RE: Consciousness Trilemma
May 26, 2017 at 6:01 am
(This post was last modified: May 26, 2017 at 6:17 am by Edwardo Piet.)
"crap" or not... the fact we are experiencing something is the most certainly known fact in the universe to anyone.
The whole of science depends on our observations that presuppose that.
For fuck's sake.
Whether he chooses to label that "consciousness" or not is as irrelevant as the fact that he likes to label ordinary human willpower we already know we have as "free will". He needs to stop pissing about with labels... but he's not going to do that because he's made a career out of his obfuscating.
With or without that "crap" defintiion... what that "crap" definition refers to does exist, must exist and is not an illusion.
He has literally said that the illusions of after images, for example, are still experienced but they do not exist. That makes zero fucking sense. Illusons obviously exist as illusions. It's him that conflates nonexistence and illustriousness not Strawson. This is the mistake the elimativists make... they decide that the existence of something in particular isn't of the same nature as most things so they say it doesn't exist altogether. That's basically the No True Scotsman fallacy.
The whole of science depends on our observations that presuppose that.
For fuck's sake.
Whether he chooses to label that "consciousness" or not is as irrelevant as the fact that he likes to label ordinary human willpower we already know we have as "free will". He needs to stop pissing about with labels... but he's not going to do that because he's made a career out of his obfuscating.
With or without that "crap" defintiion... what that "crap" definition refers to does exist, must exist and is not an illusion.
He has literally said that the illusions of after images, for example, are still experienced but they do not exist. That makes zero fucking sense. Illusons obviously exist as illusions. It's him that conflates nonexistence and illustriousness not Strawson. This is the mistake the elimativists make... they decide that the existence of something in particular isn't of the same nature as most things so they say it doesn't exist altogether. That's basically the No True Scotsman fallacy.
