<div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;line-height:normal;font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">You can see a more complex,
definitive, rigorous and real time classification of all beliefs in the camp
tree dendrogram in the “<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/1" style="color:blue">Theories of Consciousness</a>”
topic. As you can see, though it is a
minority camp, there are some very smart people pointing out that “<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Substance-Dualism/48" style="color:blue">Substance Dualism</a>”
hasn’t yet been falsified. These
dualists have put this camp in a supporting sub camp of the “<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Approachable-Via-Science/2" style="color:blue">Approachable
Via Science</a>” super camp, so they are not anti-science. Penrose and Hemeroff’s “<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Orch-OR/20" style="color:blue">Orchestrated Object Reduction</a>”
theory is a clear example of a phenomenalist camp that is not a “dualist” camp
since it is a supporting sub camp of “<a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Monism/65" style="color:blue">Monism</a>.”</span></p></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:57 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">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.)<br><br><div dir="ltr"><div style="line-height:normal"><div style="line-height:normal"><span style="line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Regards,</span></div><div style="line-height:normal"><span style="line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"><br></span></div><div><div style="line-height:normal"><span style="line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">Dan</span></div><div style="line-height:normal"><span style="line-height:20px;background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)"> Sample my Kindle books at:</span></div><div style="line-height:normal"><p style="margin:0px;font-stretch:normal;font-size:12px;line-height:normal;font-family:Helvetica"><span style="font-size:12pt"><a href="http://author.to/DanUst" target="_blank">http://author.to/DanUst</a></span></p></div></div></div><div><div style="line-height:normal"></div></div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:37 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">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</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><a href="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" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" target="_blank">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</a></div></div>
<br></div></blockquote></div>_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>