Dcleve's answer
It's probably worth pointing out that Dcleve's "brief summary" of identity theory and functionalism is little more than their opinion of misrepresentations of those positions, and they just keep repeating their dubious unsupported claims, while seeming to ignore any clear evidence against their claims and requests for them to back up what they say.
Later they mention the idea that "SOME examples of a physical or functional feature are identical to SOME aspects of consciousness" (which is actually what both identity theory and functionalism are, rather than the misrepresentation they address initially of every physical or functional feature being identical to some aspect of consciousness). On this, they say:
As equivalent physical structures or functional events could happen and be evolutionary beneficial without consciousness, or with an irrelevant consciousness associated with them, token-token identity breaks the evolutionary explanation for the tuning of consciousness that each of the above Identity Theories offered.
But to say that physical structures could happen without consciousness is to fundamentally misunderstand or misrepresent identity theory, because identity theory says literally the exact opposite of that - identity theory says that mental states are identical to physical states, so one can't exist without the other. What they're saying is essentially "if we assume identity theory is false, then evolution wouldn't explain identity theory", which is meaningless and nonsensical circularity.
