Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nick227]

The only thing necessary to do science is providing experiments to test hypothesis, so that the result can be duplicated. Whether the subject performing such experiments has an immaterial consciousness or not, is irrelevant.

There's no subject. That's the point.

 

[godless dave]

There's no subject. That's the point.

And you have yet to explain why there's no subject if materialism is true.

 

[godless dave]

. Look at whatever is in front of you right now. How do you know someone is looking at it? How do you actually know this? How would you prove it to, say, a machine intelligence that was demanding an answer that met its strict materialist criteria, whilst it held a gun to your head?

The thing that I think is looking at it has two sensory organs that react to light by sending information about that light to a brain.

 

[Nick227]

And you have yet to explain why there's no subject if materialism is true.

How can there being an observer under materialism, Dave?

As I said to Hans... imagine a machine intelligence has a gun to your head and is demanding you prove that there is someone who can see it. It's programmed to only accept an answer that meets materialist criteria. What would you say to it?

 

[Nick227]

The thing that I think is looking at it has two sensory organs that react to light by sending information about that light to a brain.

So what. Sensory organs don't need an observer to function. The MI is getting an itchy trigger finger, Dave.

 

[godless dave]

So what. Sensory organs don't need an observer to function.

Sensory organs are part of the observer. The brain does the observing.

 

[Nick227]

Sensory organs are part of the observer. The brain does the observing.

The brain is an observer? Well, the MI would have finished you off for that one, Dave. The brain is a processor.

 

[godless dave]

The brain is an observer? Well, the MI would have finished you off for that one, Dave. The brain is a processor.

It's also an observer. Observation is one of the processes it performs.

 

[Nick227]

It's also an observer. Observation is one of the processes it performs.

Dave,

I'm sorry but there's no little man in the brain watching a movie. The brain creates multiple representations of reality, Dave. That which is deemed the most important is broadcast across the most networks, a process humans near-mystically refer to as consciousness. No one sees any of this.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

I'm sorry but there's no little man in the brain watching a movie.

The brain is the man watching the movie.

The brain creates multiple representations of reality, Dave.

That's what observation is.

 

[The Man]

How can there being an observer under materialism, Dave?

Didn't we go over this before?

Again the term “observation” derives its meaning from the same Latin root word “observare”
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=observe



That is the nature of the concept of observation, if perhaps you mean to employ some other concept then you should find a word more suited to that concept.

For example a traffic sign noting the speed limit can be observed (taking note of what the limit is). That limit itself can be observed (the speed can be kept at or below that limit). Even observations can be made about the applicability of that limit (that it may be too fast or too slow for the general road conditions). Whatever makes or can make such observations is by definition an observer. It doesn’t matter how else you might classify them, alive, not alive, human, robotic, conscious or not conscious, the simple ascription that something makes an observation also makes it an observer in that observation.

In the material example I gave before each bar is observer to the other and itself (as some of its own IR is reflected back). Which is observer and which is observed in an observation is generally simply a matter of perspective, or more specifically in terms of relative the selection of a reference frame. For self-observation both observer and the observed are the same thing.

 

[Nick227]

The brain is the man watching the movie.



That's what observation is.

So, a computer is observing its processing is it?

Can't you just see the sheer insanity an embedded memeplex will get up to when it's under investigation? It's got you, Dave, I'm sure an otherwise intelligent human being, believing that the brain is not only a processor but also an observer, that it's a little man watching a movie.

Do you really buy this, Dave? Regardless of the fact that the MI has now shot you about 5 times, is laughing hysterically, and is currently dancing a Scottish jig over your body.

 

[godless dave]

So, a computer is observing its processing is it?

It depends what it's doing with is representations of reality.

believing that the brain is not a processor but an observer

I said that it's both. Are you deliberately misstating my position?

 

[Nick227]

It depends what it's doing with is representations of reality.



I said that it's both. Are you deliberately misstating my position?

Dave,

Can I just check something... does it occur to you for an instant to query why you're insisting that the brain is an observer? It's functioning perfectly well as a processor, isn't it. What purpose would this observer serve?

And how does it now become an observer? What extra bit needs to be added to make a processor into an observer?

 

[The Man]

So, a computer is observing its processing is it?

It depends what it's doing with is representations of reality.

I am currently surrounded by robots and automated systems, some of which observe their own processing (through feed back and cross checking routines). Failure to maintain certain criteria in those observations can result in a warning or alarm state as well as forbidding motion to a certain zone or a full safety stop.

 

[godless dave]

Dave,

Can I just check something... does it occur to you for an instant to query why you're insisting that the brain is an observer? It's functioning perfectly well as a processor, isn't it. What purpose would this observer serve?

Being able to observe other humans and mimic them allows us to transmit information culturally. Being able to observe nature and model it allowed us to invent agriculture and a few other handy things.

And how does it now become an observer? What extra bit needs to be added to make a processor into an observer?

The cerebral cortex seems to play an important role.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Sure. If you're cool with a memeplex running your life. You can listen and believe its BS all day.

Yada, yada....

Perception is not an illusion. Perceiver is an illusion.

Makes no sense.

Just think about it for an instant, Hans. Look at whatever is in front of you right now. How do you know someone is looking at it? How do you actually know this?

Define 'someone'.

How would you prove it to, say, a machine intelligence that was demanding an answer that met its strict materialist criteria, whilst it held a gun to your head?

Irrelevant.

Hans

 

[Nick227]

The Observer is the brain's internalised reflection of God.

In assigning inside and outside so it created a watcher on the outside and a watcher on the inside.

Scientists have largely dealt with the watcher on the outside. But they must still bow and scrape daily to the idea of a watcher on the inside, for fear their travails might lose all meaning...

 

[Nick227]

I am currently surrounded by robots and automated systems, some of which observe their own processing (through feed back and cross checking routines). Failure to maintain certain criteria in those observations can result in a warning or alarm state as well as forbidding motion to a certain zone or a full safety stop.

Feedback loops do not create an observer, Dan. Monitoring does not create an observer.

What is in front of you right now is neural representation, right? That's what's there, correct? No one is observing it. It is simply there. That is processing. That is what it is. There is no need for any observer, which is just as well, as a monist universe would be at a loss to create one.

The human brain has been so conditioned to believe in it's own personal God. Absolute zero evidence but it just goes on trying to wiggle it in.

A Sinclair ZX (c. 1981) could work it out in a second. But for the human brain the illusion has been so deeply internalised it will seemingly do anything rather than give it up. It will twist itself round in knots trying to justify the existence of an observer, constructing the most bizarre and ridiculous explanations to try and persuade itself that an observer can exist under materialism. Logic and reason go out the window first.

 

[Nick227]

Being able to observe other humans and mimic them allows us to transmit information culturally. Being able to observe nature and model it allowed us to invent agriculture and a few other handy things.

Absolutely. Social cognition. And it can all happen without any observer. And does.