Philosophical zombies

[The Grand Nudger]

"The sort of consciousness Dennett describes".... isn't consciousness. That's the problem.

It's not what we've traditionally described it as...but that would only be a problem if our traditional description were the accurate one.   

Now I'm not saying that consciousness isn't multiple drafts or isn't the fame in the brain. I think it is. I think that's the part where he actually makes sense.

His own position on consciousness is based upon his hypothesis.  If you agree with that..you're likely misunderstanding some quote mine by a detractor.  

But when he talks of consciousness being an illusion and us being zombies... that makes no sense whatosever. Zombies aren't conscious, we are conscious. Consciousness is first person, not third person. Consciousness can't be an illusion because seeming to seem is seeming.... and he pretends like there isn't really any seeming to us it just seems like there is. Which makes absolute zero sense. For something to seem to seem to us seeming has to exist!

......see above.  

And the irony of it all is that the entirety of science is dependent on the reality of consciousness and science ultimately only ever studies the conscious experience of reality and not reality itself. And yet he calls the very experience that scientists have when they study the reality he gets all his evidence from 'an illusion'. If consciousness is an illusion then reality as we know it is an illusion. They key part being as we know it.

In fairness, he doesn't just call it that..he shows how often it is.  Nevertheless, he thinks that some mechanism is presenting itself in this way and that thing is as real as you need anything to be, right?  His comments regarding illusion are part of a response to a question from two very different camps and the product of his trying to be ecumenical to the counterpoints.  He criticises the cartesian theatre...the actual first person perspective...because there's just no little man in there doing that...that's not how the effect is produced.  Illusion fits, there, right - in the same way that seeing a rabbit get pulled out of a hat is still seeing a rabbit get pulled out of a hat despite it;s being an illusion?  OTOH, If a person thinks that...without some cartesian element to consciousness pulling the strings and whatnot, we're discussing a p-zombie..well, then fine we're all p zombies.

This particular bit has been the source of so much misconception that it's a footnote in his book.......

He redefines free will and he redefines consciousness. He very much engages what Kant correctly called a "wretched subterfuge". He's good at talking about facts.... now he just needs to use those facts to actually address what he's supposed to be talking about... and draw correct conclusions rather than non-sequiturs. And if he can't do that, he needs to stop pretending he can.

He's an eliminativist, and that means that he -has- to provide a better description of consciousness than what he considers to be folklore.  He's not looking to explain that thing that people traditionally thought was happening, but what actually is. He thinks that consciousness is a real thing...that really isn't what we thought it was. Does that help?