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

[The Grand Nudger]

Psh, cmon bud, you know I don't fret over that kind of shit, no apology necessary.  In any case, the employment of the term computational competence was to separate that from consciousness even if only as a matter of categorization.  I think you're tilting at dennet like a windmill, but, as I've said, your issues with dennet are your issues with dennet.  Though it might be helpful for you to know that dennet likes to employ the terms competence and comprehension to differentiate between what we do subconsciously and what we do consciously. If you, for example..think that computational competence is not consciousness, well..you and dennet agree.

Our issue, the only thing I commented on in your op, is the notion of selective neutrality in the case of possession of consciousness.  I don't think it's useless, and I don't agree that such a conclusion follows from a one line item...even if that one line item means alot to us and is a subject of deep interest....even if that one line item was traditionally conceived of as the role of consciousness in the human organism.

It need not be -that-...to be useful, to confer advantage.  It need not be the only way to achieve whatever it does to confer advantage, and it very certainly could have evolved as a side effect of some other thing (like..say, computational competence and general intelligence).   Wings weren't intitially a flight adaptation, either. Flight..at some point, becomes a "mere side effect" of a particular type of wing...but if we limit biological utility of wings to flight then all swimming and flightless birds have useless wings.

That doesn't track with what we understand about selection or adaptation, at all. It's a function of tunnel vision, a narrow definition that excludes all other utility by fiat in favor of "control" or "free will". If all consciousness did was make you comparatively more fuckable..it would have evolutionary utility just like display feathers that can't fly. In order for the "science to be on your side" on the claim of selective neutrality, on the issue of evolutionary utility......consciousness could not, itself...whatever it is... be even partially responsible for any advantageous thing.

I sometimes like to joke that, if consciousness were the "free willing" mechanism we thought it was for so long... it might actually -be- deleterious.  It;s a good thing I can't choose or decide to stop my heart, for example.  Plenty of us would have done it out of incompetence, curiosity, sheer boredom, or just plain bad luck and fumbling mental button fingers....long, long ago.  That said, the benefits of a truly free agency might override that specific (hypothetical) risk, anyway.  Just as the benefits of a consciousness would appear to override the many inherent flaws in our perception thereof (or flaws in itself) and the many ways that a self consciousness works counter-productively in human populations (and privately, within the human organism).

Science, as you used for an example..seems at least partially dependent on consciousness (at least for now..)..and the posession of tools that can create something like that would -seem- to be immensely useful in propagating the humane genome. While consciousness may possess no computational utility (I doubt this as well..but I'm running with it to avoid truly useless disagreement), evolutionary utility is a whole different bag of worms, don't you think? Can you look at the civilization around you, all of it, all of human civilization...this monolithic edifice to human consciousness (however imperfectly described or known), and convince yourself that it conferred no reproductive advantages whatsoever?

[Edwardo Piet]

In any case, the employment of the term computational competence was to separate that from consciousness even if only as a matter of categorization.  I think you're tilting at dennet like a windmill, but, as I've said, your issues with dennet are your issues with dennet.  

That's a cop-out when you keep barely asserting his view without supporting it.

Though it might be helpful for you to know that dennet likes to employ the terms competence and comprehension to differentiate between what we do subconsciously and what we do consciously.

I know this already. I get the impression I'm a lot more familar with his work than you are.

 If you, for example..think that computational competence is not consciousness, well..you and dennet agree.

Yes we agree on that and it's irrelevant.

 
Our issue, the only thing I commented on in your op, is the notion of selective neutrality in the case of possession of consciousness.  I don't think it's useless, and I don't agree that such a conclusion follows from a one line item...even if that one line item means alot to us and is a subject of deep interest....even if that one line item was traditionally conceived of as the role of consciousness in the human organism.

Once again, you're being vague and unclear. Define what you mean by 'consciousness' before you can pretend you're saying something about all forms of consciousness at once. Quit being equivocal.

Consciousness as normally defined, as qualia, does indeed seem to be useless. Dennett isn't wrong per se to come up with an alternative definition, but to deny qualia itself is batshit crazy. And I've already explained the mistakes he is making. Which you, again, haven't addressed.

It need not be -that-...to be useful, to confer advantage. 

Again, this isn't helpful at all. You're being vague and unclear once again. What is this 'it' you speak of?

You appear to be barely asserting Dennett's view whilst at the same time saying my issue with Dennett is with Dennett. If you're attempting to support Dennett's view of consciousness, then be clear that is what you are doing. Yes, there's a difference between computational consciousness and computational competence. That doesn't address anything I've said. I never said otherwise. And yes, I agree with Dennett on that point. I wasn't talking about that and it has nothing to do with my actual argument. Are you going to address my argument or are you going to keep being irrelevant, vague and strawman what I'm actually saying?

What do you mean by consciousness? Do you mean what Dennett means by it? Because if so 1) You aren't addressing any of my arguments in the OP 2) You haven't been clear on whether you deny qualia like Dennett does.

You say my issues with Dennett are my issues with Dennett, but if you're going to vaguely speak of the same sort of thing, without being clear about it, and if you're going to seem like you're supporting his view, without being clear that that is what you are in fact doing. Then 1) Be clear about it. 2) My issues with Dennett are then relevant because it's helpful to know where you depart from him.

It need not be the only way to achieve whatever it does to confer advantage, and it very certainly could have evolved as a side effect of some other thing (like..say, computational competence and general intelligence).   Wings weren't intitially a flight adaptation, either.  Flight..at some point, becomes a "mere side effect" of a particular type of wing...but if we limit biological utility of wings to flight then all swimming and flightless birds have useless wings.

Again this is all just an irrelevant digression. You still have no evidence of consciousness as normally understood, as qualia, being useful. And that's what my argument is about. I don't deny that parts of the brain that aren't consciousness can be useful and can be labelled as 'consciousness'.

You're very vague and unclear and you're not actually addressing my arguments. You'e just stating irrelevant facts, and being unclear what your actual view is, without even supporting it.

What do you mean by 'consciousness'? Do you mean qualia, do you mean subjective experience, or do you mean 'something else'?

That doesn't track with what we understand about selection or adaptation, at all.  It's a function of tunnel vision, a narrow definition that excludes all other utility by fiat in favor of "control" or "free will".  If all consciousness did was make you comparatively more fuckable..it would have evolutionary utility just like display feathers that can't fly.  In order for the "science to be on your side" on the claim of selective neutrality, on the issue of evolutionary utility......consciousness could not, itself...whatever it is... be even partially responsible for any advantageous thing.  

More irrelevant stuff. Again, all the evidence indicates that our brains can do these things without consciousness. Conciousness doesn't appear to be doing anything. The entire point of my Strawson quote was to point that out. There's no reason to believe that consciousness is actually doing anything... and in fact, the evidence points in the other direction. The burden of proof is clearly in your camp.

I sometimes like to joke that, if consciousness were the "free willing" mechanism we thought it was for so long... it might actually -be- deleterious.  It;s a good thing I can't choose or decide to stop my heart, for example.  Plenty of us would have done it out of incompetence, curiosity, sheer boredom, or just plain bad luck and fumbling mental button fingers....long, long ago.  That said, the benefits of a truly free agency might override that specific (hypothetical) risk, anyway.  Just as the benefits of a consciousness would appear to override the many inherent flaws in our perception thereof (or flaws in itself) and the many ways that a self consciousness works counter-productively in human populations (and privately, within the human organism).  

What free-willing mechanism? There is no such mechanism. Is this the part where you're going to equivocate again and start rambling irrelevantly about compatabilist free will which we already both believe in? (although it's clearly unhelpful and misleading to call that "free will" which is why I'm not a compatabilist).

Science, as you used for an example..seems at least partially dependent on consciousness (at least for now..)..and the posession of tools that can create something like that would -seem- to be immensely useful in propagating the humane genome.  While consciousness may possess no computational utility (I doubt this as well..but I'm running with it to avoid truly useless disagreement), evolutionary utility is a whole different bag of worms, don't you think?

There's no evidence that consciousness actually does anything. It's not dependent on consciousness... my point is there's no evidence that science tests anything but consciousness. There's no evidence of an objective world outside of consciousness.

If everything is consciousness, then sure, consciousness does something because everything 'does' something. My point is that consciousness as we experience it as humans, doesn't appear to be required. The brain seems to do all the work without the stuff we're aware of. Being aware doesn't seem to do anything.

If the intrinsic nature of matter is consciousness, that doesn't mean the fact it is conscious actually does anything.... the intrinsic nature of matter could have been unconsciousness, and consciousness wouldn't exist anywhere... and it wouldn't appear to make a difference. If brains weren't conscious they would appear to be able to do exactly the same things as they do, just without the consciousness, that's my point. Creatures could react to being attacked and respond to danger without actually experiencing the feeling of pain. This is the entire point of the Strawson quote. Why are you missing it? As to Jor's point of him begging the question, on the contrary. The shoe is very much on the other foot. By saying that "consciousness just is how we see stuff" you're just begging the question. The point is our eyes could in principle do everything useful evolutionary without the consciousness. My question is what does consciousness actually do? It does indeed appear to be the intrinsic nature of the seeing, it doesn't appear to actually be a function. It doesn't appear to actually be doing anything useful. Thoughts have no consequences. Literally the only thing seems to be the fact that we are talking about it. But then moths also kill themselves on lamp shades. The point is consciousness just seems to be a by product and doesn't perform any important function. You could in principle have eyes that are just as useful without the experience of seeing anything. So what if we do happen to see things? So what if we have happened to evolve this way? That entirely ignores my point. How things are in practice is an entirely different matter to how they could be in principle, and whether consciousness is actually performing any useful function.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't think that the investigations of science leverage our conscious experience, or that the production of art and culture in our population is derived from that exeperience?  You see no particular physical attraction in a conscious agent that is otherwise not present in a doll?

These would be things that consciousness is doing, or if you prefer contributing to in the context of evolutionary biology. Are they computationally useful? Maybe not. Does it grant you "free will"..neither of us thinks so. Are they selectively advantageous? Take a look around you, you tell me.

[Edwardo Piet]

 While consciousness may possess no computational utility (I doubt this as well..but I'm running with it to avoid truly useless disagreement), evolutionary utility is a whole different bag of worms, don't you think?  Can you look at the civilization around you, all of it, all of human civilization...this monolithic edifice to human consciousness (however imperfectly described or known), and convince yourself that it conferred no reproductive advantages whatsoever?

No I couldn't but I never said otherwise and that doesn't interact with any of my points or analogies. The point is that consciousness as qualia, doesn't appear to have any evolutionary utility, I'm not denying that obviously many other things have evolutionary utility. The point is precisely that the things that do have evolutionary utility appear to have all that utility without qualia and qualia doesn't appear to have any evolutionary utility at all... despite it being the most real thing in the universe.

---

You don't think that the investigations of science leverage our conscious experience, or that the production of art and culture in our population is derived from that exeperience?  You see no particular physical attraction in a conscious agent that is otherwise not present in a doll?

They aren't derived from our experience, they're examples of our experience. If objective reality exists outside our experience we by definition can't experience it.

Obviously our brains could do all that art without any qualia at all. That is my entire point.

These would be things that consciousness is doing, or if you prefer contributing to in the context of evolutionary biology.

No, no qualia required for any of that. I've already illustrated that with the Strawson quote.

 Are they computationally useful?  Maybe not.  Does it grant you "free will"..neither of us thinks so.  Are they selectively advantageous?  Take a look around you, you tell me.

That's all irrelevant. The point is that qualia doesn't appear to be performing any function. The brain could want to be an artist without there being any conscious experience involved. In the same way that a non-conscious robot could be programmed by humans to create art.... humans could have been programmed by evolution to happen to go in that direction (no intention involved in nature itself of course) via natural selection.... without the qualia. Take our qualia away and we get no experience of art, but we get us engagining in art without experiencing it. We get unconscious desires and plans instead of conscious ones. You're just making my point for me there.

Take consciousness away and nothing seems to change besides our not talking about it and our not experiencing it. Everything else seems to be the same (just without the seeming ).

[The Grand Nudger]

 While consciousness may possess no computational utility (I doubt this as well..but I'm running with it to avoid truly useless disagreement), evolutionary utility is a whole different bag of worms, don't you think?  Can you look at the civilization around you, all of it, all of human civilization...this monolithic edifice to human consciousness (however imperfectly described or known), and convince yourself that it conferred no reproductive advantages whatsoever?

No I couldn't but I never said otherwise and that doesn't interact with any of my points or analogies. The point is that consciousness as qualia, doesn't appear to have any evolutionary utility,

You do realize that you just contradicted yourself from sentence to sentence...right?

I'm not denying that obviously many other things have evolutionary utility. The point is precisely that the things that do have evolutionary utility appear to have all that utility without qualia and qualia doesn't appear to have any evolutionary utility at all... despite it being the most real thing in the universe.

......reproductive advantage is evolutionary utility.  Art, society, civilization is evolutionary utility.  The latter advantages us as a population, the former advantages us -within- a population.  If you can conclude that some portion of any of that is derived from consciousness (however you define or describe it..I could maintain that consciousness was a ghostly soul and it wouldn't alter the evolutionary utility of that x)......then consciousness is not useless...in an evolutionary context.

[Edwardo Piet]

You do realize that you just contradicted yourself from sentence to sentence...right?

Only if you equivocate. When I'm talking on two different levels, there's no contradiction.

Imagine a piece of art, say a painting... is it really a 'painting' if it doesn't look like a painting, doesn't feel like a painting, and isn't experienced by anyone or anything at all? I would say no, so I would say that paintings don't exist without people to experience them. But whatever equivalent object exists in the place of a painting, in the objective world, still exists, and can be interacted with, if an objective world exists outside of our experience, and if our experience didn't exist.

That's what i mean when I say we could still do art, and we could still paint paintings even though the painting wouldn't exactly be a 'painting'. The thing in itself would be there, but a 'painting' as we know it, obviously wouldn't be there to be experienced. It's the phenomenal object that wouldn't exist, the noumenal object would still exist.

......reproductive advantage is evolutionary utility.  Art, society, civilization is evolutionary utility. 

And none of those things require consciousness.

The latter advantages us as a population, the former advantages us -within- a population.  If you can conclude that some portion of any of that is derived from consciousness (however you define or describe it..I could maintain that consciousness was a ghostly soul and it wouldn't alter the evolutionary utility of that x)......then consciousness is not useless...in an evolutionary context.

I'm not concluding that. Consciousness as qualia appears to provide no evolutionary or reproductive (obviously reproductive is evolutionary utility. There you go stating irrelevant truths I already know as if it interacts with my point when it doesn't again) function or utility. Other things do provide utility, but you take away qualia and you don't appear to lose any utility at all. How many times do I have to point out Strawson's point without you addressing it? How many times do I have to point out multiple points without you addressing them?

You're terrible at winning arguments, and merely good at convincing people that you've won them. You need to actually interact with what I'm saying to actually refute me. I'm here fully open to being refuted because if I'm wrong I want to be shown to be wrong. But if you have any chance in hell you've got to at least start by interacting with my points.

But this is more for your benefit than mine, my arguing with you, as you are surely not even close to up to the task, and you misrep and go on irrelevant digressions so often that it seems like you're being unhelpful on purpose and just trying to hope gullible people who can't understand what you're saying will believe your conclusions, despite the fact your points don't even interact with mine.

I may put you on block eventually so people like Rob can actually have a proper discussion with me more easily with me. Feel free to post on the thread and I'll keep responding to you for now, despite the fact it's 99% of me taking your disingenuous foot out of my mouth.... but if I block you again eventually (because you're basically a troll doing highly undetectable trolling as far as I'm concerned. You're , like I said, an atheistic William Lane Craig)..... you're of course welcome on the thread. It is indeed against the rules to control who participates in a thread. Although I don't think you even deserve to post on these forums, and if I could prove what you're doing, I would. But I can't so I won't. Post here as much as you like, but you may end up having to discuss with other people who post here. Because eventually I may get bored of arguing with someone who is deliberately obfuscating as much as possible.

Sure, it may not be on purpose. But then what is causing your repeated sophism? Your repeated misrepping me anytime we disagree? Your repeated irrelevant statements? Your jumping on an apparent contradiction immediately even when I'm obviously not stupid enough to do that and obviously must have been talking on two levels. When are you going to actually address any of my points? Rob has already done it. Even Jor addressed what Strawson said, she just got things backwards because if anyone is begging the question it is the other side by assuming that consciousness has a function. I ask for the evidence that consciousness has a function, and mention evidence to the contrary, and I get the equivalent of "But of course it has a function". Hence why you're begging the question. Not interested in your incredulity. Try and address my points and argue against them.

Maybe it's because you haven't got an argument, lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

And none of those things require consciousness.

You don't think that art, society, and civilization (or human relationships)...in human populations....... are derived from and dependent on conscious experience, the communication of conscious experience, and the organization of conscious experience?  

You keep saying that these things don't require consciousness, that may or may not be true, but so what?  So what if there are other ways to x?  

I'm not concluding that. Consciousness as qualia appears to provide no evolutionary or reproductive (obviously reproductive is evolutionary utility. There you go stating irrelevant truths I already know as if it interacts with my point when it doesn't again) function or utility. Other things do provide utility, but you take away qualia and you don't appear to lose any utility at all. How many times to I have to point out Strawson's point without you addressing it? How many times do I have to point out multiple points without you addressing them?

If you take away qualia (whatever that is) you take away a fundamental difference between an ant colony and a human civilization....so, you know, it seems like it might strip a few advantages from us..even if some other creature (or even a non biological) might be able to do it or something at least vaguely similar without that perception.

Are you more attracted to dolls or unconscious human beings than conscious human beings? Do those descriptions of qualia as art or communication..or collectively as culture and civilization, reproductively advantage human beings?

[Edwardo Piet]

And none of those things require consciousness.

You don't think that art, society, and civilization (or human relationships)...in human populations....... are derived from and dependent on conscious experience, the communication of conscious experience, and the organization of conscious experience?  

Why would they be? You don't get Strawson's point at all do you?

You keep saying that these things don't require consciousness, that may or may not be true, but so what?  So what if there are other ways to x?  

So then my point is correct. What do you mean "so what?"? My entire point is that consciousness doesn't appear to have a function... and the evidence supports that. And remember, I'm talking about consciousness as qualia, so make sure you don't equivocate on that.

If you take away qualia (whatever that is) you take away a fundamental difference between an ant colony and a human civilization....so, you know, it seems like it might strip a few advantages from us..even if some other creature (or even a non biological) might be able to do it or something at least vaguely similar without that perception.

Taking away qualia is taking away the seeming, away the subjective experience.

The entire point is our brains didn't have to evolve with conscious experience. Yes, our brains have evolved to have conscious experience, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence that consciousness is providing any function, and there appears to actually be evidence to the contrary. So, this makes behavioral philosophical zombies possible.

And this is all just the zombie matter, I've got two other things I addressed that I wanted to talk about on this thread. So-called "radical emergence" and the possibility of evidence of the non-experiential.

---

Are you more attracted to dolls or unconscious human beings than conscious human beings?  Do those descriptions of qualia as art or communication..or collectively as culture and civilization, reproductively advantage human beings?

I'm attracted to the idea that beings are conscious... whether they're actually conscious or not. But again, that's completely irrelevant (I'm also attracted to water sports but what the fuck does that have to do with consciousness? ). What I'm attracted to is irrelevant. And creatures can be attracted without consciousness.

[The Grand Nudger]

So then my point is correct. What do you mean "so what?"? My entire point is that consciousness doesn't appear to have a function... and the evidence supports that. And remember, I'm talking about consciousness as qualia, so make sure you don't equivocate on that.

Your point, and I'm being generous in calling it that, is that consciousness doesn't serve a particular function that you obsess over.  It's a point on which we're in agreement, but not a point that supports a lack of -evolutionary- utility.

Taking away qualia is taking away the seeming, away the subjective experience.

Yeah, the shit we paint on canvass and then seek to instantiate in the world.  The shit we form elaborate ethical and legal systems around.  What we kill and die for.  

Selectively neutral?

The entire point is our brains didn't have to evolve with conscious experience. Yes, our brains have evolved to have conscious experience, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence that consciousness is providing any function, and there appears to actually be evidence to the contrary. So, this makes behavioral philosophical zombies possible.

If that was the entire point you could stop at that..but you didn't because it isn't.  You've been asserting that there is no evolutionary utility to consciousness.  That seems highly unlikely regardless of what consciousness is, how we arrive at it, or whatever else it doesn't do...or whether or not some legitimate philosophical zombie could achieve something similar some other way. I also agree that consciousness did';t have to evolve in the brain..but whatever it is, it did, and we've been leveraging it to tremendous effect ever since.

[Edwardo Piet]

Do those descriptions of qualia as art or communication..or collectively as culture and civilization, reproductively advantage human beings?

Again, you're equivocating again. Art still exists without qualia unless you literally define art as artistic phenomenal objects... and in doing so, you say nothing about the noumenological objects, and you miss my entire point that phenomenal experience doesn't appear to perform a function.