>>9863923>First of all you assume that you can know that your consiousness correctly percieves the world, instead of it being misinterpreted by this illusion.
I assumed no such thing. See: >>9863913>You assume that this illusion can objectively know that it is an illusion
Objectively is a strong word. Not everything has to be a certainty. Unless you're religious of course>being an illusion this is unlikely
Elaborate. Because you can't know something objectively therefor it is unlikely?>Second, lets assume that this so called illusion can accurately see its own basis, how does information processing and receving negate its existence?
It exists in the same way the the picture is moving. In your brain and as a product of it.>It would be the same as claiming that information on a computer does not exist.
No because we don't ascribe consciousness to a computer in the first place. On that note however, do you believe computers theoretically capable of consciousness?>Thirdly if these are simply information receivers, why does it think? Why am I aware of my thinking and not simply processing it.
"Why" is a philosophers question. We can speculate on what hypothetical evolutionarily benefits it has, but I don't think that's the discussion you're trying to have. >I'd advise you to go read up on the hard problem of consiousness, but you're too busy sucking Dennett's cock.
If you are trying to have the "why" conversation then by all means >>>/lit/