Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[tsig]

Can you explain what this difference is?

Seconded.

It doesn't seem to make a difference in this thread, those who say 'they' don't exist still keep posting as if they do.

 

[annnnoid]

Can you explain what this difference is?

The point is…the difference between woo and not-woo is nothing like as black and white as Joe, and many others, would like to think. As I pointed out earlier, given the degree of ignorance about just about everything, we are all…according to commonly applied skeptic paradigms…woo.

So when I see someone flinging the word ‘woo’ around…I just figure they’re too lazy to come up with a real argument.

No. Any sensible definition of God will be supernatural, and thus unfalsifiable.

But ‘supernatural’ is no more than a condition that we have yet to determine the naturalness of. Thus it is merely a matter of not having the right tools…just like you said.

We can have one, though. Yours, and Nick's may not be falsifiable (I don't know either), but it is not hard at all to make one. Myriad's, for instance, is quite falsifiable.

So ‘falsifiable’ is the metric by which we determine the accuracy of our conclusion???? Isn’t that somehow backwards? Shouldn’t we be locating our conclusion and then deciding if it is falsifiable? And no, Myriad’s definition is not falsifiable.

Yes there is. The materialist position is falsifiable: 'I' is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex brain. Just correlate the perception of 'I' with complecity of brain and brain function.

….’just’ !!!! And where do you see this occurring??? What does ‘perception of I’ even mean? Once again, the fundamental flaws of the reductionist materialist position are exposed….that because a word (in this case…’I’) occurs in some way shape or form it must have not only some manner of generic empirical meaning (‘I’ is this and not that) but must also exist equivalently across any variety of neural landscapes. Both conclusions have been demonstrated to be false. IOW…what ‘I’ means to one person is frequently not identical to what ‘I’ means to another (people describe / express fundamental identity in numerous highly personal forms)…and the neural correlates (to the degree that they can even be established) that represent some manner of ‘I’ for one individual rarely are equivalent for another. Not to mention that a neural correlate that may, at one time, have been somehow correlated to whatever ‘I’ is…cannot necessarily be assumed to represent that same condition at a later time.

…but I guess when we have these fictional tools that don’t yet exist all of this will be resolved.

Duh. Of course a representation is conditional. What else should it be?

…I said ‘highly’. Quite obviously, all conclusions are conditional.

I didn't say they were trivial, as in simple. They are quite complex. However, they are not very important, till such time as we are able to investigate them objectively. To put is a bit simply: We know the answer, but the question still eludes us.

We most indisputably and demonstrably do not know the answer. Unless, by ‘knowing the answer’ you mean ‘we have a word for this thing therefore we know what it is’.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The point is…the difference between woo and not-woo is nothing like as black and white as Joe, and many others, would like to think. As I pointed out earlier, given the degree of ignorance about just about everything, we are all…according to commonly applied skeptic paradigms…woo.

1. That's not an answer.

2. The fact that "science doesn't know everything" doesn't give you blank check to fill those gaps in with anything you want.

 

[annnnoid]

1. That's not an answer.

2. The fact that "science doesn't know everything" doesn't give you blank check to fill those gaps in with anything you want.

…actually, it does, but that’s an argument for another day.

1. So what are the gaps Joe? Here’s a couple just to get you started: Science does not have a clue what this universe actually is or how it came to be…nor can science even begin to explain how the epistemology of science itself is created by human beings. IOW...science does not know how science knows anything...at all. A little too abstract for you…why don’t we get a little closer to home…science cannot explain how you created a single letter or word of that post you just dumped here….and neither can you.

2. Constantly resorting to 'woo' as an argument is nothing but an excuse for ignorance. Dispense with it and I predict both your reception and your arguments will improve.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And we're back in the loop.

Bill: "Science can't explain X"
Ted: "Ah yes it can. X is perfectly understandable within established scientific concepts"
Bill sticks his fingers in his ears and dances around going "La la la I can't hear you la la la."

People keep saying "Science can't explain" things which is can perfectly explain.

People do get that "I don't like the answer" isn't the same thing as there not being an answer, right?

 

[ehcks]

Science can't explain "everything," whatever that even means, but it can explain far more than any individual is capable of learning in an entire lifetime. And yet it constantly endeavors to know more.

On the other side, mysticism can't explain anything and works very hard to keep it that way.

 

[ynot]

1. So what are the gaps Joe? Here’s a couple just to get you started: Science does not have a clue what this universe actually is or how it came to be…nor can science even begin to explain how the epistemology of science itself is created by human beings. IOW...science does not know how science knows anything...at all. A little too abstract for you…why don’t we get a little closer to home…science cannot explain how you created a single letter or word of that post you just dumped here….and neither can you.

Utter rubbish! We only have computers and the internet because science knows how to create and operate such things. Do you think all scientific achievements and advances are merely the product of accidental blunders that science doesn't understand?

What alternative method of attaining knowledge and explanations do you offer that's better than the scientific method? Put up or shut up!

2. Constantly resorting to 'woo' as an argument is nothing but an excuse for ignorance.

Yet you constantly resort to arguing that science is effectively “woo”.

Dispense with it and I predict both your reception and your arguments will improve.

Dispense with arguing that science is “woo” and I predict both your reception and your arguments will might improve.

 

[annnnoid]

And we're back in the loop.

Bill: "Science can't explain X"
Ted: "Ah yes it can. X is perfectly understandable within established scientific concepts"
Bill sticks his fingers in his ears and dances around going "La la la I can't hear you la la la."

People keep saying "Science can't explain" things which is can perfectly explain.

People do get that "I don't like the answer" isn't the same thing as there not being an answer, right?

It’s called evidence Joe. You won’t find a credible physicist who will claim to have an answer to those questions about the universe…nor will you find a credible neuroscientist who will claim to have an answer to the questions about how you created your post.

If you wish to challenge these conclusions all you need to do is present some evidence. So far all you do is wave your hands about and scream 'woo'.

What you will find are no shortage of credulous skeptics who are convinced science either has, can, or will find the answers to everything from here to eternity…including how you run your entire life. No difference between that and any other religion.

Science can't explain "everything," whatever that even means, but it can explain far more than any individual is capable of learning in an entire lifetime. And yet it constantly endeavors to know more.

It may explain far more than any individual is capable of learning but there isn’t an individual on this planet…including anyone who posts here (except for the unqualified crackpots…and they don’t know who they are anyway)…who uses anything but their own inherent capacity for reason, meaning, and feeling to successfully navigate their life.

IOW: No…science…required.

…and anyway (for those who have forgotten)…it is human beings who create science, not science that creates human beings. Get your algebra aligned!

On the other side, mysticism can't explain anything and works very hard to keep it that way.

The question is not whether or not mysticism can explain anything (it can, quite obviously)…the question is whether or not mysticism is anything, and how to find out. Science does not even begin to be able to answer that question…but once again, we have no shortage of skeptics who are quite willing to dispense with their mantra (the scientific method) and summarily dismiss the phenomena as fraudulent (woo woo woo woo woo).

Utter rubbish!

Utter rubbish is it? Then I’m sure you’ll be able to find me a physicist somewhere who can tell me what this universe actually is and how it got here? As for the neuroscience thing…here’s what the neuroscientists have to say about the matter:

“We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain.”

…actually, there has yet to emerge any consensus on what consciousness even is. But if you say it’s utter rubbish, I’m sure there’s a universe somewhere where you may actually be right.

We only have computers and the internet because science knows how to create and operate such things. Do you think all scientific achievements and advances are merely the product of accidental blunders that science doesn't understand?

…because that is clearly the argument I was making there.

What alternative method of attaining knowledge and explanations do you offer that's better than the scientific method? Put up or shut up!

People (including you) actually acquire knowledge about themselves and their lives…everywhere all the time…without the slightest scientific intervention what-so-ever. How do you suppose they manage to do that?

Yet you constantly resort to arguing that science is effectively “woo”.

Really. Care to point out where I have made that argument.

 

[marplots]

Utter rubbish! We only have computers and the internet because science knows engineers know how to create and operate such things. Do you think all scientific engineering achievements and advances are merely the product of accidental blunders that science doesn't engineers don't understand?

FTFY

What alternative method of attaining knowledge and explanations do you offer that's better than the scientific method? Put up or shut up!

Looking things up in textbooks. It's much less expensive (once you have a library or google) and many years worth of effort can be found in a few minutes of research. I refer to this as the Authority Method. Additional tools we AMs sometimes use are calculators and pre-written computer programs to "crunch the numbers." (We are also fond of colleges, where knowledge and explanations are obtained in classrooms.)

 

[LarryS]

Who said the running narrative is a fantasy? Construing nothing but fantasy would have no survival benefit to an evolving species and therefore would not evolve.

Perhaps fantasy is a little strong, so Ill soften and call it a fiction, which is integrated to various degrees with the narrative or person - - fiction meaning not that it is necessarily incorrect (though it is likely incomplete/cherry picked), but it is a map or representation of myself as a person - a representation that I fine-tune and perfect, and regularly put my attention on lest I forget any of the tasty morsels.

I think we can agree to this: the narrative is a brain state that is under constant modification from incoming photons, sound waves, changes in pressure, and collisions from memories and preferences, etc.

However, the narrative can not be the observer because this narrative itself is an object of experience - it is a representation we entertain, we can speak of it as a thing. We can insert new 'items' - and (perhaps try) remove the less desirable. So I think we need yet another 'brain state' to account for the observer or self that integrates to one degree or another with the narrative 'brain state'. And yet another brain state to maintain integration between the observer and the narrative. Good thing we have an endless supply of brain states.

 

[Mojo]

Can you explain what this difference is?

The point is…the difference between woo and not-woo is nothing like as black and white as Joe, and many others, would like to think. As I pointed out earlier, given the degree of ignorance about just about everything, we are all…according to commonly applied skeptic paradigms…woo.

So when I see someone flinging the word ‘woo’ around…I just figure they’re too lazy to come up with a real argument.

That's nothing to do with the point that Joe was making, and therefore nothing to do with the question I asked. Here's the point you replied to, also quoting what came before it for context:

If there's no non-philosophical difference between a world with an observer and one without it's meaningless.

If there's no non-philosophical difference between a world that doesn't exist outside my mind and one that does it's meaningless.

If there's no non-philosophical difference between a world with an objective reality and one with a flibbity floobily woo reality it's meaningless.

It's easy people. Unless the difference actually makes a difference it's not a difference, it's a distinction without a point

To which you replied:

…but Joe, it does make a difference. Some people can comprehend the difference. You do not appear to be one of them. Perhaps you should take some time off from your woo-bashing-pulpit and investigate whether or not that matters.

So, once again, what, other than that one has an observer and the other doesn't, is the difference between a world with an observer and one without if the observer makes no observable difference? What is the difference between a naked emperor and an emperor clad in completely undetectable garments?

 

[Mojo]

What alternative method of attaining knowledge and explanations do you offer that's better than the scientific method? Put up or shut up!

Looking things up in textbooks. It's much less expensive (once you have a library or google) and many years worth of effort can be found in a few minutes of research. I refer to this as the Authority Method. Additional tools we AMs sometimes use are calculators and pre-written computer programs to "crunch the numbers." (We are also fond of colleges, where knowledge and explanations are obtained in classrooms.)

This is the approach used in medieval times, when it was assumed that all knowledge was to be found in the writings of the Ancients.

 

[The Man]

...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.

Why does it have to be "mystical"? "I" is simply a self reference resulting from the perception of self observation.

... er, allowing the brain

My brain is part of me, as are my eyes and my hands.

...er, reference...

Actually simply taking note of something wouldn't be a reference, however making an observation about what was taken note of generally would.

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.

You are not a "Sinclair ZX". Why do you want to pretend to be one? Can't you take ownership of your own 'corrections', your own desire for others to have a "personal God" or your own interpretation of some "Fantasy Island version" of materialism? Do your opinions just seem all that more true or objective to you when you just pretend there is no you? Oh wait that's right according to you, no subject means no objectivity. So even without a you it is all still just you.

 

[The Man]

I mean someone that sees conscious processing.

I asked you before if you were limiting observer to a conscious observer and you said no that you were asserting no observes at all.

So now that you have explicitly asserted that it is in fact "conscious processing" that your observer in question is, well, observing the next question is of course what constitutes "someone" in that assertion?

 

[The Man]

There is experience but no one experiences.

Therefore with homeopathy, there are experienced homeopaths but patients don't experience any healing.

It all ties together!

The real rub of it Myriad is that there is then no need of homeopathy, as no one experiences diseases either.

 

[The Man]

Dan and I might disagree, then.

No place we ain't never been before Paul2.

Though on discussion I'd expect we'd find that was not the case this time.

To put it simply just try to visualize something, perhaps something you have never seen before. Can you see it? If so then what you are seeing is just your visual cortex processing neurological data you generated. You're, in this case, quite literally seeing nothing but a neurological representation.

 

[MRC_Hans]

But ‘supernatural’ is no more than a condition that we have yet to determine the naturalness of. Thus it is merely a matter of not having the right tools…just like you said.

(I had said: "Any sensible definition of God will be supernatural, and thus unfalsifiable.")

Incorrect. Supernatural is something that defeats the laws of nature. Certainly, there are things that have been taken as supernatural (or would have, had we known about them) in the past, of which we now know a natural explanation, but the term 'supernatural' refers to such things that do not have a natural explanation. You may claim that many things we currently place in the category will eventually find a naturalistic explanantion, but god is certainly not among them. God, as the creator of the universe, per definition transcends naturalism.

So ‘falsifiable’ is the metric by which we determine the accuracy of our conclusion???? Isn’t that somehow backwards? Shouldn’t we be locating our conclusion and then deciding if it is falsifiable? And no, Myriad’s definition is not falsifiable.

No it is not that metric. It is the prerequisite for a claim if we can discuss, let alone explore it in a scientific way.

Myriad's claim (and that of many others here) that the observer is a brain function, is falsifiable; if you can show an observer that is NOT a brain function, it will be falsified.

….’just’ !!!! And where do you see this occurring??? What does ‘perception of I’ even mean?

I very much hope that you know that. Don't you perceive yourself as an "I"?

Once again, the fundamental flaws of the reductionist materialist position are exposed….that because a word (in this case…’I’) occurs in some way shape or form it must have not only some manner of generic empirical meaning (‘I’ is this and not that) but must also exist equivalently across any variety of neural landscapes.

Straw man. The materialist position is that the "I" that we perceive (well, some of us ) is the only "I" there is. When non-materialists claim that their "I" is something else, we point out that they must provide the evidence.

Both conclusions have been demonstrated to be false. IOW…what ‘I’ means to one person is frequently not identical to what ‘I’ means to another (people describe / express fundamental identity in numerous highly personal forms)…and the neural correlates (to the degree that they can even be established) that represent some manner of ‘I’ for one individual rarely are equivalent for another.

Whish is exactly what is to be expected of an "I" that is formed in the individual brain, based on the sum of experiences, perceptions, and influences working on the individudal.

Why on Earth would you expect that our individual "I"s should be equivalent?

Not to mention that a neural correlate that may, at one time, have been somehow correlated to whatever ‘I’ is…cannot necessarily be assumed to represent that same condition at a later time.

Exactly the materialist position! "You" are not the same now as you were yesterday (or before you read this post ). Seems you have indeed understood the materialist position. Now you only need to grasp it.

Hans

 

[JoeMorgue]

Essentially we always return to the ineffable reality of being.

No we don't. Not all of us are interested in how many angels can dance on the head of a split hair.

The fact that "you" exist to begin the argument of "you" existing is enough for most of us.

It's you and Nick and others demanding that "you" be defined in some specific semantic trap "gotcha" way that you claim is incompatible with your narrow, strawman version of what science is, so you can play the age old "Science is flawed, therefore Woo" card.

We exist as whatever an observer / experiencer is (thus confirming that there is such a thing). Nick227 seems to be arguing that since science cannot empirically represent ‘I’ then ‘I’ does not exist. A rather peculiar brand of logic which, if consistently applied, would significantly disrupt just about everything…including science.

And that's the whole stupid, childish point. Science doesn't get along with Nick's pet Woo, so he's just gonna pull down his pants and take a big steaming load on the whole concept.

Science works. It gives us a view of the world and a methodology for extracting information from that world that gives us the greatest possible chance of obtaining correct information and the greatest possible chance of predicting new information.

Woo doesn't. Magic doesn't. Religion doesn't. Astrology doesn't. Reading tea leaves or a goat's entails doesn't. Taking peyote doesn't. Banging your head against the wall until you fall down and see God doesn't.

You can split the hair on all the sad "But Science can't explain the duality of the epistemology of the function of the a priori knowledge of the qualia of the materialism of the consciousness of the butterfly dreaming he's a mind jacked into the a Matrix simulation of a brain in a jar on the walls of Plato's cave out beyond the event horizon of the formless" semantic silly word games you want and it won't change that fact.

If I throw a rock at your head, you'll still duck. You exist. I exist. The rock exists. Pretending any of those facts are really up for debate just because you've got a chip on your shoulder that some pet Woo you have got it's feelings hurt is hypocritical nonsense.

 

[annnnoid]

(snip)

Hans

None of this addresses the central questions. You made the following claim about the falsifiability of the materialist position:

Yes there is. The materialist position is falsifiable: 'I' is an emergent property of a sufficiently complex brain. Just correlate the perception of 'I' with complexity of brain and brain function.

Science does not proceed from whatever ad hoc definitions may suit your objectives...

So…how do you go about doing this, specifically? How, for example, do you explicitly, empirically define ‘perception of I’ (just to be clear, I’m not interested in some vague metaphysics…metaphysics can’t be falsified…I want quantifiable metrics)? How do you differentiate ‘perception of I’ from ‘not perception of I’? Is it sufficient for someone to merely claim…’yup…I am currently engaged in a perception of I’? If some manner of intelligible vocabulary is required, how do we adjudicate the condition in those who lack this capacity…or are we to assume that they simply lack the condition as well?

…and…

How is it possible to explicitly adjudicate the neural correlates of this ‘condition’ (assuming it can even be cognitively differentiated…which it currently cannot be) when there is currently no way to differentiate neural activity to anything like the necessary degree of granularity (or is your entire claim predicated on the availability of these mythical scanning technologies????)? My apologies…it’s a stupidly academic question simply because nobody has any idea what degree of fidelity is even required (or what specific neural geography is involved)…but these are your claims…so your evidence.

…and…

How is it possible to establish, explicitly and specifically (empirically…IOW) exactly how ‘complex’ a brain needs to be before an ‘I’ can emerge? This is hardly an insignificant question (none of them are) given the stature and qualities that we attribute to this thing we call ‘I’. It can hardly be more relevant to be able to adjudicate with extreme precision exactly what the word ‘complexity’ means and exactly how this metric can be applied to adjudicate the existence (or non-existence) of intelligent life.

Science works. Woo doesn't.

…and that, of course, is all that is required to describe life, the universe, and everything.

Science did not create that post…JFYI. You did. If nothing but science works, how did you manage to create that post? It is encouraging to see how committed you are to your delusional thinking but you would probably benefit from a more expansive perspective.

 

[abaddon]

Science did not create that post…JFYI. You did. If nothing but science works, how did you manage to create that post? It is encouraging to see how committed you are to your delusional thinking but you would probably benefit from a more expansive perspective.

So how did you get to read it?