Evolutionary Philosophy
  • Home
  • Worldview
    • Epistemology
    • Metaphysics
    • Logic
    • Ethics
    • Politics
    • Aesthetics
  • Applied
    • Know Thyself
    • 10 Tenets
    • Survival of the Fittest Philosophers >
      • Ancient Philosophy (Pre 450 CE)
      • Medieval Philosophy (450-1600 CE)
      • Modern Philosophy (1600-1920 CE)
      • Contemporary Philosophy (Post 1920 CE)
    • 100 Thought Experiments
    • Elsewhere
  • Fiction
    • Draining the Swamp >
      • Further Q&A
    • Short Stories
    • The Vitanauts
  • Blog
  • Store
  • About
    • Purpose
    • My Evolution
    • Evolution 101
    • Philosophy 101

Consciousness 5 — Is It Just An Illusion?

3/23/2020

8 Comments

 
Picture
Those dots aren't actually there. What else could be an illusion?
In the third post in this series, David Chalmers mentioned that there has been an upsurge within consciousness philosophy towards a position called illusionism. In today's post, I want to begin to explore that position by listening to Keith Frankish, a leading proponent of illusionism. In an October 2019 episode of the Rationally Speaking podcast, Frankish discussed Why Consciousness is an Illusion. Here are the most important points from that discussion:
  • The simplest way to put it is that [illusionism is] offering a different model of what consciousness is. This model rejects a central theory that dominates most people’s thinking about consciousness. Consciousness in that sense is illusory and doesn’t exist.
  • Our common-sense view of what our inner experience is like is not as solid and reliable as we think. We tend to assume we encounter a presentation of the visual world that is full and complete in every detail right down to the periphery, but it turns out that is wrong. That is an illusion. That’s an introspective illusion. Even in the matrix we would be having this illusion that we have a complete visual field. Once you allow that, you’re opening a wedge here to the idea that introspection itself might be a construction.
  • Let me say a bit more about the realist picture and just how odd this picture is. Dan Dennett calls this a sort of Cartesian theatre. The idea that there is this inner display of experience for conscious awareness. The outer world effectively creates this private cinema screen that we (and who are we?) witness. This kind of view of introspection does presuppose an introspect-or. That’s one thing that needs to be hashed out.
  • For Descartes this was easy because he envisioned an immaterial soul doing the witnessing, and it has special access. I suppose if there is an immaterial soul then all bets are off as to what it can do. But most philosophers now think it is just a brain. We aren’t two things, but just an embodied brain.
  • We are complicated creatures by any account, and we have some sort of self-awareness of our own mental processes, but it wouldn’t be surprising if that picture weren’t totally accurate. Why would nature have equipped us to be super-neuroscientists or to have a super understanding of our own mental processes? We don’t need that. Maybe we have something that’s much more sketchy and caricatured.
  • Here’s a way I put this in a paper. These properties are anomalous [i.e. deviating from what is standard, normal, or expected]. They’re not like other properties of the body like digestion, respiration, reproduction, etc. They’re also not like other mental properties like emotion or other things that don’t involve consciousness—we don’t have good cognitive accounts of what’s going on there. ... There are three approaches we could take to that. One is to say that yes they are anomalous and we’ve got to do some radical theorising to account for them. We have to do some heavy-duty metaphysics to say they’re not a part of the physical world. Or perhaps (and this is gaining in popularity) they are a fundamental feature of reality, like the intrinsic nature of all matter is conscious in this way, or that all matter has this intrinsic phenomenal aspect to it. [That's panpsychism.]
  • [Digression from illusionism to consciousness in general:]
  • If you really want to be realist about consciousness, you’ve got to put it into the natural world somewhere, and it doesn’t fit in easily. So, maybe, [panpsychism is] one way of getting consciousness into the natural world. Or maybe it just pops into existence when you get complex enough brains. That’s a sort of emergence. You start where nature is building brains and the original ones don’t have this phenomenal aspect to them, they just process information and get bigger and bigger and bigger. At some point between the first organisms and us, the lights came on inside. All that information processing, which was doing all the work, led to the lights coming on in a phenomenal aspect. Then the question is when did this happen? We can’t be sure, because we can’t strictly tell if other creatures, or indeed anyone else has this. There is a sort of arbitrariness here where things click on.
  • Is this any more arbitrary than the fuzziness surrounding the definition of life? I think consciousness is worse than this in two ways.
  • One is that there doesn’t seem to be an in-between condition where there is a little bit of an interior world. Either there is something it is like to be something that has this first-person experience or there isn’t. It may be very impoverished or boring for what it is like to be an electron or an amoeba or whatever, but it is still either or. It either does have this first-person experience or it doesn’t. It’s hard to see how it could have half a perspective. The inner lights are either on or off.
  • Second, with life it’s just difficult to specify what you count as life and what you don’t. There is no hidden fact here; it’s just what you say. It’s a terminological issue. With consciousness, there are radically hidden facts. No matter how clearly we define this thing, we can’t tell where it is and where it isn’t. If someone says my cup has it, there is no test you can do to prove it.
  • [Returning to illusionism:]
  • Let me get back to the three broad positions you can take on this. ... [The third position] is a more conservative response that says we can kind of explain all this in terms of standard resources of cognitive science by talking about representations in the brain and maybe some sort of self-awareness. Maybe when we start to represent our own awareness to ourselves, that’s when this apparent subjective experience comes in. ... That’s been the standard view. Illusionism just goes a bit further. Yes, there are some sort of introspective mechanisms here, but what they are doing is misrepresenting their targets. It’s not that these brain states, these targets, really are that. We have these simple, private, qualitative states. But actual brain states are much more complicated than that. Brain states merely present like that. And that is the illusion.
  • Here is an analogy. In the middle ages, people thought other people were possessed by demons. Modern psychology gives a different explanation of what is happening. Now, do we say that’s what demons really are? Schizophrenia is what demons are? Or do you say, "Stop thinking about it that way. Stop using the word demons altogether. This isn’t an explanation of what demons really are." That’s what I’m asking us to do with consciousness.
  • Some people start with the presumption that qualia is presented to us in a way that is immediate and transparent. They are revealed to us. There is nothing hidden about them. Just by having the experience, and attending to the experience, we can know the character of that property. I think it’s pretty obvious that if that is your conception of the problem that needs to be explained, then science isn’t going to help you with that. This presupposes a relationship between the subject and the object that you couldn’t have in any physical conception of the world. To these people, to suggest that science has something to say here is to miss the point of the target for the whole debate.
  • But we can reconfigure that. We can reconceptualise that; i.e. we are not hard wired to think that way. People who are into Buddhist philosophy tell me that this is what Buddhist thinkers have been doing for a long time. So, I think it’s an open question about how able we are to shake off this picture.

Brief Comments
As I noted in the second post of this series, Sam Harris does indeed use observations from his meditation practice to puncture the idea that consciousness is "presented to us in a way that is immediate and transparent." So, illusionism, while sounding pretty dire on the face of it, seems to be nothing more than the resting place for people who have dropped the supernatural attributes of consciousness, but haven't made the leap to panpsychism to explain it either. Illusionism doesn't say that conscious experience doesn't exist; just that it isn't what people generally think it is. 
This is important to note because there are still a lot of philosophers who ridicule illusionism by misunderstanding the position.

The problem I see with Frankish's view is that he's still talking about consciousness like an essentialist, talking as if it were one essence that either exists or does not. His claim that consciousness is either on or off seems deeply problematic in an evolving universe. But not all illusionists feel that way. What might they think is behind the illusion then? That will be the subject of the next two posts from perhaps the most famous developer of this idea—Dan Dennett.

What do you think? Are you more comfortable with dualism, panpsychism, or illusionism? Or do you have another name for your position here?

--------------------------------------------
Previous Posts in This Series:
Consciousness 1 — Introduction to the Series
Consciousness 2 — The Illusory Self and a Fundamental Mystery
Consciousness 3 — The Hard Problem
Consciousness 4 — Panpsychist Problems With Consciousness
8 Comments
SelfAwarePatterns link
3/23/2020 08:22:40 pm

I think the illusionists are right, ontologically. But I think their marketing is terrible. By saying consciousness IS an illusion, they imply that it doesn't exist, and spend an enormous amount of time clarifying that's not what they mean. Their position would be stronger if they said consciousness CONTAINS illusions. (Actually Dennett often makes this hedge, although not consistently.)

I prefer to think of myself as a weak emergentist, but it's important to understand that the difference between a weak emergentist and an illlusionist, in most cases, amounts to terminology.

This comes down to the old question, does a table exist? Or is the table an illusion because it's really composed of mostly empty space, the void between the elementary particles? I think most people would say that both the table and fundamental physics view are valid, just at different levels of description.

I want to emphasize that I'm a *weak* emergentist. I emphasize that because a lot of people see "emergent" and think that means something magical happens at some level of complexity. For me, it just means that different models become intuitive at different levels and from different perpsectives.

Reply
Ed Gibney link
3/23/2020 08:39:38 pm

Ha ha I love that diagnosis about their marketing! I’m jealous I didn’t think of it myself. Spot on. I get your distinction about weak emergence too. That could be my tribe too if it needs to be named, although I’d probably personally use something with an evolutionary adjective in it. Lots of details left to uncover still...

Reply
Astronomer Eric
3/23/2020 09:42:25 pm

Yeah! You're already working on this! I noticed in previous posts that you have another commenter named Eric, so I emulated his naming strategy and made my name Astronomer Eric...although as you know from our emails Ed, I indulge in Maslow's Hierarchy of needs quite a lot (I'm referring here to your discussion with Philosopher Eric in the last post about indulging in our favorite lines of thought, haha). And so, in the context of these posts, it might make more sense for my name to depict that theory instead. But I'll stick with "Astronomer" regardless.

Ok, I'll head back to the first post and play catch up. I will say though, that I'm still integrating all the philosophy vocabulary you guys use. Every time you mention a philosophical word like epistemology, etc. I have to look it up. So I feel behind you all in that regard. But I can still contribute my point of view none-the-less until I am able to catch up more.

I also have to say here, before I forget, that SeldAwarePatterns' (Mike, right?) table illusion question in terms of the all the space between atoms really got me excitedly thinking about what a table might look like through a different "set of eyes". My thought process in this regard is influenced by having seen, for example, how differently objects like flowers look in ultraviolet light compared to visible light. In terms of the space between atoms, for whatever reason, the evolutionary process that formed our perception system led us to the point where we visually "fill in" all the empty space of a table with what appears to be solid material. I'm sure some other configuration of biological perception mechanics might more accurately perceive all that empty space. And actually now that I think about it, I guess we already do that with things that are transparent to our vision mechanics, like air, etc. Sorry, just thinking out loud. I don't know if that adds anything to the consciousness conversation. Ok, back to the earlier posts!

Reply
SelfAwarePatterns link
3/23/2020 10:39:36 pm

Hi Astronomer Eric,
You got it; Mike is my real name. I post under SAP to avoid name collisions with all the other Mike Smith's out there.

Good point on vocabulary. We should watch our use of jargon, or at least append a brief layperson's phrase.

In terms of "filling in" the empty space, a good way to think of it is that our perceptions are calibrated for affordances, that is for survival opportunities. Perceiving subatomic particles wouldn't have helped us on the savanna, but perceiving a piece of wood would have.

In the same sense, our model of our own mental processes is calibrated for what helps us survive and procreate, not what helps us actually understand the mind.

Reply
Astronomer Eric
3/24/2020 01:45:45 pm

Hi Mike,

I completely agree with what you said about the role of survival in this. Ever since I read "The Selfish Gene" a couple of years ago, in conjunction with feeling very aligned with Ed's Evolutionary Philosophy, I'm coming to see how very powerful the theory of evolution is in describing our world.

I love how concisely you are able to write while still saying so much. As a very wordy writer, I could learn much from this skill. :)

Reply
SelfAwarePatterns link
3/24/2020 04:10:10 pm

Thanks AE! Flattery will get you everywhere with me. :-)

Ed Gibney link
3/24/2020 11:53:08 am

Konichiwa Astro-E! Glad to have you along for the ride here. I try to write my posts with jargon explanations (especially when interpreting the words of other dense philosophers), but I'm falling more and more easily into the jargon when discussing this with others who I know share the language. Thanks for the reminder to avoid that when possible.

Mike was exactly right with his evolutionary explanation of how we see tables.

Reply
Astronomer Eric
3/24/2020 01:48:48 pm

Konichiwa Ed!

No worries about the jargon. They are words I should learn eventually anyway. I wasn't complaining about having to look them up, just more warning that as a novice I might not get your points immediately, so hopefully you all with have patience with me when I misunderstand something.

And yes, the evolutionary explanations are powerful indeed!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to Help Shape This Evolution

    SUBSCRIBE

    RSS Feed


    Blog Philosophy

    This is where ideas mate to form new and better ones. Please share yours respectfully...or they will suffer the fate of extinction!


    Archives

    January 2023
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    July 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    April 2012


    Click to set custom HTML
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.