Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[tsig]

Yes. What I find fascinating personally is the way that the mind of the skeptic seems to absolutely NEED an observer. Otherwise perfectly intelligent people suddenly descend into all sorts of mis-representation, meaningless challenging, and related defence when this core belief is challenged.

Thus I can only conclude that the Observer is the skeptics version of God - an utterly unsubstantiable belief that they seem to need to be true in order to continue existing.

If there is no observer then what can be said to be existing?

Your conclusions are wrong-again.


ETA: You continually use the fact that others are arguing with you as proof that you are right, rather a Catch 22 proposition.

 

[Pixel42]

You're saying that mounting evidence from multiple branches of neuroscience that visual perception is non-veridical can have no possible ramifications for science? That's your position?

The fact that all kinds of perception are unreliable is the reason why the scientific method was invented in the first place. You have yet to clarify how the latest findings of neuroscience pose a greater challenge to it than the cognitive biases for which it already compensates.

 

[Nonpareil]

These 3 reinforce the notion of non-veridical reality.

For those wondering, "veridical" basically means "true". Nick's constant ramblings about perception being non-veridical essentially mean that our senses do not necessarily feed us one hundred percent magically accurate information.

Which, again, we already knew about and take into account.

* the reality that an observer can't exist

This is not a reality. This is not even a coherent possibility.

This undermines the notion of objectivity being real.

And this is completely incoherent.

i think materialism creates a useful theoretical framework from which to develop an understanding of consciousness, along with plenty of other phenomena.

What's problematic is that some people are attracted to it because they feel it will reinforce an inherently commen-sensical view of reality. That it will provide them with a platform to from which to denounce other perspectives. To a degree it does do this. But the problem is that materialism, at its core, is far far more challenging a perspective to understand than anything else the human mind has ever conjured.

Not really, unless you are determined to go about asking nonsensical questions.

That is possible, of course. But for me the apparent ease and speed with which you misrepresent or mis-sum up what I'm saying is more indicative of defence. To me you seem to be a very intelligent character with a good understanding of much of the background here. So I'm left assuming that there is something in this dialogue that a part of you really doesn't like the look of. I assume it's to do with the observer, and would be happy to be proven wrong.

I am not interested in your armchair psychology attempts.

I have already pointed out that your "argument" about observers not existing is entirely incoherent, as you are an observer by any coherent definition of the word. You have yet to actually answer this in any meaningful way.

You're saying that mounting evidence from multiple branches of neuroscience that visual perception is non-veridical can have no possible ramifications for science? That's your position?

Essentially. Because, again, we have known this for literally centuries. Human senses are not perfect, and no one has believed that they are in a long, long time. Getting yet more confirmation that they aren't changes nothing of substance - or, at least, not in the way that you think it does.

Again, this entire thing is why science exists to begin with. It is there specifically to cut out human error as much as possible. And it continues to work just fine, whether or not we are magically capable of perfect perception.

 

[Nick227]

Again why is neuroscience exempt from the problems you say all the rest of science is suffering from, if all science is wrong then so must neuroscience be wrong.

You seem to be just following Aridas' lead of constantly creating false dilemmas. I'm not saying that all of science is invalid and never have.

Have you ever considered that you may be wrong?

Well, I actually said that I'd be very happy to be proven wrong. And still would.

 

[Nick227]

The fact that all kinds of perception are unreliable is the reason why the scientific method was invented in the first place. You have yet to clarify how the latest findings of neuroscience pose a greater challenge to it than the cognitive biases for which it already compensates.

Actually, about 3 posts or so ago I listed 3 relatively recent discoveries in neuroscience that all clarify this.

 

[Nonpareil]

Actually, about 3 posts or so ago I listed 3 relatively recent discoveries in neuroscience that all clarify this.

No, you didn't. You listed three things that all utterly fail to actually be an issue, because they are just confirming what we already know and have taken into account for centuries. Human perception is fallible, yes. This is why the scientific method exists to begin with.

You aren't so much grasping at straws here as you are clutching desperately at nothing.

 

[Nick227]

If it is affected any less than it would be were we trapped in the Matrix, then it has already been taken into account and demonstrably works regardless.

For me, Dennett dealt with the "brain in a vat" scenario back in '91.

This is absolutely not the same.

This is not a reality. This is not even a coherent possibility.

If this is so, then why is there not one shred of empirical evidence for the existence of an observer?

Are you saying it's just a given? That despite a complete lack of evidence it just exists anyway?

 

[Nonpareil]

For me, Dennett dealt with the "brain in a vat" scenario back in '91.

This is absolutely not the same.

It's also not a problem.

If this is so, then why is there not one shred of empirical evidence for the existence of an observer?

Save that you exist and are an observer, you mean.

 

[Nick227]

No, you didn't. You listed three things that all utterly fail to actually be an issue, because they are just confirming what we already know and have taken into account for centuries. Human perception is fallible, yes. This is why the scientific method exists to begin with..

It's not about the fallibility of human perception. It's about how the brain evolved to perform certain tasks effectively, and how it may not be suitable for others.

The brain is not in error. Humans are not in error.

 

[Nick227]

No, you didn't. You listed three things that all utterly fail to actually be an issue, because they are just confirming what we already know and have taken into account for centuries.

We knew about Bayesian predictive coding centuries ago?

We knew centuries ago that applying electrical stimulation to the temporo-parietal junction caused the locus of perception to shift?

We'd established a neural basis for neon colour spreading and necker cubes centuries ago?

Must have missed out on those bits in history, I guess!

 

[Nick227]

Save that you exist and are an observer, you mean.

The capacity to give a verbal report on the presence of phenomenal consciousness does not empirically demonstrate the existence of an observer.

 

[marplots]

The ability to give a verbal report on the presence of consciousness does not empirically demonstrate the existence of an observer.

What does it empirically demonstrate, the existence of a report but not a reporter?

 

[Nick227]

What does it empirically demonstrate, the existence of a report but not a reporter?

In empiric terms it demonstrates that the part of the brain which gives verbal reports is connected to the part that is holding the dominant neural representation.

 

[marplots]

In empiric terms it demonstrates that the part of the brain which gives verbal reports is connected to the part that is holding the dominant neural representation.

Can I refer to either of those as "the observer" and be done? Cause that's what I'd do.

 

[Nick227]

Can I refer to either of those as "the observer" and be done? Cause that's what I'd do.

No. You can't just mislabel parts of the brain and say the observer is proven! Sorry!

 

[Mojo]

Can I refer to either of those as "the observer" and be done? Cause that's what I'd do.

No

...and that's pretty much the entire argument against the existence of "the observer".

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Observer = one that observes
Experiencer = one that experiences

This is how I'm defining.

Hmmmkay.

In empiric terms it demonstrates that the part of the brain which gives verbal reports is connected to the part that is holding the dominant neural representation.

Alrighty. That's some hefty post-stimulus, autonomous processing. Sounds like the work of A. Smith an agent.

Can I refer to either of those as "the observer" and be done? Cause that's what I'd do.

Sounds like a plausible candidate set of functions, maybe with a little extra few thrown in.

No

Hmmm? What is missing that causes non-compliance with the definition you gave? Is the problem with the "one who..." part? If so, you will need to re-draft the definition, specifying more about "the one." The thread depends on setting some sort of working shared definition that lends itself to making argument cogently. Otherwise, akin to trying to nail jello to the wall.

 

[Nick227]

...and that's pretty much the entire argument against the existence of "the observer".

Look, you can't just go around labeling a part of the brain "the observer" and claim this is science.

Creating a verbal report on the dominant neural representation is brain activity. It's not observation.

That the brain can give a verbal report in this way actually demonstrates that epiphenomenonalism is wrong, but this is just an interesting aside.

 

[Nick227]

Hmmm? What is missing that causes non-compliance with the definition you gave? Is the problem with the "one who..." part? If so, you will need to re-draft the definition, specifying more about "the one." The thread depends on setting some sort of working shared definition that lends itself to making argument cogently. Otherwise, akin to trying to nail jello to the wall.

We're examining two abstractual layers here - neural and phenomenal. Agreed?

On the neural level there is the dominant neural representation - the one that got amplified and broadcast - fame in the brain. Correct? That is a representation, not an observer.
There is also the brain module that can report on the dominant representation, can assign to it certain qualities etc. That module is not observing this representation. It is not sitting in some theatre looking at a play. Merely it is connected.

Remember I'm talking about a phenomenal observer, something that reinforces subject-object boundaries, something that can establish objectivity. Something that is not just 2 interconnected parts of the brain.

The capacity to give a verbal report on the presence of phenomenal consciousness does not mean that someone is looking.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes. What I find fascinating personally is the way that the mind of the skeptic seems to absolutely NEED an observer. Otherwise perfectly intelligent people suddenly descend into all sorts of mis-representation, meaningless challenging, and related defence when this core belief is challenged.

Thus I can only conclude that the Observer is the skeptics version of God - an utterly unsubstantiable belief that they seem to need to be true in order to continue existing.

Rubbish. The observer is "one that observes". You just, in your post above, related several, albeit imprecise, observations. Hence, you are one who observes.

Hans