Whats the point of being consciousness when all the chemical reactions that occur in my brain are controlled by the...

>chemical reactions in the brain are controlled by the laws of physics
This is true.
>they would happen anyway even if I wasnt conscious
This isn't true. That's like saying the chemical reactions in plants are controlled by physics and would happen anyway even if they didn't undergo photosynthesis. Just because a process is the product of physically determined chemicals doesn't mean those physically determined chemicals could do what they do without that process happening.
In the case of "consciousness" deterministic physical transactions happen in response to both stimuli from sensory organs and in response to themselves as feedback loops, with the result being behavior driven by awareness of world and self. You can't take away that end product and still have the components of it any more than you could get rid of a ham and cheese sandwich while keeping the ham and cheese between bread.

But pre-planning and having the brain self-augment it's behavior could surely happen without it needing to experience qualia. I don't understand why the brain doesn't just produce a sequence of actions and reactions based on stimuli, without creating a conscious observer. The fact that qualia exists (it is self-evident) makes me doubt the philosophy of materialism.

I mean, it's also possible that it can't do it without qualia, or that it could at one point but became so dependent on qualia that now it cannot.

Of course, I'm just flinging shit so whatever.

Qualia is such a vague term that it has no real relevance to neuroscience.

The human experience is a product of sensory input, nothing more, nothing less.

>But pre-planning and having the brain self-augment it's behavior could surely happen without it needing to experience qualia.
why do you think that's the case? to self-augment behaviour some actions and outcomes need to be preferential to others. asserting that the human brain knows the optimal outcome for every conceivable set of events would be foolish. ergo, there must be some (in this case seemingly arbitrary) metric by which some things are better than others.
how things are defined as superior to other things would be decided by history of the person or culture; or if they're important enough decided by evolution, eg color of raw flesh. no one wants to eat putrid meat. it's only ended in disaster for most of human development

...

Things having a point or reason is a human idea, there is no point to consiousness and there never will be.

>qualia is such a vague term
>human experience

Dont you think the concept of qualia is a necessary consequence of brains which perceive the world.

If in a physical deterministic/probabilistic world our brain configurations lead us to say "why do we have qualia". Its a necessary fact.

Oh god yes more gorilla posts please.

>No I can't, it's predetermined
>literally predetermining it yourself

>consciousness

good answer

>Qualia is such a vague term that it has no real relevance to neuroscience.

Ok, prove that your consciousness is real. Prove that you're not in the matrix, this isn't a dream, you're not hallucinating (or are you?), that you are even conscious to begin with, or to turn it around, how do you know you're not the only conscious being in a universe that revolves entirely around you?

You've just gone full retard.