Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[tsig]

So how did you get to read it?

Being an "I" while denying there is an "I" is inherently self contradicting.

 

[Mojo]

If nothing but science works, how did you manage to create that post?

Strawman. Nobody has suggested that science is the only entity capable of doing anything.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

Okay you are aware that "Science" isn't this singular physical thing that's walking around and doing stuff right?

"Science" is a method. The mental processes which created that post, yes every step of that process, is 100% understandable under that method.

 

[marplots]

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.

It's a good method. I can't speak for all AMs, but I wouldn't claim that all knowledge is accessible this way, only sufficient knowledge. We are also not much interested in where the knowledge came from originally or by what method (divine inspiration, raw reasoning power, experiments). The pragmatics of having recipes available for us when we require them is enough. It's the "what works" test.

Some AMs would argue that we have actually run past the goal of sufficient knowledge and did so at the point when no single human could grasp it all in a lifetime. It's an interesting benchmark, although I don't put much importance on it.

 

[Mojo]

It's a good method. I can't speak for all AMs, but I wouldn't claim that all knowledge is accessible this way, only sufficient knowledge. We are also not much interested in where the knowledge came from originally or by what method (divine inspiration, raw reasoning power, experiments).

For you method to work, it would need to have come from from looking things up in textbooks.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's nothing in the concept of science that requires every person to start at square one when obtaining knowledge.

This is another common go-to "gotcha" argument that you hear from the Woo Slingers, that there is something in science that means that every single person has to start from "1+1=2" prove every step in some double blind laboratory controlled study to wherever they want to get to.

 

[marplots]

For you method to work, it would need to have come from from looking things up in textbooks.

Perhaps it did, perhaps not. The important thing is that the knowledge is preserved and accessible. (And, of course, that it is actually knowledge.)

The genesis is of little interest, since we are not out to create new knowledge, only mine what already exists. Questions and answers about where knowledge ultimately comes from may also be found in textbooks, so I recommend AM as a way to find that out.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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

Nor from yours.

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?

You don't really know what falsification is about, right?

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.

No. So far, all we have is knowledge about the brain. There is nothing else. Everything else is conjecture.

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’.

As far as we can ascertain, there is no specific level. The emergence of self-awareness seems as gradual as that of the brain.

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.

Are you in doubt that intelligent life exists?

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

Hardly.

Science did not create that post…JFYI. You did. If nothing but science works, how did you manage to create that post?

Science is not an entity. It is a method invented by intelligent beings (us) to describe the world around us. I created the post. I am the emergent propery of me biological brain, including the expeirences etc. of my life so far. What are YOU?

Hans

 

[Mojo]

Perhaps it did, perhaps not. The important thing is that the knowledge is preserved and accessible. (And, of course, that it is actually knowledge.)

The genesis is of little interest, since we are not out to create new knowledge, only mine what already exists. Questions and answers about where knowledge ultimately comes from may also be found in textbooks, so I recommend AM as a way to find that out.

If the knowledge was not originally obtained by looking in textbooks then it has not actually been obtained by looking in textbooks.

Your method requires turtles all the way down.

 

[marplots]

If the knowledge was not originally obtained by looking in textbooks then it has not actually been obtained by looking in textbooks.

Your method requires turtles all the way down.

Not really. It only seems so to those interested in the philosophical consequences. In practice, you look things up and then stop. Doing more than this is moving beyond AM itself into philosophical inquiry. One might as well object that it doesn't explain God. I would agree, but don't find it a serious criticism.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Options:

1. Subjective self is an 'mere illusion' of the mind.
2. Subjective self is a 'real product' of the mind.

Hmmm. This thread is about how the mind produces an effect that can be described and understood as a valid reference to a common phenomenon. Looks like only use of the scientific method will suffice. Until such time as a complete theory is backed by organized evidence, we shall have to wait.

Meanwhile, not much different between the two choices, as it is one mental construct vs another. Also, one language construct vs another; perhaps masking a non-difference. Science is about models that work, not about ultimate truth or a naive realism, as any skeptic should be aware.

I would suggest that in the meantime, one think of the 'self' construct as one would think of the whirlpool that forms in a drain. It will always form under the right conditions, and then will cease to exist entirely. At home, you can test for dissolution and reappearance of the phenomenon with a heavy sedative or a large hammer. If you're curious and in a hurry.

 

[Nick227]

Evolution engineers observers, because observers gain survival advantages by observing.

Close.

Evolution engineers the sense of there bring an observer, this sense being hugely favoured.

 

[Myriad]

Close.

Evolution engineers the sense of there bring an observer, this sense being hugely favoured.

That doesn't appear to make any sense. Can you explain the advantage of the mere sense of being an observer? Can a mouse tell an owl, "leave me alone, I have the sense of being an observer?"

Actually being an observer gives the mouse a chance to hide from the owl, and also to find food and mates.

 

[Nick227]

Well... it's true that the observer is not (solely) a thought or feeling. The thoughts or feelings can certainly be considered evidence of an observer, though, as the result of observations being made and responded to.

You're saying that behaving as though an observer exists means it exists?

 

[Mojo]

Options:

1. Subjective self is an 'mere illusion' of the mind.
2. Subjective self is a 'real product' of the mind.

In the case of the first option, what is perceiving the illusion?

 

[Mojo]

Evolution engineers the sense of there bring an observer, this sense being hugely favoured.

What senses it?

 

[Mojo]

You're saying that behaving as though an observer exists means it exists?

What's the difference between having consciousness and having the illusion of consciousness?

 

[tsig]

Close.

Evolution engineers the sense of there bring an observer, this sense being hugely favoured.

There is no difference between the sense of there being an observer and being an observer.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You're saying that behaving as though an observer exists means it exists?

Unless you can explain how we can observe without being observers, then yes. In your explanation, be specific and objective.

Hans

 

[Nick227]

So I'm not gonna bother going any further down this taxonomic rabbit hole. Instead, Nick, I would like you to give us one simple example of how we could apply your new discovery in the real, practical world we live in.

Well, our brains developed the capacity to work with ideas because it helped them fulfil evolutionarily-derived goals. One unfortunate side effect of this is that we can also now ponder on what is true, as opposed to merely something which helps us achieve an end we're programmed to want.

Are you saying truth has to be useful or it has no meaning?