The burden of proof relating to conciousness, free choice and rationality

[Angrboda]

First, let us get one matter out of the way up front. Do you or do you not believe that all aspects of mind are a result of material processes, quantum or not? If not, then you have embraced dualism, and you inherit all the known problems inherent in duallism. If that is the case, I don't think we have anything to discuss as you embrace a doctrine whose defense is generally considered inadequate and insufficient.

If not, I would like to introduce you to the meaning of my 'rank' at AtheistForums of "phantasia kataleptike". The notion of phantasia kataleptike, or kataleptikai, plural, comes from the epistemology of the Greek Stoics. In their terms, an apprehension of the mind, or a perception, was termed a phantasia (think "phantom" as in something that appears). To the Stoics, there were certain apprehensions, certain phantasia, which in and of themselves had to be true because if these apprehensions were false or illusory, they would not be able to appear to the mind the way that they appear. Think in terms of illusions — smoke and mirrors aren't convincing because if we examine them, the similarity to a real thing degrades and the illusion fails. Phantasia kataleptikai are mental apprehensions that must be real and true because if they were not, there would be some way to get under the illusion and show its falseness.

Now, given this minimal understanding of phantasia kataleptikai (you can google the term for more information), I would like to ask a few simple questions.

First, I would like you to list the aspects of mental experience which, in the sense that you understand them (for instance, free will being free and undetermined), are phantasia kataleptikai, as you understand the term. Things which must be real and true because they can't not be true and have all the features, properties and appearances that they do.

Second, provide some justification beyond that of Stoic epistemology, that there even are such things as phantasia kataleptikai, or, in other words, demonstrate that the things on your list above cannot possibly be illusions or mistakes in as much as certain properties of them are apparently real and true (again, freedom of will is a good example).

And finally, admittedly, there are many things we don't know about how aspects of mind arise, and unfortunately, in many ways that leaves us in the position of trying to explain an incredibly complex machine only knowing some rudimentary facts about it (gears are involved, it uses energy, every action entails an equal and opposite reaction, and so on). We're left, fortunately or unfortunately, upon trying to investigate the mind, largely using the mind itself as our tool of discovery. You can't take your brain to a brain mechanic and have him "tear it down" to the brute facts of consciousness and come out to the waiting room and show you how the nib on your flotsinnacitor is broken off. Which, among other reasons, is why I headed this post with the famous rotating snakes illusion. It's a non answer to say that the snakes rotate because of a flaw in our eyes — psychologists categorize different optical illusions depending on whether they think the "illusion" part of it is occurring in the eye itself or in the brain, but for many such illusions, it's not clear which or whether or both. My challenge to you is, given the same access we have to most aspects of consciousness (imagine seeing a wall of rotating snakes in a dream), provide an argument based only on what you know from subjectivity, which leads inescapably to the conclusion that the snakes are or are not moving. You cannot refer to beliefs about reality here; you can only argue on the basis of your brute perception. (ETA: It just occurred to me that this is an ideal medium to present this question in. Without downloading the image itself, prove that the rotation of the snakes above is a result of an optical illusion, as opposed to perhaps, my having posted a clever animated gif in which the snakes appear to be moving because they in fact are moving! Prove definitively one way or the other that the snakes are or are not moving without examining the actual image file.)