/lit/ - Literature

>>22617142
>(I actually fuck up by using the word "illusion" which itself implies an observer but I can't be bothered to formulate this ultimately nonsensical thesis in any better way).
Both Dennett and Frankish actually use the term "illusion" (going as far as dubbing their brand of eliminativism "illusionism", they both have papers on this exact topic) so you've made no mistake in your post. It's funny that you felt ashamed in saying something as stupid as "consciousness is an illusion", even tho they are actually making a claim as retarded as this one. They're really hopeless.
Btw Dennett is aware of the "illusion of phenomenical consciousness already entails phenomenical consciousness" objection, since Searle made it. Dennett's response was of course very stupid, and boiled down to "maybe it's true, maybe it's not, we have to wait for science to tell us". Again, a complete retard.

Personally I think he knows eliminativism is completely idiotic. He probably wanted to play devil's advocate for science (since he knew that reductive materialism is bunk, and therefore only eliminativist materialism was left as an option for the physicalist), and hoped that by thinking enough about the issue he might have found a valid defense for eliminativism. Ofc he didn't, and went in to deep to retract his position (since doing it rn would basically be akin to admitting that he wasted his life on an evidently idiotic position).