"There Are No Chairs" Says the Illusionist, Sitting in One
Recent "illusionists", such as Keith Frankish and Francois Kammerer, deny that consciousness exists. If that sounds so obviously false that you suspect they must mean something peculiar by "consciousness", you're right! But they say they don't mean anything peculiar by "consciousness" -- that they're just using it in the ordinary sense, or -- rather differently -- at least the sense that most 21st century philosophers mean when they use the word "consciousness".
Frankish and I have been back and forth about this quite a bit. For a few years, I seem to have had him convinced that there's a sense of "consciousness" that is relatively neutral among philosophical theories, which he shouldn't deny the existence of. But recently he appears to have changed his mind about this, and this past weekend, he posted a fictional dialogue illustrating his continuing disagreement.
To illustrate how illusionists tend to come across to those of us who aren't illusionists, I've constructed this fictional dialogue with an illusionist about chairs.
Eric and the Illusionist have scheduled a meeting in a large, bustling cafe with a diversity of tables, chairs, and benches, each unique. There are big puffy armchairs, three-legged stools, hardback wooden chairs, bean bags, arty chairs that are made of single swooping pieces of wood, rolling desk chairs on posts that branch out to five wheels, and so on. Eric is seated in a brown recliner. The illusionist arrives.
Illusionist [sitting in a Victorian-era armchair]: As I've said many times, Eric, there are no chairs!
Eric: It seems to me that you are sitting in one.
Illusionist: Oh, this thing? Of course it's not a chair.
Eric: Could you remind me why you think not?
Illusionist: Well, the concept of a chair, as you know, is the concept of a solid object of a certain sort. And as current physics tells us, the world is mostly empty space. This thing is not solid! Therefore, it's not a chair.
Eric: I'm not so sure that's the best interpretation of particle physics, but maybe. Let's grant that it is. I don't think that it follows that there are no chairs. It's not essential to the concept of a chair that it be a "solid object" in the sense you mean.
Illusionist: Well, let's ask some ordinary people. [Turns toward Cafe Patron 1] Excuse me, Miss, do you think that a chair is a solid object?
Cafe Patron 1: Yes, of course!
Illusionist [to Eric]: See!
Eric: Look, whatever folk theory ordinary people may or may not have about chairs is not relevant to the point. Clearly, there are chairs.
Illusionist: Well, philosophical theories also lead us astray. Over there I see my friend, the Solid Object Theorist. Let's ask him!
[Illusionist and Eric walk over to Solid Object Theorist]
Illusionist: Hey, SOT, good to see you here! Do chairs exist?
Solid Object Theorist: Yes, of course! I'm sitting in one now.
Illusionist: And what are they essentially?
Solid Object Theorist: They are essentially solid objects of a certain sort. They contain little to no empty space.
Illusionist [to Eric]: See?
Eric: I'm not sure we should accept that philosophical theory about chairs.
Illusionist: But don't you see, both the ordinary person and my favorite philosophical theorist agree that chairs are solid objects, so that must be the concept in play. So if there there are no solid objects -- as my favorite version of particle physics implies -- there are no chairs.
Solid Object Theorist: The Illusionist and I agree: If there are no solid objects, there are no chairs. What could be more commonsensical? The Illusionist accepts the antecedent and so accepts the consequent. I deny the consequent and so deny the antecedent. But we agree on the conditional.
Eric: Look, I don't think it's useful to define "chair" in such a theory-laden way.
Illusionist: Well, what do you think a chair is?
Eric: I don't have a positive theory of chairs. They don't have a single common shape. Most are made for sitting in, but not all. And things can be made for sitting in that aren't chairs, so there's no simple functional definition either.
Illusionist: So you have no theory of chairs, and you deny the folk theory, and you deny the Solid Object Theorist's theory, and yet you say there are chairs? What kind of defense of the existence of chairs is that?
Eric: Look, I think we can define "chair" by example. Look at that thing, and that thing, and that thing [pointing at various, diverse types of chairs]. They're all chairs. And that, and that, and that, are not [pointing at a stool, a sofa, and a table, respectively]. Can't we just use the term "chair" to capture whatever it is that the things I've just called "chairs" have in common, which the other things which aren't chairs lack? I don't think we need to commit to some disputable theory of it. Look, ordinary people can sort chairs from non-chairs in a consensus way (perhaps with some disputable or in-between cases). [Turns toward Cafe Patron 2] Sir, I noticed that you've been attending to my conversation with Illusionist. So you've seen my examples of chairs and non-chairs. See that cafe worker coming in with two new objects? What would you say, is one or both of them chairs?
Cafe Patron 2: That first object [a cheap plastic deck chair] is a chair. That second object [a yoga mat] is not.
Illusionist: But, sir, wouldn't you agree that chairs are solid objects?
Cafe Patron 2: Yes, of course!
Illusionist: See, Eric, there are no chairs.
---------------------------------------
Related:
Phenomenal Consciousness, Defined and Defended as Innocently as I Can Manage (Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2016)
Inflate and Explode (Sep 6, 2018)
[image: Dall-E 2: lots of chairs, bean bag, lawn chair, rolling desk chair, sofa, hardback chair, soft armchair, occupied by people sipping coffee and chatting]