> What doesn’t make sense to me is how it’s possible for it to be an illusion that anything is being experienced at all.

It might not make sense to you now, but that's because of what we know or what we think we know, today (hence my ancient Greeks analogue). Look at the Gazzaniga effect, people seamlessly make up an "experience" narrative out of absolutely nothing. Whatever experience was claimed there probably didn't exist prior to the point of questioning, and then was wholly manufactured. Thus, that particular experience was a fabrication.

> If the experience is illusory, then who/what is being deceived?

Why does there need to be a who/what being deceived for something to be an illusion? A mirror functions regardless of whether someone is there to pretend there is a soul in it.

We come from a race that took two thousand years (after it was first proposed) to accept the brain as the seat of the mind, over the heart — just because the heart physically reacts in times of emotion, while the brain remains inert.

Whatever the truth is, humanity probably won't know it until enough generations of the old guard indoctrinated in the old ideas have passed on.

Sorry, who make up an experience narrative?

Never heard of Gazzaniga before reading above comment, its quite fascinating.

The brain, its left hemisphere, makes up the narrative.

Sorry my comment was unclear. My point is, the process of “making up a narrative” does seem to imply a subjective experience, doesnt it? My point is, the existence of the experiencer can’t be denied. Even if the experience itself is some kind of illusion, theres no coherent way to say that there is no entity having an experience. Every attempt to do so ends up implying the existence of an experiencer (the one having the illusion of experiencing)

I think you've missed my point, which was about epistemology and dogma, given that you continue to repeat the dogma in question. Did you read my comment at all? To engage with my argument you'd have to confront the idea that your current assumptions will continue to be "the truth" hitherto, which it doesn't look like you've attempted to address at all.

To continue the ancient Greeks' mirror analogy, this would be akin to continuing to say "but who's eyes am I looking in then?" when I suggest that people in the future may not think there is a double of your soul in there. Totally pointless, and frankly, quite frustrating.

I think youve missed the point which is that your objections still imply an observer. Your rudeness is unnecessary and I wont be continuing this conversation. Have a good day.