"I have a smell" is a different statement from "I have a smell ... of something" ... but it seems that materialists/illusionist don't realise how crazy the claim of having access to a "something", because the statement itself implies that you need the smell to have an idea of that "something" and not the other way around. This is why the hard problem has arrived ... people imagine their abstractions (ie "something") before their qualia and then claim they "know" about those abstractions through qualia. It is a paradox wrapped in a circular argument
We receive signals from the rods and cones in our eyes, but what we "see" consciously is a continuous image., as opposed to individual pixels. The same can be said of an image in computer memory. An image on a computer is a set of bytes representing (RGB) color values in a rectangle, but what we see is a singular image, not individual dots of color or an array of RGB values. The brain uses neurons to map the color but ultimately produces the same thing. Does Keith's theory explain how this is possible? Love your work!
THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
56:16 hugely important part of cognition getting attention getting attention wrong is is um can be disastrous um so 56:24 getting it right focusing on the right bits of information at the right time tracking the right things is essential to survival attention is absolutely 56:31 crucial um pychological mechanism58:33 around and holding on to them and grasping information about them in a in a in a almost magical way it's just locks 58:41 onto them and grabs information about them and then having done that it can have all sorts of effects on how we respond um again without in in a sort of 58:48 magical way there's no uh the model doesn't contain any details of how this works it's just a this thing that that 58:55 FL go out as it where grasps onto things gets information about them makes things 59:00 happen in a way that's um apparently magical1:01:10 schematic character it leads us to judge that these experiences we're having are 1:01:16 themselves sort of magical subjective states that we're having this state of being sort of locked onto this thing in 1:01:21 a magical way and grasping information about it in in a in a way that doesn't 1:01:27 involve any mechanism we just see it andof information there and this information then has effects on us that 1:01:34 uh in in a again in a sort of magical way because we have no idea of the mediating processes all we have is a 1:01:39 schematic outline of this grasping of information in the experience and the information and this being potent in 1:01:45 affecting us so the schematic character of the model then induces us to form 1:01:50 this conception of our minds uh which is essentially dualistic okay which is that 1:01:55 that the there there are immaterial processes occurring there's an immaterial S grasping of things 1:02:02 information um and this is what leads us to um talk about his justest to talk 1:02:08 about qualia and um to conceive of our minds as having a non-physical aspect 1:02:14 it's due to the simplified modeling1:09:39 perceptual processes does result in this this womb of effect we um um we have a 1:09:46 we reach supersonic um velocities 1:09:53 now this reactiv patter I suggest could be mappable on multiple Dimensions corresponding to various dispositional 1:10:01 features of the stimulus as disposition to affect us in different ways sort of attractiveness perhaps 1:10:08 dangerousness edibility um um we can all sorts of 1:10:15 different think of all the different ways in which a stimulus could affect you all the different um um reactions it 1:10:23 could dispose you to um to have each of these correspond to a dimension of 1:10:31 this so we can map it in this multi-dimensional 1:10:36 space now the shape of that reactivity pattern in the multi-dimensional space 1:10:42 encodes information about the significance of the stimulus for the 1:10:47 object if you know the shape of that reactivity pattern you know what that stimulus means for the for the um 1:10:55 for the subject1:18:29 there now what you've got there then is a model of the reactivity pattern created 1:18:36 here by the stimulus which is in this case an apple but there's no point in having a model of the significance of a 1:18:42 stimulus unless it's linked to a representation of the stimulus itself you need to know what stimulus created 1:18:48 this reaction you need to as it bind the bits of information together so let's suppose that the perceptual 1:18:55 processing generates some the perceptual side the classificatory side remember as in as in 1:19:03 Nick distinction between perception and sensation so there's a side that's detecting and classifying bits of the 1:19:08 world and then there's the the other side that's reacting so let's suppose here that the rea the reactive bit is is 1:19:14 is linked up to information from uh from from the pure perceptual side so there's 1:19:20 some sort of um encoding of the of the of the perceptual content an apple some sort of um mental representation of an 1:19:28 apple which is linked to bound to uh the uh reactivity schema so now 1:19:35 what we have is a representation of the content bound to a representation of the
24:51: So different emotional(Inner world) relationships with assigned triggers, get tied together with reactive conceptual rule/law/strategy(outer world).
29:14 version of the thing that normally cause an internal version of the smell or the color or whatever to cause it no the 29:20 commonality wasn't in there being an internal version of the external equality it was in there being the same 29:26 pattern of reaction this I think this line there this 29:32 confuses cause and effect reactions that compose the interos spectable property and it's through Rec reacting through 29:39 reacting that one identifies the property that I think it marks a little Copurnican revolution in thinking about 29:46 Consciousness it's as significant as the change from thinking about the Earth as being at the center of the solar system 29:53 and thinking about the Sun as the center it's it um it looks innocuous as D put 30:00 to there but it the consequences are huge pattern of reaction
@6:10 if we are talking physics, physicalism, or related metaphysics (assume there is nothing else) then there is no such thing as a "private universe". If you allow for the idea some organisms (classed as "sentient", whatever that means) that evolve in the physical universe have a putative _soul_ that is some sort of bridge from physical reality to some sort of platonic or other variety of mind/mental realm, this bridge being what you might call "mind", _then_ you can talk about a _private universe._ . But then it is not an illusion. The illusion is that you think there is only physical stuff.
1:40:57 Have you heard of this guy Bashar? He's a temporary blind guy in a Hawaiian shirt who likes to discuss, how definition/perceptions paints your emotional experience🦯
Bashar is not blind. He claims to be channeling an extraterrestrial entity called "Bashar" btw. His name is Darryl Anka. I think it's just a stage act. I don't believe in channeling. I think people who believe they are channeling are in reality just accessing their subconscious mind. Notice "Bashar" never says anything innovative or that would actually help humanity. Like if he's such an advanced ET, why not tell us how to cure cancer or maybe tell us detailed information from the planet on which he supposedly lives? If he is so advanced, surely he could at least point us in the right direction and then we could research his home planet and determine if life is present. But nope. He never offers any information like that. Darryl is a very smart man and the character he's playing is amusing and quick-witted, but it is just a character. I am not sure why you thought he was blind. Darryl's day job is in visual special effects.
1:31:01 these are really just questions just things you could look into if um if you would want to take seriously well 1:31:08 obviously you could try to locate the the activity scheme in the brain and say well what we need to look for neural I 1:31:14 said there's neural mechanisms that do these things that this monitoring this modeling that feeding High cognition 1:31:19 Zone okay so let's find them we should be able to Det detect them if they're 1:31:25 there uh of course detecting anything in the brain is is is is is is is is is 1:31:31 tough um given even given the wonderful techniques that we have at present we should in principle 1:31:54 be able to do so we need to look for neural processes which have these features they carry 1:31:59 information about systemwide patterns of reactivity okay so there need to be some 1:32:04 some brain system that is that is mapping global patterns of activity not in detail not in detail but 1:32:12 mapping the general shape so be kind of looking at the levels of activity in different areas simultaneously maybe1:45:39 wonderful lecture I think what we'll do is we'll post this out we'll see what the responses are anyone can just leave us their questions in the comment 1:45:45 sections below and I'll curate a bunch of them if anyone has any ideas where 1:45:50 Keith needs to work on certain aspects improve upon all things you just want to congratulate and and tell him thanks for 1:45:57 the insightful information just let us know fantastic yes if you get a lot of1:46:02 responses I'll be happy to come back and discuss some I know I think we definitely will at some point the question is oh yeah and another thing if 1:46:08 anyone has any ideas and would like to take this further they most certainly should well I hope that it's see what1:47:21 audience I hope anyone listening or watching tries to their best to engage interact and yeah that's what this 1:47:27 platform is all about it's to give you guys the opportunity to explore these 1:47:51 committed um amateurs in the best sense can can contribute um think about
Understanding the language model, all the answers are hidden in them, how your mind, brain and conciousness interlink to understand the language in real time, understanding language is the primary source of all the rest you are shuffling, stop chatting within and start doing meditation to know what is happening in your brain in reality when a word frequency strike, everyone has different experiences
1:27:57 pattern all of that little those little fine gray lines inside the green um uh 1:28:02 star there are lost you just have the outline of the thing so it presents 1:28:08 experience to you as something abstract intangible an 1:28:13 essence of significance it's it has that significance you know the significance 1:28:19 that's a bit like the significance of that other thing and maybe you can say I I like it or I don't like it or it's um 1:28:26 it inclines me to do this or that or whatever but I can't really tell you more about it because it's there I've 1:28:31 got nothing to there's no structure available to me really um I can just 1:28:36 make comparisons and general um uh evaluations and that's all I've got it's 1:28:42 just essence of signic we might say it's a pure feel it's an ineffable feel that I'm 1:28:48 acquainted with it isn't there's no ineffable feel there there's no quality there there's a pattern of complex 1:28:54 Downstream reactions that have been schematically modeled and the schematic modeling 1:28:59 produces my judgments about them and those judgments about them I tend to express in the only way I can as well 1:29:05 it's got this feel hence the illusion of phenomenal 1:29:12 Consciousness the answer to the illusion problem um um the answer to life the universe and everything it's not 42 it's
I agree. I thought maybe I was just in a bad mood because I started getting incredibly irritated listening to this man talk. It isn't personal against him, but it is UNBEARABLE for me to listen to his halting, staccato speech. He really needs to get a voice coach or learn public speaking...he has these interesting ideas but my goodness, I don't know how anyone made it through this video. He needs to learn how to think ahead when he's speaking. I think if he saw a speech pathologist, thry could do wonders for him.
Why are you getting tired, Lorddess and lords, ghosts and devils spritz are licking and sucking your body mind spirit and awareness until you are alive in many forms throughout desire in you or other life forms, but as soon as you are dead, The role of true God comes into existence to decompose your body, to clean and clear flow of life in any form 🙏 ❤️ ."Mind of humanity is fooling other mind on earth in the name of consciousness, as you cannot understand anything beyond mind, so all your study on conciousness is not more than the study of your own mind, dear intelectual of this planet 🌏 are wandering like dogs after its own tail ❤DEAR GODDESSES AND GODS, WELCOME TO THE PLANET OF GODDESSES AND GODS FROM THE PLANET OF APES 🙏
Frankish is a highly intelligent and lovely man. But whenever I hear someone talk about illusionism, I can't stop thinking about what an incoherent mess this theory is.
Well, thank you for the first sentence anyway! But why do you think that illusionism is incoherent? It may be wrong, but what's incoherent in proposing that introspection represents sensory states in ways that are systematically (but perhaps adaptively) distorting? It's uncontroversial that perception does that, and why should introspection be any different?
@@KeithFrankish Oh, look at that - the man himself! Well, maybe there is a fault in my thinking, but whenever I think about sensory states being represented as some sort of introspective function - and all that is fundamentally based on complex interactions "emerging" from neuronal dynamics - then this will lead, at least in my current understaing, to issues of infinite regress. Secondly - not really a matter of coherence, but illusionism sounds to me just like another "magic theory" we love to uphold because we are not ready to give up unquestioned, mostly socially conditioned assumptions about metaphysics/ontology, which clearly misguide our thinking in such matters. It's similar to the idea of the ether - only that we don't yet have a Michelson-Morley to change that (yet). Anyway, I love your work! You are my go-to Illusionist - always fun to think about such topics!
@@Xtazieyo I'm pretty sure there's no regress -- unless of course you beg the question against illusionism and assume that undergoing an illusion is itself a phenomenal state. Illusionism is what you get when you combine two theses: (i) introspection apparently presents us with properties that resist scientific explanation, and (ii) introspection is an evolved self-monitoring system. The obvious *default* explanation is that introspection is somehow misleading us, just as perception often does.
@@KeithFrankish Yes, I would argue that undergoing an illusion is a phenomenal state. I understand how one can take the concept of an illusion, defined as "a deceptive appearance or impression" and apply it to phenomelogical experience (similar like a rainbow "appears" to be "there"), and how introspection might play into the representative dynamic - but I view this as a fundamental category error. First and foremost because every instance of an "illusion" any concious being has ever had was due to an disctinction in phenomology - so to extrapolate the concept itself to outside all those conceptual boundaries seems wrong to me. I also don't really agree with how illusionists tend to explain the "seeming appearance of qualia" - We take the one thing that is most real and imminent - the one thing that's undoubtedly happening - and try to create complex fantasies (which are, by the way, all ultimately derived through "it") to explain "it" away. I beleive we tend to do this because of unqustioned metaphysical prejudices! It's an evocation of magical thinking in a secular context - to avoid the (in my opinion) necessary conclusion - which is to put conciousness first!
Thanks again, for being a great host. Giving us the real deal info.
Thank you!🙏🏽
"I have a smell" is a different statement from "I have a smell ... of something" ... but it seems that materialists/illusionist don't realise how crazy the claim of having access to a "something", because the statement itself implies that you need the smell to have an idea of that "something" and not the other way around. This is why the hard problem has arrived ... people imagine their abstractions (ie "something") before their qualia and then claim they "know" about those abstractions through qualia. It is a paradox wrapped in a circular argument
We receive signals from the rods and cones in our eyes, but what we "see" consciously is a continuous image., as opposed to individual pixels. The same can be said of an image in computer memory. An image on a computer is a set of bytes representing (RGB) color values in a rectangle, but what we see is a singular image, not individual dots of color or an array of RGB values. The brain uses neurons to map the color but ultimately produces the same thing.
Does Keith's theory explain how this is possible?
Love your work!
Omg I LOVE this theory!!! Good show professor!
Glad you liked it!
Thank you!
@@KeithFrankish you are very welcome. ❤️
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like and share this video, subscribe to the channel, and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
56:16
hugely important part of cognition getting attention getting attention wrong is is um can be disastrous um so
56:24
getting it right focusing on the right bits of information at the right time tracking the right things is essential to survival attention is absolutely
56:31
crucial um pychological mechanism58:33
around and holding on to them and grasping information about them in a in a in a almost magical way it's just locks
58:41
onto them and grabs information about them and then having done that it can have all sorts of effects on how we respond um again without in in a sort of
58:48
magical way there's no uh the model doesn't contain any details of how this works it's just a this thing that that
58:55
FL go out as it where grasps onto things gets information about them makes things
59:00
happen in a way that's um apparently magical1:01:10
schematic character it leads us to judge that these experiences we're having are
1:01:16
themselves sort of magical subjective states that we're having this state of being sort of locked onto this thing in
1:01:21
a magical way and grasping information about it in in a in a way that doesn't
1:01:27
involve any mechanism we just see it andof information there and this information then has effects on us that
1:01:34
uh in in a again in a sort of magical way because we have no idea of the mediating processes all we have is a
1:01:39
schematic outline of this grasping of information in the experience and the information and this being potent in
1:01:45
affecting us so the schematic character of the model then induces us to form
1:01:50
this conception of our minds uh which is essentially dualistic okay which is that
1:01:55
that the there there are immaterial processes occurring there's an immaterial S grasping of things
1:02:02
information um and this is what leads us to um talk about his justest to talk
1:02:08
about qualia and um to conceive of our minds as having a non-physical aspect
1:02:14
it's due to the simplified modeling1:09:39
perceptual processes does result in this this womb of effect we um um we have a
1:09:46
we reach supersonic um velocities
1:09:53
now this reactiv patter I suggest could be mappable on multiple Dimensions corresponding to various dispositional
1:10:01
features of the stimulus as disposition to affect us in different ways sort of attractiveness perhaps
1:10:08
dangerousness edibility um um we can all sorts of
1:10:15
different think of all the different ways in which a stimulus could affect you all the different um um reactions it
1:10:23
could dispose you to um to have each of these correspond to a dimension of
1:10:31
this so we can map it in this multi-dimensional
1:10:36
space now the shape of that reactivity pattern in the multi-dimensional space
1:10:42
encodes information about the significance of the stimulus for the
1:10:47
object if you know the shape of that reactivity pattern you know what that stimulus means for the for the um
1:10:55
for the subject1:18:29
there now what you've got there then is a model of the reactivity pattern created
1:18:36
here by the stimulus which is in this case an apple but there's no point in having a model of the significance of a
1:18:42
stimulus unless it's linked to a representation of the stimulus itself you need to know what stimulus created
1:18:48
this reaction you need to as it bind the bits of information together so let's suppose that the perceptual
1:18:55
processing generates some the perceptual side the classificatory side remember as in as in
1:19:03
Nick distinction between perception and sensation so there's a side that's detecting and classifying bits of the
1:19:08
world and then there's the the other side that's reacting so let's suppose here that the rea the reactive bit is is
1:19:14
is linked up to information from uh from from the pure perceptual side so there's
1:19:20
some sort of um encoding of the of the of the perceptual content an apple some sort of um mental representation of an
1:19:28
apple which is linked to bound to uh the uh reactivity schema so now
1:19:35
what we have is a representation of the content bound to a representation of the
24:51: So different emotional(Inner world) relationships with assigned triggers, get tied together with reactive conceptual rule/law/strategy(outer world).
29:14
version of the thing that normally cause an internal version of the smell or the color or whatever to cause it no the
29:20
commonality wasn't in there being an internal version of the external equality it was in there being the same
29:26
pattern of reaction this I think this line there this
29:32
confuses cause and effect reactions that compose the interos spectable property and it's through Rec reacting through
29:39
reacting that one identifies the property that I think it marks a little Copurnican revolution in thinking about
29:46
Consciousness it's as significant as the change from thinking about the Earth as being at the center of the solar system
29:53
and thinking about the Sun as the center it's it um it looks innocuous as D put
30:00
to there but it the consequences are huge
pattern of reaction
If these theories are untestable, hasn’t it been inappropriate to accuse others of believing in illusions?
@6:10 if we are talking physics, physicalism, or related metaphysics (assume there is nothing else) then there is no such thing as a "private universe". If you allow for the idea some organisms (classed as "sentient", whatever that means) that evolve in the physical universe have a putative _soul_ that is some sort of bridge from physical reality to some sort of platonic or other variety of mind/mental realm, this bridge being what you might call "mind", _then_ you can talk about a _private universe._ . But then it is not an illusion. The illusion is that you think there is only physical stuff.
1:40:57 Have you heard of this guy Bashar? He's a temporary blind guy in a Hawaiian shirt who likes to discuss, how definition/perceptions paints your emotional experience🦯
Bashar is not blind. He claims to be channeling an extraterrestrial entity called "Bashar" btw. His name is Darryl Anka. I think it's just a stage act. I don't believe in channeling. I think people who believe they are channeling are in reality just accessing their subconscious mind. Notice "Bashar" never says anything innovative or that would actually help humanity. Like if he's such an advanced ET, why not tell us how to cure cancer or maybe tell us detailed information from the planet on which he supposedly lives? If he is so advanced, surely he could at least point us in the right direction and then we could research his home planet and determine if life is present. But nope. He never offers any information like that.
Darryl is a very smart man and the character he's playing is amusing and quick-witted, but it is just a character. I am not sure why you thought he was blind. Darryl's day job is in visual special effects.
Possibly better if written
Agreed!
It'll be written up in time
He doesn't present it very well. I'm not sure what it is that isn't working well.
1:31:01
these are really just questions just things you could look into if um if you would want to take seriously well
1:31:08
obviously you could try to locate the the activity scheme in the brain and say well what we need to look for neural I
1:31:14
said there's neural mechanisms that do these things that this monitoring this modeling that feeding High cognition
1:31:19
Zone okay so let's find them we should be able to Det detect them if they're
1:31:25
there uh of course detecting anything in the brain is is is is is is is is is
1:31:31
tough um given even given the wonderful techniques that we have at present
we should in principle
1:31:54
be able to do so we need to look for neural processes which have these features they carry
1:31:59
information about systemwide patterns of reactivity okay so there need to be some
1:32:04
some brain system that is that is mapping global patterns of activity not in detail not in detail but
1:32:12
mapping the general shape so be kind of looking at the levels of activity in different areas simultaneously maybe1:45:39
wonderful lecture I think what we'll do is we'll post this out we'll see what the responses are anyone can just leave us their questions in the comment
1:45:45
sections below and I'll curate a bunch of them if anyone has any ideas where
1:45:50
Keith needs to work on certain aspects improve upon all things you just want to congratulate and and tell him thanks for
1:45:57
the insightful information just let us know fantastic yes if you get a lot of1:46:02
responses I'll be happy to come back and discuss some I know I think we definitely will at some point the question is oh yeah and another thing if
1:46:08
anyone has any ideas and would like to take this further they most certainly should well I hope that it's see what1:47:21
audience I hope anyone listening or watching tries to their best to engage interact and yeah that's what this
1:47:27
platform is all about it's to give you guys the opportunity to explore these
1:47:51
committed um amateurs in the best sense can can contribute um think about
Understanding the language model, all the answers are hidden in them, how your mind, brain and conciousness interlink to understand the language in real time, understanding language is the primary source of all the rest you are shuffling, stop chatting within and start doing meditation to know what is happening in your brain in reality when a word frequency strike, everyone has different experiences
1:27:57
pattern all of that little those little fine gray lines inside the green um uh
1:28:02
star there are lost you just have the outline of the thing so it presents
1:28:08
experience to you as something abstract intangible an
1:28:13
essence of significance it's it has that significance you know the significance
1:28:19
that's a bit like the significance of that other thing and maybe you can say I I like it or I don't like it or it's um
1:28:26
it inclines me to do this or that or whatever but I can't really tell you more about it because it's there I've
1:28:31
got nothing to there's no structure available to me really um I can just
1:28:36
make comparisons and general um uh evaluations and that's all I've got it's
1:28:42
just essence of signic we might say it's a pure feel it's an ineffable feel that I'm
1:28:48
acquainted with it isn't there's no ineffable feel there there's no quality there there's a pattern of complex
1:28:54
Downstream reactions that have been schematically modeled and the schematic modeling
1:28:59
produces my judgments about them and those judgments about them I tend to express in the only way I can as well
1:29:05
it's got this feel hence the illusion of phenomenal
1:29:12
Consciousness the answer to the illusion problem um um the answer to life the universe and everything it's not 42 it's
The pauses and brain hitching makes the speaker difficult to listen to. A manuscript would be welcomed. Adios
I agree. I thought maybe I was just in a bad mood because I started getting incredibly irritated listening to this man talk. It isn't personal against him, but it is UNBEARABLE for me to listen to his halting, staccato speech. He really needs to get a voice coach or learn public speaking...he has these interesting ideas but my goodness, I don't know how anyone made it through this video. He needs to learn how to think ahead when he's speaking. I think if he saw a speech pathologist, thry could do wonders for him.
@@mygirldarby Thanks for the suggestion!
Why are you getting tired, Lorddess and lords, ghosts and devils spritz are licking and sucking your body mind spirit and awareness until you are alive in many forms throughout desire in you or other life forms, but as soon as you are dead, The role of true God comes into existence to decompose your body, to clean and clear flow of life in any form
🙏 ❤️
."Mind of humanity is fooling other mind on earth in the name of consciousness, as you cannot understand anything beyond mind, so all your study on conciousness is not more than the study of your own mind, dear intelectual of this planet 🌏 are wandering like dogs after its own tail ❤DEAR GODDESSES AND GODS,
WELCOME TO THE PLANET OF GODDESSES AND GODS FROM THE PLANET OF APES
🙏
Frankish is a highly intelligent and lovely man. But whenever I hear someone talk about illusionism, I can't stop thinking about what an incoherent mess this theory is.
Well, thank you for the first sentence anyway! But why do you think that illusionism is incoherent? It may be wrong, but what's incoherent in proposing that introspection represents sensory states in ways that are systematically (but perhaps adaptively) distorting? It's uncontroversial that perception does that, and why should introspection be any different?
@@KeithFrankish Oh, look at that - the man himself! Well, maybe there is a fault in my thinking, but whenever I think about sensory states being represented as some sort of introspective function - and all that is fundamentally based on complex interactions "emerging" from neuronal dynamics - then this will lead, at least in my current understaing, to issues of infinite regress. Secondly - not really a matter of coherence, but illusionism sounds to me just like another "magic theory" we love to uphold because we are not ready to give up unquestioned, mostly socially conditioned assumptions about metaphysics/ontology, which clearly misguide our thinking in such matters. It's similar to the idea of the ether - only that we don't yet have a Michelson-Morley to change that (yet).
Anyway, I love your work! You are my go-to Illusionist - always fun to think about such topics!
@Xtazieyo The man. The myth. The legend.
@@Xtazieyo I'm pretty sure there's no regress -- unless of course you beg the question against illusionism and assume that undergoing an illusion is itself a phenomenal state. Illusionism is what you get when you combine two theses: (i) introspection apparently presents us with properties that resist scientific explanation, and (ii) introspection is an evolved self-monitoring system. The obvious *default* explanation is that introspection is somehow misleading us, just as perception often does.
@@KeithFrankish Yes, I would argue that undergoing an illusion is a phenomenal state. I understand how one can take the concept of an illusion, defined as "a deceptive appearance or impression" and apply it to phenomelogical experience (similar like a rainbow "appears" to be "there"), and how introspection might play into the representative dynamic - but I view this as a fundamental category error. First and foremost because every instance of an "illusion" any concious being has ever had was due to an disctinction in phenomology - so to extrapolate the concept itself to outside all those conceptual boundaries seems wrong to me. I also don't really agree with how illusionists tend to explain the "seeming appearance of qualia" - We take the one thing that is most real and imminent - the one thing that's undoubtedly happening - and try to create complex fantasies (which are, by the way, all ultimately derived through "it") to explain "it" away. I beleive we tend to do this because of unqustioned metaphysical prejudices! It's an evocation of magical thinking in a secular context - to avoid the (in my opinion) necessary conclusion - which is to put conciousness first!