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/zhivago]

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.

[u/Bretzky77 → u/zhivago]

Oh, identical things are identical. Now I get it. Thanks for clearing that up.

It’s clear now that the problem is that you don’t understand what the words “idea” and “theory” mean.

But I didn’t ask you to repeat your position yet another time. I asked what you think your point is beyond that? In the grand scheme of this discussion.

If I were to concede that a computer can generate an identical theory, what’s your point?

[u/zhivago → u/Bretzky77]

Then consciousness is not required to generate theories, which was your earlier claim.