Frankish probably won't take the time to read this, but he might benefit greatly too. (I doubt @keithfrankish read The Origins of Geometry (Husserl) I recc'd which isn't a contemporary short-cut pdf but actually delves into this issue far deeper.)
http://tiny.cc/cnscnssTime
-
-
What? Almost every proponent of every position I've been exposed to (with the exception of mysterians, et al) thinks that their view diminishes or removes the "hard problem" in some way. I don't like the alternatives to Illusionism either, but I'm curious enough to see its faults
-
I understand illusionism as a family of theories, often with different terminology/ontology/metaphysics mappings, but roughly the same functional relationships. I think it is actually very widespread, and also older than our philosophical traditions.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Just bc the cosmic censorship hypothesis implies definite limitations on what can be known/reproduced doesn't mean it does not "work" as a theory. If a domain resists the march of "progress" (conquer'd reproducibility) then it must be "unworkable"? Colonize Black Holes NOW!!!
-
"No theory functionally reproducing qualia can work" does not mean these people preclude that *more can be known* about such a strange situation. The hard problem implies a "deeper place" which is censored from view. Brings us back to inspect'g evaluativity.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.