> But to address the specialness of thought: thoughts have content. For example, a thought about an apple intrinsically picks out an apple. The thought somehow contains the semantics of the object of its reference. This is in contrast to, say, a bit that gains meaning from the context in which it is used (e.g. night/day, heads/tails, etc).

I don't see any distinction beyond the complexity of the information content. That thought about an apple carries an implicit context consisting of eons of evolution in a world governed by natural laws, ultimately bootstrapping a perceptual apparatus that you've used to accumulate relational knowledge throughout your life.

That digital bit you speak of was generated within the context of a program also governed by rules that gives it some meaning within that program, although that context is considerably smaller than a human's thoughts. I honestly can't think of any non-contextual expressions besides axioms, so I don't accept the distinct you're trying to make.

And I'm not assuming anything about what you might mean by "subject". If a thought is like any other datum tied to a context, then I don't see that a subject is necessary, unless we explicitly define "thought" and "subject" to be mutually recursive. I just don't see how adding a "subject" in the context of every self-reference makes any meaningful distinctions, and so it appears entirely superfluous in that context.

Anyway, as a fun exercise, someone had asked in this thread about a formalization of this argument, so I played with expressing the self-reference and existence proof using Haskell using Curry-Howard. This is what I have so far:

{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
data Exists a = Exists a
newtype Thought a = AThought (Thought a -> a)

thisIsAThought :: Thought a -> a
thisIsAThought this@(AThought x) = x this

thoughtsExist :: forall a.Exists (Thought a)
thoughtsExist = Exists (AThought thisIsAThought)

I don't think this quite captures it, but expressive yet sound self-reference is tricky in typed languages.

> He is not intending to simply be reductive about phenomenal consciousness, i.e. that it is "real" but reduces to physical structure and dynamics. His claim is that we misrepresent non-phenomenal neural structures as being phenomenal. This can be cast as a sort of reduction as your referring to. But he is clear that this is not what he intends.

This doesn't read as consistent to me. Frankish's paper [1] might be the best bet for clearing this up. The way he breaks it down seems consistent with what I've been saying, that we seem to perceive certain subjective qualities but that these qualities aren't really there, they're a trick, and so we simply need to explain why we think we have them.

I admit that my simplified analogies don't perfectly capture the nuance between Frankish's "conservative realism" vs. illusionism, but most discussions don't get so detailed.

So this all seems to hinge on the meaning of "real". Phenomenal consciousness is "real" in the sense that it can drive us to talk about phenomenal consciousness, at the very least. But like belief in other supernatural phenomena, it's likely a mistaken conclusion. This seems to be essentially what Frankfish says:

> Does illusionism entail eliminativism about consciousness? Is the illusionist claiming that we are mistaken in thinking we have conscious experiences? It depends on what we mean by ‘conscious experiences’. If we mean experiences with phenomenal properties, then illusionists do indeed deny that such things exist. But if we mean experiences of the kind that philosophers characterize as having phenomenal properties, then illusionists do not deny their existence.

[1] https://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/k0711/kf_articles/blob/m...