/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8407890

The problem is the word "illusion" is itself heavily tainted with the assumption that "qualia" are real phenomena. I liken this problem to how the word "sunrise" is tainted with geocentrist thinking. You wouldn't use that word as evidence the sun revolves around the earth since what it actually constitutes is evidence that the wrong idea of geocentrism influenced language.

That said, if we're using the word "illusion," I would just clarify this isn't "illusion" in the sense of an altered "experience" but rather "illusion" in the sense of a difference between an idea / belief about reality and that which reality actually is.

>the experience is right there in your face, undeniably existing.

Even though p-zombies are traditionally used to argue in favor of "experience" as a real thing, I find them useful for showing us a situation where people believe and behave in reference to "experience" even though they don't have it in reality. If you believe p-zombies are plausible, then you believe there could be a p-zombie version of you who says and does everything you do in exactly the same way, including arguing that his "experience" is right there in front of his face, undeniably existing. But he won't actually have "experience" in reality. What if you are this p-zombie? You would have no way of knowing if you were because you would still believe and behave as though you were having "experiences."

You would claim to know things based on your "first person view," but in reality there would be no such view. Only the belief in and behavior in reference to the abstract concept of that view. And that's all that's required for us to be the way we are. Genuine "experience" wouldn't add anything to what we have. You wouldn't be able to tell if you had it or not. You can insist that your "experiences" are so clear and vivid and immediate that they must be real, but the p-zombie would believe and say the same thing.

You can make math way easier if you just stop using radians and switch to degrees instead. Why did anyone ever even come up with radians in the first place?

>Implying 3.142593654/2 radians is a good way of saying 90 degrees

Any dear anon willing to help me write Quicksort as a parallel program in Java?