Since dualism is essentially a joke at this point...

Since dualism is essentially a joke at this point, the only two general models of consciousness left are denialism(consciousness isn't real) and panpsychism(consciousness isn't local). Are there any denialist arguments for why the "illusion" of consciousness exists that work against the panpsychist model?

Step it up.

All of those are variants of the three.

It sounds like you're merely looking for evidence to 'prove' that denialism is the only true model. Come back when you're more open to finding the truth (whatever it may be), rather than seeking out whatever affirms your beliefs.

>It sounds like you're merely looking for evidence to 'prove' that
You were right until right after this point.

Hegel was right

The main reasons for not believing qualia have any reality to them beyond the behavior and reporting we do in reference to "them" are A) we have no evidence for these qualia outside of the behavior and reporting we do around "them" and B) there's no reason for our brains to bother generating actual phantasms of "experience" since they can just have us behave *as though* these non-real but convenient abstractions exist and it gets us the same results. Any time someone tries to bring up evidence for qualia you can see what they're really talking about is their behavior around qualia. When they say "I saw a vivid green field of grass," what that really means is they were compelled to behave as though they were in the presence of this non-real abstraction and were further compelled to insist their "experience" of this abstraction was undoubtedly real and immediate. But no matter how real or immediate you're compelled to believe something is, all that really tells us is the degree of certainty to which you were compelled to believe in something. It doesn't count as greater evidence of reality the more certain you're compelled to behave.

RE: Reasons for not believing the idea consciousness "isn't local," we have a large body of evidence for the relationships between the physical brain and the consciousness of the person that brain belongs to. And it goes beyond the relationship between a television and a channel it's picking up because unlike with the non-local case of TV, changing the brain (either through chemicals or through physical trauma) can dramatically change the consciousness of the person that brain belongs to in ways that are different from the mere warping of a signal. You can get a television to change colors on a channel it's picking up, but you can't get a television to change the actor from Bill Cosby to Tony Danza.

How can consciousness not be real unless you are using some absurd definition made by assmad dualists who just found out the human brain isn't for radiating heat?

There are many different definitions for "consciousness." Usually when people talk about consciousness not being real though what they're referring to is consciousness in the sense of "qualia" / "experience."

Did you steal that passage from matter and consciousness?

No, I wrote it off the top of my head a few minutes ago.

Those problems don't apply to a naive model of consciousness, i.e. the "conscious" part of conscious action is an apparent fundamental acting force.

Naive realism has it's own problems. Like how can what we "experience" be direct reality if hallucinations exist? Or dreams or optical illusions for that matter?

Isn't dualism just thinking there is freewill?

why would denying freewill mean consciousness isn't local?

>Isn't dualism just thinking there is freewill?

No, how did you even come up with that? Dualism is the belief that mind and matter are two different sorts of things rather than one being explained in terms of the other.

I fucked my wording a little bit. This doesn't have to do with naive realism; "naive" might have been the wrong word here.

The "purest" model of consciousness is that humans perceive an acting force behind some actions(known as conscious actions), and are able to contemplate that force(self-consciousness). A lack of the acting force also cannot be imagined. From there, somebody can make one of three assumptions:
-The acting force emanates from the body.
-The acting force is an illusion.
-The acting force is universally present(and perceived in a limited space).

Doesn't this just leave you with solipsism though? You can't prove that when others reference 'green' they actual experience it, but your own experience is self evident.

Just how it was explained to me. Not saying me or they knew shit from shinoa.

If we believe in freewill we think we can tell ourselves things, and there is therefore a dualism." I" can tell " myself "to do so and so.

If we accept determinism them "I" cannot tell myself to do something. We are only one entity, hence non dual.

maybe just another use of the same term?

I feel as though functionalism is the best general explanation we have, but that it also disproves the legitimacy of consciousness. Although I'm really a novice in this field.

Even the objection of the 'Chinese Room' seems to only strengthen the argument of the functionalist. The individual can have no perception of meaning to their response to qualia/inputs (not using two differing terms interchangeably, am I?) but still respond as they have become sort of 'conditioned' too. Nietzsche's critique of consciousness seems to express whatever anxiety I'm not smart enough to on my own. But that the conscious process is always a reflection of the utility of a mass, it's understood in terms of a system of language. Which in turn can be mis-understood by the conscious observer within the functional system.

The whole idea of 'zombies' freaks me out, but I'd more describe them as organic AI if anything. How is symbolic intelligence not intelligence?

Maybe this is personal rationalization for not taking SSRI/benzodiazepine medication, which is another point to be considered if anyone has views on the role of medication/mental illness and its place in understanding consciousness from a functionalist (or other) perspective.

I fear I have become a proponent of denialisim however.

check out these mental gymnastics

"them"
"experience"

what the fuck are you talking about you relentlessly retarded faggot?

It's self evident you moron.

>one being
>explained in terms of the other

but the other doesn't even exist in your schema, so it should be literally impossible to explain the phenomenon in those terms.

Substance dulism is the closest. We a literally samsaras floating in a spiritual realm. We can control our bodies similar to how a player controls a video game. We just can't sense it.

embrace the process friend

panpsychism is the way

>The "purest" model of consciousness is that humans perceive an acting force behind some actions(known as conscious actions), and are able to contemplate that force(self-consciousness). A lack of the acting force also cannot be imagined. From there, somebody can make one of three assumptions:
>-The acting force emanates from the body.
>-The acting force is an illusion.
>-The acting force is universally present(and perceived in a limited space).

ok, so all 3 examples are different examples of non dualism with the first being local

the second and third being non local.

is this what you are saying?

What's the point of this meme of pretending you don't experience qualia? It's like something an intelligent computer would come up with to explain people, but I don't see how anyone with a brain (literally) could seriously argue it.

Qualia only exists in substance dualism.

>panpsychism is the way

it's at least consistent, but implies consciousness is metaphysically primary to that which at least appears to be matter.

please substantiate.