[ExI] Chalmers

[William Flynn Wallace]

The question I'd love to ask Mr.Chalmers is, how would things be different
if consciousness were NOT an illusion  john clark

I think that's kinda my question.  If it is an illusion, then what is the
real thing?  What is it that is being distorted?  Many years ago I heard
that philosophers had argued about how many angels could dance on the head
of a pin.  It was presented as a true story, which I really doubted at the
time.  Now I know that even if it were not a true story it could easily
have been true.  Perhaps it is philosophy itself is an illusion and what is
being distorted is reality, which they cannot seem to admit exists.  What a
way to get tenure and a cushy job.

bill w

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:52 PM John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 5:13 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> > *Someone in an earlier post, said that he was their favorite
>> philosopher.  I see in a recent Aeon article that he thinks consciousness
>> is an illusion*
>>
>
> The question I'd love to ask Mr.Chalmers is, how would things be different
> if consciousness were NOT an illusion?
>
> > *and is a dualist.*
>>
>
> I'm not so interested in that, I'm not big into dangerous sports and know
> little about swords or pistols.
>
> *> In the same article it seems that the terms 'sensation and perception'
>> are no longer used, in favor of 'access consciousness' and 'phenomenal
>> consciousness'.  How are these terms any improvement*
>
>
> They aren't.
>
>  > *other than to get further away from the common person's
>> understanding?  ("Have to be esoteric or people will think we are full of
>> shit."  which possibly they are)*
>
>
> Of course they're full of shit that's why philosophers love to talk about
> consciousness but rarely talk about intelligence. It's really really hard
> to come up with a good intelligence theory and really easy to tell if it's
> full of shit or not, but the exact opposite is true when it comes to
> consciousness theories; it's easy for anybody to come up with one in two
> seconds because there are no facts it must fit, and therefore there is no
> way to prove the idea is full of shit which is a very good thing if you
> really are full of shit.
>
>  John K Clark
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20191216/d6f2bd2e/attachment.htm>