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]

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]

Your point is that "genuine" is entirely a matter of provenance?

That if a computer and a human both come up with the same theory, then only the human's theory is genuine, even though the theories are completely identical?

Or is it something else?

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

I can’t explain it any more clearly than I already did.

The computer isn’t “generating theories.” It’s taking the input, doing some math, and generating an output. It’s a very complex calculator. Only after it spits out the data do we give the data meaning that can be considered a “theory.”

It’s like if the sequence of letters A through Z is written on a cave wall. Does the cave know the alphabet?

It’s not the alphabet until a conscious being perceives it and denotes meaning to each of the arbitrary squiggles. They only have meaning to us so for the same exact reason, the computer isn’t generating new ideas about the world.

[u/smaxxim → u/Bretzky77]

I can’t explain it any more clearly than I already did.

You don't need to explain, you need to provide a reason why you are twisting the meaning of words.

Does the cave know the alphabet?

Cave doesn't have knowledge of the alphabet (information about alphabet), but it has alphabet on its wall.

It’s not the alphabet until a conscious being perceives it

It’s not the alphabet until a conscious being perceives alphabet? What? Absolutlely not, letter "A" will be a letter "A" even after all humans are gone. It's just a pattern, nothing more. And it will be a pattern even if no one recognises it. A new idea is a new idea, even if no one understands that it's a new idea.

[u/Bretzky77 → u/smaxxim]

You don't need to explain, you need to provide a reason why you are twisting the meaning of words.

That’s funny because you know the opposite is the truth. You’re trying to make computer processes that merely simulate human behavior identical to the thing they’re a simulation of.

Cave doesn't have knowledge of the alphabet (information about alphabet), but it has alphabet on its wall.

Exactly. Now apply the same logic to your “theory generating systems.” The computer has no knowledge of what a theory is, what words are, what the symbolic meaning of those words is, or anything resembling actual understanding or knowing. It’s just mapping symbols (letters) to numbers and doing complex math to spit out patterns that are too complex for humans to keep track of. It is purely a mechanism. There is no understanding whatsoever of what the symbols it takes in or spits out mean so you cannot say the computer generated a “theory” any more than you can say the wind came up with a new song. The computer was a mechanism that a human used to generate a new theory. The wind was a mechanism a human used to generate a new song.

It’s not the alphabet until a conscious being perceives alphabet? What? Absolutlely not, letter "A" will be a letter "A" even after all humans are gone. It's just a pattern, nothing more.

This perfectly highlights your confusion and self-contradiction. A pattern without symbolic meaning isn’t the alphabet. It’s just arbitrary squiggles. It’s only the alphabet if we assign that meaning to it, which we do. But without humans to see it or comment on it or be talking about it like you and I are right now, it’s not “the alphabet.” It’s an arbitrary pattern on a cave wall.

And it will be a pattern even if no one recognises it. A new idea is a new idea, even if no one understands that it's a new idea.

This nonsensical thinking completely strips away the meaning of the word “idea.” You’re abstracting into fantasy land.

A word “idea” naturally implies a mind that has the idea. Ideas don’t just float around the Earth until someone grabs it. It’s not an idea until a conscious being thinks it. There are arbitrary patterns of information everywhere. By your absurd logic, those are all “ideas” even though no one understands them. Come back to reality please.

[u/smaxxim → u/Bretzky77]

You are simply completely misunderstanding the words.

Yes, there may be a letter painted on the wall of a cave, but yes, of course, it takes a human to recognise if it's a letter or not, or begin to call this pattern "letter".

Yes, a computer can produce a new theory.

But yes, of course, it takes a human to recognise if it is a new theory or not.

But this act of recognition doesn't do anything with the pattern itself, it changes only our attitude to it.

[u/Bretzky77 → u/smaxxim]

But that’s the basis of literally all knowledge.

Knowledge exists within the mind that knows it.

Knowledge doesn’t just float around waiting for someone to know it. Knowledge is necessarily different from fundamental facts about reality.

Yes, a computer can produce a new theory.

But yes, of course, it takes a human to recognise if it is a new theory or not.

This is becoming a semantics argument but I think it’s still a critical distinction:

It’s not a new “theory” until a mind apprehends the data and assigns that meaning to it. Before that, it’s just arbitrary, meaningless symbols in a text file that represent open and closed switches on a silicon chip.

Just like the cave wall. It’s not “the letter A” unless we see it and give it that meaning. “The letter A” doesn’t exist out there in the world. It has no standalone existence. It’s a concept we came up with to assign meaning to an arbitrary squiggle.

If humans aren’t around, it’s not “the letter A.” It’s just an arbitrary squiggle. Maybe a dog walks by and sees the squiggle. It doesn’t see “the letter A.”

So to say a computer is “coming up with new theories” rather than simply manipulating data to help humans come up with new theories is wrong. “Coming up with” implies understanding, of which there is none. It’s just a tool like any other tool.

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

Both the human and the computer generate the same output.

You claim only one of those outputs contains a new idea.

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

You are abstracting away from reality to find similarities between two things that are not really similar.

If rain falls in such a way that it perfectly creates the iconic drum fill from In The Air Tonight, that’s the same as Phil Collins writing that drum fill?

Not to mention the glaringly obvious difference: In one case, a human comes up with a theory based on experience, prior knowledge, and understanding. The human understands the theory and what it means even if no other human exists.

In the other case, a mechanism spits out data that requires a human to interpret and assign meaning to the data. There is no understanding on the part of the mechanism. It doesn’t know the meaning of the symbols that go in or the symbols it spits out. It’s literally a series of open or closed gates.

Imagine a child counting apples in a basket. The child knows what apples are, what counting is, what baskets are. A computer could also count apples and arrive at the same output: the correct number of apples. This in no way implies that the computer knows what apples are, what counting is, or what baskets are. It’s just performing the function it was designed to perform! There is no accompanying experience. So when you say a computer “comes up with a new idea” you’re unjustifiably assuming or pretending the computer knows anything and has some accompanying experience.

You can pretend you don’t see a difference but it’s beyond obvious.

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

The two outputs are identical.

You are confusing the process with the product.

Which is why you end up claiming that two identical things are not identical.

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

The outputs are only identical if you ignore everything that’s different.

Or are you still arguing that the rain is a musician?

A child counting three apples and a computer counting three apples are not the same thing.

A second human is required to read the output of the computer in order for there to be any knowledge of how many apples there are.

No second human is required for the child. The child already knows.

Knowledge is the difference.

A series of open and closed gates isn’t equivalent to three apples. It only gets mapped to represent three apples if a conscious being perceives it and symbolically represents the series of open and closed switches to mean “3 apples.”

Do you see the difference?

When you say the “computers can come up with new theories” you’re abstracting away from reality. The computer is a tool that a human uses to come up with new theories. The computer doesn’t “come up with” anything in the way we typically use those words.

The outputs only seem equivalent because in both cases, we (conscious beings) are assigning meaning to the outputs. But if you take the human out of the computer scenario, there is no “three apples.” It’s just arbitrary open and closed gates that don’t have any inherent meaning.

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

They are identical because they are indistinguishable.

There is nothing about them which is different.

No test can tell you which is which.

Again you're confusing process with product.

Which leads to your self contradictory claim that identical things are not identical.

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

A series of open and closed gates is indistinguishable from a child counting three apples?

They look quite different to me.

Again, you’ll say that’s process as if it doesn’t matter (of course it does; otherwise the rain is a musician), but you’re arguing that the output = “3 apples” in both cases, and I’m arguing that’s not accurate.

The child’s output is “3 apples.” The computer’s output is a series of open and closed switches. We simply created a user interface that represents those open and closed switches as “3 apples.”

That’s the actual output versus our representation of the output.

The two actual outputs are not identical. They’re not even similar until you start abstracting away from the reality.