In addition, is ”...the thing that happens when, let’s just check one more time: yep, not-a-p-zombie.” referring to testing one’s experience to reach a falsifiable claim? This illusionists deny. And Descartes I am now reckoning agrees; That you can doubt everything (thus including any such falsifiable claim, e.g. about the nature of consciousness) but the fact that you’re existing. And, third, this is also internally inconsistent; When you a few sentence later I think rightly claim one’s knowledge of “stuff like “I’m conscious” and “the world exists.”″ this as knowledge implies that you could not have checked (one more time) to be otherwise. Through science we (luckily) learn of (the presence of and can build on) regularities in our world, e.g. in physics and/or biology, as additional knowledge of a different, falsifiable kind. (Claiming falsifiability where there is none can of course lead to problems..)
In addition, is ”...the thing that happens when, let’s just check one more time: yep, not-a-p-zombie.” referring to testing one’s experience to reach a falsifiable claim? This illusionists deny. And Descartes I am now reckoning agrees; That you can doubt everything (thus including any such falsifiable claim, e.g. about the nature of consciousness) but the fact that you’re existing. And, third, this is also internally inconsistent; When you a few sentence later I think rightly claim one’s knowledge of “stuff like “I’m conscious” and “the world exists.”″ this as knowledge implies that you could not have checked (one more time) to be otherwise. Through science we (luckily) learn of (the presence of and can build on) regularities in our world, e.g. in physics and/or biology, as additional knowledge of a different, falsifiable kind. (Claiming falsifiability where there is none can of course lead to problems..)
I would like to refer you to: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qBbj6C6sKHnQfbmgY/i-g-zombie