The following article is divided into two parts, both of which tackle some of the issues that arose in my discussion with philosopher Keith Frankish on my Marketplace Discussions podcast. The first part tells the story of how Keith and I met on Twitter back in 2018.
The second part is an attempt to understand Illusionism, the philosophical view that Keith defends and has been striving to communicate, refine, and explain better in various formats and across different channels. Note that I stated it is an attempt to understand Illusionism, so it is in no way a clear or correct explanation of the argument. It may be confusing for some, and those familiar with the argument may think I have egregiously misunderstood it. Nevertheless, writing can help clarify ideas and foster an ongoing conversation that brings us closer to a clearer understanding of this debate and the underlying arguments.
The two parts are unrelated, so feel free to jump back and forth to follow your curiosity at your convenience.
If you are curious about Illusionism and want to learn more, you can do so by checking out my conversation with Keith Frankish at the following links: YouTube, Audio.
Part 1: A Chance Encounter and a Twitter Disagreement
This may or may not be an article about Illusionism. I had an immensely enjoyable conversation with Keith Frankish regarding this philosophical view he defends. While not a recent development, its origins can be traced back to ancient times, and the concept permeates various philosophical categories.
So when I do end up attempting to explore Illusionism in the second part of this article, please approach it with a pinch of salt because it will be nothing but a naive attempt on my end to wrap my head around it.
But before we get there, let me tell you a story. It even has a cliché happy ending.
As I mentioned in many articles before, in May 2018 I joined Twitter to vent. A true keyboard warrior. An activist without a cause. I lashed out for the fun of it. It was a behavior wherein I was mimicking other people who exhibited the same style of action. It was thrilling, and I had nothing better to do, apparently or clearly.
One issue that stood out to me at the time was the debate between localism and globalism, which I was particularly interested in.
As a Lebanese person, I didn't like being labeled with generalizations that oversimplify complex identities and relationships. I felt uncomfortable with the use of blanket terms that reduce people to abstract and idealized categories.
I was also starting to rethink my approach to social issues and problems. After reading Nassim Taleb’s Anti-fragile, I couldn’t help but factor in scale into the analysis framework of any philosophical, social, or economic problem.
Instead of thinking in absolute terms, I would acknowledge that some problems might be easier to address at a local level, but they would become extremely difficult and complex to manage at a global level.
Ironically, I would take to Twitter to engage in arguments about this with complete strangers. However, in my defense, I would argue that small digital communities are one way to comprehend this localist approach. One way to consider it is that having 200 followers, 10k followers, and 100k followers are not the same. What may have worked on a small scale would not necessarily work on a larger scale. But that's a different story. I digress.
And that’s how I met Keith Frankish, with whom I recently had a chat on my Marketplace Discussions podcast. Keith is a philosopher and author. His main interests lie in the area of philosophy of mind. He has written extensively on consciousness and the philosophy of mind.
It wasn’t a heated exchange or anything of the sort. But I was somehow projecting all the ideas I had been exploring onto him in order to understand what he meant by the term ‘European’. I’ll spare you the details because they aren’t that important, but the back and forth between Keith and I, unlike many other exchanges out there, and surprisingly so, ended on a positive note!
We ended up following each other, and this has developed into a Twitter friendship over the past few years. While our interactions were limited to comments exchanged over Twitter and a few DMs here and there, we finally had the chance to meet virtually over Zoom to record the podcast. It felt as if we had known each other for a long time, which is indeed the case.
This is the beauty of Twitter: it can be a great platform to exchange ideas and meet new people from around the world, as long as one is not as outrageous and cynical as I was when I first joined.
Twitter serves as a digital marketplace of ideas, where people share their products, ideas, and activities, and everyone interacts with one another. It creates a curious dynamic as communities start forming, like-minded individuals connect, some publicly build and share their results, while others, like Keith, use it as a testing ground for their philosophical stances.
Angry cynics and pointless exchanges aside, for Keith Twitter helps him refine his ideas in order to explain a particular argument more clearly. An early adopter of the social media platform, Keith has been invested in communicating philosophy beyond the confines of academia. His writings range from hardcore academic publications in the form of books and journal articles, to magazine articles, to blog posts, to tweets.
Here’s one tip for you, if you want Keith to respond to you promptly, don’t reach out to him via email, but do so via Twitter, because it’s much easier to engage without the formalities an email would entail, as he explains.
One particular view that Keith Frankish has been grappling with and communicating in different forms across different channels is that of Illusionism.
I reiterate. Don’t quote me on this. My goal through this article and the podcast conversation is to ignite your interest in the topic. Thus, this article serves as a concise introduction to my understanding of Illusionism. However, if you wish to delve deeper into the subject, you can explore it further by referring to the links I have provided below or by directly contacting Keith.
Part 2: What Illusionism Is and Is Not
So, what is Illusionism? From my understanding, it's a philosophical view that challenges a long-standing conception about the nature of consciousness, which was cemented and consolidated by influential figures such as the French philosopher René Descartes, whose philosophical arguments are commonly referred to as Cartesian.
The Cartesian view of consciousness, which typically represents the mainstream philosophical understanding, posits that there is a presence of 'I' or a 'ghost' within our minds that governs our experiences. Imagine yourself as a transformer-like machine, with a ghostly version of you residing inside, directing the actions of this machine. Thus, according to this perspective, your consciousness is the entity that exists within your mind, guiding and making decisions.
This view of consciousness advocates for a dualistic perspective on the mind and body, implying that consciousness is a metaphysical quality that forms the basis of our individual identity. However, this viewpoint gives rise to numerous philosophical quandaries commonly known as the hard problem of consciousness.
Conceiving consciousness as a private, metaphysical quality makes it difficult for us to explain the relationship between the physical processes of the brain and the subjective experience of these processes. Your experience of a tree and my experience of a tree cannot be accounted for in the same way because there’s no way to know whether they are similar.
Why is it difficult? It is challenging because mapping the physical processes in the brain to their corresponding subjective experiences proves to be a complex endeavor. Within the Cartesian framework of consciousness, reconciling this duality becomes nearly impossible since a deeper investigation into the nature of consciousness itself is required to comprehend its physical foundations. The task becomes exceedingly arduous due to the metaphysical essence of consciousness.
The Illusionist view attempts to solve this problem by reframing how we understand consciousness. The argument against the Cartesian conception of consciousness is not new and has been around for many years now. One of the main advocates of it, among others, is philosopher Daniel Dennett.
The term Illusionism isn’t new either. However, Keith Frankish suggested the term Illusionism to refer to the argument. But what does the Illusionist stance argue for?
From my conversation with Keith, it seems that the Illusionist argument proposes that the Cartesian understanding of consciousness is, in reality, a deception orchestrated by the brain to perceive, comprehend, and engage with the world.
In simpler terms, the way we conceive of consciousness as a ghost within the machinery of our minds is an evolutionary trick that facilitates our comprehension of the world.
The most apt analogy to grasp this perspective is to consider a magic show. Magicians employ a range of optical illusions, perspective manipulations, and sleight-of-hand techniques to create the illusion that something is happening when it isn't actually the case. So when an object appears to vanish, it hasn't truly disappeared but is instead either concealed in the magician's palm or stowed away within a small hidden compartment.
But while the perception of a magic trick is illusory, it doesn’t mean that the entire experience is unreal. Indeed, there’s a magician there, and there are objects that seem as though they are disappearing when in reality they’re simply put away.
In a similar fashion, consciousness as-we-perceive-it is an illusion, the Illusionists argue. It doesn’t mean that our experiences are unreal, it simply means that the way we perceive, conceive, and understand the conscious experience of these experiences is illusory - meaning that they seem to be as though they are perceived by a metaphysical entity, the ‘I’, when in fact it’s a maneuver that our brain plays on us/itself perhaps because it has been proven to be evolutionarily optimal this way.
Describing one's experience of pain is merely a means to articulate the underlying physical sensations. However, thanks to the brain's tricks, we have developed the ability to associate our pain experience with a specific language that allows us to communicate the notion of experiencing pain. The physical processes themselves may not align precisely with how we, as conscious individuals, perceive them.
As per the Illusionist perspective, although consciousness appears to be an intensely personal and subjective attribute, it is essentially a mechanism that enhances our interaction with the world. It simplifies the explanation of our internal experiences, particularly those related to pain, pleasure, and various other sensations and perceptions.
By reframing our comprehension of this phenomenon, we can alleviate concerns surrounding it, as the underlying physical processes would directly correspond to the external world. In essence, the Illusionist argument would alter the approach to studying consciousness at a scientific level. Rather than perceiving consciousness as an enigmatic entity, it is recognized solely as a mechanism to enhance our experience of the world.
As a result, the way we study our underlying experiences, and their corresponding physical processes in the brain would not need to depend on our conscious experience of them. Instead, we would aim to develop the necessary tools to record those.
In other words, the primary objective of the Illusionists is to establish a shared foundation that enables us to recognize fundamental subjective experiences, not only among humans but also in animals.
However, ultimately comprehending consciousness as an illusion created by our brain does not imply that we should disregard it entirely. Even though we are aware that magic is not real, we still find enjoyment in a magic show. Yet, understanding the illusory nature of magic enhances our ability to appreciate it even more and to become better at it.
The concept of Illusionism invites us to reconsider the intricate nature of consciousness and its role in shaping our subjective experiences. Through the "trickery" of perception, we have harnessed the power of language, art, and storytelling to express our inner worlds and forge connections with others.
Through these creative endeavors, we not only express our inner worlds but also cultivate connections and foster a sense of community, enhancing our mutual understanding.
Tune in to the episode at the following links:
Audio format
You can find me on Twitter @decafquest.
Personal website.
Keith Frankish’s publications.