Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nick227]

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!

You've got the hump because I don't reply to you directly!?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

You've got the hump because I don't reply to you directly!?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content

You're not really arguing with him anyway, illusions

 

[asydhouse]

You've got the hump because I don't reply to you directly!?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content.

Well that's a nonresponse for a start!

I wanted to hear your response to my posts because my posts were on a different tack from all the others. I did ask you directly for an answer to questions I posed to you a few pages ago, and I also put some arguments to you that were not the same as everyone else, so yes I wanted some dialogue. (Had anyone else been addressing the points I made to you, I wouldn't have bothered posting, and had you been addressing those points with some actual thought, I likewise would have simply read the thread. I don't have a need to get your attention per se.)

Given your interests obviously lie in simply having a dramatic brawl with everyone else about your hangup with a definition of "I" instead of entering into the views I have expressed, I guess I should''nt have bothered trying to have a grown up discussion with you.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12.

 

[Mojo]

I've said repeatedly that we are now at a point where scientific method needs to be re-evaluated.

And you have repeatedly failed to back up this assertion.

 

[ferd burfle]

Observer = one that observes
Experiencer = one that experiences

This is how I'm defining

I'm surprised they let you get away with this, Nick. Such an obvious dodge. And rather circular, don't you think?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Nonpareil]

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).

No, they aren't.

Nobody, anywhere, has ever produced an empirical definition for ‘observer’ (including Nick227)

Not in this context, no. Because Nick has utterly failed to properly define even the context, so a coherent definition is impossible. Which is why we have repeatedly asked for his.

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.

Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that this is true, it is irrelevant. We know that observers exist, because we are observers; any argument to the contrary is just playing games with semantics.

We also have yet to find any evidence whatsoever to show that observers cannot be material in origin.

That is the whole point. The ENTIRE basis for the argument for the observer is EXCLUSIVELY anecdotal.

Wrong.

There is no definitive science to support it

You really don't seem to grasp how any of this works. The science supporting the existence of observers is utterly trivial, but it exists.

Take a working definition of "observer". Look at yourself. See that you fit the definition. Therefore, an observer exists.

It is that simple.

If you like, you can take this a step further, and look at other humans to see that they behave exactly as an observer would, along with quite a few animals. It seems that you have just managed to prove that multiple observers exist, and it only took you a few minutes. Extraordinary.

This is the most utterly trivial sort of science. The kind of thing that most people wouldn't even bother to ask, because it's so blindingly obvious and you find the proof every second of every day.

What is slightly more difficult is nailing down a detailed definition of "observer", but that is a matter of semantics, not science. As it is, any meaningful definition will include yourself, at the very least.

I'm surprised they let you get away with this, Nick. Such an obvious dodge. And rather circular, don't you think?

It's not so much "letting him get away with it" as it is "realizing that he isn't going to stop doing it, so any further discussion on the subject is rather pointless".

 

[Nick227]

And you have repeatedly failed to back up this assertion.

I disagree.

What I'm raising are two issues, neither of which are remotely new, going back as they do at least to Plato and the Buddha. But both of which are increasingly being accepted as likely fact in consciousness studies. And both of which affect how we perceive science and scientific method...

1) There is, I submit, a developing consensus in neuroscience that perception cannot be veridical. Hoffman, Tononi, Graziano - today's big names are going towards neural representation. It's clear and it allows plenty of the problems with veridical perception to be resolved at a neural level. And, neural representation where it's been demonstrated that fitness, not accuracy, calls the shots. All not good news for trad scientific method and absolutely not for skepticism, as I submit Mike Shermer, leading skeptic and nobody's fool, could clearly see in his SciAm column a couple of months back. He raised good points but you could feel his fear at where it's all going.

2) Relating to this it becomes clearer still that there cannot be an observer of consciousness. We now have well recognised means to understand the observer as merely a remnant of narrational self, not something in any way real. In addition, as 1) above progresses so there becomes increasingly little room for the HPC to be asserted. This is because saying that, opening my eyes, all that's there is neural processing - this is not so specific. But saying that, opening my eyes, all that's there is neural representation - it's more specific. And no observer means objectivity collapses.

Plus, while I'm writing, it's also nonsense that I'm not defining terms. Observer = one who observes. People want a neurological definition for something which cannot exist at a neural level!?! Uhm, that's a well thought out challenge. And which doesn't even exist at layers of abstraction up from neural at the level of so-called self awareness, merely the sense of it exists. Do me a favour!

Not backing up assertions! Not defining terms! The skeptic memeplexes are just going through their usual hoops, trotting out the same old challenges without actually checking their facts.

 

[Nick227]

Well that's a nonresponse for a start!

I wanted to hear your response to my posts because my posts were on a different tack from all the others. I did ask you directly for an answer to questions I posed to you a few pages ago, and I also put some arguments to you that were not the same as everyone else, so yes I wanted some dialogue. (Had anyone else been addressing the points I made to you, I wouldn't have bothered posting, and had you been addressing those points with some actual thought, I likewise would have simply read the thread. I don't have a need to get your attention per se.)

Given your interests obviously lie in simply having a dramatic brawl with everyone else about your hangup with a definition of "I" instead of entering into the views I have expressed, I guess I should''nt have bothered trying to have a grown up discussion with you.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited moderated content.

Well, I apologise if I've misunderstood you. I'm away from the computer sometimes and can't answer every question when I'm back. Especially given that half the comments are just the usual skeptic memeplex challenges issued without any awareness of whether they're relevant or not.

If you want to repost I'm happy to have a go.

 

[Nonpareil]

There is, I submit, a developing consensus in neuroscience that perception cannot be veridical. Hoffman, Tononi, Graziano - today's big names are going towards neural representation. It's clear and it allows plenty of the problems with veridical perception to be resolved at a neural level. And, neural representation where it's been demonstrated that fitness, not accuracy, calls the shots. All not good news for trad scientific method and absolutely not for skepticism

"Perception is neural rather than magical in nature, and thus fallible. Therefore, science does not work."

Non sequitur. The scientific method and so forth were all developed specifically to deal with this fact.

Relating to this it becomes clearer still that there cannot be an observer of consciousness.

Non sequitur, and rather poorly worded at that.

We now have well recognised means to understand the observer as merely a remnant of narrational self, not something in any way real.

You still have yet to produce an actual coherent definition for "observer" as you are using it in this context, or why its emergent nature renders it any less real.

This entire "argument" is just you utterly failing to ask any sort of coherent question, then declaring victory when no one is capable of answering your gibberish.

In addition, as 1) above progresses so there becomes increasingly little room for the HPC to be asserted. This is because saying that, opening my eyes, all that's there is neural processing - this is not so specific. But saying that, opening my eyes, all that's there is neural representation - it's more specific. And no observer means objectivity collapses.

Word salad.

Plus, while I'm writing, it's also nonsense that I'm not defining terms. Observer = one who observes.

Tautological and useless, yes.

Try again.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Hey Nick, I have bad news for you: all of the scientists in the world are still doing science, unaware of your discovery. I think you may wanna take some time off this thread and devote your time to reaching each and every single scientist and let them know that they have to stop what they're doing until we can figure out what an observer is.

 

[tsig]

Hey Nick, I have bad news for you: all of the scientists in the world are still doing science, unaware of your discovery. I think you may wanna take some time off this thread and devote your time to reaching each and every single scientist and let them know that they have to stop what they're doing until we can figure out what an observer is.

I suspect that the scientist would make the observation that science works regardless of philosophical piddle.

 

[tsig]

I disagree.

What I'm raising are two issues, neither of which are remotely new, going back as they do at least to Plato and the Buddha. But both of which are increasingly being accepted as likely fact in consciousness studies. And both of which affect how we perceive science and scientific method...

1) There is, I submit, a developing consensus in neuroscience that perception cannot be veridical. Hoffman, Tononi, Graziano - today's big names are going towards neural representation. It's clear and it allows plenty of the problems with veridical perception to be resolved at a neural level. And, neural representation where it's been demonstrated that fitness, not accuracy, calls the shots. All not good news for trad scientific method and absolutely not for skepticism, as I submit Mike Shermer, leading skeptic and nobody's fool, could clearly see in his SciAm column a couple of months back. He raised good points but you could feel his fear at where it's all going.

2) Relating to this it becomes clearer still that there cannot be an observer of consciousness. We now have well recognised means to understand the observer as merely a remnant of narrational self, not something in any way real. In addition, as 1) above progresses so there becomes increasingly little room for the HPC to be asserted. This is because saying that, opening my eyes, all that's there is neural processing - this is not so specific. But saying that, opening my eyes, all that's there is neural representation - it's more specific. And no observer means objectivity collapses.

Plus, while I'm writing, it's also nonsense that I'm not defining terms. Observer = one who observes. People want a neurological definition for something which cannot exist at a neural level!?! Uhm, that's a well thought out challenge. And which doesn't even exist at layers of abstraction up from neural at the level of so-called self awareness, merely the sense of it exists. Do me a favour!

Not backing up assertions! Not defining terms! The skeptic memeplexes are just going through their usual hoops, trotting out the same old challenges without actually checking their facts.

You don't notice a certain circularity there?

Looks like your memeplex is tying you in knots semantically and causing you to deny reality, shame.

 

[kellyb]

Last I heard, the greatest thinkers in the field of consciousness philosophy and research quite openly admit there's not even a very good definition of consciousness at this point.

Trying to make broad proclamations about semantic nonsense here is pretty much even worse than when "brain in a vat" arguments are used to justify all sorts of silliness.

 

[annnnoid]

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.

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!

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...

You raise some credible points. Very busy now so will get back to them later.

No, they aren't.

Not in this context, no. Because Nick has utterly failed to properly define even the context, so a coherent definition is impossible. Which is why we have repeatedly asked for his.

Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that this is true, it is irrelevant. We know that observers exist, because we are observers; any argument to the contrary is just playing games with semantics.

We also have yet to find any evidence whatsoever to show that observers cannot be material in origin.

Wrong.

You really don't seem to grasp how any of this works. The science supporting the existence of observers is utterly trivial, but it exists.

Take a working definition of "observer". Look at yourself. See that you fit the definition. Therefore, an observer exists.

It is that simple.

If you like, you can take this a step further, and look at other humans to see that they behave exactly as an observer would, along with quite a few animals. It seems that you have just managed to prove that multiple observers exist, and it only took you a few minutes. Extraordinary.

This is the most utterly trivial sort of science. The kind of thing that most people wouldn't even bother to ask, because it's so blindingly obvious and you find the proof every second of every day.

What is slightly more difficult is nailing down a detailed definition of "observer", but that is a matter of semantics, not science. As it is, any meaningful definition will include yourself, at the very least.

It's not so much "letting him get away with it" as it is "realizing that he isn't going to stop doing it, so any further discussion on the subject is rather pointless".

….so let me get this straight. You are actually arguing (and that with a straight face) that because we (you, me, them, everyone) has the capacity to conclude (how?)…by looking at myself (whatever the hell that even means)…that something I (by some mysterious process) called an ‘observer’ exists…therefore it is scientifically reasonable to claim that there is such a thing.

…and not only are you proposing this as a ‘scientifically’ credible position…you are, at the very same time, flat out insisting that the very process by which this conclusion is generated (anecdotally)…is inadmissible.

To call this argument laughable would be far too complimentary.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12.

 

[ehcks]

Plus, while I'm writing, it's also nonsense that I'm not defining terms. Observer = one who observes.

Then you need a definition for "observation."

Otherwise, we're left with the normal definitions, in which case I am an observer because I am observing that you don't know what observe means.

 

[Nonpareil]

….so let me get this straight. You are actually arguing (and that with a straight face) that because we (you, me, them, everyone) has the capacity to conclude (how?)…by looking at myself (whatever the hell that even means)…that something I (by some mysterious process) called an ‘observer’ exists…therefore it is scientifically reasonable to claim that there is such a thing.

Yes, in the same way that you going outside and looking at a tree proves that there is a tree there. If you have a functional definition, all you have to do is look at something and see that it meets that definition in order to know that it is an instance of it. It is absolutely trivial, but it works.

The fact that you seem to find this outlandish is yet another indicator of your complete lack of understanding when it comes to science and rationality.

…and not only are you proposing this as a ‘scientifically’ credible position…you are, at the very same time, flat out insisting that the very process by which this conclusion is generated (anecdotally)…is inadmissible.

And you still don't understand what "anecdotal" means.

Glad to see that I missed absolutely nothing while I was away.

 

[Agatha]

I have edited several breaches of rule 12 in this page; will all participants please ensure that they remain civil and address each other's arguments rather than attacking each other.

If the bickering and personalisation continues, every observer will be able to see post moves to AAH and/or yellow cards.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Nonpareil]

Last I heard, the greatest thinkers in the field of consciousness philosophy and research quite openly admit there's not even a very good definition of consciousness at this point.

Trying to make broad proclamations about semantic nonsense here is pretty much even worse than when "brain in a vat" arguments are used to justify all sorts of silliness.

It is admittedly true that there is no one hundred percent accurate definition available yet. There are, however, quite a few things which are quite clearly not part of consciousness in any meaningful way, and thus, quite a lot of would-be definitions which render themselves useless as actual descriptions of what most people mean by "conscious".

For example, water is not conscious. Any definition of the term that is broad enough to include water, therefore, is worthless. In the same way, my keyboard is not part of my body. It is not connected to my brain, it does not think, and I only interact with it, "experience" it if you like, by any means whatsoever when I place my hands on it. Any definition of "my consciousness" which includes the keyboard, or any other external entity to myself, is therefore worthless.

I do not claim to have a perfect definition. It is unlikely that we will have one for many years. But the lack of a perfect definition is not equivalent to the lack of a functional one, and that a functional definition is not perfect does not render it in any way valueless.

So yes. When people say "universal consciousness", "shared consciousness", or any other such term when speaking of ontology, it is worthless. It stretches the word "consciousness" until it becomes unrecognizable and non-functional. It no longer meaningfully describes anything that anyone would actually recognize as consciousness, and is only done to sound grand and impressive rather than actually be a meaningful description of something. That the statement can be made at all is only due to the fact that human language is quite easily abused, and a lot of people are very good at abusing it.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

It is admittedly true that there is no one hundred percent accurate definition available yet. There are, however, quite a few things which are quite clearly not part of consciousness in any meaningful way, and thus, quite a lot of would-be definitions which render themselves useless as actual descriptions of what most people mean by "conscious".

For example, water is not conscious. Any definition of the term that is broad enough to include water, therefore, is worthless. In the same way, my keyboard is not part of my body. It is not connected to my brain, it does not think, and I only interact with it, "experience" it if you like, by any means whatsoever when I place my hands on it. Any definition of "my consciousness" which includes the keyboard, or any other external entity to myself, is therefore worthless.

I do not claim to have a perfect definition. It is unlikely that we will have one for many years. But the lack of a perfect definition is not equivalent to the lack of a functional one, and that a functional definition is not perfect does not render it in any way valueless.

So yes. When people say "universal consciousness", "shared consciousness", or any other such term when speaking of ontology, it is worthless. It stretches the word "consciousness" until it becomes unrecognizable and non-functional. It no longer meaningfully describes anything that anyone would actually recognize as consciousness, and is only done to sound grand and impressive rather than actually be a meaningful description of something. That the statement can be made at all is only due to the fact that human language is quite easily abused, and a lot of people are very good at abusing it.

Nominated.

 

[ferd burfle]

No, they aren't.



Not in this context, no. Because Nick has utterly failed to properly define even the context, so a coherent definition is impossible. Which is why we have repeatedly asked for his.



Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that this is true, it is irrelevant. We know that observers exist, because we are observers; any argument to the contrary is just playing games with semantics.

We also have yet to find any evidence whatsoever to show that observers cannot be material in origin.



Wrong.



You really don't seem to grasp how any of this works. The science supporting the existence of observers is utterly trivial, but it exists.

Take a working definition of "observer". Look at yourself. See that you fit the definition. Therefore, an observer exists.

It is that simple.

If you like, you can take this a step further, and look at other humans to see that they behave exactly as an observer would, along with quite a few animals. It seems that you have just managed to prove that multiple observers exist, and it only took you a few minutes. Extraordinary.

This is the most utterly trivial sort of science. The kind of thing that most people wouldn't even bother to ask, because it's so blindingly obvious and you find the proof every second of every day.

What is slightly more difficult is nailing down a detailed definition of "observer", but that is a matter of semantics, not science. As it is, any meaningful definition will include yourself, at the very least.



It's not so much "letting him get away with it" as it is "realizing that he isn't going to stop doing it, so any further discussion on the subject is rather pointless".

Point taken, thanks. I'll go back to lurking.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk