4 ms·

What's the evidence that consciousness is a real thing and not an illusion?

maxbond 3y ago
If we're talking about "everything that a human or non-human experiences, including what they feel, see and hear," then I'm not sure it's meaningful to distinguish whether it's "real" or "an illusion". You might put forward the theory we're all brains in jars (or the more modern formulation, 'the universe is a simulation'), but the experiences would still be occuring and consciousness would still be a phenomena. See also, Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy.
red75prime 3y ago
What is illusory exactly? Is it the brain misrepresenting its own workings? But those misrepresentations are encoded in the brain in the same way as everything else and they do have causal influence on the brain processes. So, those "illusions" are as real as representations of the outside world.
Legend2440 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum You know you are conscious because if you weren't, there wouldn't be a "you" to think about consciousness.
- Joker_vD 3y ago
  Which is a stance that Buddhism generally takes. There are thoughts, and feelings, but they exist on its own and (sometimes) build up an "ego" which is a fleeting, unstable thing, without its own essence. Cogiationes sunt is an empiric fact. But cogitationes sunt ergo res cogitans est is not.
  - red75prime 3y ago
    It feels a bit like consulting ancient Greek atomists on the nature of covalent bonds. They thought much about the subject sure, but instruments they had were lacking (not that they thought they need any instruments).
- alecst 3y ago
  Is there a “me”? I’m unconvinced by “cogito, ergo sum.” Has always felt a bit circular to me.
hrnnnnnn 3y ago
The fact that you are reading this text and it feels like something to be doing that.
alexanderchr 3y ago
What would even be the difference between it being a “real thing” and an illusion?
edgyquant 3y ago
It’s literally the only thing any of us know for sure is real
antonvs 3y ago
Ok, how would you write a computer program or train a neural network to experience that illusion? When a program executes, it follows a strictly "mechanical" procedure. There doesn't seem to be much room for consciousness or the "experiencing" of illusions. How is it that our brains are capable of experiencing the "illusion" of consciousness?
mistermann 3y ago
To answer that, first you may have to solve a tricky semiotics problem. And good luck getting consensus agreement ("the" "reality", not "pseudoscience", "nonsense", or various other persuasive (aka "real") memes) even on that step.

If we're talking about "everything that a human or non-human experiences, including what they feel, see and hear," then I'm not sure it's meaningful to distinguish whether it's "real" or "an illusion". You might put forward the theory we're all brains in jars (or the more modern formulation, 'the universe is a simulation'), but the experiences would still be occuring and consciousness would still be a phenomena. See also, Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy.

red75prime 3y ago

What is illusory exactly? Is it the brain misrepresenting its own workings? But those misrepresentations are encoded in the brain in the same way as everything else and they do have causal influence on the brain processes. So, those "illusions" are as real as representations of the outside world.

Legend2440 3y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum You know you are conscious because if you weren't, there wouldn't be a "you" to think about consciousness.

Joker_vD 3y ago
Which is a stance that Buddhism generally takes. There are thoughts, and feelings, but they exist on its own and (sometimes) build up an "ego" which is a fleeting, unstable thing, without its own essence. Cogiationes sunt is an empiric fact. But cogitationes sunt ergo res cogitans est is not.
- red75prime 3y ago
  It feels a bit like consulting ancient Greek atomists on the nature of covalent bonds. They thought much about the subject sure, but instruments they had were lacking (not that they thought they need any instruments).
alecst 3y ago
Is there a “me”? I’m unconvinced by “cogito, ergo sum.” Has always felt a bit circular to me.

hrnnnnnn 3y ago

The fact that you are reading this text and it feels like something to be doing that.

alexanderchr 3y ago

What would even be the difference between it being a “real thing” and an illusion?

edgyquant 3y ago

It’s literally the only thing any of us know for sure is real

antonvs 3y ago

Ok, how would you write a computer program or train a neural network to experience that illusion? When a program executes, it follows a strictly "mechanical" procedure. There doesn't seem to be much room for consciousness or the "experiencing" of illusions. How is it that our brains are capable of experiencing the "illusion" of consciousness?

mistermann 3y ago

To answer that, first you may have to solve a tricky semiotics problem. And good luck getting consensus agreement ("the" "reality", not "pseudoscience", "nonsense", or various other persuasive (aka "real") memes) even on that step.