Consciousness Trilemma

[Edwardo Piet]

No I am not.  I am differentiating different aspects of consciousness, not availing myself of dualism.  There is manifestly an aspect of consciousness that is about itself while you are having intentionality of a subject.  Can you answer the question, "Were you conscious ten seconds ago?"  If you can, then obviously you were aware that you were aware at the time.  That's all that is necessary to show that point.

Well this is all just irrelevant details again. All different aspects of consciousness are still all consciousness that we perceive and that very perception is the reality of consciousness.

Your tactic is to totalize the discussion by denying that differences exist where they do in fact exist.

I am not denying differences in consciousness I'm denying the hommunculous or the seperation between the experiencer and the experience as anything other than an incoherent delusion and failure of an explanation attempted by folk psychology. This is a part that Dennett gets right.

My whole point is that all these differences are irrelevant to the fact that the perception of consciousness is what consciousness is. You can't have an unperceived consciousness because that equates to an unconscious consciousness which isn't consciousness.  

Of course all experience is subjective.  That's not saying anything.

You're failing to realize that the implications of your arguments often lead to absurd conclusions that go against this obviousness that you say you recognize. To say that all experience is illusory or that consciousness experience itself is an illusion is just talking nonsense.

 

Our consciousness is a bundle of qualia, and some of those qualia have the apparent referent of consciousness itself.

You're pretending like only some of qualia is consciousness. You can't have unconscious qualia and you can't have consciousness that isn't experienced as qualia.

Consciousness and the way we perceive things subjectively/what it's like to be us from our own conscious perspective/qualia is all the same damn thing.

 This is not using dualism to introduce a dividing line between the experiencer and the experience, it is simply taking note of what's there.

Okay so you basically believe in the homunculous/Cartesian theaterer/little man in your brain. I can't take you seriously anymore.

You don't even get the parts right that Dennett actually gets right. When he talks about there being no man in your head or homunculous he's talking about that there is no subjective 'experiencer' in our consciousness that is 'having' the experience apart from the experience itself. The only 'experiencer' is our physical body and our brain and the brain states that win out is what consciousness is.

That's the false dichotomy I was speaking of.  If you aren't aware of being aware, how are you aware that you are aware of something external?  Extrospection must include this "being aware of being aware" or else we would have no conscious experience at all.

Lol you are saying the exact same thing that I have been trying to say here. But this just adds to my argument that therefore it makes no sense to say that our awareness is illusory. You are proving MY point.

---

The parts of the brain that in the moment are appearing as consciousness are identical to those parts of the brain in the moment. They are entirely physical and experienced mentally but that mental experience is still physical in substance, that's simply not how it appears to us. It doesn't make it any less real. In fact, the way it appears to us is more knowable and real than the external reality and external brain that seems to be there.

And you imply that you aren't guilty of word salad expressions.  This is nothing but.

That's not word salad that's exactly what I said.

I already gave an example of your own word salad. When you said that consciousness being illusory doesn't mean it isn't real. You may as well have said that just because there's no such thing as ghosts it doesn't mean that they don't exist.