To me an observer is someone who sees.
Hey! You can describe what you think an observer actually
is a bit, rather than solely focusing on what you claim is not it. Still, this begs the question about other forms that what is generally known as "observation" takes, like smell, taste, and touch. With that in mind, could a blind someone be an observer under your version of "observer," out of mild curiosity? Either a yes or a no would require justification, though.
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.
My apologies in advance. This may well cross into the offensive, even though ill intent is not in play.
Perhaps the fact that most of those here 1) think that you really don't actually understand what you're talking about with regards to materialism, science, various definitions, and so on, before getting to the argument as a whole, or at least are representing your case in such a way as to not only invite misunderstandings, but practically ensure that others will not understand it, and 2) you keep on triggering "this guy's almost certainly a crank" alarms by effectively gloating without discernable valid basis and repeatedly trying to pass off disputed claims as fact without meaningfully addressing the reasons for dispute, among other things, are factors that are getting in the way of others putting up what you would consider a good argument. It may be worth noting that I am not even remotely loyal to materialism, regardless, but your presented arguments have seemed to be so very full of fallacious logic that it would be thoroughly irresponsible for anyone to be even a little swayed by such. Oh, and as a reminder, if one is going to use a term in a non-standard way in a forum for the public, repeatedly ignoring requests about what one's actual definition/criteria for qualification to be it is, like you've done so much with "observer," is extremely counterproductive to having a meaningful conversation.
Incidentally, the common use of "materialism" here on these forums can be summarized as the simple concept that "everything that actually is is, at its core, matter, or is directly related to matter, such as the movements of material objects," with the note that ideas and the like are accounted for. This is in line with the generalized definitions of materialism to be found elsewhere, no less, when it comes to the use of it as a philosophy. It is, indeed, a form of monist philosophy, yes, but your claims about such are rather bewildering. Your argument using the fact that it is a monist philosophy to demand that if there's
only one thing, the fact that there's matter and there's a consciousness would somehow challenge anything about materialism or produce the implications that you claim. There's no problem at all when it comes to materialism being presented with the fact that a filament in a lightbulb can be of a particular substance, having electricity run through it, AND emitting light, after all. Similarly, if materialism is true, that consciousness would then be an emergent property of various bits of matter being acted upon by various forces would not be a challenge to it at all. It would also be mildly reasonable to describe consciousness as an illusion, when it's being opposed to something that directly exists as matter. The biggest problem in your chain of logic presented in the OP, other than seemingly not understanding that the scientific method is methodological naturalism and that you were thus on an entirely wrong track to properly challenging it, is that, even if consciousness qualifies as an "illusion" within a particular context, it qualifies as "real" when it came to the contexts that the implications you suggested must be considered within, making your argument hinge on conflation. To make a different analogy, it's a bit like you were taking an argument that only "women" cry in a context regarding personality and conflating that with a context regarding actual physical form and thus making the argument that one who is physically a man who cries is actually physically a woman.
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
That's true enough, for a lot of skeptics. Unfortunately for you, that has no bearing on how valid your arguments actually are. They fail on their own merits, or rather, the lack thereof.
