• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

Nick227 said:
Not Even Wrong... just to mention that not many people take epiphenomenalism seriously these days. Certainly it does't represent the major body of materialist thought on consciousness.
Click to expand...

That may be true -- I don't follow mainstream philosphy. I guess it boils down to two questions for me, then:

1) Is epiphenomenalism rejected by consensus?

2) If we assume materialism is true AND epiphenomenalism is NOT true, then qualia (and a subjective experience) can not exist? Or... is there an alternate materialism definition of mind/qualia/subjective experience that does not call it an epiphenomenon (I have no idea on this, but I've never heard one).

I tend to think while maybe epiphenomenalism isn't talked about as much anymore, it still has its proponents. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
So... it seems like you are saying that, according to materialism, things like qualia don't actually exist. So trying to explain qualia in terms of neurons and their interactions (a material foundation) won't get very far since according to materialism qualia don't exist in the first place?
Click to expand...

Not quite, but similar. I'm saying that qualia might exist, but no one is experiencing them.

Generally, those who detract from materialist theories of consciousness assert that there is a primacy to experience which cannot be explained by neural behaviour. This primacy is down to their rigid belief in an Observer, in my opinion.

Their unconscious assertion of an Observer reinforces the perspective that qualia must be more than neural behaviour. Qualia without an experiencer are a great deal less convincing!

I think you still may need to show that materialism implies qualia cannot "actually exist". It could be an epiphenomenon, for instance.
Click to expand...

Materialism doesn't assert that qualia can't exist, if you ask me.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
That may be true -- I don't follow mainstream philosphy. I guess it boils down to two questions for me, then:

1) Is epiphenomenalism rejected by consensus?

2) If we assume materialism is true AND epiphenomenalism is NOT true, then qualia (and a subjective experience) can not exist? Or... is there an alternate materialism definition of mind/qualia/subjective experience that does not call it an epiphenomenon (I have no idea on this, but I've never heard one).

I tend to think while maybe epiphenomenalism isn't talked about as much anymore, it still has its proponents. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert but I don't see much research focus going in that direction.

If you're sincerely interested, check out these guys for the latest in fashionable theories of consciousness - Giulio Tononi, Don Hoffman, Mike Graziano. The last might actually be close to resolving the so-called Hard Problem once and for all, by providing an actual materialist theory for experiential awareness. I'm not quite convinced myself and it's a bit off topic anyway.
 
Nick227 said:
Not quite, but similar. I'm saying that qualia might exist, but no one is experiencing them.
Click to expand...
Meaningless. Unicorns might exist if nobody is experiencing them. Or Bigfoot. Or Fairies.

Nick227 said:
Generally, those who detract from materialist theories of consciousness assert that there is a primacy to experience which cannot be explained by neural behaviour. This primacy is down to their rigid belief in an Observer, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
All you have is your opinion. Right.

Nick227 said:
Their unconscious assertion of an Observer reinforces the perspective that qualia must be more than neural behaviour. Qualia without an experiencer are a great deal less convincing!
Click to expand...
Nope. What you are attempting to do is create an artificial gap into which you may insert whatever belief you prefer. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Nick227 said:
Materialism doesn't assert that qualia can't exist, if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Nobody asked you.
 
abaddon said:
Strawman. Nobody brought it up but you. Same as "god" was not in the discussion until you brought it up.
Click to expand...

I'm not discussing God. I'm not remotely interested in discussing God. I'm pointing out that whilst scientists have dealt with the outside watcher, they're still utterly in the thrall of the notion of an inner watcher.
 
I used to come here to test out my papers before I turned them in as well. Then I realized it was a form of cheating.
 
Nick227 said:
Not quite, but similar. I'm saying that qualia might exist, but no one is experiencing them.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with this. And how can qualia exist if no one is experiencing them? Are you saying the "concept" exists (as in, it has been defined) but no one actually experiences it?

Generally, those who detract from materialist theories of consciousness assert that there is a primacy to experience which cannot be explained by neural behaviour. This primacy is down to their rigid belief in an Observer, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand what you mean by observer; you attempted to define it as one who sees conscious processes. Again, what do you mean by a "conscious process" and how do you "see" it? Do you just mean someone who is conscious and has subjective experiences?

Their unconscious assertion of an Observer reinforces the perspective that qualia must be more than neural behaviour. Qualia without an experiencer are a great deal less convincing!
Click to expand...

Still don't know what you mean by "an Observer".
 
Nick227 said:
I'm not discussing God. I'm not remotely interested in discussing God. I'm pointing out that whilst scientists have dealt with the outside watcher, they're still utterly in the thrall of the notion of an inner watcher.
Click to expand...

I have to assume by "inner watcher" you mean one who subjectively experiences the world (what you have been calling an Observer). The scientific reason an "inner watcher" arises from brain activity is utterly fascinating, so of course scientists and philosophers are interested in the problem.

Why do you think it's "bad" (for lack of a better word) for scientists to work on this problem? Are you just saying, "because it doesn't actually exist, they just think it does or are assuming it does."? Because if so, you need to show why it doesn't actually exist (or whatever it is you're getting it).

I feel like you're giving me the run around here.
 
NotEvenWrong said:
Don't agree with this. And how can qualia exist if no one is experiencing them? Are you saying the "concept" exists (as in, it has been defined) but no one actually experiences it?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the concept of qualia exists. I'm saying that qualia, as in the colour blue or the experience of sadness, exist. I'm saying no one experiences these things.

There is no actual physical evidence of any kind for an experiencer or observer. It is simply that the brain is conditioned from early infancy to behave as though these things exist. It's a group behaviour constantly socially reinforced, and hugely evolutionarily favoured, but actually rotating around the belief in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The Observer belief is highly analogous to the belief in God, essentially.
 
Last edited:
NotEvenWrong said:
I have to assume by "inner watcher" you mean one who subjectively experiences the world (what you have been calling an Observer). The scientific reason an "inner watcher" arises from brain activity is utterly fascinating, so of course scientists and philosophers are interested in the problem.

Why do you think it's "bad" (for lack of a better word) for scientists to work on this problem? Are you just saying, "because it doesn't actually exist, they just think it does or are assuming it does."? Because if so, you need to show why it doesn't actually exist (or whatever it is you're getting it).

I feel like you're giving me the run around here.
Click to expand...

No runaround. And I have no problem with anyone trying to prove the illusion to be true or false. It may even be a useful illusion at not just a social, but neural, level. But there is no evidence for the existence of an experiencer or observer of consciousness.
 
Nick227 said:
I'm saying that the concept of qualia exists. I'm saying that qualia, as in the colour blue or the experience of sadness, exist. I'm saying no one experiences these things.

There is no actual physical evidence of any kind for an experiencer or observer. It is simply that the brain is conditioned from early infancy to behave as though these things exist. It's a group behaviour constantly socially reinforced, and hugely evolutionarily favoured, but actually rotating around the belief in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The Observer belief is highly analogous to the belief in God, essentially.
Click to expand...

Eh. OK, I see what you're saying. But I definitely see blue rather than 475 nm photons. You're going to have a really hard time convincing me that this is socially ingrained rather than physical+biological. Have you provided an argument in that other thread or are you just asserting this?
 
Nick227 said:
Ron,

No one is perceiving. It's an illusion. Useful for communication, but not real. Now... where is objectivity without a limited subject?
Click to expand...

So you're not perceiving this post?
If you can't have any objectivity about this post, or even this whole thread if everything being said here and everything being perceived (read) is all subjective, how can you or anyone aspire to have any objectivity on this discussion?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom