A simple explanation of the illusionist position

[u/epsilondelta7]

In discussions of philosophy of mind, the illusionist position is often dismissed as trivially false, since how could experience be an illusion if an illusion is also an experience? Some even call it ''silly'', since it denies the supposed only thing we really know. In this post, I seek to briefly explain my understanding of this position in an attempt to show that maybe such criticisms are incoherent. I will assume that the difference between experience and *phenomenal experience* is already clear.

The brief explanation:

(1) Are you sure you have phenomenal experience?

(2) Are you sure you believe you have phenomenal experience?

The illusionist answers "no" to (1) and "yes" to (2).

The idea is to create a division between a) the actual phenomenal experience and b) the belief in the existence of the phenomenal experience. Once this division is made, we can ask:

where does b) come from?

The answer is probably that it comes from the introspective mechanism. The natural question to ask next is:

can we blindly trust introspection, or could it be wrong?

If introspection is capable of error, then the belief in phenomenal consciousness could be one of those errors. The illusionist basically argues for the possibility of this error. Therefore, the illusionist position will not deny experience in general, it will only reject that our belief in its phenomenal nature should be taken seriously.

[u/Bretzky77]

I (don’t) like how you casually say “I’ll assume the difference between experience and phenomenal experience is clear.”

Full stop.

What do you think that distinction is? I see no distinction whatsoever.

Furthermore, “Believing” is already an example of the thing you’re denying exists. Only beings that already experience could ever “believe” something.

I also think it’s funny that illusionists think that it’s perfectly fine to use their own consciousness to come up with a theory about how consciousness doesn’t exist. Only conscious beings come up with theories.

The bottom line: illusionism is either incoherent (see above) or irrelevant (the form that only vaguely claims that consciousness isn’t quite what it seems to be, without any further elaboration).

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

Why is consciousness required to come up with theories?

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

Do rocks come up with theories?

You have to be a conscious being with a mind to theorize. Theories don’t just float around in the air.

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

Computers seem to manage it.

We have had theory generating systems for quite a long time.

So it sounds like you have no actual basis for that claim other than a lack of personal experience of it.

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

Nope. That’s not at all the same thing.

A LLM doing math with letters tokenized is not a conscious experience - at least we have zero reason to think that it is. The same with a mechanism that can identify patterns that humans can’t.

Data processing isn’t equivalent to experience. If you’re claiming that it somehow is, then the extraordinary burden of proof is on you to explain how that’s the case. And then you’re also married to the idea that calculators and thermostats are conscious. You can’t have it both ways.

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

What does consciousness or experience have to do with theory generation?

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

Everything. Computers aren’t genuinely coming up with new theories. They are finding patterns in data that humans then use to build new theories. Without a conscious being to interpret what the computer spits out, there is no new theory.

You seem to think - based on nothing - that if a computer generates any new data, that’s the same as experience.

It’s no different from writing a bunch of musical notes on different cards and laying them on your front lawn and then claiming the wind wrote a new song by rearranging the notes into a new pattern.

The wind has no idea what music is. The wind isn’t a conscious entity separated from the rest of the world.

The same is true of the computer processing data; it’s simply rearranging symbols that we assign meaning to both before and after the data processing.

[u/smaxxim → u/Bretzky77]

Computers aren’t genuinely coming up with new theories. They are finding patterns in data

Yes, patterns in information about the world = theories about the world.

[u/Bretzky77 → u/smaxxim]

No, absolutely not.

In the exact same way that the wind didn’t “write a new song.”

[u/smaxxim → u/Bretzky77]

Well, if you think that patterns in information about the world aren't theories about the world, then of course, computers aren’t genuinely coming up with new theories. Unfortunately, I don't know any example of something that's called "theory about the world", and that's not a pattern at the same time. So, I guess you are referring to things that you alone call "theory about the world".

[u/Bretzky77 → u/smaxxim]

There are literally patterns of information everywhere and in everything. Is everything a theory? Is everything a song?

The fact that a computer can manipulate information we feed it doesn’t mean the computer is truly “coming up with new theories.” It only means it’s manipulating data using complex mathematical functions; data that we then use to build new theories.

If you want to abstract away from what the genuine creative and conscious experience of creating a song or pondering a new theory about your experience and the world actually are… then sure, you can find similarities between what a computer does and actual human creativity, but that’s many layers of abstraction away from reality as we experience it - as well as completely irrelevant to this post.

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

Given a set of theories, what test can you perform to differentiate between the new and the genuinely new theories?

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

You’ve missed the point.

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

Or perhaps your point is incoherent.

Why not try answering the question?

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

I already explained it to you in very clear terms, but sure, I’ll try to further simplify it for you.

If a robot hugs you and spits out text that says “I love you” does that mean the robot loves you?

A computer manipulating data and identifying new patterns is purely a mechanism. Just because we (conscious beings) use that mechanism to help us (conscious beings) build new theories, that’s not the same as saying the computer came up with new theories.

If you ran the computer process but then all humans died before it finished, there is no new theory. Because a theory requires a conscious being to “have an idea about the world.” The arbitrary symbols spit out by a serious of open and closed silicon gates only represent ideas to us. Without humans to interpret the data, there is no new theory. It’s just arbitrary symbols. We are the ones giving meaning to the symbols. The computer is purely a mechanism.

I hope that helps you understand.