Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[LarryS]

Looks like a philosophy of the gaps.

No, making a claim without even a working explanation is woo, or God does it

 

[Nick227]

+Nick227 'And so it starts to slowly become apparent to the public that actually scientists really are pretty mad and maybe things like reiki and homeopathy are no worse
than their lunacy.'

I've argued before that the social and mind sciences like psychology, that deal with 'mental states', are becoming increasingly pathological exactly
because there's something wrong with the selfless brain model.

Well, I haven't personally seem many people actually adopting a "selfless brain model." And can I ask you where you see evidence that theoretical perspectives from these sciences are becoming pathological? If that's what you mean.

The pathological state of psychology can be seen as the logical trivialism that is the
consequence of the occurrence of a contradiction somewhere.
That is, I see this increasing insanity in the mind sciences as evidence for the incorrectness of the selfless brain model, but since I assume that
the science has been attempting to be as sincere as possible and to stick to the facts as much as possible, the contradiction must not be the fault
of the scientists making a wrong assumption somewhere.

The problem is not the research. The problem is the prior conditioning of the brain, including the brain of the scientists. The brain is programmed to behave as though life is happening to someone. Even though monism and determinism must assert that this can't be true, still it will try to wiggle and jiggle a way to get an observer or an experiencer in there. There's a huge psychological investment, and scientists are no different from anyone else here.

The whole issue with qualia arises, IMO, because the mind of the scientist can't cope with the notion of a selfless reality.

This is the real issue in consciousness research - instinctual blindness. You don't have to overcome it before you can do any research. But if you're working on the so-called "hard problem" you're actually trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. You're trying to re-write reality to include your own unconscious perceptual bias.

This is why scientists working on the hard problem are getting nowhere - see quantum microtubules in the brain et al. And scientists working on the so-called easy problems are getting results - bayesian predictive modelling, neural correlates of consciousness etc

 

[Nick227]

Does it matter? It seems like they've crossed the philosophical divide and we are now into a question of fidelity. Apparently, there's a there there, and what remains is to improve instrumentation.

It doesn't seem like much is happening here though, out in the research field.

My vision seems pretty clear. Objects seem well defined. OK, so there's representation going on in the brain, but nevertheless it would seem that it shouldn't be so hard to pin down the neural correlates and the actual activity at a neural level, if that's really how consciousness is being generated.

But we don't seem to be getting there. Do we really lack tools?

It seems to me like, from an exciting start, the Global Neuronal Workspace Theory has slacked off a lot. And now the research interest is going in other directions - panpsychism and integrated information.

 

[Nick227]

Because people are adding mystical, undefined vagueness to the already understood biochemical process because they don't want to science to have the answer.

.....[babble, and more babble]....

Because everytime they "get there" people like you deny that "there" is there.

Joe,

Name me one scientist working in consciousness research who says they've got there. Just one. Link me one paper where one scientist says one time - we've got there. Consciousness... sorted!

Actually, YOU are the only person who thinks science has got there. No scientists do. Just you. YOUR belief system is actually more woo than the new-agers and homeopaths you love to ridicule.

 

[Nick227]

As a general comment, you really should be careful not to fall into the trap of requiring total knowledge of how something works before allowing provisional conclusions to be reached and treated as valid for what they are (incidentally, it's fairly accurate to say that all the scientific method produces are provisional conclusions and it's only for the sake of more useful conversation that that's not beat on like a dead horse).

I totally agree.

Even moreso because, far too frequently, such demands end up being used alongside overwhelmingly less stringent requirements for the acceptance of some other potentially competing claim.

Can happen, sure.

Other than that, I'm mildly curious how you think that pursuing consciousness and it's relation to brain activity even could help either your initial attempt to argue that accepting materialism would actually damage the meaningfulness or significance of scientific method in any meaningful way or your more recent statement where you revealed that your actual annoyance is about scientists being quite harsh on homeopathy

I'm just interested in this field generally. (And seem to have a penchant for supporting the underdog, in this case homeopathy)

so you're trying to make a case for why they don't actually have the right to be so harsh. When it comes to the former, that line of argument would be quite irrelevant. When it comes to the latter, the actual points that you could meaningfully back up with that line of argument fall into the "Well, DUH" category that simply could not meaningfully help your case.

Well, I don't know that that's really the case, just to argue the point. If we had solved the whole combination issue and could get from neural (or quantum) behaviour to conscious experience, and if materialism was validated in this, then I would say that there really was no gap left for an observer to hide in.

 

[Nick227]

there was little doubt that the brain generated objects of experience, and these images are 3rd person images of someone else's 2nd person experience - - - but the 'experience' itself is still in the realm of philosophy

Looks like a philosophy of the gaps.

Yes, I think you have to be careful here, Larry.

FACT: We don't have a physically accurate theory of consciousness yet. There are combination issues. We can't get from neural behaviour to conscious experience yet.

This doesn't mean that the Hard Problem exists, that there is necessarily a fundamental impediment here. Merely that the so-called Easy Problems are turning out to harder than at first hoped.

 

[marplots]

It doesn't seem like much is happening here though, out in the research field.

My vision seems pretty clear. Objects seem well defined. OK, so there's representation going on in the brain, but nevertheless it would seem that it shouldn't be so hard to pin down the neural correlates and the actual activity at a neural level, if that's really how consciousness is being generated.

But we don't seem to be getting there. Do we really lack tools?

There's no particular reason the tools can't get better. I would have made the same argument decades ago by pointing to EEGs and the ability to determine, objectively (with some level of precision) that one type of reading shows someone who is conscious, and another that they are not.

Even earlier, before brain "snapshots," we could observe a person's behavior and make a decision about whether or not they are conscious.

To me, your argument seems to be that we don't have enough detail, not that we don't already have good evidence for brain = mind. At what point would such an objection ever be satisfied? Will it take a string theory of mind or can we stop before that? And, if we can, why can't we make the judgement now?

Questions of this sort: "Well, then what causes that?" have no end.

ETA: It is not necessary to mimic a thing to claim some level of understanding. It's fine to explain the sun without making a sun, or evolution without creating a new Phylum in the lab.

 

[Myriad]

Complete knowledge is a red herring, though. The question is whose claims are credible, in the unavoidable absence of complete knowledge.

You do not have complete knowledge of how every component of a car works. But if I told you that I'd invented a color of paint that when painted on a wall causes any car driving past to explode, you'd know (or should know) that I'm mistaken, deluded, or lying.

Why should we expect introspection, meditation, or any other form of "subjective investigation," or the pronouncements of gurus based on their subjective spiritual experiences, to reliably inform us about the nature of either the mind or the world? What is investigating what?

We observe people doing things that require a lot of computation (such as coordinating movements, recognizing objects, and constructing narrative using language), and we discover that an organ whose function and purpose was previously mysterious is actually remarkably effective at performing computation. Then we discover definite correlations between subjective mental states and the patterns of global and localized activity within that organ. The details aren't all filled in, but the picture is clear nonetheless.

 

[Nick227]

Complete knowledge is a red herring, though.

I agree. Likewise the assertion that a highly limited level of knowledge is actually enough to make definite pronouncements of the type several forum members have a penchant for.

What I find interesting is that, if I watch the great luminaries of consciousness research on YouTube, rarely do they seem to be as convinced that things are so clear as do many members of skeptic forums.

You do not have complete knowledge of how every component of a car works. But if I told you that I'd invented a color of paint that when painted on a wall causes any car driving past to explode, you'd know (or should know) that I'm mistaken, deluded, or lying.

No. I'd like to see some evidence. Ideally not with my Audi.

Why should we expect introspection, meditation, or any other form of "subjective investigation," or the pronouncements of gurus based on their subjective spiritual experiences, to reliably inform us about the nature of either the mind or the world?

Uhm, because that's pretty much all we have. Along with some investigative tools we've cooked up over the years.

We observe people doing things that require a lot of computation (such as coordinating movements, recognizing objects, and constructing narrative using language), and we discover that an organ whose function and purpose was previously mysterious is actually remarkably effective at performing computation. Then we discover definite correlations between subjective mental states and the patterns of global and localized activity within that organ. The details aren't all filled in, but the picture is clear nonetheless.

That limited perspective is precisely why the HPC is so widely believed in, I submit. You need to fill in the gaps as much as possible, or these fantasies - the HPC, the Observer, the Experiencer, Qualia, P-zombies - all sneak in.

And herein lies the kick if you ask me. Most interested skeptics do not want to understand consciousness. It suits them down to the ground that there's still space for all their little personal Gods to exist in. They're actually no different from the new-agers they claim to want to liberate humanity from.

And, that said, here's a scientist who might really be on to something when it comes to the observer.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You do not have complete knowledge of how every component of a car works. But if I told you that I'd invented a color of paint that when painted on a wall causes any car driving past to explode, you'd know (or should know) that I'm mistaken, deluded, or lying.

Which is why pleas for absolute 100% metaphysical certainty always, always, always carry one of handful of ulterior motives.

- The classic, nigh ubiquitous "I'm mad that some Woo I was a real big fan of got disproved so now I'm just gonna pretend that the entire base concept of science, rationality, or even knowledge as a concept is flawed because I'd rather scorch the intellectual Earth that give up my gris-gris."

- The vaguer "Science is just so cold and sterile and removes all the magic and wonder from the world" silliness from people who think a sunset stops being beautiful when you no longer believe it's a magical chariot being driven across the sky by a god.

- The still vaguer idea that science is somehow "egotistical" because it dares assume to have any answers at all and for some reason this causes the person to develop some sort of obsessive fetish for picking nits in how science operates.

Why should we expect introspection, meditation, or any other form of "subjective investigation," or the pronouncements of gurus based on their subjective spiritual experiences, to reliably inform us about the nature of either the mind or the world? What is investigating what?

And this. For all the yammering about "materialism" (which seems to mean nothing more than "daring to acknowledge that the universe doesn't operate on dream logic.") not having all the answers nobody has even begin to offer an alternative. They just make up some nuance that science can't answer than drop their mics.

The idea seems to be if science can't answer "everything" it's perfectly sound to put one's faith in methodologies that can't answer anything or indeed reject the concept of "answers" all together.

Right now basic concepts like rationality, the scientific method and the basic idea that the universe does operate under some sort of structure and is therefore understandable is the only framework we have that is actually giving a view of the world that is logically consists and useful in actually predicting future events.

There's been no alternative. No "Science doesn't work, therefore try this" because no alternative would be functionally different from invoking magic or just operating at pure random.

 

[LarryS]

asking for an explanatory-link between the brain and consciousness is hardly a 'war on science', and is a far cry from requiring complete knowledge.

 

[JoeMorgue]

asking for an explanatory-link between the brain and consciousness is hardly a 'war on science', and is a far cry from requiring complete knowledge.

It is when you reject the answers or make up new levels every time one is reached.

We know brain activity and mental activity are linked. If you receive damage for a forced chemical imbalance to your brain it can effect your consciousness.

If there is a non-brain aspect to consciousness then where is it? What part of your consciousness can you not effect by effect the brain? If you get physical damage to the frontal lobe your consciousness will be effected. If you get physical damage to your cerebellum it will effect your coordination. If you get damage to your occipital lobe it will effect your visual processing. And so forth and so on.

If someone were to pump your system full of dopamine or serotonin of vasodepression if would effect your consciousnesses. We can make your consciousness "go away" by putting you under sedation.

People keep alluding to all these "answers" that they are waiting for but I do see what questions are still to be asked that aren't meaningless distinctions without difference or just defining things as "the parts of mental functioning that science can't define and their definition is the evidence that science can't define them."

 

[tsig]

asking for an explanatory-link between the brain and consciousness is hardly a 'war on science', and is a far cry from requiring complete knowledge.

First you ignore any explanations as not enough then you want to throw away all the tools we'd normally use to solve the problem then declare the problem unsolvable.

 

[JoeMorgue]

First you ignore any explanations as not enough then you want to throw away all the tools we'd normally use to solve the problem then declare the problem unsolvable.

Exactly. That's what this whole song and dance has been, one big circular bootstrap defining something as itself and then proving itself using that definition.

"Science can't explain every aspect of consciousness."
"Science has a reasonably complete bedrock understanding of the fundamentals of how the mental process works."
"Science yes but it can't explain the feelings. It can explain pain but it can't explain what it means to feel pain."
"Errr what's the difference between pain and the feeling of pain?"
"Well pain is the part that science can explain, the feeling of pain is the part that science can't explain."

Step 1: Take something that science has a reasonably complete level of understanding of.

Step 2: Define any nuance, grey area, semantic split definition, or metaphysical special pleading or even just outright making up a new qualities or characteristics that don't exist as "something science can't explain."

Step 3: Use that definition that science can't explain it as the evidence that science can't explain it.

Step 4: Throw the fact that science can't explain the thing you just defined as being outside the realm of science back in science's face.

Step 5: Declare victory, invoke Woo and/or perform "Wise Old Man on the Mountain" naval gazing routine.

 

[MRC_Hans]

asking for an explanatory-link between the brain and consciousness is hardly a 'war on science', and is a far cry from requiring complete knowledge.

Pardon me, but this is upside down. All our, admittedly incomplete, knowledge points at the physical function of the brain being the source of everything, including consciousness, including the "I" the observer.

If somebody wants to claim that consciousness or the "I" comes from some other source, methinks the burden of proof is on them.

Electricity and radio waves were not magic till science found the explanation for them and neither should consciousness be.

Magic is not the the null hypothesis.


Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

FACT: We don't have a physically accurate theory of consciousness yet. There are combination issues. We can't get from neural behaviour to conscious experience yet.

So what? A century ago, we did't have a physically accurate theory of electricity yet. That didn't make it magic.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The brain is programmed to behave as though life is happening to someone.

The brain IS the someone. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Hans

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah even if we all just pretend the entire science of neurology doesn't exist and "how the brain works" really is this total mystery that science is scratching its head over...

Why the assumption that science isn't the thing that's gonna figure it out? Why this continuing idea that although science has been behind literally every advancement in knowledge we've ever had the next step, that one, that's finally gonna be the one that Woo solves.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Yeah even if we all just pretend the entire science of neurology doesn't exist and "how the brain works" really is this total mystery that science is scratching its head over...

Why the assumption that science isn't the thing that's gonna figure it out? Why this continuing idea that although science has been behind literally every advancement in knowledge we've ever had the next step, that one, that's finally gonna be the one that Woo solves.

Just posting for support. I'm so tired of consciousness threads that I rarely post in them anymore. This topic is the last resort of woo, the last remaining nook for madness, and so you get what you get.

Basic question of scientific literacy. Gaps are not places to plug in crap. Yes, cognitive science is functional, neurology physical, and the two are not married in theory... yet. But there are plenty of examples of "touch this" with a probe, and getting a match between the cognitive and the physical in neurolinguistics, going back quite a stretch. True, so far artificial limbs are controlled only by brute mapping and not tight fit to ideas themselves, but slowly this and other practical efforts will slowly tease things out.

The real problem area has nothing to do with what woo seekers seek, rather with the actual encoding of information. There must be a pre-linguistic code that we share with other species underlying language, onto which we homo sapiens have mapped a symbolic code. It will take time, but when this nut is cracked, many dominoes will have fallen first, and others later will fall fast.

A lot of the woo also ignores the central and peripheral nervous systems, which play a huge role, including a not insignificant amount of neurons around the stomach.

What I do find fascinating is that the only place where meaningless information becomes knowledge is in a bunch of evolved neurons, made possible both by evolved genetic coding of information to design the machine, and by functional weaving of sensory information into knowledge by that machine. So cool in itself, who needs woo?

 

[JoeMorgue]

The brain IS the someone. Why is that so hard to grasp?

It's perfectly easy to grasp. It's just hard for some people to accept.

Again it's the old "Having a rational, understandable explanation ruins the 'magic'." thing. I think a lot of people feel that reducing everything about "them" to just a bunch of neurons firing and biochemical removes some special quality of themselves.

But yes our brains are us. People really don't get that. They see their brains as this thinking/processing machine that is added on to some essence of "them" that is a separate thing but... it's not.

Is basically just invoking a soul, just being afraid to call it that. Every time we have one of these "Science can't explain consciousness!" that's what the corner the other side gets argued into, just invoking some vague, undefined separate essence of "self" that has to, just has to exist outside the roughly 3 pound of roughly 100 billion neurons each consisting of 1,000 to 10,000 separate synapses that yes do make up the entirety of "me."