Psience Quest

(2021-10-24, 07:15 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ] About Tallis your hero. I did not say he was categorically stupid. Just specifically stupid for thinking the brain does not create consciousness. As for Maaneli he was a narcissist certain of his infallibility. He earned my derision. You still do not know the mind of Shermer.

Entirely unrelated and not indicative of any of Shermer's critiques of parapsychology but, he's kind of an asshole. I use to quite like him, but he really seems to have gone off the deep end a bit in terms of just, hostile opinions towards people.

(2021-10-24, 07:15 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ] About Tallis your hero. I did not say he was categorically stupid. Just specifically stupid for thinking the brain does not create consciousness. As for Maaneli he was a narcissist certain of his infallibility. He earned my derision. You still do not know the mind of Shermer.

Lol if we're talking about earning people's derision...but I digress...

I believe your problem with Tallis was specifically his argument that memories can't be stored in a material brain, for which you called him a "damned fool"...I've waited years for any actual counterargument but it seems you won't be providing one in this lifetime.

That you had to run to JREF suggests you didn't have any real counterargument against Maaneli, it was just your materialist-atheist faith telling you he was speaking blasphemies.

Shermer seems to me to be an opportunist, but I quoted him directly so unless he's refuted his prior position I'd say that I know at least as much about his mind as the contents of the article he wrote.

(2021-10-25, 01:11 AM)Smaw Wrote: [ -> ]What's disappointing is asking me to take a position on belief that eventually, maybe, an answer will be conjured up that agrees with one position rather than the number of others that have been proposed. 

Not all forms of ilusionism involved can kicking, but even the ones that don't have fair arguments against them. Certainly not a popular position, especially among physicalist philosophers of the mind.

If i am a proponent of illusionism, am i then an illusionist?

(2021-10-25, 08:23 AM)Sparky Wrote: [ -> ]If i am a proponent of illusionism, am i then an illusionist?

Well yeah, cause you're advocating for illusionism. What kind of illusionism do you subscribe to, Dennett or Frankish? Or some other style of argument.

I am more of the school of Copperfield.

Just kidding, Smaw.
I do like Dennet a lot, I guess that makes me a bit of an  eliminitavist , although I am not that keen on labels.

(2021-10-25, 07:05 AM)Smaw Wrote: [ -> ]Entirely unrelated and not indicative of any of Shermer's critiques of parapsychology but, he's kind of an asshole. I use to quite like him, but he really seems to have gone off the deep end a bit in terms of just, hostile opinions towards people.

The only reason I linked to that podcast was to inform Sci Shermer has not changed his outlook.

(2021-10-25, 02:25 AM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Check my record. I recommend leaving all positions on the table.

Sounds like you are entangled in a superposition of states with no outcome.

(2021-10-26, 02:15 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like you are entangled in a superposition of states with no outcome.

It’s why I had to take a break.
It’s exhausting.

(2021-10-24, 11:36 PM)Smaw Wrote: [ -> ]Saying consciousness is an illusion because it's a construction after the fact doesn't seem to explain anything at all, and even seems like a poor use of the word illusion.

Illusion might indeed be not the ideal word to describe what happens, but it does explain a lot, it would do away with a lot of dualist objections to a physicalist explanation of mind.

Quote:As with most illusionist theories of consciousness it merely kicks the can down the road.

Actually, no. it does the opposite, it tries to explain how we experience the world here and now. It does not put up artificial the barrier of the 'hard problem'. Dualists do not kick the can down the road, they kick it behind a hedge where they safely can ignore it.
Are you OK with the profound lack of curiosity displayed therein?
 

Quote:Okay, it's an illusion, now you still have to explain it, and the question of asking who is experiencing the illusion if consciousness is an illusion is a legitimate question.

As i said before, nobody is 'experiencing the illusion', the self is part of the illusion.
It may be a legitimate question to ask, but i tried to answer it several times now. As i said to Sci, you do not have to agree, just try to understand what i am saying. At some point you have to let go of the little homunculus in your head if you want to understand, it sets you up for an infinite regress of minds in minds.
 
I see the experience as putting what just happened around us in some sort of sentence made of concepts, with the self being just one of these concepts.
These concepts would be developed over the course of our life, from very simple, to rather complex in later life.
Some of the fundamental ones maybe even present from birth through genetics, eg recognizing human faces.   

Quote:Not to mention the implications some forms of illusionism can bring. It is a heavy ask already to deny felt experience as not actually existing. It is even more to say that you don't actually experience pain, you just THINK you experience pain.

No, it is not as if you think you are feeling pain, it is more that your brain recorded the story of what just happened as you feeling pain.
Nobody is saying that you did not have that experience, that is a straw man. It is just that it does not work the way we intuitively think.
Probably why it is such a heavy ask to think this way.