Consciousness Trilemma

[The Grand Nudger]

Projectors project onto a screen.  But don't strain the analogy.  The point is that Casablanca is there to be experienced, even if the original sights and sounds weren't produced at the same time (they weren't, if there was any sound editing, for example).

There to be experienced by what? Where is the screen, because, without it, the analogy doesn't hold. I have to ask.  Is consciousness like a movie, a multimedia presentation? Is your experience like sound editing?  

The brain is processing a variety of impulses, and those are brought together (lag or no lag) in a unified context.  

By what, where?  

Even the "seeming," as you say, is itself a context-- seeming-together.  I see a dog, touch a dog, hear a dog, and those sensations are bundled-- something, whatever it is, is aware of the relationship between those sensations.

Or is it alot like a multimedia presentation that's been heavily edited to seem that way?  

Where's the after-image?

-exactly?

If you feel like you're a little man in your head, that's your problem.

LOL, that's our problem.  It would beggar belief for you to imply that your experience was otherwise.  

Anyway, there's no "error" in awareness, and can't be, because it's not defined in relation to anything but the non-lacking of qualia.  So long as anything at all is experienced, that fact is sufficient to establish awareness.

How can it be, when it can't be trusted to accurately self report in the first place?  We seem to be experiencing, but if seeming to be is enough to establish the accuracy of that description... a convincing fake, a p-zombie, is as conscious as you or I by that standard.  It also seems to be experiencing.  

It's tarting to sound like you've found IIT with a cool new name.  

Wasn't familiar with that one, looked it up.  Nah.  Eliminative materialism has been around since the 60's - IIT...'04.

Here's this gem-

The axioms describe regularities in conscious experience, and IIT seeks to explain these regularities. What could account for the fact that every experience exists, is structured, is differentiated, is unified, and is definite? IIT argues that the existence of an underlying causal system with these same properties offers the most parsimonious explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated...ion_theory

This -seems- to be a way of phrasing the idea that the mental states we believe in (those things we experience), will map to a discrete mental state....precisely what eliminative materialists deny or apply skepticism towards. I may be wrong, though. They propose that the existence of a causal system with the same properties, a central, unified region of processing for the central, unified nature of experience as it seems to us. Well, sure, but in the absence of such a system...what, then becomes the most parsimonious explanation? Eliminative materialists suggest that the most parsimonious explanation then, might be to say that no such thing exists, since there is no such required causal system.....rather than twisting themselves into knots trying to explain how something can exist in spite of it's dependencies not existing.