Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nick227]

Does materialism spell the end for scientific method? I've been pondering this question for some time. It looks like this...

* At least 99% of modern scientific research into the brain points directly to it being the sole source of consciousness. Pretty much every aspect of conscious experience has now been tracked to brain activity.

* Consciousness emerges from brain activity. It's what neural processing actually looks like, actually is.

* If the brain is the source, or foundation, for consciousness then there cannot actually be an observing self. Though it's a pervasive and convincing phenomena it can't be real, or we'd be back in dualism. If we tell a materialist that they're going to be painlessly and instantaneously killed, and replaced with an identical copy, in theory they should be OK with it. It seems like something is going to be lost - them - but materialist logic dictates that this cannot be so in reality.

* This seeming presence of an observing self is likely therefore some highly favoured illusion resulting from millions of years of selective pressure. It's useful primarily for evolutionarily favoured tasks - finding food, shelter, sex, and avoiding predators.

* If selfhood is merely a highly favoured illusion then what does this say about some of the cornerstones of scientific method, principles and techniques used to determine the truth about things? Surely perspective is finished. Objectivity must be in quite some trouble if there is in reality no subject. Separation - got to be an illusion. Distance - sounds dubious. These concepts, so much the bare bones of our daily existence, must just be artifacts of our hunter-gatherer past, not reflections of reality. Even empiricism, perhaps not blown away, but surely weakened now.

Materialism - could it spell the end of science?

Nick

 

[tsig]

Does materialism spell the end for scientific method? I've been pondering this question for some time. It looks like this...

* At least 99% of modern scientific research into the brain points directly to it being the sole source of consciousness. Pretty much every aspect of conscious experience has now been tracked to brain activity.

* Consciousness emerges from brain activity. It's what neural processing actually looks like, actually is.

* If the brain is the source, or foundation, for consciousness then there cannot actually be an observing self. Though it's a pervasive and convincing phenomena it can't be real, or we'd be back in dualism. If we tell a materialist that they're going to be painlessly and instantaneously killed, and replaced with an identical copy, in theory they should be OK with it. It seems like something is going to be lost - them - but materialist logic dictates that this cannot be so in reality.

* This seeming presence of an observing self is likely therefore some highly favoured illusion resulting from millions of years of selective pressure. It's useful primarily for evolutionarily favoured tasks - finding food, shelter, sex, and avoiding predators.

* If selfhood is merely a highly favoured illusion then what does this say about some of the cornerstones of scientific method, principles and techniques used to determine the truth about things? Surely perspective is finished. Objectivity must be in quite some trouble if there is in reality no subject. Separation - got to be an illusion. Distance - sounds dubious. These concepts, so much the bare bones of our daily existence, must just be artifacts of our hunter-gatherer past, not reflections of reality. Even empiricism, perhaps not blown away, but surely weakened now.

Materialism - could it spell the end of science? Nick

No.

 

[Nick227]

No.

Just keep repeating NO, tsig. I mean it's always worth a try - No, No, No. But look what happened to Amy Winehouse in the end. She should have gone with a yes.

Nick

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

Doesn't this only make Hume's scientific approximation more likely? You're arguing against scientific realism not materialism, and even if we assume scientific approximation the scientific method itself is left untouched.


ETA: In other words, you're confusing epistemology (realism vs. approximation) for ontology (monism vs. dualism).

 

[Paul2]

Surely perspective is finished.

Why? Can you show your reasoning for this?

Objectivity must be in quite some trouble if there is in reality no subject.

Objectivity in science need only mean instituting various procedures and methods such that it doesn't matter, in principle, whether it is person A or B who runs an experiment or produces a finding: the same results, within some margin of error, should occur. Nothing in there relies upon the self not being an illusion.

Separation - got to be an illusion. Distance - sounds dubious. These concepts, so much the bare bones of our daily existence, must just be artifacts of our hunter-gatherer past, not reflections of reality.

Can you define separation and distance? Do you mean these in physical terms, or what?

Even empiricism, perhaps not blown away, but surely weakened now.

Can you show your reasoning for this one, too?

 

[John Jones]

Does materialism spell the end for scientific method? I've been pondering this question for some time. It looks like this...

* At least 99% of modern scientific research into the brain points directly to it being the sole source of consciousness. Pretty much every aspect of conscious experience has now been tracked to brain activity.

* Consciousness emerges from brain activity. It's what neural processing actually looks like, actually is.

* If the brain is the source, or foundation, for consciousness then there cannot actually be an observing self. Though it's a pervasive and convincing phenomena it can't be real, or we'd be back in dualism. If we tell a materialist that they're going to be painlessly and instantaneously killed, and replaced with an identical copy, in theory they should be OK with it. It seems like something is going to be lost - them - but materialist logic dictates that this cannot be so in reality.

* This seeming presence of an observing self is likely therefore some highly favoured illusion resulting from millions of years of selective pressure. It's useful primarily for evolutionarily favoured tasks - finding food, shelter, sex, and avoiding predators.

* If selfhood is merely a highly favoured illusion then what does this say about some of the cornerstones of scientific method, principles and techniques used to determine the truth about things? Surely perspective is finished. Objectivity must be in quite some trouble if there is in reality no subject. Separation - got to be an illusion. Distance - sounds dubious. These concepts, so much the bare bones of our daily existence, must just be artifacts of our hunter-gatherer past, not reflections of reality. Even empiricism, perhaps not blown away, but surely weakened now.

Materialism - could it spell the end of science?

Nick

Um. No.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

нет

 

[Nick227]

Why? Can you show your reasoning for this?

You agree that if consciousness is purely a brain phenomenon then this must indicate a selfless reality?

So, everything is just happening, observed by no one. This is as near as we can get to a True statement here, as opposed to a socially useful one. Then it seems reasonable to me that our sense of perspective, of things being near or far, is just an artifact of evolution.

Objectivity in science need only mean instituting various procedures and methods such that it doesn't matter, in principle, whether it is person A or B who runs an experiment or produces a finding: the same results, within some margin of error, should occur. Nothing in there relies upon the self not being an illusion.

Yes. I'd say to a degree. Mathematical principles shouldn't be under any threat, for example. But the sheer weight of value given by scientists and others to method must be weakened by the reality that there isn't actually a subject, an observer.

How about we start from here? Thanks for your reply BTW

Nick

 

[Nick227]

ETA: In other words, you're confusing epistemology (realism vs. approximation) for ontology (monism vs. dualism).

I don't think so. The means by which we're deriving knowledge is overly reliant on the subject-object perspective, something which the materialist position must say is illusory.

Nick

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Bin there. Done that.

'He's dreaming now,' said Tweedledee: 'and what do you think he's
dreaming about?'

Alice said 'Nobody can guess that.'

'Why, about YOU!' Tweedledee exclaimed, clapping his hands triumphantly.
'And if he left off dreaming about you, where do you suppose you'd be?'

'Where I am now, of course,' said Alice.

'Not you!' Tweedledee retorted contemptuously. 'You'd be nowhere. Why,
you're only a sort of thing in his dream!'

'If that there King was to wake,' added Tweedledum, 'you'd go
out--bang!--just like a candle!'

'I shouldn't!' Alice exclaimed indignantly. 'Besides, if I'M only a sort
of thing in his dream, what are YOU, I should like to know?'

'Ditto' said Tweedledum.

'Ditto, ditto' cried Tweedledee.

He shouted this so loud that Alice couldn't help saying, 'Hush! You'll
be waking him, I'm afraid, if you make so much noise.'

'Well, it no use YOUR talking about waking him,' said Tweedledum, 'when
you're only one of the things in his dream. You know very well you're
not real.'

'I AM real!' said Alice and began to cry.

'You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying,' Tweedledee remarked:
'there's nothing to cry about.'

'If I wasn't real,' Alice said--half-laughing through her tears, it all
seemed so ridiculous--'I shouldn't be able to cry.'

'I hope you don't suppose those are real tears?' Tweedledum interrupted
in a tone of great contempt.

And yet the World still turns and life goes on.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Bin there. Done that.



And yet the World still turns and life goes on.

...I hope you don't suppose that's a real bunny...

 

[ehcks]

I always need clarification for some reason.

Are you saying that the universe existing, whether our consciousness is able to properly observe it or not, is somehow evidence against materialism?

 

[Kid Eager]

I don't think so. The means by which we're deriving knowledge is overly reliant on the subject-object perspective, something which the materialist position must say is illusory.

Nick

Whilst I understand that the basis for this philosophical argument is to create a justification for you believing in woo, a "tu quoque" approach is perhaps not the best way to go about it.

Woo remains woo, even if your convoluted backformation of desired conclusion into a required set of premises reaches its end. And science will remain science and continue to deliver results, even over your objections.

 

[marplots]

I don't understand the argument.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

...I hope you don't suppose that's a real bunny...

She is in the Wonderful World of GIFs.

 

[Manopolus]

Does materialism spell the end for scientific method? I've been pondering this question for some time. It looks like this...

* At least 99% of modern scientific research into the brain points directly to it being the sole source of consciousness. Pretty much every aspect of conscious experience has now been tracked to brain activity.

* Consciousness emerges from brain activity. It's what neural processing actually looks like, actually is.

* If the brain is the source, or foundation, for consciousness then there cannot actually be an observing self. Though it's a pervasive and convincing phenomena it can't be real, or we'd be back in dualism. If we tell a materialist that they're going to be painlessly and instantaneously killed, and replaced with an identical copy, in theory they should be OK with it. It seems like something is going to be lost - them - but materialist logic dictates that this cannot be so in reality.

* This seeming presence of an observing self is likely therefore some highly favoured illusion resulting from millions of years of selective pressure. It's useful primarily for evolutionarily favoured tasks - finding food, shelter, sex, and avoiding predators.

* If selfhood is merely a highly favoured illusion then what does this say about some of the cornerstones of scientific method, principles and techniques used to determine the truth about things? Surely perspective is finished. Objectivity must be in quite some trouble if there is in reality no subject. Separation - got to be an illusion. Distance - sounds dubious. These concepts, so much the bare bones of our daily existence, must just be artifacts of our hunter-gatherer past, not reflections of reality. Even empiricism, perhaps not blown away, but surely weakened now.

Materialism - could it spell the end of science?

Nick

Sorry, but I don't see a connection. I'm not even sure that you know the definitions of the words you are using. I might just be failing to understand you, but my reading comprehension is generally pretty good. This almost reads as word salad to me. I'm failing to see the connections you are trying to make. If you think you can explain it better, please do.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

* If the brain is the source, or foundation, for consciousness then there cannot actually be an observing self.

Define 'self'.

Though it's a pervasive and convincing phenomena it can't be real, or we'd be back in dualism.

No, we wouldn't. Dualism posits that the mind is a metaphysical object which exists separately from the body. But an observing self does not have to be metaphysical.

If we tell a materialist that they're going to be painlessly and instantaneously killed, and replaced with an identical copy, in theory they should be OK with it.

No need to do this experiment - all you have to do is wait. 98% of all the atoms in the human body are replaced every year!

It seems like something is going to be lost - them

Not 'them', just the medium that holds 'them'. If I told you that I was going to destroy the hard drive in your computer, but only after cloning the data to a new drive, would you be worried about losing the 'real' data? Of course not.

* If selfhood is merely a highly favoured illusion then

It's not an illusion - it's just as real as the data on your hard drive. The only 'illusion' is thinking that it could continue to exist without a medium to hold it.

Materialism - could it spell the end of science?

No.

 

[theprestige]

Bleep blorp.

 

[tsig]

I don't understand the argument.

IIUC, If our brains are nothing but materiel then how can we use materiel brains to understand the materiel universe.

 

[marplots]

IIUC, If our brains are nothing but materiel then how can we use materiel brains to understand the materiel universe.

When you put it like that...



I'm probably just caught up in the illusion. Wouldn't be the first time.