I don’t think you should worry about philosophers denying the existence of consciousness. Philosophers are known to believe in strange things. Take modal realism for instance.

Property dualist actually.

If only this discussion was posted as a Question...

@Eugen if you really want to go down the rabbit hole of radical philosophical claims I suggest you check out Alex Rosenberg.

The Atheist Guide to Reality https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005LW5JTY/ref=dbs_a_def_awm_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i2

Will I find ideas like ''reality is a computer simulation; we don't exist; a thing exists only if I perceive it''?

we don't exist — Eugen

You mean solipsism?

I mean serious mental issues )))

thing exists only if I perceive it''? — Eugen

Berkeley’s idealism.

reality is a computer simulation — Eugen

Simulation hypothesis or brain in a vat thought experiment?

If psychiatry were invented 2000 years ago there would be no such thing as philosophy. :cool:

:rofl:

Consciousness may be in fact a result of previous material causes — Eugen

For them there is no resultant "output state" corresponding to our first person consciousness; it isn't a productive (functional; input-output) relationship at all, the relationship between mind states and brain states is instead posited to be one of identity. — fdrake

:chin:

Disbelieving in the possibility of philosophical zombies isn’t the same thing as disbelieving in consciousness.

Disbelieving in the possibility of philosophical zombies isn’t the same thing as disbelieving in consciousness. — Pfhorrest

I didn't claim that. It was, in fact, an argument against my ''majority'' statement.

Why you don't want to thumbs up that one:
1. Mr. Bee claims that in fact those 24% are many-Chalmers.
2. Chalmers not only believes in consciousness, but he thinks it's a fundamental part of the reality.
3. 1+2 = those who believe in zombies, also believe in consciousness - 1st contradiction.
4. These guys are anti-materialists. The problem is those who deny consciousness are materialists.
5. 76% are cool materialists who deny zombies and consciousness. there you have a majority.

Eliminativism is much weirder than modal realism.

If psychiatry were invented 2000 years ago there would be no such thing as philosophy. — Wheatley

When it comes to materialism and all the other non-sensical philosophical ideologies, I still hope psychiatry will do its job.

Perhaps. Mathematical Ficionalism trumps them all.

You might be accused of anti-intelecualism, I would be careful.

You might be accused of anti-intelecualism, I would be careful. — Wheatley

I am not proposing a dictatorship by banning discussions. I am just worried about people who truly believe in those things and I really think they need help.

This is probably a good explanation of the problem. A guy spends half an hour talking about a naturalistic explanation for consciousness and some douchebag in marketing titles it "The Illusion of Consciousness".

These guys are anti-materialists. The problem is those who deny consciousness are materialists. — Eugen

It would be less surprising to me if 24% philosophers were anti-materialists.

It would be less surprising to me if 24% philosophers were anti-materialists. — Kenosha Kid

I've heard the materialists form the majority, but I've also heard that majority is fragile and decreasing. Hopefully we'll have a new alternative soon.

This is probably a good explanation of the problem. A guy spends half an hour talking about a naturalistic explanation for consciousness and some douchebag in marketing titles it "The Illusion of Consciousness". — Kenosha Kid

Yes, the media and the desire of some guys to become popular is also toxic to science.

consciousness exists because:
- I am wondering if it exists — Eugen

No. You wondered if it existed. You have no experience of wondering, you are not aware of these processes in real time.

- I have the illusion it exists, and to experience illusions, I need to be conscious — Eugen

Do you? Isn't that just begging the question?

- to believe in reasoning, arguments and scientific proofs, I need to be consciouss — Eugen

Question-begging again.

we have a bunch of people saying: consciousness or 1st person experiences do not exist because we don't see them when we perform experiments. — Eugen

You haven't quoted a single person saying this.

firstly, seeing or hearing or any other observational qualities are consciousness extensions — Eugen

Says who?

only what science can prove it's valid - well, in this case, the burden of proving this claim is on you. — Eugen

Why?


---

Please have a look at the advice on OP writing and consider reading some of the existing work on the philosophy of conciousness before commenting on it. When you do, you may find the discussion more productive if you take a single issue you disagree with and explain why, most of the arguments on either side are quite complex and composed of many linked stages, it's generally better to take them one stage at a time.

Perhaps the problem lies in the definition of consciousness. If I'm anywhere near the ballpark those who claim consciousness is an illusion are not denying the reality of mental phenomena that all of us expereince directly and immediately but what is being rejected is the extra baggage that accompanies it - the various incarnations of idealism, beliefs that there's a mind substance. Not sure, just a hunch.

I don't think so. It takes a remarkable amount of confidence in social norms to believe that the categories of folk psychology are structurally identical to the driving forces of our inner lives. If we were so descriptively transparent to ourselves, there would be fewer functional pathologies of self relation (we'd know what our problems are intimately, rather than fumbling in the dark) and fewer people finding solace in "ineffability"("I love you more than words can say"... "Words don't do this justice...")

No. You wondered if it existed. You have no experience of wondering, you are not aware of these processes in real time. — Isaac

You can wonder only if you have consciousness.

Do you? Isn't that just begging the question? — Isaac

no, it's self-evident

to believe in reasoning, arguments and scientific proofs, I need to be consciouss — Eugen

To believe scientific information you need to be conscious. Being in a non-conscious state wouldn't help you.

Says who? — Isaac

- self-evident

You haven't quoted a single person saying this. — Isaac

I didn't

Why? — Isaac

''Only God exists.'' The scientists will say ''prove!''. the scientist says ''Only science can reveal truth''. Me: prove!
So prove! :)

When you do, you may find the discussion more productive if you take a single issue you disagree with and explain why, most of the arguments on either side are quite complex — Isaac

... there is nothing complex and I find it a waste of time to prove the existence of the probably only evident thing existing. So my belief is that denying consciousness literally is purely silly and no, I don't want to waste my time reading long complicated phrases that advocate stupid things. Some things are stupid and they don't deserve my time. I find it problematic when stupidity becomes part of the scientific world.

Some things are stupid and they don't deserve my time. — Eugen

So you posted all this because...?

They are arguing for a specific definition of consciousness (already been compromised) that only exists within philosophical domains. Basically they take Hume's bundle theory (which again is an assumption) and then break it down into something called Qualia and then break it down further into immediate inaccessible, irrevocable sense experience. They then take this definition and break it down by referring to various psychological phenomena where it is not compatible with what they describe. Dennett has one dance and that is it. I'm surprised no one has got bored of him doing the same thing over and over again.
The videos where Dennett is talking about consciousness being an illusion is far removed from the average Joe's interpretation of the term.
And Churchland's eliminativism is again far removed, it seems they see social constructivism as nothing more than folk psychology to be removed and updated by a better more accurate explanation in the future. I don't think they have said outright consciousness is not real.

:100: :party: :flower: