Consciousness Trilemma

[Edwardo Piet]

Irrelevant, since my comment only denies that consciousness is or can be a happening.

It's not irrelevant to point out the incoherence of your statement that consciousness never happens in the present but it does happen in the past.

Your denial that consciousness is or can be happening is even more retarded than denying that its happening is non-illusory.

 Sure, happenings turn into happeneds and without one you can't have the other, but so what?

...so your saying that there is happeneds but not happenings is logically incoherent.

 That doesn't change the fact that consciousness is and cannot be any present seeming, any happening... so..if it's described as such..then it either doesn't exist, or is illusory.  

To say it doesn't exist is to say you're not conscious. To say it's not real is to say you're not experiencing it. And the experience of consciousness is what consciousness is. It's neither the case that you're not conscious or you're not experiencing consciousness.

Which would you prefer?

I'd prefer you to recognize your own incoherent statements including the false dichotomy you are setting up.

 Obviously, I don't demand that consciousness own report of itself be accurate.

Being wrong about how consciousness works doesn't make the experience of consciousness 'unreal' or 'an illusion'.

 That it's not some present thing doesn't, in my view of consciousness, lead to the inexorable conclusion that it does not exist.

More contradictions on your part. If it's never present then it's never existent. If it doesn't ever happen in the present then it doesn't ever happen in the past. You are utterly terrible at logic, go do something else.

I've already pointed out that it's incoherent to say that its never happening ever was happening. Your response to my pointing out your statement was logically inchorent was to say 'so what?'.

So you're talking nonsense, that's what.

"OFC consciousness exists, it's just not what you think it is"

Meaning he has redefined it and decided to tell everyone that's what it 'really is'. It's fucking retarded.

The thinking itself is an experience that you're really conscious of.

Being wrong about how consciousness works has no bearing on the reality of the experience of consciousness. Again, he, and you, are retardedly confusing the difference between an illusion and a delusion.

What is the conscious area, and what is the unconscious area? Where is the physical humonculus?

Irrelevant. I've already dealt with all this. I accept Dennett's multiple drafts theory and don't think there is one area in the brain where it 'all comes together'. I agree with him that consciousness is 'winning' or 'fame in the brain' and the areas that win out are the conscious areas at that time.

What I don't agree with him is his non-sequitur that because he's explained how it works and people were wrong, deluded, about how their consciousness works that that somehow makes the areas in the brain that win out that you're conscious of 'illusory' or 'not real'. That makes zero sense. He confuses the difference between an illusion and a delusion.

Like he's said, he describes the screen with icons and a desktop on your computer as a 'user illusion' with the reasoning that that's not what is going on on the inside of the computer. That's not what a fucking illusion is. An illusion is something that seems one way but is in fact another way. But the screen and user-interface is not the same fucking thing as the inside of the computer. The computer screen and what's on it is as real and non-illusory as the inside of the computer. It doesn't matter how the insides work and light up the comptuer screen that doesn't make the screen an illusion. You can be completely deluded about how computers work but that doesn't make the computer screen itself an illusion. In the same way as he confuses delusion and illusion here retardedly he does the same thing with consciousness: It doesn't matter how the insides of the brain works and what areas of your brain--what multiple drafts--work in order for us to experience what we refer to as 'consciousness' it doesn't make conscious experience an illusion. You can be completely deluded about how brains work but that doesn't make conscious experience an illusion

He doesn't get everything right... he starts off well and I accept his Multiple Drafts model and I agree that there is no homunculous in the brain or experiencer that is distinct and seperate from the experience. And it is indeed more like the clothes having no emperor than the emperor having no clothes. But the clothes themselves are fucking real and non-illusory. His conclusion that because he's described the mechanics behind consciousness that that makes the experience itself an illusion is just a non-sequitur.

He's not right about everything. But keep flicking your tongue against his buttcrack if it makes you feel any better.

In the same way, your consciousness' own report of itself is real, it's just in demonstrable error.

Okay so you just agreed that I am right. More contradictions on your part. You're saying it's real i.e. not illusory and not non-existent (before you were creating a false dichotomy between saying it's either not real or doesn't exist). It's just deluded or in error. I agree. This is exactly what I have been saying the whole time and and exactly how Dennett is wrong and you have been wrong up until you contradicted yourself here. Finally you understand (that is, you understand until you contradict yourself again).