I think that you may be a bit too pussyfooted when you make your points. While it is virtuous to avoid overstating one's position, you should also not understate the degree of your certainty. If an argument is more tenable than another, we owe it to present it as strong as it is.
-
-
I can't win, can I? :)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
You cannot win while you are still worried to get rejected by people you know to be caught up in an illusion :)
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
I'm not worried about being rejected. I just know that I could be wrong and like to be charitable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You mean you know you could potentially discover that you are conscious in actuality, functionalism is an untenable framework, and existence some kind of conspiracy? That’s a pretty heavy claim to make!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
No, I don't think I could discover that. I'm confident in my views, and I'll defend them robustly. (I think I do.) But I also know I'm fallible. And I think it's good to have rival views clearly and robustly stated, so that the community can make an informed decision.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
I sometimes wonder if this community is the olympus or the special olympics of philosophy. None of the alternatives (like consciousness realism and panpsychism) work. If you present illusionism humbly as an “often neglected” family of theories, you may be understating the case.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NeuroMyths @keithfrankish and
No, most of the other positions have literally a "hard problem", and the people holding them generally don't do so because they think that they solve that problem, but because they think they have to accept that no theory can *work*, i.e. functionally reproduce the observables.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz @keithfrankish and
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
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.