The illusionists do not disagree! (Otherwise absolutely fantastic and important essay!)
They agree you are not a p-zombie, in fact, by defining belief, they believe p-zombies are not clearly conceivable. They agree that, of course, you experience experiences. What one extrapolates / you extrapolate from that, circumventing the scientific method is at one’s/your own risk and if a belief in an infallible conviction, in say immaterial mindstuff (grounding a further infallible conviction), follows, then that’s an illusion at work.
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..)
The illusionists do not disagree! (Otherwise absolutely fantastic and important essay!)
They agree you are not a p-zombie, in fact, by defining belief, they believe p-zombies are not clearly conceivable. They agree that, of course, you experience experiences. What one extrapolates / you extrapolate from that, circumventing the scientific method is at one’s/your own risk and if a belief in an infallible conviction, in say immaterial mindstuff (grounding a further infallible conviction), follows, then that’s an illusion at work.
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