Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

17
  • i guess i'm just shifting the burden of proof Commented Jan 17, 2024 at 5:42
  • 1
    Qualia are considered to be the most simple type of conscious perception. Please give a reference for the claim that qualia are illusions. - I do not understand the last sentence of your question, could you please clarify. Commented Jan 17, 2024 at 5:46
  • 1
    The polar opposite of illusionism, panpsychism, provokes incredulous stare too. As did non-Euclidean geometry, until it didn't, incredulity dissipates with habit. If they are right that we are compelled into mistaken experiential beliefs "100% certainty about experiences" will make no difference, we are still mistaken. But it is on them to explain how the compulsion works, see Kammerer for a version of it. Commented Jan 17, 2024 at 5:50
  • 1
    Illusion here simply means error, maybe replace the word will be better for you?... Commented Jan 17, 2024 at 6:55
  • 1
    See this answer to understand what the illusionists are saying and why. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/61897/… Raw data should generally be taken as real, but if there is strong enough justification to do so, it can be dismissed. The justification that Blackmore provides -- is NOT strong enough to justify throwing out data she does not want to believe. Commented Jan 19, 2024 at 6:34