Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nick227]

I'm not sure the invalidation claim is necessarily correct. Doesn't even an "illusion" arise from "perception, evidence or experience, scientific or otherwise"?

The sense of there being an observer arises from an unexamined assumption.

While aspects of ones sense of self may be illusory, the sense of a singular and consistent self and the self itself is a construct of reinforced and suppressed sub-selves (so to speak) that makes it no more of an illusion than a car or building being an illusion just because they are constructions of applicable sub-components.

I agree. The term "self" or "selfhood" covers a wide range of phenomena. Plenty of which are very much real.

When you get into the sub realm of "mental selfhood" then afaia it's all unreal. Of course some aspects you need just to communicate. The observer and the experiencer have zero ontological validity.

But they're so favoured it's not easy for the mind running this programme to let them go. To the mind it seems like death and appropriate defensive responses are triggered.

 

[tsig]

"Observation" is a verbal construct. Visual processing IS

We translate raw experience into useful constructions via thought. But this usefulness is derived from selective pressure. If construction helps us fulfill primal needs then it's favoured. Doesn't mean it's real

You are watching a magician and believing that rabbits really can emerge out of thin air.

You are watching the brain and believing it's magic.

 

[The Man]

The sense of there being an observer arises from an unexamined assumption.

What "unexamined assumption" is that? How does simply examining that assumption eliminate a sense of there being an observer?

I agree. The term "self" or "selfhood" covers a wide range of phenomena. Plenty of which are very much real.

When you get into the sub realm of "mental selfhood" then afaia it's all unreal. Of course some aspects you need just to communicate. The observer and the experiencer have zero ontological validity.

Actually the effects are quite real, as in the case of alien hand mentioned before. The observer still has a sense of ownership of the limb but not a sense of agency over some of it's actions. Just because I could lose an arm doesn't mean that my arm wasn't or isn't real or that arms generally aren't real for people. Now phantom limb...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_limb

That would be a sensation attributed to an arm that isn't real.

But they're so favoured it's not easy for the mind running this programme to let them go. To the mind it seems like death and appropriate defensive responses are triggered.

Let go of what the program or the sense of self that arises from the program? Also if that "programme" is real isn't its output (that sense of self) just as real?

As far as I know I'm not aware of anyone who has died as a result of simply a loss of the sense of self. In fact one need not search far on the web to find people proclaiming the CIA, government, shape shifting aliens or whatever are placing thoughts in their heads. A distinct lack of a sense of agency or "mental selfhood" for certain aspects of their own thoughts. So quite the opposite that loss (or even just suspension) of the sense of self (in at least some aspects) is a defense mechanism and not an uncommon one.


See also..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization_disorder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

[Fudbucker]

'Yep, perhaps integrated information theory is correct and it is just a matter of complexity between the cross
communicating sub-routines.'

The problem with this is that when too many things are considered conscious then the concept starts to lose its
meaning, because it means too much. It becomes redundant and should be left out of the theory altogether.

As evidenced by this sentence :

'With the distinction of external appearance of self-awareness but no internal self- awareness lost and the system
having an internal sense of self-awareness (however it is constructed) the issue of that particular “P”
philosophical constraint becomes moot.'

Redundant and should be left out of the theory altogether.

But why, then, are we having this discussion?

That's my thinking as well.

 

[The Man]

'Yep, perhaps integrated information theory is correct and it is just a matter of complexity between the cross
communicating sub-routines.'

The problem with this is that when too many things are considered conscious then the concept starts to lose its
meaning, because it means too much. It becomes redundant and should be left out of the theory altogether.

Does "too many things" having say energy and/or momentum make those concepts start to lose their meaning?

While I'm not suggesting that consciousness is like energy or momentum but the "too many things" argument ignores something obvious with energy and momentum. That not everything with energy and momentum has the same energy and momentum. Similarly we know that even we don't consistently maintain the same level of consciousness. So far from being redundant and meaningless examining how those different levels of consciousness relate is at the heart of determining how the level of consciousness we would generally ascribe to ourselves emerges.

As evidenced by this sentence :

'With the distinction of external appearance of self-awareness but no internal self- awareness lost and the system
having an internal sense of self-awareness (however it is constructed) the issue of that particular “P”
philosophical constraint becomes moot.'

Redundant and should be left out of the theory altogether.

But why, then, are we having this discussion?

It was addressing a question posed by the poster that was quoted, an aspect of actually having a discussion.

 

[annnnoid]

No. It creates the sense of there being someone. There's a huge difference.

What you are arguing is akin to insisting that rabbits can manifest out of thin air because you've seen a guy in a black suit drag one out of a hat.



The so-called homunculus problem only exists while you believe that someone is reading these words. When you can witness the constant creation and dispersal of the mental self, you can see straight through the illusion.

There you go again. You keep claiming that 'something' that does not exist witnesses the creation and dispersal of the mental self.

What is this something? How can something that has no quantity or character have the capacity to definitively adjudicate a thing as fundamentally complex as a mental self?

 

[Nick227]

What "unexamined assumption" is that?

The assumption that there is some "I" doing the observing, receiving visual information.

Actually the effects are quite real, as in the case of alien hand mentioned before. The observer still has a sense of ownership of the limb but not a sense of agency over some of it's actions.

You don't need an observer to experience phantom limb syndrome.

Let go of what the program or the sense of self that arises from the program? Also if that "programme" is real isn't its output (that sense of self) just as real?

Not necessarily. It depends how the illusion is constructed. If I tell you that there's an ogre in the basement and he's a mean mf, and you never go in the basement and deliberately create your life to make sure you never go anywhere near it.... does this make the ogre real?

As far as I know I'm not aware of anyone who has died as a result of simply a loss of the sense of self.

Me neither. But to the instinctual part of the brain that's programmed to respond defensively to threats... it can't distinguish between a physical threat and an ego threat. The assertion "you're nothing" feels like a threat, does it not? If I were to suggest that you were a complete idiot who had not the first clue what he's talking about, defense responses would be triggered, would they not? There's no physical threat, but something feels threatened, no? (I stress that I'm not saying this to you).

Now, think for a moment.... the brain has invested very heavily in this illusory observer. I mean, it's been going on since early infancy. Pretty much its whole world is wrapped up in this idea that someone is there looking, someone is there experiencing. Our whole psychological sense of self is tied to it. Now you start examining the idea that the brain is generating consciousness. Well, of course, to an unbiased intelligence it's utterly obvious that there can't be an observer. The whole idea is just ridiculous. How can a processor create an I which sees? It's nonsense. But to a brain that has invested for decades in the belief that it has a personal self? It can't easily go there. Unless the person has a degree of scientific rigour instilled in them that could match Socrates (death by hemlock through logical reasoning). They're not going there. So theories which allow an observer to somehow exist and fit with materialism suddenly become very attractive... uhm, what if it's the brain, the processor? Yes, that's fine, isn't it? The brain can be the observer. Or how about we say, uhm, it's all emergent so how can one aspect not be real? Surely, we can do that, can't we?

You have to look, and be honest. Understanding consciousness requires deep observation of subjective states, and then pinning them down either neurologically or functionally. If the research concludes, uhm actually no one is doing the researching! Are you going to examine that possibility?

 

[Nick227]

There you go again. You keep claiming that 'something' that does not exist witnesses the creation and dispersal of the mental self.

You do not need a "something." Processing IS. The brain processes.

If you imagine for a moment that you are an alien, highly skeptical life-form and you come upon a human brain processing information. Suddenly it pipes up "I'm not just glia and neurons you know. I'm actually an observer, an experiencer. " You'd likely laugh at it and say "Yeah, dream on, mate!"

 

[The Man]

The assumption that there is some "I" doing the observing, receiving visual information.

There was another question that you didn’t quote or even try to answer…

How does simply examining that assumption eliminate a sense of there being an observer?

So if we do examine the “assumption” of an “I” and still find the existence of the sense of an “I” then it is no longer just an assumption but a conclusion.

Why the apparent fixation on “visual information” for “observing”?

You don't need an observer to experience phantom limb syndrome.

Wait, so your claim is that phantom limb syndrome is an unobserved “experience”?

Not necessarily. It depends how the illusion is constructed. If I tell you that there's an ogre in the basement and he's a mean mf, and you never go in the basement and deliberately create your life to make sure you never go anywhere near it.... does this make the ogre real?

We’re looking in the basement all the time and find that people do have a sense of self both in ownership and agency and unusual things happen when those senses are interfered with or missing. Heck even in the depersonalization disorder linked before the person still has the sense of observing themselves but from the outside.

Let’s consider a hallucination, someone thinks they see an ogre. It’s not the visual information that is an illusion it is the attributed source, the external environment. Without the actual internal source of the information and that information there could be no hallucination. However in the sense of self we aren’t talking about an external source but simply internal sources. That the “I” is constructed from these internal sources simply indicates the existence of the communication and function of those parts of the brain that contribute to that construct.

For control systems the technical term for self-observation is a feedback loop…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback

Earlier in the thread there was a question about a camera taking a picture of itself. A camera facing a mirror can take a picture of itself. That external boundary condition (the mirror) feeds back external “visual information” into the camera.

Me neither. But to the instinctual part of the brain that's programmed to respond defensively to threats... it can't distinguish between a physical threat and an ego threat. The assertion "you're nothing" feels like a threat, does it not?

Doesn’t feel like a threat to me, heck even just on the scale of human existence and accomplishment I’m nothing. Actually for a time I was probably worse than nothing, so for me just becoming nothing was a bit of a step up. If someone is having difficultly distinguishing “between a physical threat and an ego threat” then I would recommend a visit to the nearest mental health care professional.

If I were to suggest that you were a complete idiot who had not the first clue what he's talking about, defense responses would be triggered, would they not? There's no physical threat, but something feels threatened, no? (I stress that I'm not saying this to you).

Nope, while I am an idiot I doubt anyone is “a complete idiot”. Nothing, about that feels the slightest bit threating to me.

Now, think for a moment.... the brain has invested very heavily in this illusory observer. I mean, it's been going on since early infancy. Pretty much its whole world is wrapped up in this idea that someone is there looking, someone is there experiencing. Our whole psychological sense of self is tied to it. Now you start examining the idea that the brain is generating consciousness. Well, of course, to an unbiased intelligence it's utterly obvious that there can't be an observer. The whole idea is just ridiculous. How can a processor create an I which sees? It's nonsense. But to a brain that has invested for decades in the belief that it has a personal self? It can't easily go there. Unless the person has a degree of scientific rigour instilled in them that could match Socrates (death by hemlock through logical reasoning). They're not going there. So theories which allow an observer to somehow exist and fit with materialism suddenly become very attractive... uhm, what if it's the brain, the processor? Yes, that's fine, isn't it? The brain can be the observer. Or how about we say, uhm, it's all emergent so how can one aspect not be real? Surely, we can do that, can't we?

You have to look, and be honest. Understanding consciousness requires deep observation of subjective states, and then pinning them down either neurologically or functionally. If the research concludes, uhm actually no one is doing the researching! Are you going to examine that possibility?

Wait so “Understanding consciousness requires deep observation of subjective states” while “, to an unbiased intelligence it's utterly obvious that there can't be an observer”. Socrates would be rolling over in his grave just to grab another cup.

 

[Nick227]

I'm thinking that the "self is an illusion" gambit equally invalidates any claim to perception, evidence or experience, scientific or otherwise.

No. It invalidates the concept of ownership of perceptions or experience.

 

[calebprime]

This perception is occurring in this sack of meat at this time. Not some other sack of meat. That is ownership.

 

[Nick227]

How does simply examining that assumption eliminate a sense of there being an observer?

In the same way that noticing that the man in the black suit actually has a rabbit up his sleeve. If you can watch an illusory sense of self being constructed, in this case through attending to thought narratives, and then deconstructed, you no longer believe in an observer.

So if we do examine the “assumption” of an “I” and still find the existence of the sense of an “I” then it is no longer just an assumption but a conclusion.

If that's your reality, then that's your reality. If you search your subjective awareness and find an "I" then great.

Wait, so your claim is that phantom limb syndrome is an unobserved “experience”?

I'm saying there's no observer of it. Observation is more tricky.

In using language, from early childhood, we learn to tie these words together, to the point where it seems that observation must mean the existence of an observer. It doesn't.

We’re looking in the basement all the time and find that people do have a sense of self both in ownership and agency and unusual things happen when those senses are interfered with or missing.

Yes, absolutely we have a sense of those things and yes they are highly necessary to function well and get needs met. This infers only that they are favoured not that they are necessarily real.

Let’s consider a hallucination, someone thinks they see an ogre. It’s not the visual information that is an illusion it is the attributed source, the external environment. Without the actual internal source of the information and that information there could be no hallucination. However in the sense of self we aren’t talking about an external source but simply internal sources. That the “I” is constructed from these internal sources simply indicates the existence of the communication and function of those parts of the brain that contribute to that construct.

It is constructed in language, yes. And those parts are functioning, yes.
But this does not mean that the illusion they create has ontological validity.

For control systems the technical term for self-observation is a feedback loop…

Feedback loops do not give an "I" validity in the context of being an observer.

Doesn’t feel like a threat to me, heck even just on the scale of human existence and accomplishment I’m nothing. Actually for a time I was probably worse than nothing, so for me just becoming nothing was a bit of a step up. If someone is having difficultly distinguishing “between a physical threat and an ego threat” then I would recommend a visit to the nearest mental health care professional.

Nope, while I am an idiot I doubt anyone is “a complete idiot”. Nothing, about that feels the slightest bit threating to me.

You don't feel threatened? Fair enough. That's how you are.

However, perhaps you could try a little experiment. Please walk down the street to your nearest pub or bar. Go in there and say to someone "You're a complete idiot". Then, if they act defensively in any way recommend that they visit the nearest mental health clinic. Feel free to do this enough times for results to be statistically valid and report back.

I'm willing to bet you have some bruises. (Unless, perhaps, it's the case that you're a 6'6" ex military type.)

My point is that ego threats are usually treated much the same way as physical threats.

Maybe for you there are no ego threats and when you observe inside you find an actual "I" there, doing stuff and observing.

 

[Nick227]

This perception is occurring in this sack of meat at this time. Not some other sack of meat. That is ownership.

in?

And even if we say yes to in, as opposed to emerging from, then that merely ties a mental construct to a physical process. I don't consider that a process can be an owner, personally.

And, I mean, if you're going to say perceptions are taking place inside your head, then what in your conscious awareness isn't taking place there? Are we to assume that you're asserting your deity here?

 

[TheAdversary]

'Does "too many things" having say energy and/or momentum make those concepts start to lose their meaning?'

No, but if I decide to introduce a new concept that's exactly the same as energy but I call it Zook, does that mean that I've discovered a new
law of nature, the law of the conservation of Zook?
If consciousness is just information organization, why have the extra concept at all? It can't actually mean anything, otherwise the first premise
is contradicted. So consciousness, following this theory, cannot be anything else than a synonym for information organization.
Hence, like Zook, it's redundant.
('too many things' wasn't a very good expression; Sometimes people use undefinable predicates that apply to anything soever, like 'all things are of God'.
Consciousness should be removed from the theory because it is just a synonym. 'all things are of God' is either trivial or meaningless.)

'It was addressing a question posed by the poster that was quoted, an aspect of actually having a discussion.'

I was meta-arguing

 

[marplots]

(short segment from a good post)
If I tell you that there's an ogre in the basement and he's a mean mf, and you never go in the basement and deliberately create your life to make sure you never go anywhere near it.... does this make the ogre real?

In a sense, it does make the ogre real.

My actions (avoiding the basement) are a direct response to my belief in the ogre. We would then probably agree that the belief is real. But then, aren't all my actions based on beliefs of the same type? I am certainly free to believe many things, and so far as I can tell, every belief I have is authentic. If they didn't feel authentic, I wouldn't hold them.

The set up, for this question, is that there is no ogre at all. But, to make it work, I don't know that. I think there is an ogre. From my perspective, the ogre is as real as anything else I feed into my, "what will I do now" machine. It has the same status for me as anything else I believe, both true things and false things. In that sense, it has the same claim to reality as anything else I experience.

Are atoms real? I believe they are. Unless I find out later on they are imaginary ogres. Perhaps that is too far to stretch. Am I the biological offspring of my mother and father? I believe I am. Unless I find out I was adopted. I can only answer the question from inside my own head, with the knowledge and information I have in there. The ogre is real. Kind of. For now. Don't ask me to go into the basement and look, I don't want to get et.

 

[Mojo]

in?

If the relevant bits are outside the sack of meat, then they're probably not doing much perceiving.

 

[Dancing David]

'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?

That has nothing to do with the HPC, it is a statement of those who hold with it.

So the burden is on those who hold it to explain it's meaningfulness.

The scientific method (the topic) is used to discern the variations of the apparent universe, the sub topic of the HPC borders on the scientific method. But it is upon those who propose it matters to explain why.

And no the scientific method does not need to address primal causes, it covers those things which are open to investigation, primal cause does not appear to be open for investigation.

Now if some of the speculative theories like GUT and string theory ever get realistic, then there may be some ways of investigating the causes of the apparent universe. However the causes of those causes would be another issue.

 

[Dancing David]

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).

Sorry people who bring up arguments in a thread should be able to explain and defend them, Mr Chalmers and His Writings are not participating in this discussion here. So I believe that just using a phrase is not a pass... if you bring it up your should explain its meaning and relevance

 

[Nick227]

In a sense, it does make the ogre real.

My actions (avoiding the basement) are a direct response to my belief in the ogre. We would then probably agree that the belief is real. But then, aren't all my actions based on beliefs of the same type? I am certainly free to believe many things, and so far as I can tell, every belief I have is authentic. If they didn't feel authentic, I wouldn't hold them.

Well, you can take that position. But then are you saying that millions of Christians are actually making God real? If everyone was a Christian then would God be real?

The belief is real. And the behaviour associated with the belief is real. But it is a belief based on an untested assumption. As time goes by so the brain may get very attached to this belief and the associated behaviour. Maybe it can hardly even imagine life without this belief. Maybe it just totally takes it for granted - just how life is.

So what happens when a new guy comes to town and says "hey guys, there's actually no ogre in the basement. it's just empty." ?

 

[Nick227]

But what question is science actually
trying to answer, then?

Uhm, something about how to get corporate sponsorship?