this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
47 points (100.0% liked)

philosophy

20217 readers
2 users here now

Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]

"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes

Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net
MiraculousMM@hexbear.net
Leon_Grotsky@hexbear.net
47
What do you think of panpsychism/the hard problem of consciousness? (hexbear.net)
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by itsPina@hexbear.net to c/philosophy@hexbear.net
241 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Personally I think it's silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience... Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.

I've been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism... Maybe I am just tripping idk

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The illusion that is being experienced by what?

[–] itsPina@hexbear.net 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The illusion being experienced by the same agent that created it.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So experience is illusory, but there's an agent that experiences that illusion? So experience isn't illusory then

[–] itsPina@hexbear.net 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Experience isn't totally illusory, as stated in one of my previous comments. But we can certainly see illusion take shape by the fact that I can't see my nose right now, or any other of those "fill in the blank" tricks our mind plays to make our "consciousness" a seamless experience, but if they were the sum total of our experience we wouldn't have much need for experience at all now would we?

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Experience isn’t totally illusory, as stated in one of my previous comments.

Ok. Then what exactly is the purpose of arguing that some of it is? You're back to square one.

[–] itsPina@hexbear.net 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

What do you mean? Can you see your nose at all moments? If not, illusion is filling in the gap to provide a biological advantage to those who do not. A snake biting you within the FOV of your nose is bad. Making a fake snake where your nose is (based on previous snake data) seems logical.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So all you're arguing is that illusions exist. That doesn't address the actual subject at all.