesting subject, we agree that consciousness plays far less of a role in that than it seems, or that we expected to find.

It doesn't seem to play ANY role on our actual behavior... as the experiments show.

I'm cautioning against defining evolutionary utility so narrowly. 

Okay so here's the part where you make a blanket statement about me defining it narrowly when I never even defined it at all. We are both well aware that it's about genes maintaining and replicating themselves, we know how natural selection works. The point is that whilst it's not impossible for consciousness to be useful there's absolutely no evidence that it is, and yet there is evidence to the contrary and scientific evidence at that.

Why is it that arguing with you always seems to be a complete waste of time? Oh yeah, because every single time I make a point you don't even address it.

Crap analogy. Scientific experiments don't show that flight or wings have no benefit.

We come to the first special pleading case.  Wing/flight is somehow different from brain/mind.

Do I just need to repeat what I already said? I just said it's a crap analogy because scientific experiments don't show that flight or wings have no benefit, and I've said repeatedly that there's scientific experiments that show that consciousness has no benefit, and that's why your analogy is crap. And your response is to say that it's special pleading on my part when I literally just showed you why it isn't?

You're stupid but you're nowhere near stupid enough to misrepresent your opponent as frequently as you do... I'm just so convinced at this point that you're the least person on this forum worth having a debate with. Even Little Rik is better than you because although he spouts utter bollocks at least he doesn't have the intelligence to use in a deliberately specious way the way you do. You're the atheistic version of William Lane Craig. He's considered a good debater too. But you're both cretins.

Can't you just address my points correctly for once? Many people don't understand what I say but they at least try to, and they at least address what I say properly. You're so dishonest you've practically admitted it in the past, or at least you admitted that you weren't taking a whole debate we had seriously. Do you take anything seriously or are you just a sophisticated troll who is so misleading that many people don't spot what you're doing? To have a discussion, you have to actually interact with the other person's points. Strawmanning them constantly every single time and saying irrelevant shit every single time and telling people they agree with you when they don't.... it's all just dishonest tactics with you. You're a sophist.

[The Grand Nudger]

They're all predetermined by prior unconscious causes, including unconscious aspects to the brain (as the experiments showed).

This 'control' you speak of... isn't control.

Neither of us thinks that consciousness is controlling those things.  I'm only suggesting that defining the evolutionary utility of consciousness so narrowly ensures that you see it as useless, but only in that you've defined it to be so.

What decision making? Do you mean the illusion of decision making? That's something that really is an illusion.

Then it's not a valid criteria for judging the evolutionary utility of anything.  

It doesn't seem to play ANY role on our actual behavior... as the experiments show.

It would be interesting to see what those experiments are.  

Do I just need to repeat what I already said? I just said it's a crap analogy because scientific experiments don't show that flight or wings have no benefit, and I've said repeatedly that there's scientific experiments that show that consciousness has no benefit, and that's why your analogy is crap. And your response is to say that it's special pleading on my part when I literally just showed you why it isn't?

I don't think that they show that consciousness has no benefit, either.  They sometimes call into question benefits we assumed of consciousness....but that's not all that surprising, is it?  We thought there was a little man in there yanking levers, lol.  That's not how it works..or the benefit it provides. That, however, does not mean it utterly lacks any evolutionary utility.

You're stupid

Thanks, I always wondered but it's good to have confirmation. 

---

Here, try this question.  If you had to point to a single thing that, in your opinion (or..you know stats or whatevs) is the single greatest thing as far as preserving or advantaging human genetics..what would it be?

I'll get you started off, no wrong answers. Let's say...opposable thumbs, or an upright stance. Perhaps the creation of art and the communication of personal experience in language. Or, maybe, sanitation....vaccination, or roads.

Things like that.

[Angrboda]

On the contrary, the scientific evidence actually supports the idea that consciousness doesn't do anything useful. For starters there's the scientific experiments I mentioned. And that's just the start.

Take a look at this for example:

Moving from the how to the why, Dennett suggests that we can give an evolutionary explanation of why conscious experience exists: it exists because it has survival value. It is, however, a notorious fact that it is not yet possible to give a direct evolutionary explanation of the existence of conscious experience. This may seem very implausible. It may seem obvious that vision, say, has survival value. But a creature could enjoy all the benefits of vision without having any actual, conscious visual experience. It could have light-sensitive organs that enabled it to register information about its environment without having any visual experience (machines that do this can be easily constructed). The same can be said about pain. Experience of pain seems obviously useful because it motivates one to avoid sources of damage. But the tendency to avoid sources of damage could evolve without involving pain. Damage-recognition mechanisms could trigger damage-source-avoidance behaviour without there having to be any actual feeling of  pain, or any other sort of experience. Perhaps some actual organisms on earth are like this.

Strawson is simply begging the question here. Perhaps it's possible, perhaps it isn't. He doesn't know. Anyway, Khemikal's point is valid here, even if an alternative implementation is possible, that says nothing about the actual implementation, nor about it's relative position within naturally occurring selective pressures and the phenotypic space in play.

Then again, maybe I don't want to be a part of this discussion after all....

[Edwardo Piet]

On the contrary, the scientific evidence actually supports the idea that consciousness doesn't do anything useful. For starters there's the scientific experiments I mentioned. And that's just the start.

Take a look at this for example:

Strawson is simply begging the question here.  Perhaps it's possible, perhaps it isn't.  He doesn't know.  Anyway, Khemikal's point is valid here, even if an alternative implementation is possible, that says nothing about the actual implementation, nor about it's relative position within naturally occurring selective pressures and the phenotypic space in play.

Then again, maybe I don't want to be a part of this discussion after all....

How is that begging the question? He's merely claiming it's possible in principle and we can't know that it isn't.

And again, the whole point is that the scientific evidence appears to support it. I merely quoted that to point out that consciousness isn't necessary to do some of the things required, then Khem jumps to the fact that that's how it's done in this case. So what? That wasn't my point. My point is it isn't required, and consciousness itself doesn't appear to actually be doing anything.

---

Neither of us thinks that consciousness is controlling those things.  I'm only suggesting that defining the evolutionary utility of consciousness so narrowly ensures that you see it as useless, but only in that you've defined it to be so.

Redefining consciousness says nothing about the actual consciousness we already know to exist, I've already laid out clearly the mistakes Dennett is making.. all of which you haven't addressed. I'm tired of all this bullshit about folk psychology... Dennett can make up his own definition of consciousness and talk about the things that can be known about the brain as much as he likes: it doesn't actually say anything about the consciousness that we do know to exist being illusory.

Then it's not a valid criteria for judging the evolutionary utility of anything. 

What are you talking about? You're the one who is claiming that consciousness has utility. 

It would be interesting to see what those experiments are.

The famous free will experiments that there have been multiple of that show that as much as 7 seconds before a decision is made, the unconscious aspects of the brain have already made that decision.

I don't think that they show that consciousness has no benefit, either.  They sometimes call into question benefits we assumed of consciousness....but that's not all that surprising, is it?  We thought there was a little man in there yanking levers, lol.  That's not how it works..or the benefit it provides.  That, however, does not mean it utterly lacks any evolutionary utility.

Again you're just talking about irrelevant shite again. The experiments precisely indicate that the unconscious aspects of the brain were already firing and making your decisions for you before you were aware of them.

Thanks, I always wondered but it's good to have confirmation. 

More disingenuous crap.

Here, try this question.  If you had to point to a single thing that, in your opinion (or..you know stats or whatevs) is the single greatest thing as far as preserving or advantaging human genetics..what would it be?

What's with the irrelevant question? Oh yeah, you love being totally irrelevant.

"advancing human genetics" talk about vague. Advance in what way? Are you just talking about spreading DNA? What the fuck has that got to do with anything? What are you, a social darwinist? No of course not. You're just being disingenuous and irrelevant again.

A load of vague, irrelevant crap, strawmanning bullshit, pretending to agree with me and then showing aggreement on extremely obvious crap everyone agrees with, while avoiding the actual important non-trival issues we disagree on. Or at least, not fucking trially true and boring. It's all just dodging and sophistry with you. Can I please discuss with someone who actually responds to me properly?

I'll get you started off, no wrong answers.  Let's say...opposable thumbs, or an upright stance.  Perhaps the creation of art and the communication of personal experience in language.  Or, maybe, sanitation....vaccination, or roads.

Things like that.

More irrelevant crap.

Wake me up when you actually address my arguments. Bah.

[Foxaèr]

I guess it's begging the question in the same way it is when theist make claims that god's existence is possible in principle while we cannot know that it isn't.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well you're simply wrong. It's not begging the question to note that a possibility is possible. That's not what begging the question is. Even Jor knows that, and yet she completely missed it. The quote I quoted wasn't Strawson trying to prove anything. I quoted that to point out to Khem that consciousness isn't required to do those things... the fact we have to experience those things that way is irrelevant to the whole point. The philosophical zombie argument is about the possibility of them, no one is saying that anyone is actually a zombie (except Dennett because he redefines stuff and acts like he's also addressing the original point when he can't be because he's redefined it).

---

Strawson is simply begging the question here.  Perhaps it's possible, perhaps it isn't.  He doesn't know

Which makes you sound like a theist if you think there's a problem with admitting you don't know. Ironic really.

You know what begging the question is, so you should know that he's not doing it. You have to actually try and prove X in order to beg X.

[Angrboda]

Yeah, I definitely don't want to be a part of this.

[Edwardo Piet]

I guess it's begging the question in the same way it is when theist make claims that god's existence is possible in principle while we cannot know that it isn't.

He's the one saying he doesn't know... no question is being begged. And Khem is the one who can't differentiate between the fact that consciousness happens to coincide with behavior and the fact that that behavior could in principle go along without consciousness because consciousness doesn't appear to actually be doing anything.

It's not begging the question when you miss the point being made. To beg the question is to say the equivalent of X is X because X is X.

In case you don't know:

To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy, in which an arguer makes an argument that requires the desired conclusion to be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden or at least not easily apparent.

The term "begging the question", as it is usually phrased, originated in the 16th century as a mistranslation of the Latin petitio principii, which actually translates to "assuming the initial point".

[from wikipedia]

Ironically it's not me or Strawson who is assuming an initial point here. The whole point that is being addressed here is there's a difference between how things happen to coincide and asking why it coincides. And there's a difference between us being conscious as we behave and consciousness actually usefully interacting with our behavior. Obviously, we consciously see stuff. The whole point is that it's in principle possible to be able to have that function without the consciousness. The fact we happen to be conscious and consciously see stuff is missing the entire point. Ironically, it's begging the question to say that it has to be that way just because that's the way it is. It evolved that way, but the question is does consciousness actually do anything useful? Because it doesn't seem to, it seems to just be a byproduct of the brain, as the evidence appears to indicate.

I say that a moth's navigation system is useful but it has the unfortunate byproduct of making a moth suicide itself... there's no evolutionary benefit from suicidal moth behavior. The navigation system has the evolutionary benefit, and the suicidal behavior of moths on lamps is just a byproduct of that navigation system that has a benefit.

I then say that the brain, in the same way, has an evolutionary benefit. And consciousness itself is just a useless byproduct. Evolution evolves many things that are useless, but are byproducts of another feature that is useful, but that byproduct isn't harmful enough to the creature for it to be evolved away.

And Khem's response to this is to basically say "But the moth navigation system is useful though". How pathetic is that? The whole point was that yes that is useful but suiciding yourself on a lamp isn't. Khem completely missed the whole analogy. He does this so often I'm convinced it must be on purpose because while he's not exactly a genius he's not that stupid. And it's multiple forms of sophistry going on at once. That's why it's so frustrating. I'd like to discuss with someone who actually addresses what I'm saying.

And if someone is going to assert that a question is being begged... at least point out what question is supposedly being begged. I'm laying out arguments here and it seems like everyone is afraid of actually interacting with them. I'm talking of scientific evidence, and no one wants to talk about it. This thread was supposed to be interesting, and unfortunately I just ended up getting strawmanned by Khem as per bloody usual. To debate with me you have to address my actual points.

It's so tiresome to have to hear the same crap, irrelevant statements and misrepresentations over and over again after I've laid out an actual argument. Maybe I shouldn't have bothered... but I'm still waiting for someone more interesting and intellectually honest to show up.

[Foxaèr]

I'll take your word for it. I tend to leave the big stuff like this to you guys. I'm good with the smaller religious arguments, but to delve into such complexity has never been my forte.