[ExI] link

[Brent Allsop]

Yes, my google news feed showed me this article last week.  I had an e-mail
conversation with Keith Frankish back in 2012.  He has obviously improved
his understanding since then.  This article is a classic illustration of
the way traditional philosophy fails.  This is just one guy’s ideas and
classification of the how everyone else thinks, described in his own unique
terminology.  He uses the old traditional terms like “access consciousness”
and “phenomenal consciousness”, causing us so much confusion.  Everyone
collaborating on Canonizer has now agreed on the much more descriptive
terminology of “computational binding” (required to give one “access" to
knowledge) and qualia, which are the physics that have the “phenomenal”
qualities.



This article opens with: “These days it is highly fashionable to label
consciousness an ‘illusion’.”  This is similar to the way “Naive Realism”
is also “fashionable”.  These kinds of mistaken ideas easily resonate in
people’s noncritical ideological bubbles of awareness.  But when you
canonize things, where you have rigorous measures of input from both sides,
these kinds of mistakes self-sensor.  None of them have been canonized,
even though anyone could do so, and despite my repeated attempts to get
people spouting these mistakes to canonize them.



This article classifies everything on two “horns” of a “fundamental
divide”, the scientific and anti-scientific.  Then he labels all people on
the scientific side as “illusionists” and all people on the other side as
“dualists”, resulting in the confusion Dan has pointed out.



You can see a more complex, definitive, rigorous and real time
classification of all beliefs in the camp tree dendrogram in the “Theories
of Consciousness
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/1>” topic.  As
you can see, though it is a minority camp, there are some very smart people
pointing out that “Substance Dualism
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Substance-Dualism/48>” hasn’t yet been
falsified.  These dualists have put this camp in a supporting sub camp of
the “Approachable Via Science
<https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Approachable-Via-Science/2>” super camp, so
they are not anti-science.  Penrose and Hemeroff’s “Orchestrated Object
Reduction <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Orch-OR/20>” theory is a clear
example of a phenomenalist camp that is not a “dualist” camp since it is a
supporting sub camp of “Monism <https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Monism/65>.”

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:57 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Thanks! But note that that article doesn’t say Chalmers is an
> “illusionist,” and further makes a dichotomy between dualists and
> illusionists. It even brings up distinctions between two major types of
> dualism: substance dualism and properties dualism. You must’ve confused
> Chalmers with Dennett here. (No big deal, but since others ran with it on
> this list, it’s maybe led to confusion over what Chalmers actual views are.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>    Sample my Kindle books at:
>
> http://author.to/DanUst
>
> On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:37 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> Here is the article that mentions Chalmers.  The feed I get is from Aeon
> and they often have articles I want to read - various subjects.  bill w
>
>
> https://aeon.co/essays/consciousness-is-neither-a-spooky-mystery-nor-an-illusory-belief?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=december_drive_2019
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191217/d918c820/attachment.htm>