[Almaviva]

I wasn't clear, it's vitally important to predict behaviour in practice at a poetic naturalism level, but there seems to be no reason to adopt strong emergence: consciousness doesn't introduce any new explanatory power that couldn't, in principle, be explained by physics, or even chemistry, biology and so forth.

See Dennett's interview with Bob Wright starting at about 30 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss0aCWpNzSM

I'm just not ready to stop there, despite this all being true, I think it seems not parsimonious to believe there is nothing fundamentally mysterious about how I feel like something subjectively.

[mcguire]

It's been a while, but...

Biology doesn't introduce any explanatory power that couldn't, in principle, be done by chemistry. Likewise, chemistry and physics. But they ain't nobody as is gonna work out the mating behavior of tree frogs from quantum mechanical first principles. That was, I thought, the point of the intentional stance: if you assume consciousness, you get a good model to understand behavior; if you don't, you may, in principle, be able to get a good model but you have a much greater distance to go.