That seems to rely quite strongly on the nuance of the word "illusion", no? If all consciousness is illusory there can be no external audience, because the consciousness of the audience is equally...
So here goes my question: if consciousness is an illusion, who or what is the target of the illusion? I mean, every illusion must have an audience, no?
That seems to rely quite strongly on the nuance of the word "illusion", no? If all consciousness is illusory there can be no external audience, because the consciousness of the audience is equally an illusion, but then by that definition consciousness can't be illusory. I'm no philosopher, but it seems like a fairly short loop predicated on quite a specific bit of meaning? For me, "emergent behaviour" is a much more useful term if we're taking that very physiological view of consciousness & self-awareness.
And yes, of course, depression is not the consequence of a realistic perception of the world. Much to the contrary. The clinically depressed is pathologically biased towards the negative.
I think this is a fairly big leap from a standing start. The video as a whole pitched some convincing arguments, sure, but I don't see it as implicitly true; I could easily construct a counterargument something along the lines of "'Normal' brain function evolved as a way to protect us from the objective horrors of reality in order for us to thrive and reproduce, those whose brain function is abnormal are exposed to unfiltered reality and are unable to cope with what they see".
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with that argument, but I see it as one that's at least worth exploring - the fact that the presenter needed medication to bring back the ability to see things positively can also very easily play either way: the optimist would say they gave her clarity, the pessimist would say they allowed her to share the 'normal' delusion again.
I might be little straying away from the topic here but when I see the word "illusion" being used in the context of consciousness, I think of the perceived reality. As in your thought process will...
I might be little straying away from the topic here but when I see the word "illusion" being used in the context of consciousness, I think of the perceived reality. As in your thought process will always be affected by internal things like, whether you are tired that day or maybe some hormone isn't being pumped enough so you are more likely to see it more negative way. Because more we learn about the brain more we realize it is not a simple process, but a combined work effort of your whole body. For instance it is now speculated that depression might be caused by gut biome and these bacterias could even play a bigger role in our decision making and such.
Which brings us to the "illusionary" part of consciousness. If our brains are constantly manipulated by these things how much of it is real and how much of it is made up by our minds. Although, this shouldn't be mistaken with "what is reality" or "is real even real" kind of questions. It is more of a questiontioning of how much of our thoughts being shaped by things like our nervous system, genetics, gut biome or even microplastics which we don't even come close to comprehend any of these at this point.
That seems to rely quite strongly on the nuance of the word "illusion", no? If all consciousness is illusory there can be no external audience, because the consciousness of the audience is equally an illusion, but then by that definition consciousness can't be illusory. I'm no philosopher, but it seems like a fairly short loop predicated on quite a specific bit of meaning? For me, "emergent behaviour" is a much more useful term if we're taking that very physiological view of consciousness & self-awareness.
I think this is a fairly big leap from a standing start. The video as a whole pitched some convincing arguments, sure, but I don't see it as implicitly true; I could easily construct a counterargument something along the lines of "'Normal' brain function evolved as a way to protect us from the objective horrors of reality in order for us to thrive and reproduce, those whose brain function is abnormal are exposed to unfiltered reality and are unable to cope with what they see".
I'm not necessarily saying I agree with that argument, but I see it as one that's at least worth exploring - the fact that the presenter needed medication to bring back the ability to see things positively can also very easily play either way: the optimist would say they gave her clarity, the pessimist would say they allowed her to share the 'normal' delusion again.
I might be little straying away from the topic here but when I see the word "illusion" being used in the context of consciousness, I think of the perceived reality. As in your thought process will always be affected by internal things like, whether you are tired that day or maybe some hormone isn't being pumped enough so you are more likely to see it more negative way. Because more we learn about the brain more we realize it is not a simple process, but a combined work effort of your whole body. For instance it is now speculated that depression might be caused by gut biome and these bacterias could even play a bigger role in our decision making and such.
Which brings us to the "illusionary" part of consciousness. If our brains are constantly manipulated by these things how much of it is real and how much of it is made up by our minds. Although, this shouldn't be mistaken with "what is reality" or "is real even real" kind of questions. It is more of a questiontioning of how much of our thoughts being shaped by things like our nervous system, genetics, gut biome or even microplastics which we don't even come close to comprehend any of these at this point.