If qualia is real, why does it have to be paranormal

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.

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?
 

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.   

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.

It does not put up artificial the barrier of the 'hard problem'.

Well what is so 'artificial' about asking how matter can create even a single fragment of conscious awareness? If that question can't be answered, doesn't it make you think pretty hard about all the claims made for AI, downloading people to computers, explaining the mind in terms of the brain/neurons/chemstry.

David Chalmers produced that wonderfully pithy explanation of the problem science faces here - what is the sense in just trying to blur over it? His job, if you like, was to devise a question that put his opponents on the spot. I think he succeeded admirably.

David

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

You're back! I was afraid maybe you caught the kewf. Glad you're ok.

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.



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?
 

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.   


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.

I think that as much as it likes to do away with dualist expectations, the explanatory gap still stands rather firmly against illusionism's attempts to dismiss it.

As for it trying to explain things, it doesn't really. It dorsn't explain anything, it just dismisses the existence of things. Often badly, there's a reason why illusionism isn't popular even among physicalists. If you're going to say that dualists kick the can out of view in an attempt to avoid answering the hard problems, then dualism and illusionism are comparable in that regard.

As for your last bit, this is probably the biggest problem. Even if our brain operates in a way we do not intuitively think it does, even if our reality is a fabrication from imprecise perceptions, we still have those perceptions. Our brain recorded the inputs and told us a story that we think is pain, but we still think it is pain, which illusionism has no explanation for. 

It is just: physical inputs > ?????? > you think you felt pain but you actually didn't.

As for your last bit, this is probably the biggest problem. Even if our brain operates in a way we do not intuitively think it does, even if our reality is a fabrication from imprecise perceptions, we still have those perceptions. Our brain recorded the inputs and told us a story that we think is pain, but we still think it is pain, which illusionism has no explanation for. 

It is just: physical inputs > ?????? > you think you felt pain but you actually didn't.

I did not say there is no pain felt, i tried to explain how i think feeling pain works.
In my view our brain does not tell a story to us, our brain puts what just happened into a story with us in it.
Experience is not projected towards us, we are part of the script, we are just another actor in the play of the last moment.
That is the important difference that you do not seem to understand.
Again, you do not have to agree, i know you don't. Just try to understand the basic idea, and see it is consistent on itself.

Often badly, there's a reason why illusionism isn't popular even among physicalists.

If Physicalists aren't accepting Illusionism, are they then Panpsychists?

(To be clear I agree Illusionism is nonsense.)

As i said before, nobody is 'experiencing the illusion', the self is part of the illusion.

Isn't that just plain obfuscation?

You start with a world that contains no consciousness.

Then somehow this non-conscious world creates an idea (like teacups or radios or clocks have ideas perhaps) that it must be conscious (a lot more details about this step might help).

This idea is then received by another part of the non-conscious world, and voila - we have illusory consciousness!

In my view our brain does not tell a story to us, our brain puts what just happened into a story with us in it.
Experience is not projected towards us, we are part of the script, we are just another actor in the play of the last moment.
That is the important difference that you do not seem to understand.
Again, you do not have to agree, i know you don't. Just try to understand the basic idea, and see it is consistent on itself.

This perspective is understandable, and may be self-consistent.

Want to explore it in more formal terms?  

Experience is not projected toward us.  Environments bombard any agent in it -- with signals from reflected light, sound and heat.  So, yes experience, doesn't come directly from the environment.  The agent needs to detect the signals and assimilate the bites and bytes the signals contain.  

An agent experiences the inputs from detection of its environment information in the signals by assimilating the bytes and bites with its own operating database.  Any information gain from the signals - experience - becomes mutual information now when both the source in the environment and its copy by the agent.

OK?

Isn't that just plain obfuscation?

You start with a world that contains no consciousness.

Then somehow this non-conscious world creates an idea (like teacups or radios or clocks have ideas perhaps) that it must be conscious (a lot more details about this step might help).

This idea is then received by another part of the non-conscious world, and voila - we have illusory consciousness!

Really well put!

As i said before, nobody is 'experiencing the illusion', the self is part of the illusion.

So, again, who exactly is being fooled into thinking they have conscious awareness, of anything? There's no-one home, after all.

Illusions have no reality, and can't affect anything. Illusions have an absolute lack of awareness, most of all of being an illusion. Illusions only exist as part of confused perception, which requires a non-illusory conscious awareness that can be somewhat aware that it was previously fooled into thinking that their misperception was real.

Living entities cannot be illusions, because they consciously react to the world around them, and make choices and decisions that have real impacts on other living, conscious entities. There are real consequences. Global wars have been waged over petty conflicts, which leave widespread destruction for decades. The habitats of animals can become irrecoverably polluted by toxic waste created by selfish individual humans. Real issues, caused by real entities with real minds.

Even now, I'm having some kind of impact on other forum members who read, and react, to this very post in some fashion or another.

Are you an illusion, Sparky? Am I deluding myself into believing that I'm speaking with someone who's not really there? Do you really believe that you don't exist?

Illusionism is far duller and much less interesting than even the lowest forms of solipsism, frankly... because it denies what is so painfully obvious to even the most intellectually dishonest of reductionist materialists!

This is why I don't like those schools or branches of Buddhism that claim that the self is an illusion... that the self is just some fancy illusion created by the five aggregates, which are ironically themselves just illusions that don't really exist.