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

[The Grand Nudger]

-as an addendum to the above.  We know that it must have happened -no later- than 50k years ago at full modernity.  We know that, in the space of the intervening 40k years..it;s derivative product became more complicated, more elaborate, more competent.  We know that by full sociological modernity...we were the apex species of the planet.

---

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...

If you say so...whether or not some other x can do art is..however, irrelevant to us.  We "do art" in our specifically human and perceptualyl conscious style.  Our art, our communication, our culture, our civilization..our personal relationships...all of it positively steeped in consciousness and extinction inducingly advantageous.  

Your perpetual rejoinder can be reduced to:  "There may be other ways to do this, and x can't even free will, therefore x is evolutionarily useless".  I consider this to be self evidently false.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, then that's our impasse. You don't think that these things are expressions of and derived from our experience. I can't see them as anything other-than.

You can't see Strawson's point.

I don't care whether you think consciousness has a function or not, but by saying it does when there's no evidence that it does, and there's evidence to the contrary, puts the burden of proof in your camp. To say that "in this case consciousness is how it's performed" just begs the question, because the entire point is that there's no evidence that it actually peforms a function, and you're just saying "Of course it does why can't you see that?" which isn't actually an argument.

You don't seem to understand the distinction between, for example, behaviorally reacting as if in pain when attacked, and having the subjective experience of pain, the qualia. The entire point is that creatures could behave the same way without the qualia, as there doesn't appear to be any evidence that qualia actually does anything... and there are some experiments with evidence to the contrary.

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.

You don't even understand my point, so I was being generous when I said you were being incredulous. Or perhaps, you do understand it but you're missing it on purpose because you're disingeuous.

There's a clear distinction, that you seem unable to spot. There's a difference between behaving as if conscious, and being consciousness. Yes, in our case, evolution has lead us to behaving the way we do, and then consciousnss is a by product. There is evidence, at least, of consciousness as a by product of other features.

Once again you're being vague, irrelevant and equivocal. It is not clear whatsoever what you mean by us agreeing that consciousness performs an evolutionary function but not evolutionary utility. You're just pretending to agree on certain points, or agreeing about trivial stuff we obviously agree on, to fake being reasonable, while pretending to make some other vague point that doesn't actually say anything. It is not clear at all what you mean by there being no function but there still being utility. And you have repeatedly ignored my question as to what you mean by consciousness.

Call it evolutionary function, call it evolutionary utility, I don't care. Either way, consciousness doesn't appear to have any use, or function. Consciousness as qualia, as I have repeatedly said (and you have repeatedly ignored my question as to what you mean by consciousness). You're supposed to be addressing mine. Now you've stopped rambling unclearly about computational consciousness and saying my issues with Dennett and my issues with Dennett, all while you appear to be talking about Dennett's version of consciousness... as soon as you've pretended to interact with my version of consciousness... the best you can do is vaguely say that you agree there is no function but you don't agree there is no utility.

Instead of being unclear and vague, say what you actually mean by that. There is no function or utility, for qualia, it seems to me, and it isn't just a matter of seeming. Again, you have no evidence that qualia does have a function, and again, the experiments show evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, the shit we paint on canvass and then seek to instantiate in the world. 

Again, you're not being clear whether you're talking about the phenomenal objects or noumenol objects.

You're just an equivocating mess if you carry on like this. Art would still exist as noumenal objects, but there obviously wouldn't be any phenomenol objects without conscious experience. Do you get what I'm actually saying here? If you don't understand, please say so.

The shit we form elaborate ethical and legal systems around.  What we kill and die for.  

Selectively neutral?

You really don't seem to understand what I'm saying at all. All that stuff could exist without qualia, it just wouldn't exist as objects of appearances. Paintings would still exist in one sense if no one was there to experience their painting them, because they'd still be able to paint without being aware of their painting it... the same way that a non-conscious robot could paint a painting without being aware of it.... and the 'painting' wouldn't actually exist as a painting to the robot. It wouldn't be what we see or know to be a painting, but it would be the noumenological equivalent of the same object that we, as conscious beings, see as a 'painting'.

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's what I just said. There's no evidence of it, and there's evidence to the contrary. The onus is on you to show that there is (I'm not expecting you to be capable of doing that). The point is that your position is most likely the incorrect one, and goes against the evidence. 

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.

If by "seems highly unlikely" you mean to you it does and you're incredulous in face of all evidence to the contrary, then sure. I'll take that as an admission of your own irrationality then. You haven't actually got an argument, all you've got is your own incredulity.

[The Grand Nudger]

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's what I just said. There's no evidence of it, and there's evidence to the contrary. The onus is on you to show that there is (I'm not expecting you to be capable of doing that). The point is that your position is most likely the incorrect one, and goes against the evidence. 

I present.....all of human civilization.  You don't think that's good enough to declare our conscious perception as selectively advantageous..but I really couldn't present a grander or more powerful example of something that is definitely -not- selectively neutral, that is a product of our conscious perceptions (defined however you want them to be).... so we're at an impasse.  

If by "seems highly unlikely" you mean you're incredulous in face of all evidence to the contrary, then sure. I'll take that as an admission of your own irrationality then. You haven't actually got an argument, all you've got is your own incredulity.

I was trying to be generous.  I could just call you a loon who's wedded to his anxieties about free will and other people being wrong about everything, lol.  I also find it unlikely that you could think that human culture and human civilization isn't advantageous, or that they are not..in human beings, a product of our conscious experiences.....but I've been wrong before.

[Edwardo Piet]

That's what I just said. There's no evidence of it, and there's evidence to the contrary. The onus is on you to show that there is (I'm not expecting you to be capable of doing that). The point is that your position is most likely the incorrect one, and goes against the evidence. 

I present.....all of human civilization.  You don't think that's good enough to declare our conscious perception as selectively advantageous..but I really couldn't present a grander or more powerful example of something that is definitely -not- selectively neutral, that is a product of our conscious perceptions (defined however you want them to be).... so we're at an impasse.  

You are simply begging the question here. My entire point was that that can happen without qualia, there's no evidence or reason to believe it can't, and there is evidence to the contrary.

You are doing the equivlanent of repeating "But it seems to me that human consciousness is special and does do something and it's required for civilization!" over and over. We are only at an 'impasse' because you don't understand Strawson's point.

I was trying to be generous.  I could just call you a loon who's wedded to his anxieties about free will and other people being wrong about everything, lol.

I do have a point. And you don't understand. I'm being generous by considering you a dishonest fuckwit, most likely. Because the truth of the matter appears to be that you're a dishonest fuckwit who is also inacapable of understanding some very simple points and distinctions.

Anyway, you have no argument. And that's clear. You just keep repeating your own increduility, flying in the face of the evidence.

What makes you think qualia has anything to do with human civilization, or is anything more than a byproduct of the unconscious aspects of the brain which is indeed useful? 

Is there any point in asking these questions if you're gonna repeat over and over the equivalent of "BUT DUH CONSCIOUSNESS IS REQUIRED FOR HUMAN CIVILIZATION!" You don't understand at all. It's clearly all entirely beyond your grasp.

I also find it unlikely that you could think that human culture and human civilization isn't advantageous, or that they are not..in human beings, a product of our conscious experiences.....but I've been wrong before.  

Those things are advantagous your moron. But no they are not a byproduct of conscious experience. Again, are you talking about them as phenomenal or noumenol objects? You are going to ignore that point again aren't you? (it's pathetic of you) .You're just barely asserting over and over that consciousness is required for them.

You completely ignored my point about the distinction between phenomenal and noumenal objects... after I said I'd explain it if you didn't understand that point. I'll have to conclude that you're too dense to understand it and ignored it because you're too embarrassed to admit that.

Obviously the phenomenal objects of civilization wouldn't exist, by definition, without consciousness... but the noumenal objects of civilization would. Once again, do you understand this? Or are you just going to ignore it because you don't? Do you know what the distinction I'm speaking of is? I'm happy to explain it to you don't know about it. Just let me know. You're clearly not up to the task for thinking about this sort of thing all on your tod.

---

but I've been wrong before.  

You're wrong frequently and attacking a strawman doesn't make you right, or smart.

---

-as an addendum to the above.  We know that it must have happened -no later- than 50k years ago at full modernity.  We know that, in the space of the intervening 40k years..it;s derivative product became more complicated, more elaborate, more competent.  We know that by full sociological modernity...we were the apex species of the planet.

Learn to be clear. Define you terms. Go beyond irrelevant equivocation and babbling.

If you say so...

Nope. It has nothing to do with me saying so. It has to do with me defining my terms clearly, and you not doing so, so you can switch back and forth between different definitions of the same thing. And you ignore the majority of what I say.

whether or not some other x can do art is..however, irrelevant to us.

How many times do I have to ask you whether you're talking about the phenomenal objects of art or the noumenal objects of art?

  We "do art" in our specifically human and perceptualyl conscious style.

You're talking about the phenomenal objects of art, and building "perceptual" and "conscious" into it as you're talking about it. Totally begging the question. Why can't you see all the fallacies you're making? Oh yeah, you're either stupid, dishonest or both. Seems to be clearly both.

  Our art, our communication, our culture, our civilization..our personal relationships...all of it positively steeped in consciousness and extinction inducingly advantageous.  

Again, if you're talking about the phenomenal objects of art... make that clear. Because if you are then you're begging the question and if you're not you're talking about things that are beyond experience and you don't actually know about.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too by not even being clear or defining your terms. Why do you even deserve to debate with me if I make my terms clear and you just attack my position without characterizing it accurately, and equivocate back and forth between different senses and bounce up and down between different levels (such as the noumenal and phenomenal level)?

No wonder you get voted as the best debater if no one else notices that you just debate from a double standard. You're just an equivocal mess. I am being clear, you are not, and you're attempting to use my clarity against me, because your own points are too vague to attack. It's pathetic.

Here's a challenge.... characterize my own position clearly for me in your own words, so we can see if you actually understand it. If you can do that, then it's clear you've been being dishonest because it will be the first time you've done it, and you clearly only characterized it fairly to give the illusion that you've been being fair the whole time when I can see that you haven't. If you don't characterize it fairly, then you just make it even more clear that you're not interacting with my actual position.

Define your terms. Be clear. Stop bouncing up and down like a turd.

Your perpetual rejoinder can be reduced to:  "There may be other ways to do this, and x can't even free will, therefore x is evolutionarily useless".  I consider this to be self evidently false.

You're being as bad as the theist when he builds God into the definition of what he's trying to prove. You're assuming the conclusion before even getting started. You're talking about art being necessarily consciously perceptual, which just assumes what you are supposed to be trying to prove. It's pathetic. You're supposed to show how it requires conscious perception, not talk about how it does and say that's proof that it does. Totally begs the question.

As I said the phenomenal objects of art and civilization obviously require conscious experience by definition. But the noumenal objects of art dont. And there's absolutely no evidence that phenomena does anything, it's just how noumenal reality is experienced. To a non-conscious robot, a painting it interacts with is only a noumenal object, it's not experienced as a 'painting' like it is to us.

I think you should just go and read some philosophy because you clearly don't seem to understand the distinctions I'm making as you're completely ignoring them.

[The Grand Nudger]

To a non-conscious robot, a painting it interacts with is only a noumenal object, it's not experienced as a 'painting' like it is to us.

-and?  

What does a robot and what it does (or doesn't do or experience) have to do with a human being, what it does or experiences, and what evolutionary advantages that conferred or contributed to?

Ostriches don't fly. That doesn't make their wings useless....nor would pointing to some bird that did fly..or even a creature that took to the air without wings, demonstrate that an ostriches wings were selectively neutral. Our art, our culture, our civilization, our ethics, our personal relationships are all colored by this thing we call experience. There may be other ways to derive some of this..all of it, but this was our way.

We might be the only creatures that possess it..at least in meaningfully human terms. Consider what an enormous coincidence it must have been that...after a few billion years of life slowly plugging along, with the appearance of a trait we recognize as a human consciousness 50k years ago (could have been earlier, hard to say..but no later),..the stage is set for the species in which that appears to utterly and completely outcompete every other species on the planet? It takes us a short 40k years to make another massive leap fundamentally tied to our experience..and this second appearence of a more elaborate consciousness derived framework is the death knell for literally every other living thing on earth, possibly even the earth, itself..in a sense.

That sounds like an awfully big effect, for an effect with no effects.

[Edwardo Piet]

To a non-conscious robot, a painting it interacts with is only a noumenal object, it's not experienced as a 'painting' like it is to us.

-and?  

What does a robot and what it does (or doesn't do or experience) have to do with a human being, what it does or experiences, and what evolutionary advantages that conferred or contributed to?

The fact you say "and?" to that shows you don't understand it.

Now you've regressed so far you're just cherrypicking half of a sentence in my gigantic post. You reply to 5% of what I say and don't even accurately address any of it.

You're getting worse. The amount of questions you've ignored, the amount of times you've misrepresented me. You're beyond help in this discussion. You're a waste of energy. You're not even discussing with me, you're just interacting with your own cartoon version of my points in your own head. You've shown you're incapable of having a discussion with me and you're going back on block/ignore. I have better people to talk to (pretty much anyone who actually responds to my points, whether they do it well or not).

You have failed to address my point that whilst art and civilization wouldn't still exist as phenomenal objects without qualia (by definition), they'd still exist as noumenal objects... so by building phenomenology into the definition of all of the objects themselves you're simply begging the question.

What does a robot have to do with it?... lmao. I was drawing an analogy. I was saying that without qualia the painting would still exist in the same way that it would to a non-conscious robot. There would still be the noumenal object of the painting. The robot simply wouldn't see what we think of as a 'painting'. You've gone from terrible at discussion to worse than terrible at discussion and are a complete waste of my energy. I may as well be talking to a brick wall. You're probably stoned lol. Bye Khem.

EDIT: Oh hang on you added more text into your post.

[The Grand Nudger]

My "and" merely expresses my frustration.  Robots might be able to do what people do.  And?  It's an impasse, I don't need to disagree with you, and even agreeing with you won;t lead to the conclusion you derive from that proposition.

How, precisely, does that make what people do (or how we do it) useless....in an evolutionary context?

---

(also, nearly always stoned...don't be a hater   )

[Losty]

I don’t know how you guys discuss this. I read the first 4 paragraphs and then I flew into a lamp and died

[Edwardo Piet]

Ostriches don't fly.  That doesn't make their wings useless....nor would pointing to some bird that did fly..or even a creature that took to the air without wings, demonstrate that an ostriches wings were selectively neutral.

Lol this is completely irrelevant. There's evidence that ostrich wings have a use. There isn't evidence that qualia has a use, and there's evidence to the contrary.

 Our art, our culture, our civilization, our ethics, our personal relationships are all colored by this thing we call experience.  There may be other ways to derive some of this..all of it, but this was our way.  

As I have said numerous times, those things require qualia to exist as phenomenal objects, but not to exist as noumenal objects.

We might be the only creatures that possess it..at least in meaningfully human terms.  Consider what an enormous coincidence it must have been that...after a few billion years of life slowly plugging along, with the appearance of a trait we recognize as a human consciousness 50k years ago (could have been earlier, hard to say..but no later),..the stage is set for the species in which that appears to utterly and completely outcompete every other species on the planet?  It takes us a short 40k  years to make another massive leap fundamentally tied to our experience..and this second appearence of a more elaborate consciousness derived framework is the death knell for literally every other living thing on earth, possibly even the earth, itself..in a sense.

More irrelevant bunk. Our brains are complex and a side effect of that complexity is human consciousness. You have not shown that human consciousness actually does anything, and is anything more than a byproduct, and there is very much evidence to the contrary.

All you have is your own incredulity... and how it seems to you personally that consciousness must be doing something. Sorry, but I don't care how you feel, I care about the actual evidence and the distinction between behaving conscious and actually being conscious, a distinction that appears to be completely beyond you. You merely assume that consciousness has evolutionary utility, and that consciousness is required for civilization and art, without any evidence to support that, and despite all evidence to the contrary. I provided a Strawson quote to point out how consciousness isn't required for those things, and like all my points you completely ignored Strawson's point as well.

That sounds like an awfully big effect, for an effect with no effects.

Another strawman and begging the question. Like I already admitted, consciousness doesn't have no effects whatsoever, it just has no useful effects. Obviously to talk about consciousnes we must be conscious. But there's no evidence that it has any effect on decision making, and there's evidence to the contrary. Futhermore, your claim that consciousness is required for civilization and art, is a claim that is completely unsupported. And by stating that art is perceptual you are simply begging the question. As I said, only the phenomenal objects of art are required for it, by definition, and the whole point is there's no reason to believe that objects of art couldn't exist without phenomenology or qualia at all.

My point still stands that you're not worth discussing with. I wanted to finish responding to that post, since you edited more stuff in, but it was still just more irrelevant strawmanning bullshit. You even made a very clear strawman by saying that consciousness isn't effects without any effects. I never said it was. In fact, in my OP I said the opposite: It was one of my core claims. You didn't even bother to quote and respond to my clear laid out points in my OP, that I laid out concisely line by line at the end of my OP.

You are not someone worth discussing with. You don't even interact with people properly in a debate. Bye.

[The Grand Nudger]

I find Hammy's mannerisms in these discussions interesting.  That's how I manage it.

---

Our brains are complex and a side effect of that complexity is human consciousness.

I agree. 

You have not shown that human consciousness actually does anything,

I certainly don't think that it's a free willing machine...and I guess if I limited what I would consider "doing anything" to being a free willing machine it would be easy for me to conclude that consciousness was, therefore, useless.  I don't have such a narrow definition of evolutionary utility, though.

If I like to fuck real girls more than I like to fuck dolls....then the selective advantage of consciousness is demonstrated.  I think consciousness contributes more than that, but that would be all that was required to reject the idea that consciousness is an effect without effects, or an effect without selectively relevant effects.

Conveniently, I do prefer real girls..so... -shrug-..............?

All you have is your own incredulity... and how it seems to you personally that consciousness must be doing something. Sorry, but I don't care how you feel, I care about the actual evidence and the distinction between behaving conscious and actually being conscious, a distinction that appears to be completely beyond you. You merely assume that consciousness has evolutionary utility, and that consciousness is required for civilization and art, without any evidence to support that, and despite all evidence to the contrary. I provided a Strawson quote to point out how consciousness isn't required for those things, and like all my points you completely ignored Strawson's point as well.

Oh, cmon, that can't be entirely true.  You're an empathetic guy, you probably care..at least a little bit..how I feel.  You might even be able to imagine yourself in my shoes.  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.  

Another strawman and begging the question. Like I already admitted, consciousness doesn't have no effects whatsoever, it just has no useful effects.

At least some of those effects seem to be selectively advantageous, even though there are other ways to achieve a similar effect.