[yters]

GK Chesterton makes the good point that rigorous rationalism is only valid if you start from true premises. Regardless of how valid one's syllogisms are, if they are based on false premises, then you'll end up insane. That is why GKE insists the insane man tends to be the most consistently rational, but starting from incorrect premises. The notion of "mystery" is that we can apprehend truths that are not always within our ability to rationally dissect, but that does not mean these truths are at odds with what we also rationally understand. A prime example is consciousness. There is no coherent rational explanation of consciousness within our physicalist worldview, since consciousness must be inherently non physical. Hence when rational physicalists try to take their viewpoint to its logical conclusion they must make the incoherent claim, as Daniel Dennett does, that consciousness is an "illusion." If consciousness is an illusion, then what is having the illusion? The self contradiction is because illusion itself presupposes a consciousness that be deceived.

[naasking]

> GK Chesterton makes the good point that rigorous rationalism is only valid if you start from true premises.

Rationalism permits us to examine even our premises, so your conclusion doesn't follow.

> Hence when rational physicalists try to take their viewpoint to its logical conclusion they must make the incoherent claim, as Daniel Dennett does, that consciousness is an "illusion."

Oh boy.

> If consciousness is an illusion, then what is having the illusion? The self contradiction is because illusion itself presupposes a consciousness that be deceived.

No, the "self-contradiction" is that you seem to think an illusion requires a subject. "What" is having the illusion is the system that mistakenly concludes that its perceptions entail consciousness.

Here's a subject-free definition of "illusion" so you don't fall into this trap again: an illusion is a perception that entails an obvious/immediate, but false, conclusion.

[yters]

Perception assumes a perceiver.

[naasking]

No it doesn't! At least, not in the metaphysical sense that necessitates irreducible subjectivity, which is what Dennett is talking about.

[vasistha]

irreducibility of subjectivity?

subjectivity is subjective. its axiomatic. no one argues that everything is reducible or reductive. ever heard of the explanatory gap? no, we have axioms, which are self-evident, that subsequent truths are based on. axioms are the epistemic grounds of reason, and consciousness is the epistemic ground of all knowledge and experience. no consciousness - no knowledge. and just because we can't prove it objectively doesn't mean it doesn't exist! how absurd!

Dennett's arguments are not taken seriously in many academic philosophical circles. There is a joke about the title of his book, ever so humbly titled "Consciousness Explained", that is should be retitled: "Consciousness Explained Away".

[naasking]

> irreducibility of subjectivity?

If that means nothing to you, then I suggest you read some more philosophy of mind to understand why subjectivity is a real problem for eliminativist theories.

> consciousness is the epistemic ground of all knowledge and experience

Fortunately not!

> Dennett's arguments are not taken seriously in many academic philosophical circles.

Haha, I don't know what bubble you live in, but the majority of philosophers are physicalists. See the survey done a few years ago:

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

In fact, nearly every single one of Dennett's positions are held by the majority of philosophers, ie. physicalism, Compatibilism, realism. So much for Dennett not being taken seriously.

[yters]

Philosophers should use modus ponens more often.

If physicalism implies consciousness is an illusion, and that is an absurd conclusion, then a better hypothesis is physicalism is false.

It doesn't seem the survey takers are big on logical consistency. Physicalism is inconsistent with Platonism, yet both are majority positions.

[ThomPete]

Thats the semantic definition, but you might as well claim that the illusion is true or at least real :)