Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nick227]

I don't know what deinition of "subject" you have in mind... But worry not, as that is, again, irrelevant. Let me repeat this once again: The only thing necessary for doing science is that experiments can be performed to test hypothesis, so that the results can be repeated. It doesn't matter if whichever entity performs this operation, qualifies as a "subject" or not. It doesn't matter whether it has real cosciousness or not.

I am absolutely not trying to stop the behaviour of science, Ron. It's fine. Continue measuring away. It's just another behaviour. All cool. You enjoy measuring, then measure. I'm not going to stop you, don't worry.

 

[Nick227]

What is in front of me right now is a computer screen and a keyboard (among other things) which I perceive through neural representations of sensory input...

...er, there are neural representations of sensory input present. There's no observer, no mystical "I" that is perceiving them.
Not one shred of actual evidence for an observer.

Allowing me

... er, allowing the brain

to both observe (take note of)

...er, reference...

what is on the screen and through neurological motor output post observations (comments) about the content while remaining in compliance with (observing) the membership agreement of this forum.

There you go, Dan. The Sinclair ZX has corrected your version to fit with actual materialism, as opposed to the Fantasy Island version. But you feel free to go on bowing and scraping to your own personal God. Don't let a little thing like lack of evidence put you off.

 

[Nick227]

So what is the claim of the OP?

1. There is no self or observer.

Correct.

or
2. Materialism being the current paradigm can not explain a self or observer, or Materialism and the self/observer are straight up incompatible, so the self/observer must be an illusion.

There's no actual need or function for an observer, outside of social communication, also no evidence for its existence. There are also highly viable direct explanations for how the brain can create merely the sense of there being an observer, without one actually existing.

or
3. Ultimately this is a trick, there is a self / observer, and since Materialism can't explain it, Materialism is a false diagnosis.

Skeptics, and similar pseudo-scientists, usually want to assert materialism and also insist on there existing an observer. Trouble is, you can't actually have both and be honest.

The Observer is the skeptic's personal God. Not one shred of evidence but they'll fight to the hilt to defend it. If our culture moves on from this foolishness, future generations will no doubt laugh hysterically at this situation. Skeptics, ridiculing people who believe in some external God, whilst themselves absolutely maintaining that this unexamined premise of an Observer, for which not one shred of physical evidence exists, must somehow be present inside their brain!

 

[Nick227]

Observations can't testify in court. Only observers (aka witnesses) can. (See, e.g. the Sixth Amendment.) If you can prove there's no observer, then eyewitness evidence will no longer have any incriminating value.

This proof should therefore be worth millions to high-profile defense attorneys.

Eyewitness accounts are absolutely fine. Though increasingly the courts take them at reduced value anyway, veridical perception being on the way out generally. There's nothing in this to stop the brain making representations, and creating verbal reports in a pseudo-first person.

But money is always nice, it's true. Tell you what, Myriad. Put £50 in my paypal account and I'll write in saying it's all a hoax, and there really is an observer. Hell, make it £100 and I'll tell you that God, Santa and the Tooth Fairy all exist too! Deal?

 

[Nick227]

Yep, that should about do it.

The thing is, Nick, that even if I were to doubt my self as an observer (perhaps out of fear of being tricked by some deceptive memeplex), I notice (or if you prefer, noticing consistently occurs) that everyone else behaves as an observer of me. People see me and say things like, "Is that a new haircut?" or "How did you injure that arm?" or "Please don't play that trombone during this flight." Even my dog observes when I pick up her leash and starts jumping at the door.

(The machine intelligence must of course reach the same logical conclusion, upon detecting people saying or implying by their behavior "I see you have a gun.")

So, being forced to conclude that everyone else I meet is, at least at times, an observer, why should I entertain the hypothesis that I myself am the only exception? By far the more parsimonious hypothesis is that I am similar to everyone else in such regards.

I'm not asking you to go on daytime TV, with wild eyes proclaiming to the world that no one is really seeing this. I'm just giving you the option to be honest.

 

[Nick227]

You say scientists "must still bow and scrape daily to the idea of a watcher on the inside", that is a "fact" is it (you expressed no caution in saying it)? OK, so you can you now present the evidence showing that scientists have indeed agreed that they are now "bowing and scraping" to a "watcher on the inside"? Where is the evidence that any scientists have said any such thing?

Well, for a start read this thread. I don't know the scientific credentials of the posters, but pretty much all agree... there really must be an observer. And no one has produced one shred of evidence for its existence.

And then go one step further. Check out Giulio Tononi, currently consciousness researcher of the month, and his Integrated Information Theory. Read the abstract online. Straight in he's making total assumptions that an observer must exist. Then Chalmers. Then Searle. Then Hoffman. Then Graziano. Go through the whole lot. They're all doing it. Not just using the observer as a means for communication or scientific experiment. But actually integrating it into their whole theoretical perspective as an absolute given.

The Observer is the scientist's own personal God Delusion.

 

[Nick227]

I am reading about 'quantum Darwinism' (QD). I do not claim to be an expert on QD. However, let me present what I conjecture is the 'observer' in QD. As far as I understand it:

The observer is any complex system with discrete 'indicator states'. A 'complex system' is a quantum system with a very large number of degrees of freedom. In other words, it is a 'wave function' with lots of independent variables. An indicator state is a sum of eigenvalues that correspond to what humans have evolved to call 'measurements'. If the indicator states were really isolated from the rest of the observer, then they could remain in mixed states. However, these mixed states are unstable in the complex wave function. Eventually, the wave function of the complex system evolves into a pure state.

The sensory organs are one type of observer. The wave functions for a typical sensory organ contain many degrees of freedom.

The mammalian retina is one example. The typical retina can have millions atoms whose eigenvalues each of which will transition in the course of time over a large range of eigenvalues. There are molecules attached to the retina that we designate by the chemical name 'rhodopsin'. The 'indicator states' are geometric configurations of the rhodopsin molecule. They are affected by the presence of an electromagnetic wave which is also a quantum system.

Light can cause the rhodopsin molecule to be in a mixed state of geometric states. However, the rest of the retina makes the mixed state unstable. So the system 'collapses' into a pure indicator state.

Whew! Well, I am just starting with QD. Never the less, the brain is not in and of itself causing the collapse. The 'collapse' occurs in a short time within the retina. The collapse, also called decoherence, is basically a thermal process. It is random in the sense of unpredictable only because the observer is too complex to be known in its entirety.

The following analogy is conjectured by me. The observer is basically a wave with so much complexity that no one can characterize it completely. The quantum system is random in the sense that turbulence is random. While turbulence involves complex systems made of classical particles, quantum Darwinism involves complex wave forms consistent with quantum mechanics. In the way

The brain, as I see it, is sufficient but not necessary for decoherence. The brain is very complex in the sense of having a large number of degrees of freedom. It also has a large number of indicator states which refer to the most stable combinations of wave functions. So it can itself be an observer in the sense of causing decoherence. However, one can have decoherence without a brain.

Experiments have been done demonstrating decoherence of a quantum system triggered (electrons, molecules) merely by thermal radiation. The thermal radiation is obviously not a 'brain' in any sense. Yet, it does what physicists would call a 'measurement'. The 'measurement' IS the onset of decoherence.

I would state it this way. Observation, as described by physicists, is the onset of decoherence. The decoherence is caused by a very complex quantum system, the measurement apparatus, interacting with a simpler quantum system. The complex system does not have a brain or even consciousness, whatever that is. The 'observer' just has to be very complex.

Even thermal radiation can be an 'observer', in this sense. Thermal radiation is very complex, in that it has a large number of independent components.

I put it to you that you are just trying to reverse engineer an observer with a heap of delusional waffle.

 

[annnnoid]

Correct.

There's no actual need or function for an observer, outside of social communication, also no evidence for its existence. There are also highly viable direct explanations for how the brain can create merely the sense of there being an observer, without one actually existing.

Skeptics, and similar pseudo-scientists, usually want to assert materialism and also insist on there existing an observer. Trouble is, you can't actually have both and be honest.

The Observer is the skeptic's personal God. Not one shred of evidence but they'll fight to the hilt to defend it. If our culture moves on from this foolishness, future generations will no doubt laugh hysterically at this situation. Skeptics, ridiculing people who believe in some external God, whilst themselves absolutely maintaining that this unexamined premise of an Observer, for which not one shred of physical evidence exists, must somehow be present inside their brain!

Do you want evidence, or do you want physical evidence, or do you want both?

 

[Myriad]

I'm not asking you to go on daytime TV, with wild eyes proclaiming to the world that no one is really seeing this. I'm just giving you the option to be honest.

By this nonsensical non-responsive reply you are unable to address or contradict my points, including that my dog, which notices and reacts when I pick up her leash, is an observer. Observing is the behavior, the property, of the organism as a whole, therefore the organism is an observer.

All other distinctions, such as whether or not the "observer" is the same as or part of the subjective "I," are semantic, like arguing whether my car's motive power resides in its engine or in its fuel tank. There is an observer, and it is the organism. I am such an organism, therefore I too, like everyone I have ever interacted with, am an observer. Simple.

 

[Myriad]

But money is always nice, it's true. Tell you what, Myriad. Put £50 in my paypal account and I'll write in saying it's all a hoax, and there really is an observer. Hell, make it £100 and I'll tell you that God, Santa and the Tooth Fairy all exist too! Deal?

I pointed out you could make millions by convincingly demonstrating the truth of your claims. It does not follow from this that your not doing do so would be worth a few squiggly L's, or anything at all.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I am absolutely not trying to stop the behaviour of science, Ron.

But you did open a thread proposing the absurd notion that Materialism is the devastator of the scientific method because "blablabla, there is no such thing as an observer blablabla" nonsense, which I just explained to you in a concise sentence why it doesn't check out. So if you agree with me that Materialism doesn't get in the way of doing science, we can put this silly thread to rest.

 

[SusanB-M1]

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...

No doubt others here have already responded to this post, but I am catching up and have arrived at this point.
If something is 'a reflection of God', then I ask for your definition of God.

ETA Yes, quite a few posts; but I haven't seen such a definition.
However, I see that Joe Bentley (I think it was his post), to whose posts I am regularly saying , 'hear, hear', said something about not using definitions, so I defer to him!

 

[IanS]

So the answer is "God"? Your claims are some sort of religious mysticism?

You say scientists "must still bow and scrape daily to the idea of a watcher on the inside", that is a "fact" is it (you expressed no caution in saying it)? OK, so you can you now present the evidence showing that scientists have indeed agreed that they are now "bowing and scraping" to a "watcher on the inside"? Where is the evidence that any scientists have said any such thing?

Remember it was you who said scientists must do that. So if it's a certainty (ie "must" be true, according to you), then they "must" be doing it. So please show where any scientists agree that they are indeed "bowing and scraping" to any such thing? Or is it just a worthless semantic word-game from you?

Well, for a start read this thread. I don't know the scientific credentials of the posters, but pretty much all agree... there really must be an observer. And no one has produced one shred of evidence for its existence.

And then go one step further. Check out Giulio Tononi, currently consciousness researcher of the month, and his Integrated Information Theory. Read the abstract online. Straight in he's making total assumptions that an observer must exist. Then Chalmers. Then Searle. Then Hoffman. Then Graziano. Go through the whole lot. They're all doing it. Not just using the observer as a means for communication or scientific experiment. But actually integrating it into their whole theoretical perspective as an absolute given.

The Observer is the scientist's own personal God Delusion.

Firstly, it's up to me (not you) whether I bother to read all of your posts in the whole thread (something which I expect would be a complete waste my time and everyone else's). And secondly on that point, the above reply was to one specific post of yours. And that's a post where you are wrong for the reasons I just pointed out. That is - you cannot show that research scientists agree that they are now "bowing and scraping" to a "watcher on the inside". So perhaps you would like to admit that scientists have not said any such thing, and in fact it's just you who is saying that as your own un-evidenced claim.

And if when you say "there really must be an observer. And no one has produced one shred of evidence for its existence", you mean that people do no exist, then you must show some real evidence for that claim. Because science, as well as every other activity ever known to anyone, shows that all evidence is to the complete contrary of what you say.

So ... please produce your evidence showing that people do not exist.

 

[Mojo]

Eyewitness accounts are absolutely fine.

What conveys them to the court?

 

[tsig]

y.

.

!

?

.

e.

Did someone just make some posts? Nah, it can't be since there's nobody there.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, for a start read this thread. I don't know the scientific credentials of the posters, but pretty much all agree... there really must be an observer. And no one has produced one shred of evidence for its existence.

OK... So, since this is your claim, what is your evidence that the thing everyone but you calls an observer is not an observer?

Hans

 

[Nick227]

By this nonsensical non-responsive reply you are unable to address or contradict my points, including that my dog, which notices and reacts when I pick up her leash, is an observer. Observing is the behavior, the property, of the organism as a whole, therefore the organism is an observer.

All other distinctions, such as whether or not the "observer" is the same as or part of the subjective "I," are semantic, like arguing whether my car's motive power resides in its engine or in its fuel tank. There is an observer, and it is the organism. I am such an organism, therefore I too, like everyone I have ever interacted with, am an observer. Simple.

Yes, the brain can and does learn to behave as though an actual observer exists, no problem. But no one is seeing, Myriad. Neural representations are not seen by anyone. Contrary to what Dan believes. Agreed? Whatever is in front of you now. No one is seeing that... agreed?

 

[Nick227]

But you did open a thread proposing the absurd notion that Materialism is the devastator of the scientific method because "blablabla, there is no such thing as an observer blablabla" nonsense, which I just explained to you in a concise sentence why it doesn't check out. So if you agree with me that Materialism doesn't get in the way of doing science, we can put this silly thread to rest.

I said it doesn't get in the way of measuring. You wanna measure, measure away. But the significance of measuring is diminished without objectivity. The meaning of measuring is diminished without objectivity.

 

[Nick227]

OK... So, since this is your claim, what is your evidence that the thing everyone but you calls an observer is not an observer?

Hans

You want me to produce evidence that something, which no one can find evidence for, isn't there?

 

[abaddon]

Yes, the brain can and does learn to behave as though an actual observer exists, no problem. But no one is seeing, Myriad. Neural representations are not seen by anyone. Contrary to what Dan believes. Agreed? Whatever is in front of you now. No one is seeing that... agreed?

Your notional observer, which you claim does not exist, is indistinguishable from what the brain actually does.