4 ms·
The illusionist point of view is false by definition, although their definition of "illusion" or "exist" sounds like it might not be how I'd define those words.
by macrolime 4y ago
The illusionist point of view is false by definition, although their definition of "illusion" or "exist" sounds like it might not be how I'd define those words.
- macrolime 4y agoHere's some things must be true if consciousness is an illusion: Qualia does not exist Subjective experience does not exist Consciousness does not exist There's nothing wrong with acting unethically or immoral because nobody actually experiences any harm because nobody experiences anything Does anyone really think that's true?
- subtextminer 4y agoThey (1-3) do not exist but they are psychically real- they are genuine illusions, as instantiated in the dynamic, split-second successive whiffs emerging from the processing of neurons. To think that they (1-3) "exist" in a classical sense is a reification error. The first three self-constrain impulses to the contrary on morality behaviors.
- macrolime 4y agoI guess this comes down to how you define exist and illusion. I don't think I'd agree on your definition of illusion at least. I'm not sure what you mean that it doesn't exist in a classical sense. That qualia, subjective experience and consciousness are not concrete entities? That something doesn't exist if its an emergent property or that something doesn't exist if its a process?