4 ms·
I don't see that it matters whether consciousness is "actual" or "illusory" (whatever that distinction entails) for the purposes of explaining subjective experi
by lamacase 11y ago
I don't see that it matters whether consciousness is "actual" or "illusory" (whatever that distinction entails) for the purposes of explaining subjective experience. The degree to which that experience reflects, or fails to reflects, physical reality is certainly interesting but I don't see it changing the nature of the problems.
"Instead of asking how neural impulses turn into conscious experiences, we must ask how the grand illusion gets constructed."
I really don't see what the difference is. How are we to interpret the notion that, say, the color Orange is really just a "trick"? Some sleight of mind perhaps?
What point was the author trying to make?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- seszett 11y ago> How are we to interpret the notion that, say, the color Orange is really just a "trick"? That might not seem important today, now we know what colour is in terms of physics and the only remaining unknown might be how we internally perceive it, but the nature of colour was a real question at one time, and trying to understand it ended up improving our knowledge of physics. Trying to understand consciousness, however pointless you might think the difference between an actual consciousness and one constructed on the fly is, could very well lead to interesting discoveries as well, eventually. It's also interesting to know in itself.
- entelechy0 11y agoThere is no continuous consciousness. It is the result of unconscious processes culminating into individual perceptions of consciousness, making it appear like we are experiencing one continuous reality, when in reality, something far more complicated is driving us behind the scenes.