Could Consciousness be an Illusion? – Keith Frankish

Phantom limb syndrome….

I'm glad I can listen to a conversation like this. There's something about it that seems very earnest, which cuts against the trendline of social media being cynical clout chasing.

Many examples from medicine and pharmacology demonstrate that drugs and toxins can alter our consciousness. What about a new understanding of how our biological receptors work? Perhaps the physics of receptors is the missing ingredient for understanding ourselves and creating better AI? At the most fundamental level, we are the summation and interplay of trillions of our cellular receptors. These receptors are poised biochemical balances that interact with our environment and with one another in a grand symphony that has evolved since the universe began. We are currently unique beings who can reflect on the universe and discover our origins within it. We reside upon the cusp of an unfolding creation, like a surfer trying to catch a wave. See the book, Origins of Life's Sensoria, for more.

Illusionism seems like the best option for a materialist. But yikes. Response to philosophical zombie question was just so unconvincing

hello sir this is a 15 year old in process of learning about what actually she thinks might be a better explanation of god and the life and everything in between and I would really wanna know then what is gratitude who do we actually put it towards my guess is towards ourselves reassuring ourselves but then i have my fellow mates and my family telling me it is to thank the universe then why are we thanking the universe when we think their is no one who hear us their due to the fact that nobody is out their (yes i am a in process non believer non resistant person ) is the universe in itself holds the answers like people claim it does

We call things illusions if they are not what they seem to be. So there can be no illusions without things seeming to be one way rather than another. But seeming only occurs in consciousness. It's almost a synonym of consciousness: things seem to be a certain way. Mere differences or disparities would not amount to illusions.

Hence so far from consciousness being an illusion, illusions by their very nature require and involve consciousness. Without consciousness, there would and could be no illusions.

As a complex intellectual function of a set of decidedly odd biochemically charged cells (dispersed through a given material body) – then, yes; phantasm is a good guess at defining that elusive experience, aka the "mind", including "consciousness" and, in humans at least, "conscience".

We have a weird share in the odd capacity to engage with an ordinary "animal" (animated) illusion = lived, interpreted, and expressed .. more or less in line with the "stuff" perceived. Thus, a concept at work in principle, via the (overwhelming) image projected as the whole; not, therefore, a delusion (a mistake in interpretation of the received stimuli, organically produced/ re-produced).

Why any of that .. basic Aquinas stuff .. is now considered to be bounced, thoughtfully, off a modern philosophical wall is somewhat beyond me.

But then, what would I know …

Keep the Faith; tell the truth, shame the devil, and let the demons shriek.
God bless. ;o)

Alex doing his usual bit of almost acknowledging Buddhism.

As I am currently going over Schopenhauer's "The World as Will and Representation", after only 3:48 into the video, I think it might be a good companion piece. Can't say for sure, I haven't 2 hours at the moment to watch the rest (and I've only just started book 2 of volume 1 of the book), but I already like where it's going.

This dude has great energy

a horrifying thought is a person that gains sight after being blind all their life and looking at a human face. they see the picture as we see it, but their brain interprets it as a random shape. they have no concept that there is a human being looking back at you, and thats genuinely scary to me as a concept

Holy goodness I’m so f*cking disappointed by this comment section. A bunch of arrogant self-righteous motherf*ckers who already have figured it all out, who are absolutely sure that their precious souls have a unique connection with the fundamental nature of reality, “bUt WhO iS eXpErIeNcInG tHe IlLuSiOn (GOTCHA)”, you watch those videos only to pat yourself on the back and say “you see, the smartest people out there think just like you, you are my special snowflake”, and as soon as information presented contradicts your views and forces you to think y’all write “bs” even without watching. Not even sophists, worse. If I’ll ever see such an “enlightened non-dual panpsychist” as some of y’all in real life I’d rather talk to a stinky homeless crack whore.

If u r CONSIOUS you shud be vegan

1:06:50 I think that I’m thinking and therefore I think that I exist, but idk tbh)0))

Alex,

You're getting arch Mike.: the angel boss.
I wasn't sure because they're still sealing people and he's super busy.
He's the best. You never know how he'll do it. He may, for example have you enter a bus that doesn't exist and he'll have you see things on that bus that are warnings, etc
He'll tune you in.
You will not fear it but you'll be in in awe.
I know you're going to cry,. Sweet.

Loved Keith on your podcast

I don't understand the difference between illusionism and physicalism. It seems that illusionists just want to be different. It seems they really want to say "Redness doesnt exits" but they can't, because redness obviously exists (ok, not redness itself as an object of nature, but experience of redness). But if they agree that redness "exists" and try to explain it purely in physical terms, then they are physicalists.

moustache and bald

I can see some attractive points around the illusionist idea that Keith elucidates really
clearly here.

There are still aspects relating to subjective experiences and qualia that don’t disappear
so readily though. A line that Keith used about halfway through went along the lines that
“It’s a mechanism of autonomy and you should love these strings, these deterministic
mechanisms that allow you to exercise autonomy” – I can’t see how this follows on
materialism. It feels like Keith is having his cake and eating it here.

If my mental state (the state of the neurons, synapses, electrical impulses in nerves,
chemical concentrations, physical stimuli being received by sense organs) can be
expressed as N0 at time T0, then on materialism, the state a fraction of a second later,
N1 and time T1 is entirely described by the application of physical processes. Even if
those processes had emergent properties such as qualia, these couldn’t play a role in
the causative story because the material stuff plus the laws of physics are sufficient to
explain it all. Someone provided with the data of N0 and a knowledge of the laws of
physics could accurately determine state N1without having access to the qualia. So
they are redundant.

So, the story that the pain of touching a hot surface somehow plays a causal role in
pulling my hand away is not true. The state of the physical system is causally sufficient
to explain that, pain or no pain.

Keith’s emphasis on the physical equivalence of the philosophical zombie is exactly
right on his worldview it seems. But then to try to add on a causal role for the self seems
to be inconsistent.

If one were to advance the idea that the emergence of qualia had some survival
advantage from an evolutionary perspective, this too seems doubtful. Given that the
raw physical states are sufficient unto themselves to create the full sequence of events
in our lives, what possible advantage could it be to propose an additional, and much
slower, subjective element to the story?

I can’t see any way to rescue any meaningful sense of there being a ‘self’ worth speaking
about in materialistic terms.

I was drawn in by Keith’s ideas, analogies and his ability to articulate them, but I can’t
follow the logic to a satisfactory conclusion.

Grt work as always! Shit def aint as ez as the masses say it is. Jus the vibes u get from a conversation n how the ppl that r speaking on it able to spin their thread into a nice cozy sweater for us to wear after we have finished here. Tehehehe

Alex… after hearing Keith's description of what consciousness is… you ask the DUMBEST question… "can AI be conscious"

No you idiot….

AI is NOT aware of anything
– It is NOT aware of its surroundings
– It is NOT aware of experience
– It is NOT aware of relationships
– It is NOT even fucking aware that it is even processing!!!!

Seriously…. asking that question is the kind of dumb bewilderingly stupid thing I would expect Chat-GPT to come up with!

AI is LITERALLY nothing more than "Given the previous words that were calculated, what is the next most probable word"

Thats fucking it…