Personally I think it’s silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience… Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.
I’ve been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism… Maybe I am just tripping idk
The illusion that is being experienced by what?
The illusion being experienced by the same agent that created it.
So experience is illusory, but there’s an agent that experiences that illusion? So experience isn’t illusory then
Experience isn’t totally illusory, as stated in one of my previous comments. But we can certainly see illusion take shape by the fact that I can’t see my nose right now, or any other of those “fill in the blank” tricks our mind plays to make our “consciousness” a seamless experience, but if they were the sum total of our experience we wouldn’t have much need for experience at all now would we?
Ok. Then what exactly is the purpose of arguing that some of it is? You’re back to square one.
What do you mean? Can you see your nose at all moments? If not, illusion is filling in the gap to provide a biological advantage to those who do not. A snake biting you within the FOV of your nose is bad. Making a fake snake where your nose is (based on previous snake data) seems logical.
So all you’re arguing is that illusions exist. That doesn’t address the actual subject at all.
deleted by creator