>You are saying that if he is right then it's probably not accurate? No, I'm saying its overwhelmingly unlikely that he's right, and that even if we're agnosti

>You are saying that if he is right then it's probably not accurate? No, I'm saying its overwhelmingly unlikely that he's right, and that even if we're agnostic about which reasonable epistemological framework we use, there's SO much evidence against his perspective that it isn't important. >if the mind is deterministic how can we change our views - how can the position be useful? Things are, and you will, or will not. I've never understood this line of reasoning. If my perceptor is the output of a baynesian evaluation that uses information as an input, receiving new information may or may not change the output. How can a (meat)machine learning algorithm ever change from it's starting state? Well, it is provided more cycles, changes state, and accordingly changes output. This doesn't mean that a machine learning algo needs to be non-deterministic and non-verifiable in order to change from state to state. As for the utility argument, I think there's a tremendous amount of utility to be gained from understanding how consciousness actually works, even if it is the we-are-bio-robots outcome.