The problem of qualia stems from taking certain properties of our perceptions at face value. Like subjectivity, which can't be explained by an appeal to third-person objective facts.
But subjectivity could very well be an illusion. Like how single CPU computers simulate multitasking, the maelstrom of conflicting signals constantly vying for dominance could create an illusion of "inner" and "outer" that we mistake for subjectivity, because we don't have a lens with which to observe this inner process.
Man, If I had a nickel every time someone used that reply...
> If there is no subject, there can't be an illusion.
A common misconception, but incorrect. An illusion is simply a fact that, when taken at face value, entails a false conclusion. There is no reason a computer system can't be deceived by an illusion too, even one without "consciousness".
> An illusion is simply what fact? What does it mean to take it at "face value"? What "false conclusion" does it entail?
A fact is an observation, a sensory input, a measurement, etc. The observation of a pencil in water [1], if taken at face value, entails a false conclusion.
If instead such a fact were integrated into a larger set of facts from which we infer a coherent picture of reality, a very different conclusion emerges.
No part of the above depends upon any sort of subject.
> I think you're equivocating here. What definition of illusion are you using?
I'm not. I'm using the same definition that I provided to you, namely that an illusion is a fact that naively entails a false conclusion. If you want a dictionary.com definition, "something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality".
Of course, you could jump on "deceives" again with some unnecessary appeal to subjectivity, which is why I say "entails a false conclusion" instead.
