The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.

[Dmitry1983]

Pain is little more than a damage indicator. Don't do this, it hurts. About as complicated as a check engine light. There's some pretty obvious survival advantage to avoiding an unnecessarily punctured hide.

Awareness/subjective experience seem to be unnecessary for proper external behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Pain is little more than a damage indicator. Don't do this, it hurts. About as complicated as a check engine light. There's some pretty obvious survival advantage to avoiding an unnecessarily punctured hide.

Awareness/subjective experience seem to be unnecessary for proper external behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

But people with blindsight are aware and are having subjective experiences.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

I agree with you that planning for tomorrow has practical utility. I don't think even Dmitry is disputing that.

The question is whether phenomenal consciousness (that which involves qualia) has any practical utility.

Can you explain how we'd do any planning without consciousness? No self-awareness, no awareness of the future, no planning for any self in any future.

If you write code using complicated nestings of conditional statements (if/else statements), you have pretty much built something artificial that can do something akin to planning/decision-making (at least in the rudimentary sense) without the need for any qualia whatsoever. So it seems to me, then, that it is possible for an organism like the human being to plan ahead without any "inner movie running in their head".

Let's consider the example brought up by Dmitry: pain induced by a needle. Whatever do we need to have this awful feeling of pain for? Is our body being conditioned/primed to avoid/prepare for such similar pain-triggering stimuli in the future not sufficient to keep us surviving?

Pain is little more than a damage indicator. Don't do this, it hurts. About as complicated as a check engine light. There's some pretty obvious survival advantage to avoiding an unnecessarily punctured hide.

And if pain is DMitry's bar for qualia then he's just thrown humanish p-zombies out the window. Every organism down to and including single-celled organisms exhibit some level of distress when damaged. It's about as fundamental a reaction as you can find.

Yeah, but there is also the feeling of pain as well. That is what Dmitry is referring to, not the outward behavior exhibiting it (or the activities in the nervous system that lead to it), but the inner subjective feeling of it.

And yeah, hypothetically, you could have p-zombie versions of dogs and other non-human animals that we believe have consciousness. It's not just humans beings that have phenomenal consciousness, of course. But I don't know if something like a bacterium would have that. Seems like ultimately, it's connected to the brain (at least in the case of living organisms on earth), and bacteria don't have brains.

[GrandizerII]

Daniel Dennett:

https://open-mind.net/papers/how-our-bel...-h-bassler

He says that he doesn't deny existence of qualia in the end of this paper.

Who, Dennett? I haven't  checked that link yet, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong here because Dennett is very well-known to be an illusionist/eliminative materialist.

He may be saying that he doesn't deny that we do feel as if we experience qualia, but he doesn't believe they're real (in the phenomenal sense). He think it's all physical, but the brain does this weird thing of presenting summarized information to "us" in a way that doesn't feel like something physical.

[Silver]

The obvious issue is comparing humans to computers.

One has sentience, the other doesn't.

[Dmitry1983]

Awareness/subjective experience seem to be unnecessary for proper external behavior.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

But people with blindsight are aware and are having subjective experiences.

A similar phenomenon was also discovered in humans. Subjects who had suffered damage to their visual cortices due to accidents or strokes reported partial or total blindness. Despite this, when prompted they could "guess" the presence and details of objects with above-average accuracy and, much like animal subjects, could catch objects tossed at them. The subjects never developed any kind of confidence in their abilities. Even when told of their successes, they would not begin to spontaneously make "guesses" about objects, but instead still required prompting. Furthermore, blindsight subjects rarely express the amazement about their abilities that sighted people would expect them to express.[18]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But people with blindsight are aware and are having subjective experiences.

A similar phenomenon was also discovered in humans. Subjects who had suffered damage to their visual cortices due to accidents or strokes reported partial or total blindness. Despite this, when prompted they could "guess" the presence and details of objects with above-average accuracy and, much like animal subjects, could catch objects tossed at them. The subjects never developed any kind of confidence in their abilities. Even when told of their successes, they would not begin to spontaneously make "guesses" about objects, but instead still required prompting. Furthermore, blindsight subjects rarely express the amazement about their abilities that sighted people would expect them to express.[18]

How is catching an object NOT a subjective experience?

Boru

[Dmitry1983]

How is catching an object NOT a subjective experience?

I don't understand your question. Catching an object is external behavior.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

How is catching an object NOT a subjective experience?

I don't understand your question. Catching an object is external behavior.

External to what? Certainly not to the individual doing the catching.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

But people with blindsight are aware and are having subjective experiences.

A similar phenomenon was also discovered in humans. Subjects who had suffered damage to their visual cortices due to accidents or strokes reported partial or total blindness. Despite this, when prompted they could "guess" the presence and details of objects with above-average accuracy and, much like animal subjects, could catch objects tossed at them. The subjects never developed any kind of confidence in their abilities. Even when told of their successes, they would not begin to spontaneously make "guesses" about objects, but instead still required prompting. Furthermore, blindsight subjects rarely express the amazement about their abilities that sighted people would expect them to express.[18]

I mean, Boru is not wrong here. From what you posted, it seems like they are unable to have subjective experiences involving vision, but they could still have subjective experiences in other ways. For example, they could still hear, feel pain, etc.

But as for your point, yeah I agree it lends support to what you've been saying.