Philosophy Now Forum

Let me just get this straight: You've got some pretty blatant ideas here, my friend. The whole thing with the “cosmic womb” and “God's water breaking” almost sounds like a science fiction novel. But hey, everyone has their own idea of God, right? Just because you see it that way doesn't mean it's the same for everyone else.

You're really adamant that your view of God must be the only true one. But honestly, where is the proof? Apart from your own convictions, you have nothing solid to show. And the “Burning Bush-like” experience - well, I don't really know if that's enough to convince everyone else.

There are just so many different ideas of God out there, and you claim yours is the best. But what makes your idea better than all the others? What about those who have a completely different view? Why should people believe your version of God in particular?

I don't want to attack you here, don't get me wrong. But maybe you should be a little more open to the fact that there isn't just one truth. Until you can provide some solid evidence, I'll probably remain skeptical.

The Illusion of Illusionism
Raymond Tallis sees through a physicalist confusion.

Frankish concedes that “Illusionism replaces the hard problem with the illusion problem – the problem of explaining how the illusion of phenomenality arises and why it is so powerful.”

Indeed. And how does that not revolve mainly around this:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Though I'm the first to admit a part of me is no less able to scoff at determinism. Like most of us here, I "just know" deep down inside that at least up to a point I really am calling the shots here. But that doesn't make my brain any less material. It is still nothing less than a profoundly problematic mystery. Which is why so many invent God to make it go away.

What he does not recognise is that this second-order hard problem is harder than the first-order hard problem. Illusionism brings us no nearer to – and indeed, takes us further away from – reconciling the reality of consciousness (all of whose problems are hard) with a physicalist world picture. For instance, given that, for the illusionist, the illusion of phenomenal consciousness must be composed of more brain activity, we might ask how and why such brain activity might deceive itself as to its own nature. As for phenomenality, it might be powerful just because it is not an illusion.

And then it's brain activity all the way down. But down to what? God? the Universe itself? As for the brain deceiving us, that happens to me every night. For hours on end "I" am "out in the world" with those I knew from the past...family dreams, college dreams, Army dreams, work dreams, etc.

Behind illusionism, and the wider project of defending physicalism, is a fundamental failure to see the mystery in the fact that the world is made explicit in consciousness, not the least in the phenomenal consciousness of entities called physicists.

Asserting things like this given "the gap" is something many philosophers might do. It's always fascinating to speculate about the human brain. On the other hand, it's the human brain itself doing the speculation. Thus, what may well be "behind" illusionists, physicalists, materialists, idealists, realists, etc., is nothing other than what could never not be behind it.

It's as though Mother Nature is shooting a film and we are all compelled to act out our scripted parts. But, unlike with God, we're just not sure if there is any teleological component embedded in the laws of nature. We're not even entirely sure if our lack of certainty itself is not just one more inherent component of Reality.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 8:06 pm

viewtopic.php?p=714538#p714538

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 10:54 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2024 8:06 pm

viewtopic.php?p=714538#p714538

And -- click -- right back at you: viewtopic.php?p=714538#p714538

The Illusion of Illusionism
Raymond Tallis sees through a physicalist confusion.

Behind illusionism, and the wider project of defending physicalism, is a fundamental failure to see the mystery in the fact that the world is made explicit in consciousness, not the least in the phenomenal consciousness of entities called physicists.

Ultimately, what lies behind illusionism and physicalism remains the profound mystery embedded in how the human brain is able to create a self-conscious awareness of itself in the first place. If it's not a manifestation of God, then would it not need to reflect a component subsumed in the material universe itself...a factor that "somehow" made it all possible?

Also, something that explains quantum interactions and the staggering vastness of the universe.

There seems to be nothing in the material world – or the world seen through the eyes of physics – that explains the experience that it exists.

Again, come back to it all in a hundred years. The only question is this...will the physicists have finally resolved it all? Will they be able to demonstrate that their resolution is in fact the real deal and not just another inherent manifestation of the only possible reality? Or will they still have to fall back on philosophers for other equally important components.

At the most basic level, this awareness is delivered in phenomenal experience, without which there would be no physical science, because no observations of data.

Back then to the gap between what Tallis construes the most basic level of understanding is here and all that would need to be grasped about human consciousness in order to close it completely. Then the surreal reality of how, yes, awareness certainly seems to be "delivered" by some entity that may well have acquired a true autonomy. Or maybe the mystery of existence itself ultimately comes down to information and knowledge that our own brains, even if autonomous, are simply not sophisticated enough to grasp.

It's all still no less mind-boggling once you go out far enough into the deep end of the reality pool.

Nor would there be any philosophers arguing about the implications of the physicalist world picture for our understanding of phenomenal consciousness, or, more importantly, of phenomenal consciousness for our understanding of the physical world. Saying phenomenal consciousness is an illusion is more, not less, embarrassing for those who want to defend physicalism.

Come on, admit it. The existence of the human brain, the human condition and existence itself, while utterly fascinating to explore philosophically are still far beyond the reach even of the hard sciences.

On the other hand, sure, if philosophers ever do concoct a brand new argument allowing them to intertwine their theoretical conjectures about the human brain and their own actual interactions with others, I'd be particularly interested in that.