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

I don't want to ridicule it, but I do want to make it clear that it doesn't make sense. You can't explain consciousness as an illusion because if we take (say) the definition of 'illusion' at Wiki, we find:

"An illusion is a distortion of the senses, which can reveal how the human brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation."

The problem (and maybe also solution) with that definition is that it is unrelated to consciousness.

Think of examples of sensory input which is misinterpreted.

• A camera autofocus selects the background instead of the intended subject.
  
• A google algorithm blurs out innocuous street signs or random details when it is supposed to obscure the identity of people (context: streetview).
  
• An automated video subtitle generator produces absurd text.
  
• A thermostat picks up heat from a hot coffee and turns down the room heating.
  

None of those things has anything whatsoever to do with consciousness. That means it doesn't have any relevance here as a supposed explanation of anything.

I don't want to ridicule it, but I do want to make it clear that it doesn't make sense. You can't explain consciousness as an illusion because if we take (say) the definition of 'illusion' at Wiki, we find:

"An illusion is a distortion of the senses, which can reveal how the human brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation."

My only quibble with that, is that I am sure animals can encounter illusion too.

This is semantic nitpicking, as you know, words can have slightly different meanings dependent on the context.
Here are some definitions from Merriam-Webster, i bolded the ones that IMO apply best to how i use the word illusion. 

illusion noun
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In
il·lu·sion | \ i-ˈlü-zhən  \
plural illusions
Essential Meaning of illusion
1: something that looks or seems different from what it is : something that is false or not real but that seems to be true or real
The video game is designed to give the illusion that you are in control of an airplane.
They used paint to create the illusion of metal.
She says that all progress is just an illusion.
2: an incorrect idea : an idea that is based on something that is not true
She had/harbored no illusions about how much work the project would require. [=she knew the project would require a lot of work]
He was under the illusion [=he mistakenly believed] that he was a good player.
Full Definition of illusion
1a(1): a misleading image presented to the vision : OPTICAL ILLUSION
(2): something that deceives or misleads intellectually
b(1): perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature
(2): HALLUCINATION sense 1
(3): a pattern capable of reversible perspective
2a(1): the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : MISAPPREHENSION
(2): an instance of such deception
bobsolete : the action of deceiving
3: a fine plain transparent bobbinet or tulle usually made of silk and used for veils, trimmings, and dresses

Thus it cannot apply to something that isn't conscious.

It also does not need to apply to something that is not conscious, because i did never state that consciousness does not exist, nor that we are not conscious.
I only tried to explain that the self is part of the experience, it is not separate from it.
We are definitely conscious, but it might not work how we intuitively think it does.

Conceivably you want to use a new definition of consciousness that fits your needs, or maybe you want to restate what exactly you are saying.

David

No i need people to try to understand what i am saying. i can probably make myself a lot clearer, i will try.
But first i need to get past the bit where everybody feels the need to ask their version of the question "if consciousness is an illusion, then who is experiencing the illusion".

But first i need to get past the bit where everybody feels the need to ask their version of the question "if consciousness is an illusion, then who is experiencing the illusion".

So you want to just ignore the elephant in the room? The reason everyone is asking that question is because it can't be ignored. As John Horgan (an atheist) says in his Scientific American blog, when addressing the same issue as expounded by Dennett:

Some people surely have an unhealthy attachment to mysteries, but Dennett has an unhealthy aversion to them, which compels him to stake out unsound positions. His belief that consciousness is an illusion is nuttier than the belief that God is real.

Or, to quote other philosophers:

British philosopher Papineau recommends taking Dennett’s theories “with a pinch of salt.”

American essayist David Bentley Hart is less charitable: “Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness”:

Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.

DAVID BENTLEY HART, “THE ILLUSIONIST” AT THE NEW ATLANTIS

This is semantic nitpicking, as you know, words can have slightly different meanings dependent on the context.
Here are some definitions from Merriam-Webster, i bolded the ones that IMO apply best to how i use the word illusion. 




It also does not need to apply to something that is not conscious, because i did never state that consciousness does not exist, nor that we are not conscious.
I only tried to explain that the self is part of the experience, it is not separate from it.
We are definitely conscious, but it might not work how we intuitively think it does.


No i need people to try to understand what i am saying. i can probably make myself a lot clearer, i will try.
But first i need to get past the bit where everybody feels the need to ask their version of the question "if consciousness is an illusion, then who is experiencing the illusion".

But all your bolded examples involve consciousness - of the reader. If something 'looks' to be something that it isn't - well who does the looking - a person.
Sparky, you don't need to get past the illogical step, "if consciousness is an illusion, then who is experiencing the illusion" you need to answer it!

If it is valid to reason by just sidestepping objections, then you soon get into a mess.

For example, suppose a man starts a crowd funded enterprise to generate electricity with a perpetual motion machine of some sort. When presented with the thermodynamic proof that you can't do that, he just says, "OK that is a bit tricky, but let's put that aside! I want you to think how great this machine will be, and how close we are to achieving it. Another million dollars will certainly deliver a working prototype".

David

Well, again, nobody is fooled into thinking they have an experience, it is more that the self is part of the experience.
There is no self outside the experience.
As said before, the experience is the story of what just happened. It is not told to the self, it is told with the self as just one of the elements of the story.
The self is just one of the concepts we put in a narrative, it probably is not even formed the first one or two years of our existence. 

Over the course of our lives we form concepts of things by having certain neurons firing together, they grow ever more complex, get more meaning, fall apart in different concepts, etc...

Sparky, the Self cannot be part of the experience, else there is nothing to have the experience! Experiences don't pop out of nowhere ~ they happen to an experiencer, by definition. Narratives are merely a subset of experience, so narratives mean nothing without an experiencer.

If there is no Self outside of the experience... there is no experience, either, as no-one is having the experience, therefore, in essence, you are, in a very roundabout way, saying that the Self, the experiencer, is an illusion.

In isolation, neurons don't do anything ~ they don't have concepts or ideas, which are not material things. In great numbers, individual things that don't do anything also don't do anything else in greater numbers. They still have no ideas or concepts. Individual things that have no complexities or meanings have no complexities or meanings in greater numbers. At least, not in terms of ideas or concepts. Physically? Sure, but that only has meaning to an entity that can read meaning into complex physical systems... something that isn't an illusion of a system.

Where did i say that anyone is an illusion? I never said there is no self, the illusion is that the self is a separate entity.
I am not saying the self doe not exist, i am saying it does not work the way our intuition says it does.

Why the reductio ad absurdum if it is about something i did not say, what does that add to the conversation?
As also said a few times before, you do not have to agree, but at least try to understand what i am saying.

Your convoluted wording all but explicitly states that you believe that the Self is ultimately an illusion, following your logic to its logical end.

If the Self is not an individual entity, it is an illusion. So, in essence, yes, you are strongly implying that the Self is an illusion.

I understand what you are saying ~ but do you...?

If you understand what i am saying, what does it actually deny? It might be painfully obvious to you, it is not to me.

If the Self doesn't exist, there's nothing to deny, sure. But, then... who exists to even have these complex, complicated philosophical musings rife with conflicting systems of logic?

It is painfully obvious that I exist ~ I must, in order to have taken a few days or so to muse over how to best reply to your post, writing a whole reply, thinking it over, then deleting it because it didn't feel well-thought out. Yet, here I am again, banging out letters on a keyboard...

Combinations of letters that have meaning, not because they have any individual meanings that somehow magically gain in meaning for each individual letter, but because they have an externally applied meaning! Neurons also have no intrinsic meaning. They don't have any. We project meaning onto them.

Language only has meaning to two or more speakers of that language. Body language included.

Tell me, how does dualism not result in infinite regress of nested consciousnesses?
And talking about solipsism, how do you keep any form of idealism from falling into that sort of idiocy?

Dualism doesn't imply any kind of infinite regress of nested consciousnesses...

But Physicalism and Panpsychism do, ironically enough...

For your comprehension... Dualism merely makes a statement that there are two kinds of basic substances ~ mind, and matter. They are separate, isolated, but interact in some mysterious way that the Dualists don't understand, yet valiantly try to figure out, anyways. Wasted effort, to my thinking... as it merely punts the can down the road.

Some forms of Idealism, you can certainly accuse of a sort of "solipsism", but you'd be missing the greater context of.

A Universal Source, Mind... that can be accused of being "solipsism", yes... but it also doesn't truly apply, either, as they are only grasping labels for something far beyond human comprehension. Something that is far beyond that scope of being an individual entity with thoughts, emotions, ideas, etc.

Said Universal Source, Mind, is most commonly perceived as being the entirety of Reality, Existence, Itself. By definition, all things are manifestations, aspects of it. It also includes the ideas, concepts, of emptiness and nothingness, else It would not be the Universal Source, Mind. It is All and None... all that we can imagine, and all that we cannot imagine, including a lack of experience.

I do wonder what the Buddha actually thought about this "illusion of self", or even his early disciples.

Who knows. At the very least, we know that the Buddha refused to comment on the question of whether Souls existed or not.

People cite debates between the Buddhists and Hindus on whether there was some imperishable self (Atman), but both Buddhists and Jains joined the Hindus in arguing against the ancient materialists who denied reincarnation - or any other kind of afterlife - altogether...

Unsurprising. Various Hindu schools believed in reincarnation. Though, some schools of Buddhists interpreted it as rebirth ~ of an entity, though without anything being brought along from previous incarnations.  Which is confusing, because apparently, said entities could still experience a Buddhist version of hell...

There are some Buddhist schools of thought that did believe in an imperishable self, at the very least. Some Hindu schools believed that there was no imperishable self, likewise. Those that believed whole-heartedly that this reality was Maya, illusion...

Very reminiscent of the variety of ancient Greek schools of philosophical thought... and even of Enlightenment era to modern Western philosophical thought.

It also does not need to apply to something that is not conscious, because i did never state that consciousness does not exist, nor that we are not conscious.
I only tried to explain that the self is part of the experience, it is not separate from it.
We are definitely conscious, but it might not work how we intuitively think it does.

Unrelated to what everyone else said. Conscious pretty obviously doesn't work in ways we intuitively think it does, I think everyone agrees with that including most modern dualists. 

Consciousness may give us the illusion of subjectivity, qualia and any other non mechanistic aspects. The problem is that the illusion HAS subjectivity and qualia. Even if they aren't 'real', they feel real. So one still has to explain how they occur. By rejecting the hard problem of consciousness, one creates a kind of hard problem of illusionism. Our brain creates a feeling that we believe is subjective, that has qualia, how does that occur? Well we can't explain it, we can only explain up to a point that says our brain creates an illusion of those feelings, but we have no idea how that illusion feels like anything.

Consciousness may give us the illusion of subjectivity, qualia and any other non mechanistic aspects. The problem is that the illusion HAS subjectivity and qualia. Even if they aren't 'real', they feel real. So one still has to explain how they occur. By rejecting the hard problem of consciousness, one creates a kind of hard problem of illusionism. 

and there it is!

Unsurprising. Various Hindu schools believed in reincarnation. Though, some schools of Buddhists interpreted it as rebirth ~ of an entity, though without anything being brought along from previous incarnations.

There is some fascinating evidence for reincarnation. Obviously if past memories are totally erased, we have no way to detect this, but it would seem they are not always erased!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

These cases seem to emerge spontaneously.

David

By now I think we're all aware of the flaws in Wikipedia. Certainly for anything to do with Psi or survival of consciousness, it cannot be trusted to give a balanced presentation.

I'd always recommend looking to the Psi Encyclopedia first. It is regularly updated on such topics, new articles are being added all the time.

https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/artic...-stevenson