...If an illusory whatever is having our experiences, in what ontological realm does the illusion exist? If consciousness is ONLY electric fields in our brains, therefore the only conclusion is that electric fields have the ability to have illusions...
-
-
-
Hello Steven. The idea is that it's the person -- the organism -- that has this introspective illusion, just as it's the person who has perceptual illusions. Of course I must (and do) deny that having the illusion itself involve having phenomenally consciousness experiences
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Riddle me this: if it's "just an illusion," since an "illusion" is a state of mind, what exactly is HAVING the illusion? Your position is tautologically circular reasoning, your only BM possible answer is "An illusion is having the illusion" which is meaninless poppycock.
-
I don't deny that we have mind and mental states, functionally characterized, nor that some of our mental states are conscious in an access sense. I just deny that our mental states have mysterious nonfunctional 'phenomenal' properties. I think that's an introspective illusion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Furthermore, how exactly does an unreal chimera that does not really exist make observations, create logic, science, technology, art, culture? Your position is a mete posture without substance you adopt to prove you are somehow more clever, i.e., totally mraningless poppycock.
-
If you want to see how a really smart illusionist thinker can explain those things, I recommend
@danieldennett's 2017 book, 'From Bacteria to Back and Back.' Perhaps I do talk poppycock, but he certainly doesn't! All best wishes.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So let's talk "Qualia." Red is a pure sensation. There are no words for it, and no functional antecedents. SOMETHING is having an experience of it. What exactly? I notice you avoided any real response to my prior question....
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
... That seems like a strange thing for hard core materialists to assert. Of course I expect the question to be swept under the rug and waved off in some manner. Every time Dennet or others of that camp try to address such issues all they do is AVOID the question or resort to...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
...what can ALWAYS be shown to be circular logic. Always. I'd like to see you do an article on David Chalmers, and The Hard Problem and explain how he is full of shit and is really just talking nonsense.
-
I'm actually writing a piece of Chalmers at this very moment! For what it's worth, he accepts that illusionism is a coherent view, though one he regards as false. See this recent paper of his https://philpapers.org/archive/CHATMO-32.pdf …
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.