What do you think of the following argument about consciousness* (from now on called "C"): ________________________________________________ P1: The only things reductionism reduces, are our own misconceptions. P2: Misconceptions require C. C: To say that C is reducible, is to say that C is a misconception that requires C. ________________________________________________ As you see, the conclusion doesnt get rid of C. The statement "C is reducible" can be compared with the statement "C is dreamable". Even if C is dreamable, there is still a C that is dreaming it. That is why C is not reducible to non-C things. * Btw my definition of C is "having experiences". Examples of experiences are for example pain, what it feels like to see a car, etc. This is my theoretically neutral definition of C. It doesnt state C is material or non-material, it just refers to our experiences, and we all understand what we mean when talking about them.