is illusionism the most wrong philosophy of mind?
>>18542234It's the most scientifically supported view.
>>18542234>is illusionism the most wrong philosophy of mind?It's not a "philosophy" of mind at all. Applying a modicum of philosophical skepticism immediately reveals the position is absurd. An illusion is an incorrect perception. A perception implies a perceiver. In other words, the subject already needs to exist for illusions to even be possible, so this retarded take simultaneously affirms and denies the reality of the subject. I understand what these people are trying to say, but they're too dumb to articulate their trivial thoughts coherently. Illusionism boils down to the noncognitive statement: "main character syndrome BAD!"
>>18542240I F*CKING LOVE BAAAASEDINCE!!1!
>>18542234prove it wrong without using your mind
>>18542259This is all that needs to be said. It's such a basic error caused by blatantly nonsense use of words to try to express something that's either incoherent, mistaken, or an actual attempt to express some subtlety that they didn't think how to write out properly at all.At best, it might be used to express the idea that we as conscious beings have no powers over or distinct from our physical/causal structure, hence free will being an actual illusion (we think and feel we have control that we actually don't) and our neurons being effectively 'the same thing at their core' as the conscious phenomena they seem to produce, as opposed to consciousness being an at least partly 'spiritual' phenomena, though how this happens isn't directly obvious to us.But in order for something to 'be an illusion', there has to be something else you mistakenly think it is. Consciousness is what it is and can't somehow mistakenly invent itself without actually existing.
>>18542259>>18542600This low IQ "argument" against illusionism is refuted in the first 10 minutes of the video in the OP image.
Literally no one is disagreeing that people think and have experiences Consciousness is a theory laden term
>>18542234I think among the experts that would be dualism.>>18542240What does it have going for it besides arguments from science?
>>18542603I didn't watch it because all 'consciousness don't be real' positions do end up making the same blatantly nonsense claims despite swearing that they don't.Eliezer Yudkowsky was able to salvage meaningful things from Daniel Dennet, for instance, because Dennet's experiments do an actually excellent job of demonstrating the ways in which aspects of our mind arises from out brain, and he would have very insightful things to say about that were he not such a weak philosophical writer.Either that or he genuinely lacks the ability to perceive/recall his daily conscious experience, as people have hypothesized.>>18542609>Literally no one is disagreeing that people think and have experiencesThen surely what you mean is that the idea of a 'coherent self experience' is an illusion, and that the idea, for instance that we aren't essentially bundles of scattered and vague phenomena is what is mistaken. Which ancient religious practice has found through introspection to be the case since millennia ago.
When have dualists even been right about anything?Made a prediction that turned out to be true? A useful model? Anything at all?
>dude everything's an illusion brothe lowest form of "philosophy"
>>18542603>the video starts by "refuting" the normal meanings of the words it usesOk. I'm not surprised mongoloids like you continue watching.
Note how these people will absolutely insist using the word "illusion" even though it makes no sense. They could say something like "the processes responsible for perception misrepresent themselves internally as a unified subject" - one potential grain of truth buried in the pile of illusionist slop - but that just won't do because it acknowledges that on some level you're still dealing with a real phenomenon. They are nihilists of the mind. It's not the substance of their argument that matters to them but the cosmetics, training you to picture yourself as a deluded meat robot the way they've been trained.
Illusion is a shitty term but it specifically refers to the APPARENT aspect of us thinking of our consciousness as this centralised, unified, indivisible thing. And science simply doesn't support thst claim, hence the term illusion.BTW it's not even that wrong of a term, "misinterpretation of reality" is a common definition of illusion. Since we misinterpret our perception of consciousness, that is what actually is the illusion here, our perception of consciousness, not consciousness itself.
>>18543014>They could say something like "the processes responsible for perception misrepresent themselves internally as a unified subject" They do say this, you just refuse to listen You see the term illusion and start seething
>>18542970*the logical conclusion of "philosophy"FIFY
>>18542965Dualism is infinitely malleable, it can always just be whatever our current best scientific understanding is + magic ghosts.
>>18543018>>18543025Good thing we can all agree on the reality of the mental stream that we all directly and indisputably witness, even if its true nature is misrepresented by some of its own constituent intuitions.
>>18542240science lovers think they aren't religious when they literally just substitute >you can haven't knowledge without godwith>you can't have knowledge without scienceinstead.
>>18543130>>you can haven't knowledge without god*can't have knowledge without god
>>18542234>>18542240>your mind is an illusionan illusion to who?
>>18542240So if your mind is an “illusion” (a false perception), then science becomes impossible to preform & thus cannot be used as justification for anything. You end up creating a paradox where the authority used as justification for the worldview’s accuracy immediately becomes invalid by prescribing to it. You support incompatible cognitively dissonant worldviews.
>>18543130How can you really know anything?
>>18543473I don't know, let me ask ChatGPT
>>18542234Alex Connor is such a dumb fuck. Jay dyer dismantled him.
>>18543488How so. Not saying either is right or wrong but I see no evidence of this dismantling.
>>18543130Science gives me results and improves my life, religion doesn't. Science wins >>18543377You're unironically too retarded to understand what is meant by illusion. See >>18543018
>>18543473Once you investigate epistemology long enough, you come to the conclusion that there MUST BE some inherent ideas within our cognitive ability at birth.
>>18543606Like what
>>18543611One example would be you are born with an inherent understanding of causality. Another is that you have the internal structure being able to recognize a change in numbers, or just the idea of numbers themselves. And another is having some innate idea of geometry to allow you to navigate the physical world. Without an inherent structure of the mind, you (i dont think anyway) would be able to understand anything. so to answer your original question, the reason why we know anything is because there something inherent written onto the fabric of our conscious mind that allows us to have any knowledge.
>>18543616>you are born with an inherent understanding of causalityYou aren't though. Babies can perceive causality, but they have no innate understanding of it.>Another is that you have the internal structure being able to recognize a change in numbers, or just the idea of numbers themselves.Babies can recognize change, but only in a generalistic manner. They absolute have no understanding of numbers themselves lmao.Infants struggle to distinguish 8 dots from 10 so they just approximate reality.>And another is having some innate idea of geometry to allow you to navigate the physical world.You have the strongest point here but people like you like to bundle basically "understanding of space" into geometry while one can easily argue that this is an evolutionar side effect of developing eyes and motion sensors. Plus once again, babies don't understand abstract geometric concepts whatsoever, as should be obvious.
Why are they always bald
>>18542234My mind is real, as Descartes proved.I'm very comfortable with calling the mind of anyone who believes in this theory an illusion though.
>>18543560That's because you're 90 IQ. Stick to sweeping the pavements.
>>18543742Descartes proved to himself that his mind is real. He doesn't prove anything about your mind.
>>18543044>Good thing we can all agree on the reality of the mental stream that we all directly and indisputably witness, even if its true nature is misrepresented by some of its own constituent intuitions.kek. they stopped replying after this
>>18542259>A perception implies a perceiver.> A universe implies a creator Therefore, souls and God(s) exist The same, retarded, logical fallacy that has plagued humanity for thousands of years
>how do I know a demon isn't tricking me into believing I'm conscious?>God is good so he wouldn't allow such a thingDualism was always retarded
>>18543616>you are born with an inherent understanding of causalityFucking retarded. Have you ever even seen a baby? They don't understand shit. >And another is having some innate idea of geometry to allow you to navigate the physical world.Again.. Have you ever seen a newborn baby? Do they do much navigating? No , moron. >there something inherent written onto the fabric of our conscious mind that allows us to have any knowledge.Oh, really and what would that be? And go on and explain how neuralnet AI robots can learn to move around the world without any "innate knowledge" if you provide them with a basic pleasure/pain learning simulation.
>>18543839You're mentally ill and denying the basic meaning of words.
>>18543820I can follow his logic (whether his mind was real, or whether an evil demon made up the writings and attributed them to a fictional character) to prove to myself that my mind is real though.
>>18543857Maybe you can prove it to yourself, but you can't prove it to me. To me, you are a mindless zombie and you can't prove me wrong using Descartes.
>>18543847He's wrong about people being born with "inherent understanding" but they're definitely born with all the ingredients to develop certain kinds of understanding (just add sense data into the mix).>go on and explain how neuralnet AI robots can learn to move around the world without any "innate knowledge" if you provide them with a basic pleasure/pain learning simulation.They literally can't.
>>18543863>you can't prove it to meHe also can't prove it to you that you're not a woman. What's your point?
>>18543863yeah that's fair. All the same, I think proving it to myself is enough to refute illusionism.
>>18543883It might refute it for you, but it won't refute it for others.
>>18543896>i don't want to think about the nature of the only mind i have access to so you can't convince me of anything regarding minds>t. brainlet
>>18543900I note your seethe at being unable to refute illusionism for anyone other than yourself.
>>18543902I've refuted it some 50 posts ago: >>18542259I'm not the one arguing with you about Descartes and I don't find Descartes particularly compelling but holy shit, you're a brainlet.
>>18543942So why did you butt in on someone else's conversation? Are you mentally ill or something?
>>18543488This never happened btw
>>18543866>They literally can't.Such machines have literally already been built.
>>18543951>So why did you butt in on someone else's conversation?Because I was reading through the thread and noticed that you're a massive brainlet.
>>18543965>Such machines have literally already been built.Yeah? Why don't you show me one?>inb4 it's just a static model controlling a robot (literally "innate knowledge")
>>18543998Figure AI's humanoid robots (particularly Figure 02/03 series) stand out as one of the most impressive examples.These systems use an end-to-end neural network policy trained purely via reinforcement learning (RL) in high-fidelity physics simulation. The training relies on a basic reward structure (pleasure/pain equivalent): positive rewards for forward progress, stability, energy efficiency, and human-like gait; penalties for falling, excessive energy use, collisions, or deviations from desired velocity/terrain handling. No hand-crafted low-level controllers or explicit programming of walking mechanics are needed—the neural net learns the entire locomotion policy through massive trial-and-error in simulation (effectively "years" of experience compressed into hours via parallel GPU-accelerated rollouts).
>>18543602You’re utilizing the word “illusion”, a term that has an exact definition, improperly and then labeling others as retards for not utilizing terminology according to its own definition. In other words, you’re engaging in projection, and regardless you’ve failed to refute the fact that prescribing to a worldview that renders your own consciousness to be inaccurate simultaneously renders science to be an impossibility. If consciousness is simply a part of humanity’s unconscious physicality then there’s no way to verify any scientific study as every measurement is a process of unconscious motions; there are no breakthroughs nor innovation in such a reality.
>>18543995So you're mentally ill and can't control your chimp impulses, got it.
>>18544040So according to your AI slop, it's a static model controlling a robot. I accept your model's concession.
>>18544047Notice how your psychosis caused you to hallucinate something that wasn't stated or implied. Your psychotic illness is also causing you to think this thread is your private chatroom where no one is allowed to notice how profoundly retarded you are and point it out.
>>18543819>has no argument, so resorts to insultsWhy so mad, bro?
>>18542240No, stop lying.
>>18544040The neural net architecture and evaluation criteria (carefully chosen by humans based on their own understanding) already encode a bunch of knowledge that would be "a priori" from the robot's perspective if it was capable of reflecting on what it's doing. Moreover, no matter how much MLfags like to use anthropomorphizing language to talk about their toys, there isn't any actual thing there that's "learning". A neural net is a mathematical function - a constant and unchanging object by definition. Every set of parameters describes a different NN. What your AIslop describes is an algorithm that sifts through countless different NNs until it finds one that works well enough. Then it's used to drive a robot. In other words, the robot has all of its "understanding" of the problem domain literally baked into its "brain". It's the polar opposite of what you were trying to prove.
>>18544040I don't think this guy actually typed this response. It reads like an AI wrote it.
>>18543626>Babies can perceive causality, but they have no innate understanding of it.In the same way that a machine that becomes more capable of dealing with harder problems, but runs the same software, is directly analogous to a baby with an inherent understanding of causality, but lacks the physical brainpower to grapple it better within the minds eye. >Babies can recognize change, but only in a generalistic manner. They absolute have no understanding of numbers themselves lmao.Infants struggle to distinguish 8 dots from 10 so they just approximate reality.correct. but refer to my earlier point.>Plus once again, babies don't understand abstract geometric concepts whatsoever, as should be obvious.again, it becomes easier to grapple with enhanced brain tissue.I perhaps should have been more specific with what I was trying to say. But again, I fail to see how any ideas we could conceptually have about anything could exist without something, some framework, being inherent onto our consciousness.
>>18544448>I fail to see how any ideas we could conceptually have about anything could exist without something, some framework, being inherent onto our consciousness.They can't. They're all derived from the way the world and the self are represented in the mind before any semantics begin to take shape. A baby doesn't understand causality but it perceives events coming in a sequence and (on some level) even recurrences. It doesn't understand geometry but it perceives distances, directions and a space populated by distinct shapes. It doesn't understand numbers but it perceives there being more or less of something etc. Apply generalized pattern recognition to that (like the mind does for you constantly) and you get an intuitive grasp of the relevant proto-concepts. Apply self-reflection to the intuitions and you might develop the actual ideas. This is so universal and reliably reproducible there's no doubt it reflects fundamental qualities of the human mind, but that's a long way ideas, if you require ideas to be at least distinct enough for the mind to grasp them as such.
>>18544448>>18545250You guys are still confusing the awareness of such concepts versus the implementation of them. Babies have absolutely no concept of the things we've talking about, they just get unfiltered physical reality and their brains try to cope with it from an evolutionary perspective as they grow
>>18545353Notice how your brown-tier mental retardation makes you mistakenly believe your low-IQ post contradicts me.
>>18542234still waiting for an answer to this >>18543207
