(May 24, 2017 at 7:02 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(May 24, 2017 at 10:32 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Here are my thoughts on the matter. Proposition (1) is based on incorrigible experience. To deny (1) is the kind of schoolboy sophistry that takes contrarian hubris so far that it is willing to embrace self-contradiction and present it as some grand and unassailable philosophical Truth. People who deny (1) are not serious thinkers.
I still don't understand what you MEAN by illusion in this context. Do you mean that if (1) is false, there's really no consciousness, but I think I have the illusion that I am conscious anyway? I'm not debating, I just want you to define what (1) would even mean.
In the most extreme case it is a complete lack of experience, which Jor for instance does not hold apparently. One level down from that is the idea that consciousness isn't anything at all - more like the center of gravity in statics, a fictional point from which to calculate force vectors.
