They haven't done so yet. But from the research thus far done space has to be a main candidate for the chop. Time looks stronger, I would agree. But even with what we know about visual processing, space looks already weak, if you have eyes to see!
And your reasoning for that is based on what? If it's based on the things that you've tried earlier in the thread, you've simply got nothing.
BTW, you can do your eyerolling pragmatism thing all you like if it makes you feel more secure. It's fine by me. I mean this. I don't mind.
I'm more interested in whether you can back up your arguments with valid logic and arguments. So far, you've been failing fairly badly, except when it comes to relatively small things and things that don't actually help your larger arguments for various reasons.
Still, yes, I do have no intention on stopping with my demands for valid logic and arguments when someone tries to make claims that appear to be wildly wrong. I don't mind accepting that I'm wrong, quite frankly, but I'm not particularly fond of doing so because of fallacious logic.
It's the rise of evolution-based approaches that offers a new way of understanding perceptual systems. Hoffman claims to have demonstrated that fitness is always favoured over accuracy, and that is hardly surprising.
I've no doubt that, as we increasingly apply evolution-based approaches to wider aspects of consciousness study, so a lot is going to come out. Human consciousness is riddled with illusory properties that offer adaptive advantage but are simply, well, illusory.
This is the guts of the HPC. We ascribe properties to consciousness that are merely highly favoured illusions, and then claim that neural behaviour can't explain them. Because there's still no broad agreement on which properties are real and which are not, scientists writhe around all over the place.
And this "we" refers to who? Those who, like you, don't mind invoking arguments from incredulity? Either way, neuroscience, in general, is quite young. Even if it wasn't, though, expecting broad agreement about various things that are not well studied yet would be a bit idiotic, just like trying to make a point out of such.
There is so much illusion that some eliminativists start even to go so far as dismiss consciousness as entirely illusory! Which for me is going a bit too far, but when confronted by the reality that many of the most deeply held beliefs we have are actually illusion, of course there can be a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Of course. In your case, though, it seems like you're misinterpreting and overemphasizing the importance of "illusions" to the exclusion of the rest to try to get it to lead to unsupported conclusions, though.
Look, evolution can in reality even be just an algorithm, running in a highly nested astronomically-sized informational reality. It doesn't matter. Evolution as a concept fits the development over time, even if time is just a neural construct!
I acknowledged that. That point doesn't help you with either question though.
Hoffman upholds Idealism and asserts the likelihood of "conscious agents." It's not clear for me what he thinks about observers.
He speaks of observer-dependent and independent systems in part of the paper and treats them exactly as would be expected for one who accepts observers and not as one who does not.
