• 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:
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...
Why would an “inner watcher/observer” be any less a delusion than an “outer watcher/observer”?

What does an “inner watcher/observer” watch/observe?
 
Last edited:
Nick227 said:
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.<snipped "God" comment>
Click to expand...



The very same argument, save the snipped "God" comment, is being made in the "Dilation of Time Dilemma"; that time is just an ingrained human notion. That poster isn't getting any traction either.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
ynot said:
Why would an “inner watcher/observer” be any less a delusion than an “outer watcher/observer”?
Click to expand...

Because Nick claims so. Evidence? None.

This is why I have a problem with philobumbling. They make it seem all so simple, but it never works in the real world and even though that is true, I know that the very next question from them will be "How do you know what is real?" or something similar.
 
Nick227 said:
I'm not disputing the existence of experiencing. I'm disputing the existence of an experiencer.




You can measure an observer?
Click to expand...

How do you experience without an experiencer?
Can a ruler measure itself?
 
abaddon said:
Sure. If anyone could figure out what it is that Nick is claiming.
Click to expand...

One of his* claims is that we are all dumb for not seeing the obvious truth of what he* is saying.

*for certain definitions of his/he:)
 
Nick227 said:
You want me to produce evidence that something, which no one can find evidence for, isn't there?
Click to expand...

I ask you to present evidence for your claim, and you ask me what you claim is?

...

Sorry, cant help you there. As far as I can see, you don't really have a claim.

Hans
 
abaddon said:
I suppose the next question wil be what "NYD" means. Good grief.
Click to expand...

...snip...

Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rule 0 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nick227 said:
The sense exists. The observer doesn't.
Click to expand...


Which "observers" are these that do not exist?

Scientists (and all other humans, as well as all animals) are said to "observe" all sorts of things, that is absolutely normal use of language, and it's the correct use of language.

The human (or the animal) is in that case (that is every case, by definition), by definition, the "observer".

You just said explicitly that such "observers" do not exist. And that, by definition of your own use of English language, means humans inc. scientists ...

.... So please produce the evidence to back up your own claim that scientists and humans do not exist.
 
abaddon said:
Sure. If anyone could figure out what it is that Nick is claiming.
Click to expand...


I must admit that I'm having trouble figuring out which bits are Nick's claims and which bits are his claims about what 'scientists' or 'materialists' claim.
 
Nick227 said:
But surely now it's time to put this illusion to rest and see what neural reality would look like if we were not driven to try and factor in or model an observer into the equation. If no one sees consciousness, what does this say about so-called unconscious processing, for example?

Are you willing to take that step and investigate?
Click to expand...

What you seem to be saying is that:

A true scientist must not have any metacognitive skills. You are also boasting about your lack of metacognitive skills.

All self examination is futile because it involves modeling the observer, which in this case is oneself. Second guessing oneself is futile because to change ones conclusions requires a model of ones own consciousness.

If the observer is an illusion, then all observation is an illusion. Every scientific field must avoid protocols on how data is collected. Experimental protocol is misleading because to develop a protocol requires an examination of the observer.

NIST scientists should be ignored if not fired. Metrology is unscientific because it analyzes the process of observation. Calibrating an instrument is unscientific because it involves modeling the observer. Every sensory experience has to be accepted as a data because to do otherwise involves modeling the observer.

Engineers don't need standards because setting standards requires the examination of the observer. A real science relies on what works rather than the quality of the observation. One can never evaluate the significance of an observation because to do so involves analyzing the observer.


What should we call this observer free science? I have an opinion! Call it 'Solipsism for Dummies'!
 
Nick227 said:
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.
Click to expand...


There you go again. What do you mean by ‘evidence’…physical or otherwise?

Not to mention…where is the ‘physical evidence’ for this statement:

Nick227 said:
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.
Click to expand...


…actually, don’t bother. There isn’t any. Neither Dennet, nor Blackmore, nor you can produce anything remotely resembling empirically falsifiable predictive evidence for this conclusion.

IOW…there is no ‘physical evidence.’

Not to mention that there is vast amounts of evidence for the existence of an observer. You are encountering it right here right now at this thread. Just about everybody who is posting is utterly convinced that they exist.

That is called evidence. That it cannot be empirically adjudicated in no way shape or form infringes on its evidentiary value. It merely makes any conclusions conditional.

So…your argument fails on two counts:

Your assertion that the sense of self is nothing more than conditioning begun at birth is pure speculation with nothing more than the barest scraps of what you yourself would define as ‘physical evidence’ to substantiate it.

…and…

Your assertion that there is no evidence for the observer is flatly contradicted by, if nothing else, the utter conviction of virtually every poster on each of your two threads who insists that they do, in fact, exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom