4 ms·

How do you define an illusion without first positing a being that can experience (hence conscious) an illusion? What does it mean that consciousness is a 'lie

How do you define an illusion without first positing a being that can experience (hence conscious) an illusion? What does it mean that consciousness is a 'lie our brain tells us', who are we? Are you assuming some form of cartesian dualism, or perhaps you are making a sort of homunculus argument? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus_argument

sebastianconcpt 7y ago
Right, the illusion hypothesis isn't consistent and also can't explain Qualia.
kypro 7y ago
By illusion I just mean there isn't really a physical pain (sub atomic elements don't feel pain) but our brains still act as if we experience pain from the perspective of a self. From this perspective the self is a real thing, you are a conscious human, not a collection of atoms - you matter more than your matter. Let me try this another way... Imagine an identical universe with one difference - no one is conscious. If I decide to kill in this hypothetical universe is it wrong? And even if you say yes, is it equally as wrong as in a universe with conscious beings? This is the explanation for consciousness and why the illusion is important. We think we're aware of our senses and in control of our actions, but we know we're not. We know what we consciously obverse is different from the input we get from our sensory organs - which is the reason things like optical illusions exist. We also know that we subconsciously make our decisions a fraction of second before we're consciously aware of them. In my opinion this all points towards consciousness being an illusion, rather than an actual awareness of self.
- SamBam 7y ago
  > but our brains still act as if we experience pain That's fine for someone else's brain -- I can see it act as if a person is experiencing pain -- but I know that I experience pain. I'm not just going through the motions, I experience it. Again, your argument is a homunculus argument -- that your brain is lying/whatever for the benefit of something else inside that is experiencing the "illusion" of consciousness. Again, you can't have an illusion of consciousness, because an "illusion" requires consciousness.
  - kypro 7y ago
    > I know that I experience pain I accept you perceive pain in the context of a self. > you can't have an illusion of consciousness, because an "illusion" requires consciousness. I think this might be the core of our disagreement. I don't know why you think that? An illusion is just a false perception of reality so it doesn't technically require consciousness - but I think I know what you're getting at. Imagine a computer which can "see" its surroundings through a camera. Why couldn't I program this computer to think it's conscious and to experience its visual data in the context of a self? That's what I honestly think we're doing and what you're describing when you talk about consciousness. I don't know why the experience you're calling consciousness can't just be explained more easily by your brain processing sensory inputs in the context of a self. I understand to you this feels like a special thing, but from a physical perspective I honestly don't know what you're describing that couldn't be explained as sensory inputs in the context of a self. Would I be right in thinking you don't believe my example computer is conscious? And would it help you understand my position if I said I think my computer might be conscious in a very primitive way?
    - someguyorother 7y ago
      That's why you can't be sure that someone else is conscious. If you program the computer to say it's conscious, that doesn't tell you whether it's conscious or not, only whether it claims to be conscious. However, you do know that you, yourself, are conscious. Consciousness proves its existence every moment by presenting itself to you, by your own pain being something you can notice. If you were a computer who was simply programmed to act as if you were conscious, there would be no subject to the experience. The rest of the world would think you were conscious, but you would be "dead inside". There would be nothing it would be like to be you. So the reason why the experience called consciousness can't just be explained by the brain processing inputs like a computer is that that gives no theory for why consciousness feels so immediate to the person who experiences it. It explains why someone would act as if he were conscious, but not why consciousness itself would exist the way it shows itself to exist to you every moment.
    - SamBam 7y ago
      > An illusion is just a false perception of reality False perception to whom? > Why couldn't I program this computer to think it's conscious Who is thinking it is conscious? > and to experience its visual data Experience how? All these words you're using already require consciousness. You're essentially saying "You don't really experience at all, you're experiencing an illusion!" Can't you see how that is a contradiction? The experience of experiencing an illusion can't itself be an illusion. And that's all we're saying consciousness is: that experience. If you experience anything, that's consciousness.

sebastianconcpt 7y ago

Right, the illusion hypothesis isn't consistent and also can't explain Qualia.

kypro 7y ago

By illusion I just mean there isn't really a physical pain (sub atomic elements don't feel pain) but our brains still act as if we experience pain from the perspective of a self. From this perspective the self is a real thing, you are a conscious human, not a collection of atoms - you matter more than your matter. Let me try this another way... Imagine an identical universe with one difference - no one is conscious. If I decide to kill in this hypothetical universe is it wrong? And even if you say yes, is it equally as wrong as in a universe with conscious beings? This is the explanation for consciousness and why the illusion is important. We think we're aware of our senses and in control of our actions, but we know we're not. We know what we consciously obverse is different from the input we get from our sensory organs - which is the reason things like optical illusions exist. We also know that we subconsciously make our decisions a fraction of second before we're consciously aware of them. In my opinion this all points towards consciousness being an illusion, rather than an actual awareness of self.

SamBam 7y ago
> but our brains still act as if we experience pain That's fine for someone else's brain -- I can see it act as if a person is experiencing pain -- but I know that I experience pain. I'm not just going through the motions, I experience it. Again, your argument is a homunculus argument -- that your brain is lying/whatever for the benefit of something else inside that is experiencing the "illusion" of consciousness. Again, you can't have an illusion of consciousness, because an "illusion" requires consciousness.
- kypro 7y ago
  > I know that I experience pain I accept you perceive pain in the context of a self. > you can't have an illusion of consciousness, because an "illusion" requires consciousness. I think this might be the core of our disagreement. I don't know why you think that? An illusion is just a false perception of reality so it doesn't technically require consciousness - but I think I know what you're getting at. Imagine a computer which can "see" its surroundings through a camera. Why couldn't I program this computer to think it's conscious and to experience its visual data in the context of a self? That's what I honestly think we're doing and what you're describing when you talk about consciousness. I don't know why the experience you're calling consciousness can't just be explained more easily by your brain processing sensory inputs in the context of a self. I understand to you this feels like a special thing, but from a physical perspective I honestly don't know what you're describing that couldn't be explained as sensory inputs in the context of a self. Would I be right in thinking you don't believe my example computer is conscious? And would it help you understand my position if I said I think my computer might be conscious in a very primitive way?
  - someguyorother 7y ago
    That's why you can't be sure that someone else is conscious. If you program the computer to say it's conscious, that doesn't tell you whether it's conscious or not, only whether it claims to be conscious. However, you do know that you, yourself, are conscious. Consciousness proves its existence every moment by presenting itself to you, by your own pain being something you can notice. If you were a computer who was simply programmed to act as if you were conscious, there would be no subject to the experience. The rest of the world would think you were conscious, but you would be "dead inside". There would be nothing it would be like to be you. So the reason why the experience called consciousness can't just be explained by the brain processing inputs like a computer is that that gives no theory for why consciousness feels so immediate to the person who experiences it. It explains why someone would act as if he were conscious, but not why consciousness itself would exist the way it shows itself to exist to you every moment.
  - SamBam 7y ago
    > An illusion is just a false perception of reality False perception to whom? > Why couldn't I program this computer to think it's conscious Who is thinking it is conscious? > and to experience its visual data Experience how? All these words you're using already require consciousness. You're essentially saying "You don't really experience at all, you're experiencing an illusion!" Can't you see how that is a contradiction? The experience of experiencing an illusion can't itself be an illusion. And that's all we're saying consciousness is: that experience. If you experience anything, that's consciousness.