• 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:
Still trying to reverse engineer an observer, Darwin?

God, those quantum/fractal memeplexes can't half go on a bit, can't they? I hope you still have enough energy left to fulfill your evolutionarily derived needs.

Why not trade it in for another model?

Here are the standard responses invoked when the observer is threatened...

1.0 - if there's no observer then who's writing this post, eh? Got you there, haven't I? Tsig is modeling this one.

1.1 - the observer is the brain. Or maybe the body. Or maybe just a part of the brain. The reverse engineering approach. Quite a few running this one here.

1.12 - the observer is 14 paragraphs of quantum babble that tries to suck the life out of any attack. Your current version.

1.2 - look, the observer emerges from conscious processing like all other phenomena. The equal ontological rights approach.

You pick. Or you could look for evidence of any observer
Click to expand...

The question remains valid and I see no sign of you answering it.

Claiming that those who ask you questions are feeling threatened is a classical woo gambit, used by bigfooters, 911 truthers, UFO proponents and religious apologists, quite a distinguished company.
 
Nick227 said:
Still trying to reverse engineer an observer, Darwin?

God, those quantum/fractal memeplexes can't half go on a bit, can't they? I hope you still have enough energy left to fulfill your evolutionarily derived needs.

Why not trade it in for another model?

Here are the standard responses invoked when the observer is threatened...

1.0 - if there's no observer then who's writing this post, eh? Got you there, haven't I? Tsig is modeling this one.

1.1 - the observer is the brain. Or maybe the body. Or maybe just a part of the brain. The reverse engineering approach. Quite a few running this one here.

1.12 - the observer is 14 paragraphs of quantum babble that tries to suck the life out of any attack. Your current version.

1.2 - look, the observer emerges from conscious processing like all other phenomena. The equal ontological rights approach.

You pick. Or you could look for evidence of any observer
Click to expand...

You claim there isn't an observer.

Your claim, your burden.
 
Nick227 said:
<snip>* If selfhood is merely a highly favoured illusion then what does this say about some of the cornerstones of scientific method, principles and techniques used to determine the truth about things? Surely perspective is finished. Objectivity must be in quite some trouble if there is in reality no subject. Separation - got to be an illusion. Distance - sounds dubious. These concepts, so much the bare bones of our daily existence, must just be artifacts of our hunter-gatherer past, not reflections of reality. Even empiricism, perhaps not blown away, but surely weakened now.
Click to expand...

It all depends on how you define self. Certainly it is more than conscious experience, since much of behavior has unconscious roots which also characterize part of what is taken as identity and self. The conscious experiential side of self is an emergent property, as it is clearly something that can be turned off and rebooted, while the physical substrate remains unchanged structurally. Is that an illusion, or a property of the system? Thus the tornado example above, or that of whirlpools in drains. Transient phenomena shouldn't be suspect only on that basis, iow. Overall, the brain-hosted mind shows itself reliable in providing a coherent personal past and ongoing narrative, in spite of major and minor interruptions.

So no worries about "separation," "distance," or subject/object dichotomies. If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, it's all about the pitfalls of realism, which is the debate I think you are really seeking (while cursing myself for bringing it up).

(And back to the who observes/who is observer crap: how many people does it take to look at yourself in the mirror? This "only one, looks like two" business is what is tripping things up, whenever looking in a virtual, mental mirror comes up.)
 
Last edited:
Ron_Tomkins said:
I have asked you thrice and by now, it is clear you're not going to provide any specific examples of how your premise applies in reality. I would say, in the future, if you ever want to seriously find ou....
Click to expand...

Give it a few years and neuroscience may start to invalidate the whole of the rest of science. That's what's on the horizon.

All scientific laws may only actually apply to the process of neural representation.

I read Mike Shermer's editorial on the interface theory of perception several months back in SciAm. I mean he was scared, you could feel it in the words, and dragging up any defence he could.

Science is actually on the brink, Ron. But don't worry, you can tell everyone about your exciting computer.
 
tsig said:
The question remains valid and I see no sign of you answering it..
Click to expand...

The brain doesn't need a "who" to function. You want me to explain why. You claim that if I can't prove it to you then somehow your own little observer illusion is going is just going to carry on doing it's thing. It's OK for me.
 
Nick227 said:
OK. So if we strap an eye motion detector to the front of a Henry vacuum cleaner and have a servo jiggle it around to follow someone's gaze.... that's an observer? This is your argument, Myriad?
Click to expand...

Dunno about his, but I say yes. You created a device that senses and reacts to an outside stimulus. It is observing. It is an observer.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
It all depends on how you define self.
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm talking about the observer or the experiencer, which are just two aspects of mental selfhood.

The conscious experiential side of self is an emergent property, as it is clearly something that can be turned off and rebooted, while the physical substrate remains unchanged structurally. Is that an illusion, or a property of the system?
Click to expand...

It depends how it emerges. And on what qualities are attributed to it.

So no worries about "separation," "distance," or subject/object dichotomies.
Click to expand...

Well, the observer illusion finishes those 3 off in all likelihood.

If you really want to go down that rabbit hole, it's all about the pitfalls of realism, which is the debate I think you are really seeking (while cursing myself for bringing it up).
Click to expand...

The reality of perception is a different side, not the observer side. Do you appreciate that? The observer only affects it at a neural level. And do you follow that one?

Anyway, my money's currently on Mike Graziano, in the blue corner. Attention schema theory.

Nice to debate with someone who's got the faintest clue what they're talking about, BTW
 
ehcks said:
Dunno about his, but I say yes. You created a device that senses and reacts to an outside stimulus. It is observing. It is an observer.
Click to expand...
So by your definition a thermostat is an observer? A bi metallic strip that can make a circuit?

To me an observer is someone who sees.
 
Last edited:
Nick227 said:
Give it a few years and neuroscience may start to invalidate the whole of the rest of science. That's what's on the horizon.

All scientific laws may only actually apply to the process of neural representation.

I read Mike Shermer's editorial on the interface theory of perception several months back in SciAm. I mean he was scared, you could feel it in the words, and dragging up any defence he could.

Science is actually on the brink, Ron. But don't worry, you can tell everyone about your exciting computer.
Click to expand...

And back we come to the beginning - the hope that science gets invalidated, and you're hanging your hat on neuroscience achieving this?

"May" is not the same as "will" or "can".

I am yet to see any evidence that science is on the brink, despite your speculations and wishful thinking (not to mention the strawmanning and torturing of both materialism and dualism. I would have thought that the multiple views on dualism as well as monism would have got consideration, but I suspect this messes up your conclusion...).
 
Nick227 said:
So by your definition a thermostat is an observer? A bi metallic strip that can make a circuit?

To me an observer is someone who sees.
Click to expand...
According to you, one cannot know since there are no observers. Thus you cannot know.

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk
 
abaddon said:
How do you know that?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I answered precisely that question, threefold, a few pages back. Can't keep repeating myself, hope you don't mind.

Why not step back for a moment. Consider this brain, a mass of neurons and glia. Does it really seem likely that it's an observer? That there's actually someone there, seeing whats in front of you right now? Do you really really buy that? Would you put your life savings in that stock?
 
Nick227 said:
I answered precisely that question, threefold, a few pages back. Can't keep repeating myself, hope you don't mind.

Why not step back for a moment. Consider this brain, a mass of neurons and glia. Does it really seem likely that it's an observer? That there's actually someone there, seeing whats in front of you right now? Do you really really buy that? Would you put your life savings in that stock?
Click to expand...
Are you really a solipsist? You are still left with no observers. How are you going to account for that?

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Tapatalk
 
Kid Eager said:
And back we come to the beginning - the hope that science gets invalidated, and you're hanging your hat on neuroscience achieving this?

"May" is not the same as "will" or "can".
Click to expand...

No. Well have to wait and see.

I am yet to see any evidence that science is on the brink, despite your speculations and wishful thinking (not to mention the strawmanning and torturing of both materialism and dualism. I would have thought that the multiple views on dualism as well as monism would have got consideration, but I suspect this messes up your conclusion...).
Click to expand...

So put them out. Let's see. Really, if I'm wrong I'm wrong. I might fight a little here and there, but like most people I can see when the writing's on the wall. And I don't see that here. I see a whole paradigm on the brink. And I haven't heard one good argument put up. Nothing remotely convincing.

And OK I was in a lab coat for a few years but I don't really have a grudge with science.

I do have a judgement that a lot of skeptics can't cope with a reality that is not so common-sensical. And they look to science for a nice simple vision of the world that doesn't upset them and allows them to berate others. And I can be a bit of a Zorro here. That's it really
 
Mojo said:
You seem to be claiming that we have an illusion of an observer rather than an observer. Is there an observer observing the illusion of the observer, or just an illusion of an observer observing the illusion of the observer?
Click to expand...

This looks like the fallacy of the excluded middle, but I have no idea what the excluded middle is between the illusion of the observer observing . . . I mean . . .

Ah, the h*** with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom