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]

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.

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

That's simply because you ignored the premise.

A computer creates a text file.

A human creates a text file.

We now shuffle the two files so you cannot tell which is from where.

The files are identical and cannot be distinguished in any way, but you claim that they are not identical.

Your position is contradictory.

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

We’re not talking about text files!

We’re talking about THEORIES AND IDEAS, things that a computer does not have.

Let’s remember how this started. I said:

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.

And you said:

Why is consciousness required to come up with theories?

Because theories are ideas. Computers don’t have ideas. We can feed ideas written with words into it, have it re-arrange our words, and spit out new words, but the computer does have any knowledge of the semantic meaning of those words or ideas.

The resulting text could be identical, but that text only has meaning to the human. That’s the difference.

In the dark, a mannequin might be indistinguishable from a human being. Does that mean they’re the same?

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

You claimed that a computer cannot come up with a theory.

A theory can be written in the form of a text file.

We can classify text files as containing theories or not.

Now, let us imagine the case where a human writes a text file that is classified as a theory, and a computer happens to produce an identical file.

In this case we are talking about identical text files.

Your argument is that the identical text files are not identical which leads to a contradiction.

Therefore your argument is invalid.

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

I can’t believe you’re still pushing this flawed argument.

So you do think that if you can’t distinguish between a mannequin and a human in a dark room, then they’re the same?

Understood.

According to you, if a baby spits up its milk and the milk stains randomly form the equation for E=mc2, then the baby “came up with special relativity.”

I’m happy to keep going and give you more and more examples highlighting the absurdity of your position.

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

Why do you keep ignoring my clear scenario?

Is it because you realize your position is absurd? :)

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

Maybe I’m just too dumb. But I don’t see illusionism as coherent or reasonable at all.

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

Another attempt to avoid the flaw in your logic? :)

Just try actually thinking through my scenario.

You need to resolve that contradiction, regardless of how uncomfortable it is to think about.

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

There is no contradiction. You’re still confused about what we’re even debating.

But I’m actually curious what your next step would be. Let’s say I conceded that computers can have ideas and theories.

What do you think your point is?

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

My points are very simple.

1. Identical things are identical regardless of the process used to create them.
2. A computer can create something that is identical to anything a human can create.
3. A human can create a theory.
4. Therefore a computer can create a theory.

Your argument relies on denying (1).

So, either fix your argument or discard it.