Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
that is like asking which part of the intestines digest...
Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
that is like asking which part of the intestines digest...
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
There is no one observing, there is a body which may or may not have perceptions of an 'observer', an un-needed complication.
Observations need not have an 'observer'.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Exactly, the empty house!
There are apparent bodies in an apparent universe.
the self is a thought or perception of a body , not an actual 'thing'
Well, I don't know that a body can have "perceptions" really. It's a processor. Otherwise I agree.
Agreed. Though I'd say "observation," as "observations" to my mind more implies an observer.
Last edited:
nick said:
GD said:
nick said:
It's GD that thinks a part of his brain is observing.
TheAdversary
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2015
- Messages
- 1,548
'So what exactly is this HPC? please explain exactly what it is and where the exact gaps are in the use of the
terms.'
I already posted this :
tl;dr : The key point is that there is a fundamental metaphysical issue that you always end up with when trying
to understand why there is something at all : infinite regression in the argument.
Willpower as an a priori concept is conjectured to have the ability to in principle counter this infinite
regression problem. But then you'd have to explain a whole lot of things of course, but the principle merit
of this argument is that at least you'd work from a basis that could in principle resolve this metaphysical
problem. It's difficult to get the point across. And I make no apologies for the fact that it leads to a
religious conclusion, just that the argument is philosophically sound, as in, it's no worse than currently
existing.
+Fudbucker I second your argument on science getting more settled, and great discoveries getting more unlikely.
It reminds me of John Horgan's The End Of Science.
Interestingly, roughly two unsolvable areas remain :
The hard problem(s) of metaphysics : Why is there something at all? What is 'Existence'? What's its purpose? etc.
The hard problem(s) of consciousness. No satisfactory theory has yet emerged.
Let's take the materialistic position. It resolves the metaphysical problem by pragmatism. We exist in a world,
stuff happens. Deal with it. The problem of consciousness is then assumed to be resolvable in terms of these
real things existing in the world around us without requiring a deeper metaphysical link.
This is what the scientific method (which should be impartial to philosophical issues) tells us, with evidence in
spades. The metaphysical problem however remains as some kind of primordial absurdity, unsolvable.
Something just _is_, must remain as a basic unresolved issue.
You can question whether or not this issue could in principle be solved by materialism as well, and
A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss is where you'd end up then. But I myself think that a good
point came be made for the observation that all of those attempts just end up in infinite regress, ultimately
not solving anything at all.
Hence I believe a point in favour of a non-materialistic position can still be made if, and only if, it
appeals solely to the attempt of removal of absurdity due to infinite regress by intentional act, will, which
is then assumed to exist a priori in some way. The observation here is that intentional act or will posseses
the logical ability to counter infinite regress. At least, there's no other concept that posseses that
particular logical/philosophical quality. There's also no clash with skepticism, since this is exactly the
same concept the appears as an unavoidable remainder of pure skepticism, I think therefore I am, as Descartes
has shown. But it remains a religious conclusion.
terms.'
I already posted this :
tl;dr : The key point is that there is a fundamental metaphysical issue that you always end up with when trying
to understand why there is something at all : infinite regression in the argument.
Willpower as an a priori concept is conjectured to have the ability to in principle counter this infinite
regression problem. But then you'd have to explain a whole lot of things of course, but the principle merit
of this argument is that at least you'd work from a basis that could in principle resolve this metaphysical
problem. It's difficult to get the point across. And I make no apologies for the fact that it leads to a
religious conclusion, just that the argument is philosophically sound, as in, it's no worse than currently
existing.
+Fudbucker I second your argument on science getting more settled, and great discoveries getting more unlikely.
It reminds me of John Horgan's The End Of Science.
Interestingly, roughly two unsolvable areas remain :
The hard problem(s) of metaphysics : Why is there something at all? What is 'Existence'? What's its purpose? etc.
The hard problem(s) of consciousness. No satisfactory theory has yet emerged.
Let's take the materialistic position. It resolves the metaphysical problem by pragmatism. We exist in a world,
stuff happens. Deal with it. The problem of consciousness is then assumed to be resolvable in terms of these
real things existing in the world around us without requiring a deeper metaphysical link.
This is what the scientific method (which should be impartial to philosophical issues) tells us, with evidence in
spades. The metaphysical problem however remains as some kind of primordial absurdity, unsolvable.
Something just _is_, must remain as a basic unresolved issue.
You can question whether or not this issue could in principle be solved by materialism as well, and
A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss is where you'd end up then. But I myself think that a good
point came be made for the observation that all of those attempts just end up in infinite regress, ultimately
not solving anything at all.
Hence I believe a point in favour of a non-materialistic position can still be made if, and only if, it
appeals solely to the attempt of removal of absurdity due to infinite regress by intentional act, will, which
is then assumed to exist a priori in some way. The observation here is that intentional act or will posseses
the logical ability to counter infinite regress. At least, there's no other concept that posseses that
particular logical/philosophical quality. There's also no clash with skepticism, since this is exactly the
same concept the appears as an unavoidable remainder of pure skepticism, I think therefore I am, as Descartes
has shown. But it remains a religious conclusion.
TheAdversary
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2015
- Messages
- 1,548
As I see it, both houses are empty, unless you can show me the exact algorithm of this consciousness delusion
that's obviously, pragmatically, important to us and not to, for example, computers. Exactness is required and AI
cannot find this either, and cover-ups and cop-outs about complexity and evolution are inexact, vague, magical
miracle tech arguments. Neurobabble.
But the argument that I present has an extra merit, the one I explained. And it's quite exact but difficult to
understand or explain. At least, it's more exact than what's currently fashionable.
that's obviously, pragmatically, important to us and not to, for example, computers. Exactness is required and AI
cannot find this either, and cover-ups and cop-outs about complexity and evolution are inexact, vague, magical
miracle tech arguments. Neurobabble.
But the argument that I present has an extra merit, the one I explained. And it's quite exact but difficult to
understand or explain. At least, it's more exact than what's currently fashionable.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry what I see is some vague metaphysical hand waving so please explain what the Hard Problem of Consciousness is?
We really don't need a first cause or anything like that, organic bodies appear to exist in an apparent universe.
So please explain what the HPC is?
Infinite regression is some silly sophistry at best.
this is a statement about existence, not the HPC
Here is the problem, you are just asserting the HPC, you have not explained it in the least.
So what is it and why bring it up at all if you can't explain it?
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
I might be a little slow this morning, but I'm stuck on the presumption that there needs to be a reason for existence. It seems the rest of the argument hangs of this presupposition.
So, my question is "why, and who decided this?"
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
The long standing assumption that we matter in the universe.
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
I'm not sure that's the same thing. We can matter because we exist, without it being the reason for existence
TheAdversary
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2015
- Messages
- 1,548
'this is a statement about existence, not the HPC'
Yes, I'm arguing that the HPC always boils down to the question of what existence actually means/is. And infinite
regression will appear when attempting to answer this question, but you're free to consider this sophistry,
if you want. I consider this the most important question of all.
'the presumption that there needs to be a reason for existence'
Again, you're free to consider this question unimportant. Like I said, it's the pragmatic perspective; There's
apparently a world, no need to ask further questions about its origin. But what question is science actually
trying to answer, then?
Yes, I'm arguing that the HPC always boils down to the question of what existence actually means/is. And infinite
regression will appear when attempting to answer this question, but you're free to consider this sophistry,
if you want. I consider this the most important question of all.
'the presumption that there needs to be a reason for existence'
Again, you're free to consider this question unimportant. Like I said, it's the pragmatic perspective; There's
apparently a world, no need to ask further questions about its origin. But what question is science actually
trying to answer, then?
Last edited:
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
Please read what I actually wrote, then respond to that instead.
The question is not unimportant, it's whether the question is *relevant*.
Moving on.
Nowhere does the quoted premise require a conclusion that there's "no reason to ask further questions about its origin". A rather odd conclusion you've arrived at there - which premise does this flow from?
Regarding science - what question do you believe it's trying to answer?
TheAdversary
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2015
- Messages
- 1,548
'Please read what I actually wrote, then respond to that instead.'
Ok, I'll do it point by point.
'The question is not unimportant, it's whether the question is *relevant*.'
Relevant to the question of consciousness you mean? I argue that it is. That's the point.
'Nowhere does the quoted premise require a conclusion that there's "no reason to ask further questions about its
origin". A rather odd conclusion you've arrived at there - which premise does this flow from?'
Where does the world come from? What's the reason for existence? Why is there something at all etc. etc.
Vague expressions in language, but it all refers to the same problem that will always end in infinite regression.
Why do you make a distinction between 'reason for existence' and 'origin of the world'. It points to the same thing
that always ends in absurdity. Why make the distinction?
'Regarding science - what question do you believe it's trying to answer?'
Ultimately, see above. And if it leads to good stuff in the meantime, all the better.
Ok, I'll do it point by point.
'The question is not unimportant, it's whether the question is *relevant*.'
Relevant to the question of consciousness you mean? I argue that it is. That's the point.
'Nowhere does the quoted premise require a conclusion that there's "no reason to ask further questions about its
origin". A rather odd conclusion you've arrived at there - which premise does this flow from?'
Where does the world come from? What's the reason for existence? Why is there something at all etc. etc.
Vague expressions in language, but it all refers to the same problem that will always end in infinite regression.
Why do you make a distinction between 'reason for existence' and 'origin of the world'. It points to the same thing
that always ends in absurdity. Why make the distinction?
'Regarding science - what question do you believe it's trying to answer?'
Ultimately, see above. And if it leads to good stuff in the meantime, all the better.
He doesn't have to explain it. It was coined by Chalmers, presumably because it is a hard problem to solve. The (ETA: five, I guess) three main outstanding problems (to me at least) are:
1. Why are we conscious at all?
2. How does consciousness emerge from neural activity, and
2.1 if moving electrons around in some way results in consciousness, would a system that's functionally identical to a working brain (e.g.,
a "brain" made of pumps, valves, water, etc) also be conscious? Could a universe of conscious beings be simulated by a person moving rocks around, if they had enough time (and rocks)?
3. What is it like to be something? What is it like to be Dancing David? Is that information forever closed off from everyone but you? If so, why are mental states informational "black holes" (the information of what it is like to be you is privy only to you), and if not, how would I go about trying to figure out what it is like to be you, or a bat, or a mouse, etc.?
4. If mental states exist, and are different than brain states (e.g., the two are causally connected but ontologically different), how do mental states exist in a physical universe? What is the nature of their existence?
5. If mental states are the same as brain states, does Mary learn anything new in the Mary's Room thought experiment when she sees color for the first time? I think it's clear she does, therefore mental states are different than brain states, and we're back to problem (4).
So for those reasons (and probably a bunch more), it's a hard problem. Nobody's close to a solution (and no, Dennet didn't solve it in "Consciousness Explained". It's not like work on consciousness stopped 20 years ago, when his book came out).
Last edited:
We are not. There is not a self that is conscious. There is consciousness, and within that consciousness runs a programme that makes it seem that there is someone that is experiencing consciousness.
This is just basic stuff really.
We don't know for sure that it necessarily does. Consciousness is a 3D workspace that certainly seems to emerge from brain activity. But we don't know how the brain finally is. We know what it looks like in the workspace. We know how it functions, in the terms of the workspace. But finally this could mean virtually nothing. The answer could be completely left-field. Though as brain imaging develops this one could get easier.
We don't know where consciousness is. Consciousness is actually a type of meta-space if you think about it from the perspective of the processor that is generating it. This truth many people don't grasp and so they tie together the brain and consciousness in a way that doesn't further understanding.
When you say something like "the brain is conscious" personally I think you have to be careful. The brain that is conscious is not the brain that appears in consciousness.
There's nothing it's like to be you. There's no such thing as a persisting self. This bit is just easy if you develop a certain level of subjective awareness. You can watch the illusion being created.
Dennett's a genius who took a huge position in that book. But he himself openly states that he "doesn't do neurons." He's not so much trying to tie consciousness to the brain, more sharing his insights around functionality. Dennett is a great subjective observer.
If you can clearly see the illusion of the Observer for what it is, then the HPC is immediately invalidated. It's completely gone, along with roughly half of your points above.
Last edited:
Well, it was a lot easier back in the old days, before our brains started to handle thoughts and ideas. Then you just did stuff. There wasn't some user illusion always wanting there to be a reason for doing things, saying "I'm not doing it until you give me some meaning!"
Theories struggle because human consciousness is so instinctual and the truth so counter-instinctive. I can tell you the truth right now. But one billion years of selective pressure means you aren't just going to believe it. You're going to have to see it with your own eyes. And this can't happen if you keep on investing so much in thinking.
Yes, that is the Great Fantasy of the Skeptic Mindset. Truth without metaphysics. Truth by Thought Alone. Amusingly enough it's a fantasy that materialism itself can completely overthrow. Sadly most skeptics don't have the awareness to see this.
TA,
You have to get past the Observer first. Once you've done that you're at first base. Then, frankly, the HPC is the least of your mind's worries!
Last edited:
Yeah, there is: me.
The "self is an illusion" gambit is uninteresting and still doesn't solve any of the problems, because subjective experience and consciousness don't go away, even if the self is an illusion. The question "What is it like to be [a thing with the experience of an illusionary sense of being a bat]?" is still as perplexing as "what is it like to be a bat?" We still have to decide if Mary, illusionary sense of self or not, learns anything new when she sees color, and how consciousness and subjective experience emerge from moving electrons around in some way (either through switches in a processor or neurons in a brain).
And I never said "the brain is conscious", so please quote me accurately.
Last edited: