Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Kid Eager]

Not quite. Materialism has no choice but assert that the apparent experience of an observer must be illusory. This leads to the collapse of objectivity as a "real" state. This does not destroy science but it does undermine the value of scientific method.



I'm not interested in dualism or these kinds of discussions personally. Some thread member's embedded memeplex (maybe Mojo's, apologies if not he), clearly an archaic version, keeps trying to bring up infinite regress as though it has some significance here. It has no significance here.




Well, if "science" had it's own means to progress outside of scientists doing it then I would agree. However it doesn't, temes arguably aside. What happens is that various small children start pointing out that the king, if not naked, is definitely garbed in robe a lot more threadbare than we've previously believed.

This is a non-answer. Whether you're interested in dualism or other monisms or not is utterly irrelevant, as they are germane to your argument.

You've singled out one philosophical stance and reinterpreted it to assert a claim that the scientific method is a fail, but only when done by scientists, apparently. This assertion is flawed from the start, because the method is not reserved for scientists and the method just *is*.

Let's leave that aside for the moment, though. In your headlong rush to create room for homeopathy, you've avoided dealing with the elephant in the room - materialism comes in many flavors, and is but one philosophical approach that's been espoused.

Dualism also has many flavors and once you add in all the other monisms, nothing in particular is devastated except the starting premise of your argument. Why? Because you've chosen a strawman view of materialism as the McGuffin with which to create a situation where homeopathy becomes valid - yet you haven't established why your version of materialism is the correct choice. Yes, yes - there were some random witterings at the start, but it was simply a perverse form of push-polling to set up your conclusion.

All in all though, philosphical maunderings still don't invalidate what's been happening in the real world. Your memeplex is strongly embedded, but not infectious, i'm afraid.

And not particularly interesting either. Enjoy your thread. I'll go play where there's a but less recursion and irrational attachment to homeopathy.

 

[abaddon]

To me an observer is one who sees.

Sees what with what?

 

[Nick227]

For simplicity's sake, would you consider, then, specifying the concept you are questioning with a working definition?

Observer = one that observes
Experiencer = one that experiences

This is how I'm defining.

If I follow, you are saying perception is an input, a prior or an externality to the purported observer.

Apologies. I meant that the observer argument is different from the veridical perception argument. Connected in some ways but not in others. So I'm actually putting forward two potential arguments which could each individually weaken the value of scientific method.

Yet this flies in the face of the active role played by the brain in shaping input before we perceive it consciously; e.g., optical illusions, faces in toast, etc.

Yes. These things are why researchers are now moving away from the notion of veridical perception.

Next, you state that the observer affects perception at the neural level, which, if not related to my caveat, is not well defined without more explanation.

Apologies again. What I'm saying in this instance is that removing the observer from the equation weakens the so-called hard problem. Without an observer so the burden on neural activity to explain consciousness is reduced.

From the wiki entry on Graziano:

The conjunction of these two previous findings suggests that awareness is a computed feature constructed by an expert system in the brain. The feature of awareness can be attributed to other people in the context of social perception. It can also be attributed to oneself, in effect creating one's own awareness.

The bolded appears to track well with thread comments emphasizing emergence and transience.

I don’t think Graziano is upholding these notions here. I think he’s actually offering a counter perspective to that of phenomenal consciousness being an emergent.

As I see it he’s saying that it’s an informational representation of attention, constructed and constantly updated by the brain. If he’s right, or at least on the right track, then he’s offering an actual direct solution to the Hard Problem. No more fuzzy, emergent gaps where the magic supposedly happens. He's offering what Dennett and Churchland have been saying ought to exist for years.

Is it the idea of the Cartesian Theater you are debunking?

More the idea that anyone sees Cartesian Theatre.

In general, I am completely sympathetic to questioning this last bit, the dualist remnant. Rather than starting with a claim of an observer (top-down search for a concept in "reality"), we can derive general statements about agents, and relate behaviors to neural structure (bottom-up systemic description). In short, I am wondering what, for you, an observer is, and why you feel there is an erroneous working assumption that others use, which in the end critically affects empiricism (unless related to the debate on scientific or philosophical realism).

I’m saying that, yes, the sense of there being an observer is emergent. The brain constructs this sense of an observer through various ruses. But that there cannot in actuality be any real observer. Without an observer objectivity fails. Thus objectivity needs to be re-understood and scientific method re-evaluated.

 

[Nonpareil]

I’m saying that, yes, the sense of there being an observer is emergent. But that there cannot in actuality be any real observer.

You have said this.

You have utterly failed to substantiate it.

I reiterate: you are observing things. By any meaningful definition of "observer", an observer therefore exists. Anything else is meaningless word games.

 

[abaddon]

You could see it as a False Dilemma, yes I agree. In this case it's what happens when our reliance on language overwhelms the capacity to see situations where language doesn't serve the situation.

Are you observing that? If not, who or what is observing that? If there is no observer as you claim who or what observed that?

In our normal use of language it would be absurd to suggest that you could have observation without an observer. But, given that we pretty much know that there can't actually be a material observer, then the concept of observation being able to exist without an observer is a useful stepping off point.

So you claim. Any evidence? Beyond navel gazing pointless philosophy and sophistry and solipsism?

 

[Nick227]

Insult is all you have?

It is not an insult, Abaddon. It is I assert FACT. Please show me one article by any respected researcher on consciousness issues, and from the last two decades, that clearly states that there must be an observer. No one, I submit, no one is saying this. Everyone knows that our traditional understanding of self is up a certain creek without a certain implement when it comes to neural reality. Everyone, that is, except apparently you.

And no aspect of self is weaker, I submit, than the observer or the experiencer. Which, perhaps not coincidentally, are the two that the more skeptical mindset clings to the most ardently.

You want to batter God-believers, or deny any HPC? Fine, you go for it. But if you also want to cling to the notion that someone is looking, then you have just dug yourself into a hole where God-believers and HPC believers can batter you right back for your own unsubstantiable belief. I'm neither. Which is why I'm being so gentle!

 

[tsig]

You could see it as a False Dilemma, yes I agree. In this case it's what happens when our reliance on language overwhelms the capacity to see situations where language doesn't serve the situation.

In our normal use of language it would be absurd to suggest that you could have observation without an observer. But, given that we pretty much know that there can't actually be a material observer, then the concept of observation being able to exist without an observer is a useful stepping off point.

But, given that we pretty much know that there can be a material observer.


Why is your assertion true?

 

[tsig]

Allow me to sum it up: it's all pointless navel-gazing and meaningless at its root.

You can talk ontology all day and follow your speculation around in increasingly pointless circles for as long as you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it's all about as worthless as it is possible for a philosophical "argument" to be. The universe is real and material; any assertion to the contrary is either pointless word games or bare assertion, and can be dismissed.

That aside, you don't seem to actually have a coherent definition of the word "observer", so this entire discussion is going nowhere.

The "observer" is the thing that can't exist under materialism and proves science is futile.

It's the "X" word where "X" has whatever meaning needed to make my argument.

 

[Nonpareil]

It is not an insult, Abaddon. It is I assert FACT. Please show me one article by any respected researcher on consciousness issues, and from the last two decades, that clearly states that there must be an observer. No one, I submit, no one is saying this.

Even assuming that this is true, there is still provably an observer.

You observe. Therefore, there is an observer.

Anything else is meaningless word games.

 

[tsig]

Insult is all you have?

Not a convincing argument.

I'm running memeplex 5.0 and my understanding is so advanced I have transcended the need for understanding so my mind is open the the winds of the universe.

 

[tsig]

Nope. This has absolutely nothing to do with it.



Nope. This has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Maybe you should become a Hindu, Joe. Then perhaps you'd have a heap more lifetimes to try and work out what this thread actually is about. I don't think you're going to make it in this one.

You don't understand... and that's OK. But why not just say it?

If one student does not understand it may be the fault of the student if no student understands it is the fault of the teacher.

 

[tsig]

It is not an insult, Abaddon. It is I assert FACT. Please show me one article by any respected researcher on consciousness issues, and from the last two decades, that clearly states that there must be an observer. No one, I submit, no one is saying this. Everyone knows that our traditional understanding of self is up a certain creek without a certain implement when it comes to neural reality. Everyone, that is, except apparently you.

And no aspect of self is weaker, I submit, than the observer or the experiencer. Which, perhaps not coincidentally, are the two that the more skeptical mindset clings to the most ardently.

You want to batter God-believers, or deny any HPC? Fine, you go for it. But if you also want to cling to the notion that someone is looking, then you have just dug yourself into a hole where God-believers and HPC believers can batter you right back for your own unsubstantiable belief. I'm neither. Which is why I'm being so gentle!

I doubt many state that humans are warm blooded animals.

 

[abaddon]

I'm running memeplex 5.0 and my understanding is so advanced I have transcended the need for understanding so my mind is open the the winds of the universe.

Clearly, you have not obtained Service Pack 1.

 

[annnnoid]

You want to batter God-believers, or deny any HPC? Fine, you go for it. But if you also want to cling to the notion that someone is looking, then you have just dug yourself into a hole where God-believers and HPC believers can batter you right back for your own unsubstantiable belief. I'm neither.

…no, you’re a typical reductionist who’s got his signals all crossed.

As much as I’m enjoying you manhandling the skeptic proletariat Nick227 I’m going to have to waste some time and point out what a hideous mess your argument is.

What you’re missing, first of all, is that the arguments that you’re citing that supposedly re-define cognition are very very very very far from being definitive. They are, like so much cognitive theory, speculative. Based on very incomplete knowledge with lots of holes filled in here and there and lots of leaps of faith.

…but you’re acting as if they’re a fait accompli? I asked you quite some time ago to present something to substantiate your position…and you presented nothing, cause there is nothing. What Graziano is doing does not corroborate what Dennet / Blackmore etc. have theororized. It is nothing more than additional speculation. Nowhere does there exist in neuroscience anything remotely resembling the ability to definitively and explicitly create a model of how the brain generates ‘you’ or what a ‘you’ even is. And yet, you are acting as if what Graziano is suggesting is somehow within spitting distance of resolution.

Nope.

You can call it an ‘informational representation of attention’ until you’re blue in the face but neither you nor Graziano nor anyone else has the slightest capacity to substantiate or falsify this claim (or even explicitly define the terms…which is an interesting dilemma in itself). You’re very right to say ‘if he’s on the right track’…and you should probably stop right there. What you fail to appreciate is how big that ‘if’ is and how much work will be required to establish whether or not he is (on the right track). If I had to hazard a guess I’d say you won’t be seeing anything resembling an answer in your lifetime (that is how long the ‘track’ currently is).

…so, I’ll repeat it here just so you can ignore it again. This whole pile of nonsense that you have so far based your ‘HUMAN IDENTITY IS NOT WHAT IT SEEMS’ position on is speculation… like just about every major area of cognitive study at the moment. Graziano is SPECULATION and Dennet / Blackmore etc. is SPECULATION. The information it’s all based on is vast and extensive but, as Chomsky once said…our understanding of human nature is ‘thin and likely to remain so.’ You’re simply extrapolating way into the distance and assuming a whole bunch of conclusions that have no basis in fact.

The facts are…what precisely it is that is emergent is very very far from being empirically / definitively established. What the brain constructs and how is very very far from being empirically / definitively established. What an ‘observer’ even is and how it can be explicitly defined is very very far from being empirically / definitively established (you have sure done a piss poor job of doing it, and I have no doubt that if I wasted my time reading up on Graziano I would find that he adds numerous qualifications and conditions to just about every conclusion he makes…like any half-way intelligent neuroscientist does these days…which is way more than can be said of many of those who stand on the side-lines and imagine they’re just stumbled upon the meaning of life after [mis]-reading a couple of abbreviated papers).

The facts are the mass of anecdotal evidence supports the existence of a subjective differentiated human identity. There does not exist anything remotely resembling a definitive understanding either of what that means or how that happens …but no one is going to argue that such a thing does not exist (I had to laugh at how outraged you were in pointing out that science has not established the existence of an observer...do you suppose this might have something to do with the fact that science has no ability to definitively establish the existence [or not] of such a thing and science has no ability to explicitly define what 'observer' even means !?!?!?)('one who sees' is, to put it mildly, just plain stupid [quite apart from the obvious fact that it merely begs the question][...actually, it begs a whole bunch of questions]). Until you have something far more substantial than some crazy speculation in a field that is just about bursting with it…your argument is basically just a shell game.

So…to summarize…your argument boils down to: We have Dennet / Blackmore etc. presenting a theory which you claim is experimentally supported by Graziano et. al. the implications of which demolish what you call an observer (I’m not going to bother with the nonsense about materialism and the scientific method cause you’ve already got the first part all wrong). You summarily jettison the weight of anecdotal evidence as being fundamentally flawed since it’s the consequence of what you dismissively refer to as some manner of toxic meme.

First of all…find me, anywhere, an empirical definition of ‘observer’ (this 'thing' that you are so convinced no longer exists). Second of all, find me, anywhere, anyone who can even begin to empirically corroborate anything theorized by any of the names you have mentioned (actually…prove that even they can empirically corroborate their own claims!). Third…find me anyone who can empirically establish the existence of this toxic meme that you keep referring to...the one that so effectively reduces 'I' to zero.

I already know you will fail at all three. Thus, your argument also fails. It is speculation, nothing more. And given how huge the gaps are in our understanding of consciousness and its explicit relationship to neural activity…it is massively premature speculation.

…but what else is new!

For those who like to think they’ve just stumbled across the holy grail of cognitive theory, I’d suggest reading this little quote. Then read it again…and again…and again…until you realize that your ‘holy grail’ is nothing but a Styrofoam cup.

"The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe ... complexity makes simple models impractical and accurate models impossible to comprehend," Scott Huettel / Center for Cognitive Neuroscience / Duke University

…so if you’re suddenly thinking your shiny little holy grail has got you comprehending comprehension…think again.

 

[tsig]

…no, you’re a typical reductionist who’s got his signals all crossed.

As much as I’m enjoying you manhandling the skeptic proletariat Nick227 I’m going to have to waste some time and point out what a hideous mess your argument is.

What you’re missing, first of all, is that the arguments that you’re citing that supposedly re-define cognition are very very very very far from being definitive. They are, like so much cognitive theory, speculative. Based on very incomplete knowledge with lots of holes filled in here and there and lots of leaps of faith.

…but you’re acting as if they’re a fait accompli? I asked you quite some time ago to present something to substantiate your position…and you presented nothing, cause there is nothing. What Graziano is doing does not corroborate what Dennet / Blackmore etc. have theororized. It is nothing more than additional speculation. Nowhere does there exist in neuroscience anything remotely resembling the ability to definitively and explicitly create a model of how the brain generates ‘you’ or what a ‘you’ even is. And yet, you are acting as if what Graziano is suggesting is somehow within spitting distance of resolution.

Nope.

You can call it an ‘informational representation of attention’ until you’re blue in the face but neither you nor Graziano nor anyone else has the slightest capacity to substantiate or falsify this claim (or even explicitly define the terms…which is an interesting dilemma in itself). You’re very right to say ‘if he’s on the right track’…and you should probably stop right there. What you fail to appreciate is how big that ‘if’ is and how much work will be required to establish whether or not he is (on the right track). If I had to hazard a guess I’d say you won’t be seeing anything resembling an answer in your lifetime (that is how long the ‘track’ currently is).

…so, I’ll repeat it here just so you can ignore it again. This whole pile of nonsense that you have so far based your ‘HUMAN IDENTITY IS NOT WHAT IT SEEMS’ position on is speculation… like just about every major area of cognitive study at the moment. Graziano is SPECULATION and Dennet / Blackmore etc. is SPECULATION. The information it’s all based on is vast and extensive but, as Chomsky once said…our understanding of human nature is ‘thin and likely to remain so.’ You’re simply extrapolating way into the distance and assuming a whole bunch of conclusions that have no basis in fact.

The facts are…what precisely it is that is emergent is very very far from being empirically / definitively established. What the brain constructs and how is very very far from being empirically / definitively established. What an ‘observer’ even is and how it can be explicitly defined is very very far from being empirically / definitively established (you have sure done a piss poor job of doing it, and I have no doubt that if I wasted my time reading up on Graziano I would find that he adds numerous qualifications and conditions to just about every conclusion he makes…like any half-way intelligent neuroscientist does these days…which is way more than can be said of many of those who stand on the side-lines and imagine they’re just stumbled upon the meaning of life after [mis]-reading a couple of abbreviated papers).

The facts are the mass of anecdotal evidence supports the existence of a subjective differentiated human identity. There does not exist anything remotely resembling a definitive understanding either of what that means or how that happens …but no one is going to argue that such a thing does not exist (I had to laugh at how outraged you were in pointing out that science has not established the existence of an observer...do you suppose this might have something to do with the fact that science has no ability to definitively establish the existence [or not] of such a thing and science has no ability to explicitly define what 'observer' even means !?!?!?)('one who sees' is, to put it mildly, just plain stupid [quite apart from the obvious fact that it merely begs the question][...actually, it begs a whole bunch of questions]). Until you have something far more substantial than some crazy speculation in a field that is just about bursting with it…your argument is basically just a shell game.

So…to summarize…your argument boils down to: We have Dennet / Blackmore etc. presenting a theory which you claim is experimentally supported by Graziano et. al. the implications of which demolish what you call an observer (I’m not going to bother with the nonsense about materialism and the scientific method cause you’ve already got the first part all wrong). You summarily jettison the weight of anecdotal evidence as being fundamentally flawed since it’s the consequence of what you dismissively refer to as some manner of toxic meme.

First of all…find me, anywhere, an empirical definition of ‘observer’ (this 'thing' that you are so convinced no longer exists). Second of all, find me, anywhere, anyone who can even begin to empirically corroborate anything theorized by any of the names you have mentioned (actually…prove that even they can empirically corroborate their own claims!). Third…find me anyone who can empirically establish the existence of this toxic meme that you keep referring to...the one that so effectively reduces 'I' to zero.

I already know you will fail at all three. Thus, your argument also fails. It is speculation, nothing more. And given how huge the gaps are in our understanding of consciousness and its explicit relationship to neural activity…it is massively premature speculation.

…but what else is new!

For those who like to think they’ve just stumbled across the holy grail of cognitive theory, I’d suggest reading this little quote. Then read it again…and again…and again…until you realize that your ‘holy grail’ is nothing but a Styrofoam cup.

"The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe ... complexity makes simple models impractical and accurate models impossible to comprehend," Scott Huettel / Center for Cognitive Neuroscience / Duke University

…so if you’re suddenly thinking your shiny little holy grail has got you comprehending comprehension…think again.

Since all arguments must be based on presuppositions and no presuppositions can be proved everything must be wrong.

 

[Nonpareil]

You summarily jettison the weight of anecdotal evidence as being fundamentally flawed

Anecdotes are not evidence.

And given how huge the gaps are in our understanding of consciousness and its explicit relationship to neural activity…it is massively premature speculation.

…but what else is new!

For those who like to think they’ve just stumbled across the holy grail of cognitive theory, I’d suggest reading this little quote. Then read it again…and again…and again…until you realize that your ‘holy grail’ is nothing but a Styrofoam cup.

"The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe ... complexity makes simple models impractical and accurate models impossible to comprehend," Scott Huettel / Center for Cognitive Neuroscience / Duke University

…so if you’re suddenly thinking your shiny little holy grail has got you comprehending comprehension…think again.

Yes, yes, we all know about your ignorance fetishism. Unfortunately, quotes talking about how complicated it all is are not, in any way, evidence against a material basis for consciousness.

 

[asydhouse]

Well, Nick, I find it interesting that you have completely ignored me even though I seem to be about the only one posting recently here who has agreed with you explicitly that there is no observer, in the sense that there is no "I".

You seem to be more interested in simply battering on about quibbling over the definition of "observer" with those who simply insist that there is.

Or is my acknowledgement that "I" don't exist as a single entity, but rather as the consequence of the sum of the subsystems in the brain's functioning (including the entire nervous system throughout the body) creating a narrative function which gives us an overview we call "I" too subtle for you to grasp? Or what?

Your incoherent insistence that an observer is "someone who sees" and your refusal to engage with me is boring and fruitless argument for the sake of drama, as far as I can see.

In fact, your insistence that an observer should be a "thing" such as an entity you might as well call a "soul" is redolent of a new age quantum mystic insisting that an observer in a two slit experiment has to be a human consciousness, when in fact it can and usually is an electronic recording device such as a camera.

Wilful ignorance, heroically marched to the front and blocking all rational discussion.

Boring as hell after a handful of pages, never mind 27!

 

[Mojo]

In fact, your insistence that an observer should be a "thing" such as an entity you might as well call a "soul"...

It's an attempt to foist dualism on the scientific method.

 

[annnnoid]

Anecdotes are not evidence.

If you look back at the last thousand or so posts you will discover that the ONLY objection anyone has ever been able to generate to counter Nick227’s constant assertions that an observer does not exist are exclusively anecdotal (the arguments you yourself have made are entirely anecdotal...but I think they don't teach that until college so you're excused). Nobody, anywhere, has ever produced an empirical definition for ‘observer’ (including Nick227) and nobody, anywhere, has come anywhere close to anything remotely resembling the ability to empirically adjudicate the existence of this observer ‘thing’ either biologically or cognitively. That is the whole point. The ENTIRE basis for the argument for the observer is EXCLUSIVELY anecdotal. There is no definitive science to support it, which is exactly why no one has ever produced any (as Nick227 quite accurately pointed out)…and also where Nick227’s own argument falls to pieces.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breaches of rule 12.

 

[Nick227]

…no, you’re a typical reductionist who’s got his signals all crossed.

As much as I’m enjoying you manhandling the skeptic proletariat Nick227 I’m going to have to waste some time and point out what a hideous mess your argument is.

What you’re missing, first of all, is that the arguments that you’re citing that supposedly re-define cognition are very very very very far from being definitive. They are, like so much cognitive theory, speculative. Based on very incomplete knowledge with lots of holes filled in here and there and lots of leaps of faith.

…but you’re acting as if they’re a fait accompli?

You're acting like that. Not me, matey. I've said repeatedly that we are now at a point where scientific method needs to be re-evaluated. Evidence accrues. And it's now reached a point where there must be concerns that science is proceeding from too many unexamined assumptions.

This situation needs evaluating.

Yes, Ron's laptop is bright and shiny and he's jumping up and down with excitement about it, but in the background a consensus is developing away from veridical perception and this needs to be re-evaluated.

I asked you quite some time ago to present something to substantiate your position…and you presented nothing, cause there is nothing. What Graziano is doing does not corroborate what Dennet / Blackmore etc. have theororized.

Care to corroborate that one?

Personally, I missed Blackmore in Totnes the other week but I'm willing to bet that her OOBE explanation is using neural representation as a model. An I wrong? I certainly could be, I haven't even read the paper!

And yet, you are acting as if what Graziano is suggesting is somehow within spitting distance of resolution.

OK, humour me for a moment. How do you see the issue here for attention schema theory? Show me you grasp the mettle. I also have my concerns but I want to hear you... and hopefully it's not just more nonsense about an observer.

I won't comment on the rest of your post as it seems like a memeplex rant of "we don't know, we don't know" endlessly in the belief that I find such nonsense remotely convincing.

For my side, I'll say... you can lead a memeplex to water...