Good read on consciousness

[GrandizerII]

More importantly, how does the brain conjure up that what you call "illusion"?

In the manner that I think you've been asking - it very literally doesn't.  It doesn't do anything like the thing we report.

We report how? What is leading to these vivid "first-person-perspective" reports?

In illusionism, the assertion of phenomenological experience is, itself, a false attribution.  We're asserting that we possess something that we do not.  The assertion is a claim - not it's demonstration.

That's a problem with illusionism, not a problem with my position on how absurd illusionism is. The experience is real, it's not asserted. It may not be demonstrable to other beings, but it is experienced by the experiencer nevertheless. If illusionists nevertheless say this is all assertions, then I really don't know what else to say to them.

If a substance dualist demanded that his position be default because he just knew that consciousness was a different kind of stuff, how would you respond?

I'd ask how he would know that consciousness is a different kind of substance as opposed to, say, aspect/property or whatever else it may be? Saying that one knows the nature of what one experiences should not be seen at the same level as knowing what one experiences. The former is debatable at least.

I'm not fucking with you at all.  It makes sense, it's a very simple idea, and it has observational data and experimental support behind it.  It may be wrong, but there's nothing obviously wrong with the idea.

No one is saying "access consciousness" isn't possible or even actual. So of course if that's what you mean, then yes, of course there's going to be observational data and experimental support behind illusionism. But it nevertheless denies the existence of that which is clearly demonstrable to at least some beings in the first-person-perspective, even if it's not demonstrable to others in a non-first-person-perspective.

It's not about what appears to be non physical.  It's about what appears to be non present and non necessary to explain the reports.  Presumably, a pixie dust brain could be built out of non physical stuff but if it didn't have a pixie dust man in there somewhere pixiedust experiencing then the pixie-dustists might come to a pixie dust version of illusionism.

If there's no experiencer, then there's no experience being experienced by the non-existing experiencer. Obviously.

But since experiencers experiencing experiences exist, then their experiences exist [as experiences].

Not with respect to illusionism.  You would be replaced by organism or machine, as there's nothing of a real person™ in there really feeling what it's like to be.  If you can't demonstrate yourself, I can't find you, and I don't need you to explain you...then, at some point, you really do have to start wondering just how effective you are, if you do exist.

I still vividly see words on the screen. But apparently, according to illusionists, I am not.

I felt intense pain last week due to tooth cavity, but apparently, I didn't really experience that pain.

Amazing ...

Can organisms genuinely report experiences they do not, or cannot, have?  Would you take a human report of bat qualia credibly?  A substance dualist might say no because you need a bat soul for that - you don't find a bat soul in there.  A physical realist or emergentist would say no because you need the a- consciousness of a bat or equivalent bat structures - and you're stuck to human a con and human structures.

An illusionist thinks that we can and do genuinely report experiences that we do not and cannot have because we can't find the contents of the report or it's attendant structure in our brains, nor are either required to explain how our brains work, or to explain how the reports are generated.  All we have is the word of human beings, who can be genuinely convinced of any number of untrue things, even genuinely convinced that they have had an experience they most assuredly have not.  If we're capable of producing false reports of conscious experience, might conscious experience also be a false report?

In answer to your last question, the report of the experience and the experience itself are intertwined; they're one and the same.

And I don't know if this is very related to what you're saying here, but as Galen Strawson argued in the article I linked to previously, if you were hypnotized into experiencing pain (even though you suffered no body damage), you would still be experiencing pain.

The view that you're expressing seems more like emergentism, btw,  panpsychism is the view that all things have a mind or mind-alike.  If certain arrangements of matter or something about the arrangement of the brain gives rise to mind - then mind is emergent, not ubiquitous.  A camera has a perspective, but no mind.  Perspective itself (in humans) is a consciousness, not p consciousness.

No, I absolutely don't lean towards emergentism because I lean towards the idea that "the mind" in a very fundamental sense exists at the elemental level. Therefore, if some parts of the whole possess at the "elements" of the mind, then the whole having the mind means the mind isn't an emergent property. Anyhow, perhaps what I described is more aptly labeled panprotopsychism as opposed to panpsychism, but it's basically the same thing as far as I'm concerned. Also, keep in mind there's variants of panpsychism, and not all panpsychists say that all things have a mind or mind-alike (if not all, then the fundamental stuff at least, like electrons and quarks and such).

We don't think that a camera has a p experience of it's perspective, we do believe that we do.  Who knows, though, right?  Imagine how fucked up some cameras minds could be by now, with a conscious experience of their perspective - which is wholly under some terrible corpse fetish species control.  War reporters iphones crying themselves to sleep at night wishing they got pointed at cupcakes instead.

I don't know what you mean by "perspective" then? Cameras, as far as I know, don't have perspectives of their own (the way I understand perspective). Cameras do help in enhancing ours, however.

But yes, it would be interesting if they did.

I got a giggle from the wife -panpsychism is the view that consciousness is real and everywhere, and illusionism the view that consciousness everywhere is unreal.

Is it possible you and other illusionists are having the illusion of illusionism?