The Scripture Is False And The Biblical God Is Dead.

[emjay]

Just to say, I've just read the wiki on that and it looks a very interesting theory... and from a different angle than usual it seems, seeminging top-down I guess; ie how can we account for what we do report about consciousness, what sort of information does the system have to model for that to be the case? And the case even for a hypothetical pz like you say. So yeah, just saying I think it looks very interesting for further reading

Learning is always good.

Here are more links you may be interested in:

More on AST:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10....00500/full

Less technical explanation:
https://aeon.co/essays/how-consciousness...-in-ghosts

Illusionism, in general:
https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-your-cons...your-brain

Meta-problem of consciousness (another idea of Chalmers):
https://philpapers.org/archive/CHATMO-32.pdf

Modern panpsychism:
https://aeon.co/ideas/panpsychism-is-cra...bably-true

Mind Chat YouTube Channel (series hosted by two philosophers of mind, one a panpsychist and the other an illusionist, where they interview interesting guests on their views of consciousness and other topics):
https://www.youtube.com/c/mindchat

Woh, that's a pretty thorough list, thank you

Gotta say though I'm not a huge fan of Chalmers, or really much to do with the 'hard problem' of consciousness, or things like panpsychism etc... but thank you for the consideration. I used to be much more interested in those sorts of questions than I am now. Now I would consider myself either an epiphenomalist or a physicalist, but in practical terms they're pretty much the same thing... or tantamount to the same thing (I know we don't like that word any more ) to me so there's no real urgency about getting to the bottom of that.

[emjay]

It's important to point out that ast isn't illusionism, or..at least, that's not what they're proposing.  It's critics express frustration that it doesn't make this claim.  An illusion, as ast proponents would describe one, would be something like a phantom limb.  A correctly functioning internal model is not, however, taken by them or generally to be an illusion.  

Michael Graziono had this to say on the matter after elaborating specifically on the above -

Using the term “illusion” in that more inclusive sense makes a philosophical point, but I prefer not to use the word in that way. That philosophical emphasis paints a picture in which the arm schema is a separate entity unmoored to reality, a construct of the brain, a way the brain tricks itself. But the arm schema is anchored to reality and has a specific functional purpose: to represent the arm. When it is doing its job effectively, it is not well described as an illusion. It’s a model. It’s a representation. It’s the brain’s useful caricature of the arm. Given the constraints on the brain’s processing ability, it is necessarily always true that what we think we have and say we have is a distortion or simplification of what we actually have.

I can see why dennet would want it to be an illusion, and I could see why dualists would want it to be an illusion - but that's not what they have in mind.
(I'll let myself out)

It mentioned something like that in the wiki... that the word 'illusion' has a lot of baggage... a lot of different usages and associations, so understandable that they'd want to be careful about its usage.

[The Grand Nudger]

So much baggage that I could say, ala the more inclusive sense of illusion that people who insist ast is covert illusionism and thus nonsense..."Sure, okay, and in exactly the same way, gods mind is an illusion". A separate entity unmoored to reality. A construct of divinity. A way that the divine tricks itself, and us.

[Silver]

I was always good at and partial to philosophy, probably because it is more a left brain subject matter, which lately has soured on me. I still find such endeavors as secular ethics and morality to be particularly useful. But when you begin to delve into other areas, you find the what-ifs are married to unrealistic ideology.

[GrandizerII]

Learning is always good.

Here are more links you may be interested in:

More on AST:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10....00500/full

Less technical explanation:
https://aeon.co/essays/how-consciousness...-in-ghosts

Illusionism, in general:
https://aeon.co/essays/what-if-your-cons...your-brain

Meta-problem of consciousness (another idea of Chalmers):
https://philpapers.org/archive/CHATMO-32.pdf

Modern panpsychism:
https://aeon.co/ideas/panpsychism-is-cra...bably-true

Mind Chat YouTube Channel (series hosted by two philosophers of mind, one a panpsychist and the other an illusionist, where they interview interesting guests on their views of consciousness and other topics):
https://www.youtube.com/c/mindchat

Woh, that's a pretty thorough list, thank you

Gotta say though I'm not a huge fan of Chalmers, or really much to do with the 'hard problem' of consciousness, or things like panpsychism etc... but thank you for the consideration. I used to be much more interested in those sorts of questions than I am now. Now I would consider myself either an epiphenomalist or a physicalist, but in practical terms they're pretty much the same thing... or tantamount to the same thing (I know we don't like that word any more ) to me so there's no real urgency about getting to the bottom of that.

Just to be clear, meta-problem is an "easy" problem according to Chalmers, not "hard".

[emjay]

Woh, that's a pretty thorough list, thank you

Gotta say though I'm not a huge fan of Chalmers, or really much to do with the 'hard problem' of consciousness, or things like panpsychism etc... but thank you for the consideration. I used to be much more interested in those sorts of questions than I am now. Now I would consider myself either an epiphenomalist or a physicalist, but in practical terms they're pretty much the same thing... or tantamount to the same thing (I know we don't like that word any more ) to me so there's no real urgency about getting to the bottom of that.

Just to be clear, meta-problem is an "easy" problem according to Chalmers, not "hard".

Okay, well I'll get to that in your reading matter I just associate him with the hard problem is all I really meant by that (and he coined the phrase is that right?).

[The Grand Nudger]

Fun thouhts. If physicalism is true, and ep is tantamount to physicalism, then the worst thing you could say about ep, is that it's tantamount to the true explanation of consciousness. Concepts and semantics are fun.

[Silver]

I also believe in terms of philosophy, we need to keep in mind, can this line of thinking, this what-if, make the world a better place?

That's a big fat negative with this p-zombie concept.

[The Grand Nudger]

IDK. If we truly understood/believed that even creatures we were sure didn't possess phenomenal content like we do could be convinced that they did, could be convinced that they were in pain and experienced terror and endured stress, that might change the way we treat other creatures for the better. Why be cruel....why create a sick illusory cruelty play, even? We're cruel for effect, even when we aren't cruel people, because we believe that specific cruelty is inert.

Livestock and crops lack the capacity to understand it.

[Silver]

Cruelty is subjective. What better way to understand this than the famous line, it's cruel to be kind.

Otherwise, we need to stop this fallacious anthropomorphization of everything around us that isn't us. Understand things for what they are instead of what they aren't.