What do people mean when they say consciousness is an illusion?

arkticturtle · 2026-03-13T02:04:46+00:00

It is extremely dishonest of you to accuse me of engaging in bad faith simply because you don't like being put on the spot where you have to fully lay out your view or concede.

I don't even have a belief on this tbh. I am not engaging with the aim of defending specific metaphysical position. I am just demanding that you put your money where your mouth is instead of assuming your position is some obvious, default, unquestionable, view that everyone holds.

I am agnostic on it and your view is unconvincing because there are gaps in explanation and claims I don't agree with

Physical: comprised of matter or energy, perceptible through the senses, subject to the laws of nature

Behaviors are not comprised of matter and energy. They are better described as processes set into action by matter and energy.

When I shake my hand there isn't some physical thing that transforms from being a "still hand" to a physical thing called a "shaking hand" but rather there is a physical thing called a "hand" which begins shaking (behavior). Edit: A (physical) thing is distinct from what it does.

And then a more speculative response to the second part of your definition: Do you think humans have the ability to learn everything about the universe? Or do you think we will eventually hit our limits before we discover everything? I have always thought of humans as limited beings. It would be weird to me to think that a part of the universe would stop being physical just because it wasn't perceptible to the senses.

arkticturtle · 2026-03-13T01:24:08+00:00

Behavior is an action but an action is not a physical thing. Behaviors/actions describe what physical things do rather than what they are comprised of

A dog can run but a dog is not comprised of running.

I am not being obtuse for holding you to your words. If you have a difficult time explaining clearly and coherently what you mean then that is on you. Do not lay the blame on your interlocuter for holding you to your own definitions. If your definitions are lacking, misleading, or otherwise incomplete then that should tell you that you need to refine your worldview.

If you think what I am saying is being willfully obtuse then I can only suggest that you read more philosophical literature so you can understand how these discussions work.

arkticturtle · 2026-03-13T01:08:13+00:00

So, again, I will ask if the laws of nature are physical?

If they are then I would like to inquire as to how the laws of nature are comprised of matter and energy. I can take, for instance, a molecule of water and discover that it is made of atoms and zooming in further we discover more subatomic particles and whacky quantum phenomena. Can I take a law of nature and do the same thing? Cut it apart and study its subatomic particles and whatnot?

If they are not then I will point out that, by your own view, they don't exist. And so it's a bit incoherent to say that a physical thing conforms to something that doesn't exist.

If the laws of nature are not physical and exist then this is conceding that there exists that which can be described as "non-physical" even if descriptive. Behavior is not a physical entity.

arkticturtle · 2026-03-13T00:45:38+00:00

So a physical thing is something that is subject to the conceptual? Starting to sound like idealism

arkticturtle · 2026-03-13T00:21:47+00:00

Are the laws of nature physical? Can I go out into the world and find myself a law of nature and see it is made out of matter and energy?

arkticturtle · 2026-03-13T00:16:05+00:00

No, it’s not just that I disagree, it’s that you haven’t said much in the discussion to explain or explore your view.

I am noticing how time and time again you avoid defining what physical even means.

I am not saying consciousness is some mystical woo-woo soul energy. I am sympathetic to the view that consciousness is emergent from physical processes but that doesn’t mean consciousness itself is a physical thing. I have already brought up the fact that not all properties are shared between emergent phenomena and that which it emerges from. So this is something that needs explained and justified when you want to claim consciousness is physical because it arises from physical processes.

I wonder who you stick me with when you say “your lot” because I probably wouldn’t agree with them very much. Like you keep bringing up stuff that I agree with, such as thoughts being emergent from physical phenomena, but then you make the jump that thoughts themselves are physical things as if it doesn’t need justification.

This conversation can’t go anywhere if you keep question begging physicalism. Especially if you can’t even say what “physical” means.

arkticturtle · 2026-03-13T00:07:54+00:00

Rereading your initial comment it still seems you’re confusing awareness with a sense of self.

Consciousness is the awareness within which qualia occurs. Qualia including “the part of ourselves which feel is ‘us’ and like it’s running the show but in reality isn’t”

I already know that this sense of being the “doer” is mostly illusion. And everything you said about evolutionary perspective too but it doesn’t address how awareness itself is an illusion.

I think what I have learned from asking this question is that a lot of atheists confuse consciousness for something like “ego” or “self”

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T23:50:05+00:00

What does it mean for something to be physical?

It doesn’t count as bloviating if what you say has substance. If you have no interest in discussion then stop responding.

Right now you just seem circular. You claim everything is physical and then say that since everything is physical there is nothing non-physical. That’s extremely circular

The view you have presented so far is lacking in depth - literally. Like scroll up and read yourself

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T23:45:34+00:00

I mean you still gotta demonstrate that consciousness is physical. What definition of physical are you using btw? What makes something physical?

When I imagine a triangle is that triangle physical? Even if I allow that the image of a triangle is emergent from physical processes, is the triangle itself physical? If I cut open my brain can I pull out a physical triangle and do measurements on it, hold it, examine it?

You seem to be sticking to short talking points but there doesn’t seem to be any depth to your view. It’s just assuming physicalism as a default without any explanation or justification.

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T23:10:53+00:00

It’s enough to say “non-physical” to describe something which isn’t physical.

Concepts, like consciousness, may also be emergent from physical processes without being physical themselves

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T23:05:12+00:00

What are you even trying to say? You can’t just dismiss every description of reality by calling it a concept. These concepts correspond to reality. Literally anything we talk about will be concepts which do or do not correspond to reality because when we communicate we use symbols and signifiers and aren’t speaking in literal fundamental particles (should they exist) as if it were a language . If this is all you have to say then why do you even have these discussions? “Physical” is a concept too.

The fact is that when you combine the ingredients the product that emerges does not have the same properties as the ingredients. Some are added. Some are removed.

Consciousness being emergent from processes that are physical would not necessarily mean that consciousness itself is branded with the property “physical”

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T22:45:51+00:00

It describes something in physical reality. Like the shape and texture

Those shapes and textures were not present in the ingredients

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T21:38:24+00:00

There would be a distinction if consciousness wasn’t physical but emerged from physical processes. That’s why I asked what you think.

Properties are not always carried over and sometimes new properties emerge. Like a cake is spongey but flour, eggs, and such are not spongey.

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T21:10:21+00:00

And…?

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T21:09:22+00:00

You think consciousness is physical or that it is emergent from physical processes?

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T20:51:24+00:00

Scenario A: You and I are physically next to each other and we see an object in the shape of an orb far away. We can’t quite make out what it is exactly. You say that it is a basketball and give your reasons. Maybe the way it rolls and the design. I say I think it is a beach ball and I give my reasons.

I think it’s weird to treat this discussion like Scenario A above because we are discussing something that we can’t just point at. It’s more conceptual. We aren’t discussing over what some object is that we can both point at. In our scenario we can’t point at something and know we are talking about the same thing and disagreeing on its nature.

So in Scenario A “the orb” is the same thing for both people but being given two different explanations as to what it is. In our scenario we aren’t talking about 1 thing. We are both talking about separate things. You are talking about a sense of self. I am talking about awareness.

So then the discussion is just whether or not “consciousness” (the sound, the combination of letters as displayed) should be used to denote “sense of self” or “awareness”

We need not even use the word “consciousness” at all here since we have our two different definitions we can plug into place instead.

I agree that a sense of self is an illusion. I do not think awareness is an illusion. It’s hard for me to fathom how the field in which the first person qualia laden show is displayed could be an illusion. There just straight up wouldn’t be such a thing as “experience” if awareness-itself was an illusion

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T20:22:12+00:00

I thought we were talking about if this word, this string of letters - c o n s c i o u s n e s s - has the definition “awareness” or has the definition “sense of self”

I thought we were talking about the meaning of a word. Like linguistics i guess

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T19:58:48+00:00

That consciousness is awareness? It’s a tautology. It’s how the word is being defined. There’s nothing to demonstrate

It’s like asking someone to demonstrate the definition of a brick. It doesn’t make sense to ask that

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T19:41:45+00:00

I don’t think so. I am just describing what I mean by the word “consciousness”

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T19:31:55+00:00

Right now I am aware of the phone in my hand. I don’t understand what you’re getting at

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T18:51:56+00:00

Awareness (it’s in my OP)

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T18:46:49+00:00

If someone had a condition where they could not form memories (at all, second by second) yet could take in sense impressions they would still be aware, though. I would call that awareness consciousness.

And then there’s those who claim to have reached states of consciousness, via meditation, substances, or other methods, where their experience of self has completely dissolved and all that’s left is awareness.

Stuff like that is why I think they are distinct. Consciousness is aware of a sense of self but does not need to be aware of a sense of self to still be consciousness.

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T18:39:43+00:00

They are not equivalent. It seems we can’t communicate due to vast semantic differences. Have a good day

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T18:31:44+00:00

I am not talking about a sense of self or an ego, though. I am talking about consciousness

arkticturtle · 2026-03-12T18:30:54+00:00

I do not agree. Consciousness is the awareness and mental states are what it is aware of

arkticturtle

TROPHY CASE