Consciousness Trilemma

[Angrboda]

Everything I am saying backs up what I have said. Conscious experience itself cannot be an illusion because experience is however things seem to be to us and it's just a tautology that however things seem to us is however they seem to us.

You're just doubling down on the same failed interpretation. Conscious experience appears to us in a specific way. It's not this way but that way. As long as the seeming to be has a particularity, it can be mistaken. That is what conscious experience being an illusion means and you've done nothing but talk around that fact with assertions that have nothing to do with the original claim that "Conscious experience is not an illusion" may be false. You're literally a party of one off in your own little world talking about something nobody has claimed. Your 'tautology' is not equivalent to the original claim. That makes all your claims about consciousness being however things seem to us irrelevant to the original claim. You are guilty of ignoratio elenchi and you don't even see it.

You're trying, you're really trying but neither you nor Rhythm is going to get there because you fail to apprehend the logical errors you're making and when either of you fail too hard to address my argument you both fall back on either bare assertions that it's not true by definition that conscious experience itself really does seem to us how it really does seem to us or you make the category error of asking me to provide third person perspective epistemically objective evidence for the reality of first person perspective ontologically subjective conscious experience, or last of all, you merely barely assert that what I am saying is word salad, psychobabble or that a term is meaningless when you don't understand.

Sure, sure. We're not the ones addressing an irrelevant restatement of the original claim. Conscious experience being an illusion doesn't mean that whatever way it appears to us is not the way it appears to us, it's saying that the way it appears to us is not the way it is. And your restatement of the original claim is a bollocks misinterpretation of what we have been saying, and of the original claim.

And the fact you merely insist that when the elimativists say that consciousness experience is illusory that that doesn't mean that consciousness experience is unreal it is clearly you that is merely talking semantic nonsense. You're simply denying the meanings of words and making shit up there.

The dichotomy you introduced was that Dennett believed all things had third person representation or else they were not real, in the sense of being nonexistent. That was the sense of 'real' which I was denying and here we have you yet again misrepresenting the situation. Words have multiple meanings depending upon context. In that context you were equating not real with nonexistent and that is distinct from the sense in which we've been using the term illusory in this thread. So yes, words have meanings, but it is you that has botched up what those meanings are, not I. That you're here effectively lying about the context of that sentence again is distressing, but hardly surprising.

I had little hopes for Rhythm understanding this but I'm actually rather sad that you do not understand this, Jor, because I not only like you a lot as a person but I also on occassion admire you as someone who appears to be fairly intelligent and is at the very least rather well educated. And on an irrelevant note: It rather saddens me that you can't even disagree with me about this without thinking that I'm an asshole.

What I understand is that you've taken the original claim and interpreted it in a way that is not true to the original claim. Far from being this great philosophical mind, you're the one who has introduced matter into the original claim and are bandying it about, along with an abuse of philosophical terms, as if you had something. All you've got is your misstatement of the premise "Conscious experience is not an illusion." I don't think you are an asshole, that was invective. I do think you are grossly mistaken about whether conscious experience can be an illusion and your empty talk about "it is what it is" is just so much distraction from the original claim. That you don't understand that point is your main failing here. I understand perfectly well what you're saying, as I understand also that it has nothing to do with the original claim. You keep coming back to "it is what it is" as if it were your saving grace, but in reality it's just an Albatross about your neck. All this "seeming is what it seems to us" is just so much irrelevant garbage. You haven't come close to demonstrating your original assertion. And no, that's not a category error, it's asking you to put up some sort of argument for why conscious experience is not an illusion, which is what you've claimed.