Because that is not what it is. Emergents are not observed by the processing system that generates them. There is not a place in the brain where observation is taking place. A triangle is not observed by the three matchsticks arrayed to form it.
Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
Because that is not what it is. Emergents are not observed by the processing system that generates them. There is not a place in the brain where observation is taking place. A triangle is not observed by the three matchsticks arrayed to form it.
It's highly indicative of a "self" yes. "Self" as in an apparently functionally-autonomous entity. But not an observer, or observing self.
Ah, OK. Thanks. I get it now.
It would be highly useful, agreed. Indeed, that's why it seems like there is one. A billion years of natural selection has resulted in our brain constructing an illusory sense of there being an observing self - someone that sees life.
Though you don't need to assign it to the processor. How it evolved is to seem as though there's an "I" doing the observing.
Last edited:
Someone that observes
Belz...
Fiend God
That does not follow. Your entire argument rests on this, and is thus unsound.
And a "someone" means a conscious, living entity? So, for example, a camera that takes a picture doesn't count as an observer?
Is consciousness even required? If a bacterium swims along a gradient - that is, measuring and responding to its environment - does that count as an observation by the bacterium?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Isn't the definition of self awareness (or at least a requirement of such) being aware of or observing one's self?
No problem, was more of a P-joke anyway. Seems like a joke but not actually funny.
If the brain was as simple a system as a triangle composed of three matchsticks it wouldn't be able to observe itself or anything else. Have you noticed that alleged "observers" are always intimately associated with highly complex physical systems. Is this a coincidence, or is "observation" a potential attainment of such systems, and of them alone?
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
That depends what the matchsticks are made of, doesn't it?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Well, let's just consider two metal bars of the same material in a vacuum, not in direct physical contact with each (not touching each other) and at different temperatures. Each emits infrared radiation and each receives infrared radiation. If the system is closed so the total energy of the system doesn't change. Then the hotter bar tends to emit more energy than the cooler. As a result the cooler bar tends to gain energy and heat up as the hot bar tends lose energy and cool off. Eventually equilibrium is reached somewhere between the two temperatures of the bars at the start. In a physical sense this is because the bars can observe or interact with each other through infrared radiation. In the simplest physical sense that is all observation means, interaction. As a result of interaction changes in physical properties (in this case average energy and thus temperature) can occur. Naturally more complex systems can interact in, well, more complex ways but at its simplest basic physical form observation is just interaction.
I don't think that Nick227 is using as generalised a definition of "observation" as that. If he was, he wouldn't insist that material systems, however simple or complex, can't be observers. I can't believe that he would deny that the components of these systems are able to interact with one another.
But he may answer for himself if he wishes.
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
I expect not as well. However, that is the material or materialistic basis of observation, changes in physical properties due to interaction. If whatever approach Nick227 wants to use to arrive at "observation" doesn't, at the very least, include that then it just isn't a material or materialistic approach.
No, a "someone" means an I - a sense of a user or persisting self. We say "I observe". I mean the term in the context in which it's used.
A standard defence (from the memeplex!) is to try and reverse-engineer by verbal means some form of observing self, which is compatible with materialism. People say - Uhm, but what if the body is the observer? Well, how about the brain? Come on, there's got to be a way I can wriggle out of this! Some verbal trickery, surely.
The way I see it, if you really want to wriggle out of it, you can. For a start you can say - well, if materialism asserts that there can be no observer, then how can there be a materialist? True enough. It's a back door, but of course then you're left in a loop.
I prefer to just examine the concept directly as it manifests.
Last edited:
If I understand you then, when I say I am a materialist, that is a lie/mistake? I mean, because of the "I" in it that materialism doesn't account for?
Fair point. It wasn't a great example.
The only alleged observer I've heard about is the human one. So I can't say there's some kind of majority here.
I would say that consciousness is most certainly emerging from, or intimately associated with, highly complex physical systems. Absolutely. And, in a sense, the observer is an aspect of this consciousness. But what I'm pointing out is that the way the observer emerges is via illusion, trickery.
So, it might be, as you point out, mega-handy for all sorts of things. There's no doubt it would be hugely favoured. But it doesn't in reality exist.
Yes, it could certainly be argued that materialism proves the non-existence of materialists! But like I say it's a loop. And, I mean, who wants to be a loop, aside of Doug Hofstadter perhaps?
But anyway, this is really all about being fit for purpose. If you want social interaction, then you need to construct a sense of self. So, there's no problem. It's an evolutionarily-derived need, to communicate - so no problem. But when you move away from the agenda created through natural selection, when you want to investigate, say, what is true, then you have to start taking into account all sorts of stuff that in a social situation you could just ignore.
Don Hoffman has interesting stuff in this area online here.
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
And that is an unsupported assertion, you have confused many things about the scientific method. There is no need for a 'subject' or an 'object', that is your strawman fallacy of construction.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Reality doesn't care if it is objective or not, it can be godthought, butterfly dreams or dancing energy.
It behaves a certain way and that is all that matters, it is very consistent across space and time in its behavior.
So you raise a moot point that has no impact whatsoever on the scientific method.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
So, all events under materialism are processors.
Moot point and your assertion of something indirectly.