[somebodynew]

If consciousness is merely an observation of decisions already made in the brain with no actual impact, how do we come to be discussing the concept of consciousness? If the decisions -> consciousness pipeline was only one way, how would the brain come to a state where it's producing a written description of the experience of consciousness?

This is why I've always found the notion of a "philosophical zombie" to be odd - if it accurately reproduces human behavior, then it would be able to have a conversation with you describing its own consciousness, even if it "doesn't have one".

[AgentME]

I figure that consciousness is one of the inputs into the rest of the brain. It can convince other parts (but it's not the default mode, at least in many contexts). Sometimes companies do follow suggestions from the PR department.

[Drakim]

Are you saying that it's impossible to discuss and reflect upon a falsehood?

[somebodynew]

No, but if consciousness is just a side effect of the decisions made independently by the brain I would like to know why most humans' behavior can reflect the perception of consciousness. It seems like a pretty large coincidence that I'm experiencing consciousness and everyone else can explain the experience of consciousness in a way I can relate to, if consciousness is not perceptible by the brain.

I think that anyone claiming consciousness is just a rationalization of previous decisions needs an explanation of why the brain is apparently aware of and able to make decisions (like writing about consciousness) that depend on the ability of consciousness to change it's behavior.

[beagle3]

I am not in the camp of "consciousness is just a side effect" - I do think it's one of the relatively minor inputs to decision making. But that camp IS consistent.

> I think that anyone claiming consciousness is just a rationalization of previous decisions needs an explanation of why the brain is apparently aware of and able to make decisions (like writing about consciousness) that depend on the ability of consciousness to change it's behavior.

A different analogy might help: The consciosness is a computer screen that usually displays a simplified image of (parts of) what's going on inside the CPU and memory, or lies, or something totally unrelated. It is possible to take a screenshot, dump it to memory, process it with the CPU, etc.

The notion that "conscious thought" would change that screenshot is equivalent to the message "Whatever is written here affects the CPU" appearing on the screen. It just means that the message was displayed, not that it came from a source other than everything else did.

You probably didn't notice, but you are actually arguing for "freedom of choice", which is its own philosophical can of worms, and is not really compatible with our understanding of physics or biology.