Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[3017Metaphysician]

God penetrates. It thrusts itself deep into every moment of every life. If God was female then it would lie back and let physical reality enter it.

There are (mythical) goddesses who aren't so "laid back" such as the Furies (aka Erinyes), the chthonic goddesses of vengeance in Greco-Roman mythology.

For more, see:
"Girls Gone Wild: World Mythology’s Most Sexualized, Crazed, and Furiously Violent Goddesses"

That people would create such grotesque beings says much about the human condition. So often these - and modern horror creations - are metaphors for real life horrors.

(I think it's already been established that consciousness is not an illusion

SB!

If you're thinking consciousness is not an illusion, are you thinking that 'free will' is not an illusion (also)?

[Jacob10]

Consciousness is definitely not an illusion.

If you have Awareness you can control which of the 2 consciousness states you reside within

Science states we are nothing more than consciousness and then in the next breath admits it knows nothing about consciousness.

It is right on the last point.

[Sy Borg]

God penetrates. It thrusts itself deep into every moment of every life. If God was female then it would lie back and let physical reality enter it.

There are (mythical) goddesses who aren't so "laid back" such as the Furies (aka Erinyes), the chthonic goddesses of vengeance in Greco-Roman mythology.

For more, see:
"Girls Gone Wild: World Mythology’s Most Sexualized, Crazed, and Furiously Violent Goddesses"

That people would create such grotesque beings says much about the human condition. So often these - and modern horror creations - are metaphors for real life horrors.

(I think it's already been established that consciousness is not an illusion :)

SB!

If you're thinking consciousness is not an illusion, are you thinking that 'free will' is not an illusion (also)?

I'm not sure it matters. It seems fairly clear that, for the most part, humans are marginally free. For the most part individuals are thoroughly controlled by their environment, society, family, bosses and by their own bodies. However, within that control lies a little freedom, like someone in a full body straitjacket still able to roll around and wiggle their fingers.

As for societies in the long term, there seems to be very little freedom. The environment is entirely in control. For example, given the location and accessibility of fossil fuels it was inevitable (barring huge natural disasters) that power companies would become some of the largest and most and influential bodies in societies. Thus, once atmospheric CO2 levels became high enough to impact on the climate, there was always going to be latency in the response due to fossil fuel shareholders trying to squeeze the last bits of profit from existing infrastructure.

[Belindi]

There are (mythical) goddesses who aren't so "laid back" such as the Furies (aka Erinyes), the chthonic goddesses of vengeance in Greco-Roman mythology.

For more, see:
"Girls Gone Wild: World Mythology’s Most Sexualized, Crazed, and Furiously Violent Goddesses"

That people would create such grotesque beings says much about the human condition. So often these - and modern horror creations - are metaphors for real life horrors.

(I think it's already been established that consciousness is not an illusion

SB!

If you're thinking consciousness is not an illusion, are you thinking that 'free will' is not an illusion (also)?

I'm not sure it matters. It seems fairly clear that, for the most part, humans are marginally free. For the most part individuals are thoroughly controlled by their environment, society, family, bosses and by their own bodies. However, within that control lies a little freedom, like someone in a full body straitjacket still able to roll around and wiggle their fingers.

As for societies in the long term, there seems to be very little freedom. The environment is entirely in control. For example, given the location and accessibility of fossil fuels it was inevitable (barring huge natural disasters) that power companies would become some of the largest and most and influential bodies in societies. Thus, once atmospheric CO2 levels became high enough to impact on the climate, there was always going to be latency in the response due to fossil fuel shareholders trying to squeeze the last bits of profit from existing infrastructure.

Some individuals are more free than others. Variables that conduce to human freedom are health and physical ability, political regime, and reason. The latter also conduces to successful governance of emotions and prejudices. Freedom is the other side of the power coin. However the gods of nature are imperial compared with all our best efforts and in this I agree with Sy Borg.

[Sy Borg]

That people would create such grotesque beings says much about the human condition. So often these - and modern horror creations - are metaphors for real life horrors.

(I think it's already been established that consciousness is not an illusion :)

SB!

If you're thinking consciousness is not an illusion, are you thinking that 'free will' is not an illusion (also)?

I'm not sure it matters. It seems fairly clear that, for the most part, humans are marginally free. For the most part individuals are thoroughly controlled by their environment, society, family, bosses and by their own bodies. However, within that control lies a little freedom, like someone in a full body straitjacket still able to roll around and wiggle their fingers.

As for societies in the long term, there seems to be very little freedom. The environment is entirely in control. For example, given the location and accessibility of fossil fuels it was inevitable (barring huge natural disasters) that power companies would become some of the largest and most and influential bodies in societies. Thus, once atmospheric CO2 levels became high enough to impact on the climate, there was always going to be latency in the response due to fossil fuel shareholders trying to squeeze the last bits of profit from existing infrastructure.

Some individuals are more free than others. Variables that conduce to human freedom are health and physical ability, political regime, and reason. The latter also conduces to successful governance of emotions and prejudices. Freedom is the other side of the power coin. However the gods of nature are imperial compared with all our best efforts and in this I agree with Sy Borg.

Yes, though the degree of freedom is perhaps more subtle that it seems, as with many differences between humans that are amplified by a lack of meaningful exposure to other species.

[Jacob10]

Consciousness is definitely not an illusion.

If you have Awareness you can control which of the 2 consciousness states you reside within

Science states we are nothing more than consciousness and then in the next breath admits it knows nothing about consciousness.

It is right on the last point.

If you don’t have AWARENESS then you will never understand CONSCIOUSNESS.

PERIOD.

AWARENESS has authority over CONSCIOUSNESS.

Once PRESENCE has acquired AWARENESS then PRESENCE can DETERMINE and CONTROL which of the consciousness states to reside within.

If you are UNAWARE then you will just “toggle” in total UNAWARENESS between the two consciousness states of MANUAL and AUTOPILOT having no CONTROL whatsoever.

[Sy Borg]

Consciousness is definitely not an illusion.

If you have Awareness you can control which of the 2 consciousness states you reside within

Science states we are nothing more than consciousness and then in the next breath admits it knows nothing about consciousness.

It is right on the last point.

If you don’t have AWARENESS then you will never understand CONSCIOUSNESS.

PERIOD.

AWARENESS has authority over CONSCIOUSNESS.

Once PRESENCE has acquired AWARENESS then PRESENCE can DETERMINE and CONTROL which of the consciousness states to reside within.

If you are UNAWARE then you will just “toggle” in total UNAWARENESS between the two consciousness states of MANUAL and AUTOPILOT having no CONTROL whatsoever.

This was covered by Jung about a century ago in considering the executive function of the superego.

[Consul]

In a recent letter to an editor Keith Frankish complains about an alleged misrepresentation of his view = illusionism about phenomenal consciousness:

QUOTE>
"As the person who coined the term ‘illusionism’, I want to protest against the mischaracterization of the illusionist view in Kit Wilson’s article ‘Cracking consciousness: how do our minds really work?’ (15 May 2022). Wilson says that illusionists ‘deny the mind exists’, and he uncritically quotes dismissive assessments (‘essentially gibberish’, ‘the silliest claim ever made’) from two of the view’s most hostile critics. Your readers deserve better.

Illusionists do not deny that mind and consciousness exist. They merely reject a certain view of what consciousness is. Specifically, they deny that consciousness involves awareness of what philosophers call ‘qualia’ — private mental versions of colours, sounds, tastes, and so on. Illusionists argue that qualia are illusory, and they offer alternative accounts of consciousness that do not mention them. Wilson suggests that this view is ‘self-evidently self-defeating’ since the illusion of consciousness would itself be a conscious one, but this facile objection ignores the fact that illusionists conceive of consciousness (and thus of illusion) as not involving qualia.

Illusionism may not be the right view, but it is an alternative to the outlandish and untestable speculation Wilson discusses elsewhere in his piece, and it deserves to be assessed on its merits rather than dismissed on the basis of a crude caricature."

Source: https://www.keithfrankish.com/2022/06/c ... ciousness/
<QUOTE

[Consul]

QUOTE>
"Like a rainbow

Do illusionists deny the reality of consciousness? I’ve been discussing this on Twitter recently (see this thread, among others), and it has promoted me to try to think of analogies that might illuminate the illusionist perspective.

Here’s one: rainbows. Rainbows are real, aren’t they? You can see them with your own eyes — though you have to be in the right position, with the sun behind you. You can point them out to other people — provided they take up a similar position to you. Heck, you can even photograph them.

But what exactly is it that’s real?……"

Keith Frankish: https://www.keithfrankish.com/2022/05/like-a-rainbow/
<QUOTE

[Jacob10]

Consciousness is definitely not an illusion.

If you have Awareness you can control which of the 2 consciousness states you reside within

Science states we are nothing more than consciousness and then in the next breath admits it knows nothing about consciousness.

It is right on the last point.

If you don’t have AWARENESS then you will never understand CONSCIOUSNESS.

PERIOD.

AWARENESS has authority over CONSCIOUSNESS.

Once PRESENCE has acquired AWARENESS then PRESENCE can DETERMINE and CONTROL which of the consciousness states to reside within.

If you are UNAWARE then you will just “toggle” in total UNAWARENESS between the two consciousness states of MANUAL and AUTOPILOT having no CONTROL whatsoever.

This was covered by Jung about a century ago in considering the executive function of the superego.

If we have CONTROL of the consciousness states then we are clearly not those consciousness states.We just experience them.So science is wrong to assume that we are merely consciousness.We are not consciousness.We are not awareness or unawareness either.We are either Aware or Unaware.For there to be awareness and unawareness then something must sit above awareness and unawareness.

PRESENCE.

[Sy Borg]

Consciousness is definitely not an illusion.

If you have Awareness you can control which of the 2 consciousness states you reside within

Science states we are nothing more than consciousness and then in the next breath admits it knows nothing about consciousness.

It is right on the last point.

If you don’t have AWARENESS then you will never understand CONSCIOUSNESS.

PERIOD.

AWARENESS has authority over CONSCIOUSNESS.

Once PRESENCE has acquired AWARENESS then PRESENCE can DETERMINE and CONTROL which of the consciousness states to reside within.

If you are UNAWARE then you will just “toggle” in total UNAWARENESS between the two consciousness states of MANUAL and AUTOPILOT having no CONTROL whatsoever.

This was covered by Jung about a century ago in considering the executive function of the superego.

If we have CONTROL of the consciousness states then we are clearly not those consciousness states.We just experience them.So science is wrong to assume that we are merely consciousness.We are not consciousness.We are not awareness or unawareness either.We are either Aware or Unaware.For there to be awareness and unawareness then something must sit above awareness and unawareness.

PRESENCE.

What you see as a hierarchic levels of mind I see as intertwined feedback loops.

We steer and experience all at once, with the experience influencing steering decisions and steering decisions influencing the experience.

Where you see awareness and unawareness I see variable awareness.

[Consul]

QUOTE>
"…Illusionists do not deny that mind and consciousness exist. They merely reject a certain view of what consciousness is. Specifically, they deny that consciousness involves awareness of what philosophers call ‘qualia’ — private mental versions of colours, sounds, tastes, and so on.…"

Source: https://www.keithfrankish.com/2022/06/c ... ciousness/
<QUOTE

Searle would object that "you can't set qualia on one side, because if you do there is no consciousness left over." So from his perspective the illusionists do deny that consciousness exists, because consciousness minus qualia = nonconsciousness.
However, Frankish can reply that Searle is right insofar as illusionists do deny that consciousness plus qualia = phenomenal consciousness exists, but that he is wrong insofar as they thereby don't deny the existence of consciousness simpliciter. According to Frankish, illusionists acknowledge a nonphenomenal form of consciousness. On the other hand, what is nonphenomenal consciousness (with its opposite defined as subjective experience)? Is it a genuine form of consciousness? Does it deserve to be called consciousness at all?

QUOTE>
"I myself am hesitant to use the word 'qualia' and its singular, 'quale', because they give the impression that there are two separate phenomena, consciousness and qualia. But of course, all conscious phenomena are qualitative, subjective experiences, and hence are qualia. There are not two types of phenomena, consciousness and qualia. There is just consciousness, which is a series of qualitative states."
(pp. 9-10)

"[T]he problem of qualia is not just an aspect of the problem of consciousness; it is the problem of consciousness. You can talk about various other features of consciousness—for example, the powers that the visual system has to discriminate colors—but to the extent that you are talking about conscious discrimination you are talking about qualia. I think that the term 'qualia' is misleading because it suggests that the quale of a state of consciousness might be carved off from the rest of the consciousness and set on one side, as if you could talk about the rest of the problem of consciousness while ignoring the subjective, qualitative feel of consciousness. But you can't set qualia on one side, because if you do there is no consciousness left over."
(P. 29)

(Searle, John R. The Mystery of Consciousness. New York: New York Review of Books, 1997.)
<QUOTE

[Consul]

QUOTE>
"To sum up:
• Consciousness, whatever it is: real
• A private qualia-filled mental world: illusory
• The impression of a private qualia-filled mental world: real
• Brain processes that produce the impression of a private qualia-filled mental world: real

I know what you are going to say! You’re going to ask about that impression of a private qualia world. What’s that exactly? Isn’t it a conscious experience — like the experience of seeing a rainbow — which itself belongs to a private qualia-filled mental world? If so, the whole idea is circular. I seem to be saying that the qualia world exists only in another qualia world. Does that second qualia world exist only in a third one, then, and so on? Ridiculous!

If illusionists thought like that, then their view would indeed be ridiculous. But they don’t. They don’t think that experiences exist in qualia worlds at all. They offer alternative accounts of what experiences are that don’t mention qualia. On the view I favour, experiences are complex sets of perceptually triggered psychological reactions and reactive dispositions. To have an experience as of a colourful arc in the sky is to form beliefs, memories, emotions, and a host of other reactive dispositions appropriate to the presence of such an arc. It is to be, as it were, in “sensing sky arc mode”. Similarly, to be under the impression that one has an inner qualia world is to react psychologically as if one had an inner qualia world — to think, talk, and react in countless other way as if such a world existed. That suggestion needs a lot of fleshing out, of course, and you might think it won’t work, but at least it shows that illusionists aren’t making a ridiculously circular claim.

That’s the analogy then. Consciousness is as real as a rainbow. It exists, but it is not a private qualia world, any more than a rainbow is a physical arc in the sky. So trying to find the neural correlates of the qualia world is as sensible as trying to find an arc-shaped structure in the atmosphere after a rain shower. And searching for a solution to the Hard Problem is like looking for the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow!"

Keith Frankish: https://www.keithfrankish.com/2022/05/like-a-rainbow/
<QUOTE

Impressions in Hume's sense are phenomenal, experiential impressions. Since such subjective impressions are nonexistent according to phenomenal illusionism (eliminativism), "to be under the impression that one has an inner qualia world" is not to be under any phenomenal impression, but merely to believe (falsely) that "one has an inner qualia world," and "to think, talk, and react in countless other way as if such a world existed."

But what about thinking? Isn't it itself a phenomenally conscious, subjectively experiential event? Doesn't my very thinking that I have an inner qualia world entail that I do have such an inner world, even if it consists in nothing more than this thought of mine? The world of thought and imagination is itself a "private qualia-filled mental world", since thinking and imagining are dynamic experiential qualia (qualities) of subjects, which constitutively involve the imitation or simulation of sensory qualia. In my opinion, phenomenal illusionism is seriously threatened by incoherence, despite Frankish's attempts at explaining its apparent inconsistency away—which I don't find very convincing.

[Consul]

QUOTE>
"Illusionists don’t deny the existence of consciousness in the everyday sense. We don’t deny that creatures have conscious experiences of seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting and smelling. We really do taste Marmite! What illusionists deny is that experiences involve awareness of non-physical, private mental qualities, presented like a show to some kind of inner observer. In other words, we deny that the Marmite taste is a private inner quality. There’s definitely a box, but there isn’t really a beetle in it!

On the illusionist’s view, conscious experience is essentially an informational process. Think of it like a news report rather than a theatrical show. Of course, this report isn’t in a human language – it’s in the brain’s internal language of neural signalling – and it’s not for the benefit of an ‘inner you’. Sensory systems pass their reports directly to the brain’s control systems, which generate the physiological, psychological and behavioural responses mentioned earlier. You – the person – are the sum of all this activity."

(Keith Frankish. In Philosophers on Consciousness: Talking about the Mind, edited by Jack Symes. London: Bloomsbury, 2022. pp. 92-3)
<QUOTE

I too deny that "experiences involve awareness of non-physical…qualities," but I don't deny that they "involve awareness of…private mental qualities." (Note that I don't use "mental" and "(irreducibly) nonphysical" synonymously!)

It may be true that "conscious experience is essentially an informational process," but in any event it is obvious that it is essentially a (subjective) experiential process consisting in havings of (subjective) experiential qualities by subjects or undergoings of (subjective) experiential affections or passions by subjects.

QUOTE>
"So, illusionists reject the idea of an inner show, decked out with non-physical qualities, presented to an inner observer. That’s the kind of consciousness we do deny. However, some people think this is wrong; they say that these qualities are the very essence of consciousness! In fact, idealists go so far as to say that there is nothing else to the world: everything exists in the mind! According to this view, it’s the physical world which is illusory. Idealists deny the existence of consciousness as we illusionists conceive of it – they deny the existence of a physical brain! So, each of us could be accused of ‘denying consciousness’, but I don’t think it is a very profitable way of moving the debate forward. Let’s just say illusionists and their opponents disagree about what consciousness is and get on with working out who is right."

(Keith Frankish. In Philosophers on Consciousness: Talking about the Mind, edited by Jack Symes. London: Bloomsbury, 2022. p. 93)
<QUOTE

The question is: Do illusionists and non-illusionists share the same concept of consciousness to begin with? When illusionists say "Consciousness exists" and non-illusionists say "Consciousness exists", are they referring to the same thing? No, they don't, since illusionist consciousness is non-phenomenal consciousness, whereas non-illusionist consciousness is phenomenal consciousness. So when illusionists use the term "consciousness" to refer to something that is different from what non-illusionists use it to refer to, then they are just talking past each other.

QUOTE>
"As we’ve seen, illusionists deny that consciousness is an inner show. Instead, we say that having conscious experiences involves processing information about the world. But that’s not the whole story. After all, we can do more than just experience the world around us; we can think about our experiences too. We can recognize our experience (‘it tastes like Marmite’), say whether we like it (‘absolutely’) and describe the experience to other people (‘you’ll probably hate it’)."

(Keith Frankish. In Philosophers on Consciousness: Talking about the Mind, edited by Jack Symes. London: Bloomsbury, 2022. pp. 93-4)
<QUOTE

Thinking about tasting Marmite is an experiential property of subjects just like tasting Marmite!

Yes, "having conscious experiences involves processing information about the world"—"but that’s not the whole story" precisely because it also involves or consists in subjective experiencings and perceivings of the world through subjective experiences (qua appearances of the world).

QUOTE>
"The first thing to say is that illusionists don’t deny that we can be aware of our own experiences. Of course we can look inwards and introspect! However, we do hold that introspection misleads us about the nature of our experiences. As illusionists see it, introspection – like sense perception – depends on sub-personal mechanisms of reporting and reacting. It doesn’t involve an inner self which is experiencing non-physical qualities. Introspection is just another layer of information processing, this time directed onto other brain processes."

(Keith Frankish. In Philosophers on Consciousness: Talking about the Mind, edited by Jack Symes. London: Bloomsbury, 2022. p. 94)
<QUOTE

Introspection is inner awareness of our own subjective experiences. Ned Block has defined phenomenal consciousness as subjective experience; so the illusionist denial of phenomenal consciousness entails the denial of subjective experience. But, astonishingly and puzzlingly, Frankish doesn't deny the existence of "our own experiences"; so it's unclear what he means by "experience". If Frankishian experience is nothing more than a purely functional-informational process, what's experiential about it, so that it deserves to be called experience?

QUOTE>
"Introspective mechanisms monitor the complex informational and reactive processes that make up our experiences and send information about them to the brain’s control systems."

(Keith Frankish. In Philosophers on Consciousness: Talking about the Mind, edited by Jack Symes. London: Bloomsbury, 2022. p. 94)
<QUOTE

Once again, what's genuinely experiential about "our experiences" in his obscure sense of "experience"? It seems Frankishian experiences can be had by nonconscious zombie agents, being nothing more than ontologically objective "complex informational and reactive processes."

QUOTE>
"The result is that introspection systematically misleads us. Its impressionistic sub-personal reports on complex brain processes lead us to think that we have direct and infallible awareness of private mental qualities, but we don’t. This is the ‘illusion’ in illusionism."

(Keith Frankish. In Philosophers on Consciousness: Talking about the Mind, edited by Jack Symes. London: Bloomsbury, 2022. p. 95)
<QUOTE

Our introspective awareness of our experiences may not be direct (I think it is), and it may not be infallible (I think it isn't); but the central point at issue is the very existence of subjective experience as such, i.e. whether there is anything to be introspectively aware of in the first place (I think there sure is).

However, even regarding the concept of introspection, illusionists and non-illusionists are talking past each other, since according to the former there are still "experiences" of which we are introspectively aware. But the introspectable "experiences" acknowledged by illusionists aren't experiences in the non-illusionistic sense of the term.

QUOTE>
"I have tried to give a sense of what illusionism is and why it’s worth taking seriously. Still, you may feel, it just can’t be right. The feel of things – the taste of Marmite, the pain of hunger, the guilt of lying to your partner – these can’t be just a matter of information. They’re too concrete, too vivid, too present! ‘They’re real, dammit!’

That’s a natural reaction – and one that is predicted by the illusionist theory itself. As we have seen, our judgements about our experiences will be compelling in just this way, since they are produced by mechanisms of which we have no awareness. I have given only a simplified sketch of the processes involved here, couched in metaphorical terms of reporting and such like. In reality, the full picture will be immensely complex, and it will take many years of scientific work to complete it. As we slowly fill in the picture – mapping the vast, intricate, multi-layered web of informational and reactive processes – the gap between the illusionist’s theory and our personal impression of what is happening will diminish. We just need to put the work in and be very patient."

(Keith Frankish. In Philosophers on Consciousness: Talking about the Mind, edited by Jack Symes. London: Bloomsbury, 2022. p. 96)
<QUOTE

Well, I'm afraid we've reached the point where illusionists and non-illusionists can only agree to disagree.

"However, I’m open to the idea that certain radical forms of physicalism may be correct. One radical form of physicalism is illusionism, the idea that consciousness is just a physical illusion. I’m inclined to think that’s crazy, but nonetheless, I find it a very interesting idea. After all, who’s to say that I’m not in the grip of some strange illusion here and now?"

(David Chalmers. In Philosophers on Consciousness: Talking about the Mind, edited by Jack Symes. London: Bloomsbury, 2022. p. 31)

I too "think that's crazy," but—pace Chalmers—I do not "find it a very interesting idea." Actually, I think it's a pretty silly idea.

"I am convinced that philosophical debate almost always ends in a deadlock[.]"

(Lewis, David. "Evil for Freedom's Sake." In Papers in Ethics and Social Philosophy, 101-127. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. p. 102)

[The Beast]

The door within the door and so on to the baseline. For there is a baseline unless something comes from nothing. As the fractal reality is an anatomical feature of the brain, I may go further and speculate a fractal reality in the quantum foam therefore in the manifold of any good string theory or any mass acquisition by the mechanism. It is that the fractal quality is maintained as supported by anatomical evidence. The hypothetical dimension or baseline dimension might have correspondence in the anatomical manifold…and why not, this corresponds to a numinous/baseline quantitative content. I might prompt the rainbow, but I might not be responsible for the quality of the rainbow since this is dependent on the quality of the fractals/air. It must also be the case that the rainbow happens anyway.
Is there any fundamental difference in the ideas as they point to some evolving power dimensionality, or they are just colors of the rainbow.? It is a distinguishable metaphysical vs illusory (not real) theory.