@unseen, please whack me headside if I’m going too far off your topic, but I just had the following Conscious Thought. And I wouldn’t mind a philosopher’s correction of my thought process here, or terminology used.
It seems that a lot of our philosophical questions, especially the deeper ones that address how we think of nature, reality and physicality, free will (and e.g. in this particular case) consciousness tend to beg nonsensical questions. For example in the case of free will, different philosophers can define it differently, resulting in an array of possible ways for something that may only “exist” in a non-scientific, or metaphysical sense. Taken even further, a supposed theologian might claim that “free will is a gift from God”, along with (say) inventing fantastical explanations about why God did that. OK, religious rabbit hole there, but then even atheists take the free will question into various black holes of discussion.
In the case of discussing consciousness among philosophers (and many scientists) there is “the hard problem of consciousness”. In the case of your topic, SA sub-headline says “Philosopher Peter Carruthers insists that conscious thought, judgment and volition are illusions. […]”.
I’m proposing here that not only are many of the philosophical questions (that many of us love in any case) are not posed in a sensical way to start with, posed with unfounded logic and based on some kind of metaphysical proposition, posed according to some pre-existing religio-philosophical fantasy/fiction, or just plain based on the feeling that “something is there and so must have an explanation” even before any kind of science has come up with a definition of what that “something” is.
Scientifically non-sensical questions: What is it “like” to feel like a bat? Is the red that I see or am thinking of “like” the red in the head of someone else?
I know what a thought is when I think it, and I know when I’m conscious of it. Knowing or not knowing exactly where it came from or how it was produced doesn’t mean it’s an illusion, and even if it is an illusion, it is still a thought, and–when I self reflect on it–it’s a conscious thought! Sometimes only a philosopher can get away with saying that nothing comes from something. (Or conversely, that something comes from nothing.)