Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nonpareil]

Nonpareil,

All you and others are doing is trying to reverse-engineer an observer from the activity of several parts of the brain.

You are actually the ones playing semantic word games.

We're really not.

In terms of actual neural reality what is happening is that one dominant representation is being amplified and broadcast across multiple brain areas, including the area that can create a verbal report. This is not one area of the brain observing another

No one said it was.

Perhaps you should read what we are saying before responding.

 

[Nick227]

We're really not.



No one said it was.

Perhaps you should read what we are saying before responding.

Well, without getting involved in too much armchair psychology (!) i generally find that whenever one person takes it on to be citing other posters perspectives as one... this indicates that they really are not so convinced of their own truth. And are trying to shore up this weak argument by asserting it to be a group one.

Especially when that individual repeatedly asserts that they don't believe in any form of group consciousness!

So... I can't understand your argument as to how one area of the brain being connected to another means that there's an observer. Can you explain this to me in simple terms that I can understand.

 

[Nonpareil]

Well, without getting involved in too much armchair psychology (!) i generally find that whenever one person takes it on to be citing other posters perspectives as one... this indicates that they really are not so convinced of their own truth. And are trying to shore up this weak argument by asserting it to be a group one.

Especially when that individual repeatedly asserts that they don't believe in any form of group consciousness!

"Without getting into armchair psychology, I'm going to get into armchair psychology."

Yes, yes, that's all well and good. I'm still not interested.

So... I can't understand your argument as to how one area of the brain being connected to another means that there's an observer. Can you explain this to me in simple terms that I can understand.

That isn't the argument being made.

We observe the universe. Therefore, observers exist. Anything else is just playing pointless semantic games, and the fact that we process information through neural representation changes precisely nothing.

As I said, read. I have been over this multiple times in the last page alone. It's really not complicated.

 

[IanS]

That's a loaded question. The only things that will count as sufficient answers are things that fit the notion of what science and useful knowledge consist of. I could just as well ask what musical genre science has discovered. Science is not concerned with creating music, so I've front-loaded the question by eliminating what science does.



Do you realize you are making a philosophical argument in this thread? It strikes me as odd that anyone who doesn't think philosophy has merit would do so.

Every human who has lived a life of any depth has grappled with philosophical and religious questions. Whether they have been resolved or not isn't the point. The very rejection of religion is based on philosophical grounds. Atheism is a philosophical stance.

As to religion, many millions find the answers they seek in it every day. They find structure and meaning for their lives that science is unable to give them. If the response is going to be, "Well, those aren't real answers to real things," then again, I have to point out just how loaded the original question was.

Science is to philosophy as engineering is to science. The engineer takes what he finds useful and dismisses the rest, rightly claiming that basic research is not a marketable commodity and only those "answers" adopted by the engineering community have value.

As to religion, have you missed the current geopolitical landscape? If you want to know why ISIS is a "thing," you would want to understand the religious compulsion behind it as a start.

OK, good. I think the above shows quite clearly that there is no credible answer from you.

Instead you are reduced to making exactly the same two completely vacuous claims that are always made by philosophy proponents in threads like this. (1) that philosophy is not in the business of actually trying to discover or explain any real events or processes in this world. And (2) that all "arguments" or ideas are always a matter of philosophy, so that science is just a philosophy etc. etc.

However, until the advent of what we now call modern science, philosophy, like religion, had for thousands of years, been in precisely that position of claiming to discover and explain things about everything in the universe ... the nature of the stars in the sky, the origins of life and death, the "forces of nature", etc. etc.

As for science not being in the business of writing musical scores/songs - science has never claimed to be competing with composers and songwriters or musicians. Einstein was not claiming that his understanding of Relativity would produce a "hit record". But ancient philosophers were, afaik, most certainly claiming to understand the nature of the universe and the nature of mankind etc., by merely thinking about it.

However, as I say, that battle has been well and truly won by science following the early discoveries of people like Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Schroedinger etc. The fact of the matter, is that you cannot actually discover or genuinely explain anything about this universe or about the origins of life inc. homo sapiens, by merely thinking up ideas in your head.

The relevance of which to this thread, is - if Nick227 (or any other philosophy proponents) want to claim that people don't exist or that reality is "not real", or any such nonsense, then what science has shown is that you have to support such claims with real tangible evidence (and not with more un-evidenced musings of the mind or more gobbledygook semantics about word-arguments in philosophy or theology).

 

[Nick227]

We observe the universe. Therefore, observers exist. Anything else is just playing pointless semantic games, and the fact that we process information through neural representation changes precisely nothing.

This is your argument? After 1100 or so posts? Observers just exist. That's how it is! And anyone who disputes this, or asks for any form of empiric evidence, is just playing word games! I'm literally struggling to type because I'm laughing so hard.

 

[marplots]

OK, good. I think the above shows quite clearly that there is no credible answer from you.

That's unfortunate. But I'll keep trying.

Instead you are reduced to making exactly the same two completely vacuous claims that are always made by philosophy proponents in threads like this. (1) that philosophy is not in the business of actually trying to discover or explain any real events or processes in this world. And (2) that all "arguments" or ideas are always a matter of philosophy, so that science is just a philosophy etc. etc.

Not quite, unless you have some particular notion of "real events and processes" which, by definition, leave philosophy out in the cold. I suspect that's probably the case. I also wouldn't say that all arguments or ideas are properly of interest to philosophers. They might be in a tangential way, just as scientists might be interested in philosophical questions. For example, to what extent is string theory a proper scientific pursuit? But ideas come in too many varieties to be strictly slotted into one discipline or another.

However, until the advent of what we now call modern science, philosophy, like religion, had for thousands of years, been in precisely that position of claiming to discover and explain things about everything in the universe ... the nature of the stars in the sky, the origins of life and death, the "forces of nature", etc. etc.

Early philosophers were pretty much the scientists of their day, weren't they?

As for science not being in the business of writing musical scores/songs - science has never claimed to be competing with composers and songwriters or musicians. Einstein was not claiming that his understanding of Relativity would produce a "hit record". But ancient philosophers were, afaik, most certainly claiming to understand the nature of the universe and the nature of mankind etc., by merely thinking about it.

When you say "merely thinking about it" you make it sound like "making **** up." The things they were thinking about were drawn from their own lives and the concerns of the time. Not quite as abstract as you seem to imply. You might think about it as like how mathematics intersects with our daily affairs. In the purest sense, math is just a logic game, but it does try to answer questions that arise in our daily affairs. There's a similar overlap with philosophy.

However, as I say, that battle has been well and truly won by science following the early discoveries of people like Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Schroedinger etc. The fact of the matter, is that you cannot actually discover or genuinely explain anything about this universe or about the origins of life inc. homo sapiens, by merely thinking up ideas in your head.

I don't see it as a battle at all. At least some on your list did grapple with the philosophical implications of their work and the ideas underpinning their efforts. I imagine they also spent time sitting around and thinking about stuff.

The relevance of which to this thread, is - if Nick227 (or any other philosophy proponents) want to claim that people don't exist or that reality is "not real", or any such nonsense, then what science has shown is that you have to support such claims with real tangible evidence (and not with more un-evidenced musings of the mind or more gobbledygook semantics about word-arguments in philosophy or theology).

I keep hearing this, but where are people claiming that "reality is not real?"

If your opinion of philosophy and theology is that they are "un-evidenced musings of the mind or more gobbledygook semantics about word-arguments" then it's no surprise you find the pursuits distasteful.

Would you be surprised to discover there is a school of philosophy that agrees with you?

"Pragmatism^WP is a philosophical tradition that began in the United States around 1870. Pragmatism rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Instead, pragmatists consider thought an instrument or tool for prediction, problem solving and action. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes."

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm starting to see parallels here with how Creationist view the so called "Missing Link" concept.

When a Creationist demands to see the missing link between a monkey and a human (which isn't close to how that works but we're talking colloquially here...) and you show him a Austrolopithicus he'll then turn around and demand to see the new missing link between Austrolopithicus and Homo Sapians. Show him a Homo Erectus as the missing link between those two and he'll demand you show him a missing link between those two and so forth and so on.

This is exactly the same thing here. People have just up and decided that there is some sort of air gap between reality and our perception of the world. Explain to him how our senses work and he'll demand to know how our sense get to our brain and they'll demand to know how they get from our brain to our perception. Explain that to them and they'll demand to know how it gets from our perception to our "consciousnesses."

This is more and more just starting to sound like yet another new code word for a soul.

 

[Nick227]

This is exactly the same thing here. People have just up and decided that there is some sort of air gap between reality and our perception of the world. Explain to him how our senses work and he'll demand to know how our sense get to our brain and they'll demand to know how they get from our brain to our perception. Explain that to them and they'll demand to know how it gets from our perception to our "consciousnesses."

OK, Joe. Let's test that shall we? So, when you open your eyes, what's there is neural representation? Yes? That's all there is - neural representation of external phenomena? No "air gap"? Yes? Please confirm.

 

[JoeMorgue]

OK, Joe. Let's test that shall we? So, when you open your eyes, what's there is neural representation? Yes? That's all there is - neural representation of external phenomena? No "air gap"? Yes? Please confirm.

No. People have been explaining it to you for the last 30 pages. If you want keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la" and pretend that the entire science of neurology doesn't exist just so you can continue to believe in magical water fine but I'm not going through the same loop again. You haven't listened to one thing, even listen to it just to disagree with it, anyone has said this entire thread.

The idea that science is completely ignorant of how we perceive reality is laughable and the only way a person can hold that opinion is to be willfully and purposely ignorant of the concept of neuroscience and when someone is not learning about something on purpose you can't explain it to them to help.

 

[Nonpareil]

This is your argument? After 1100 or so posts? Observers just exist. That's how it is! And anyone who disputes this, or asks for any form of empiric evidence, is just playing word games! I'm literally struggling to type because I'm laughing so hard.

I'm sure you are.

I note, however, that you have not actually addressed the point. An observer is something that observes. You observe. Therefore, an observer exists.

The entire thread thus far has essentially been us waiting for you to come up with some sort of coherent rebuttal to this, but you have utterly failed to do so.

 

[marplots]

This is exactly the same thing here. People have just up and decided that there is some sort of air gap between reality and our perception of the world.

It's easy enough to demonstrate the gap between reality and perceptions. Here are a couple examples:

1) I reach down and touch my ankle with a finger. My perception is that I immediately feel the touch as I see it happen. But I also know that it takes a different amount of time for each sensation to reach my brain. Shortest is from my eye, a bit longer for the sensation to travel from my hand, and even longer for it to travel from my foot. Yet all these seem to arrive at the same time in my noggin. I suspect something is being edited.

2) I see a bright spot in the night sky. I cannot perceive it other than one of many bright spots. But I can alter my perceptions with a telescope and figure out it's a planet and not a star or a comet or something else. I can even calculate its mass based on its orbit - a feat requiring mathematics and some understanding of orbital mechanics. But I perceive none of those directly, only by extension.

3) I get an email telling me I can make millions if I help a guy in Nigeria. I perceive this to be a scam, even though there is no direct evidence in the email that it is not 100% true. Yet I am confident it is a scam nonetheless.

 

[JoeMorgue]

1) I reach down and touch my ankle with a finger. My perception is that I immediately feel the touch as I see it happen. But I also know that it takes a different amount of time for each sensation to reach my brain. Shortest is from my eye, a bit longer for the sensation to travel from my hand, and even longer for it to travel from my foot. Yet all these seem to arrive at the same time in my noggin. I suspect something is being edited.

Or since we're talking the frickin' speed of electrical impulse over the difference of a couple of feet the difference in visual perception vice tactile perception is just too small for you to register.

Seriously that's your "gotcha?" "When I touch my ankle I should be able to see it before I feel it since my ankle is farther away from my brain then my eyes?"

And even if I grant that how is this "editing" as you call is sign of a Woo ready gap?

2) I see a bright spot in the night sky. I cannot perceive it other than one of many bright spots. But I can alter my perceptions with a telescope and figure out it's a planet and not a star or a comet or something else. I can even calculate its mass based on its orbit - a feat requiring mathematics and some understanding of orbital mechanics. But I perceive none of those directly, only by extension.

What? So knowledge disproves perception?

3) I get an email telling me I can make millions if I help a guy in Nigeria. I perceive this to be a scam, even though there is no direct evidence in the email that it is not 100% true. Yet I am confident it is a scam nonetheless.

What again? Just what?

So the ability to recognize patterns disproves... reality somehow now.

None of your example make any sense at all. All of what you are talking about is perfectly describable under how we know the mind works. You can take in new information, you can recognize patterns.

In what possible way does any of that show we live on the walls of Plato's cave or whatever?

 

[tsig]

Well, without getting involved in too much armchair psychology (!) i generally find that whenever one person takes it on to be citing other posters perspectives as one... this indicates that they really are not so convinced of their own truth. And are trying to shore up this weak argument by asserting it to be a group one.

Especially when that individual repeatedly asserts that they don't believe in any form of group consciousness!

So... I can't understand your argument as to how one area of the brain being connected to another means that there's an observer. Can you explain this to me in simple terms that I can understand.

The fore brain's connected to the hind brain, the left brain's connected to the right brain, the inner brain's connected to the outer brain, so hear the word of the woo.

 

[marplots]

Or since we're talking the frickin' speed of electrical impulse over the difference of a couple of feet the difference in visual perception vice tactile perception is just too small for you to register.

Well, if you agree there is a difference, and you agree the difference isn't registered, then you should agree there's a mismatch between my perceptions and reality. That was the entire point.

Seriously that's your "gotcha?" "When I touch my ankle I should be able to see it before I feel it since my ankle is farther away from my brain then my eyes?"

It's not a "gotcha," it's just evidence that our perceptions are at variance with reality. The "reality" is constructed, and this is what is meant by a "gap."

And even if I grant that how is this "editing" as you call is sign of a Woo ready gap?

Please quit defaulting to "woo." I'm not trying to shoehorn woo into the conversation.

What? So knowledge disproves perception?

What again? Just what?

So the ability to recognize patterns disproves... reality somehow now.

None of your example make any sense at all. All of what you are talking about is perfectly describable under how we know the mind works. You can take in new information, you can recognize patterns.

In what possible way does any of that show we live on the walls of Plato's cave or whatever?

Now I seriously don't know what role I'm supposed to be playing. Perhaps the point was too basic. All I was asserting is that we do not perceive all of what we consider reality directly as input to our senses. We do much more than that.

None of this proves dualism, or woo, or whatever it is you think I'm arguing for. All it proves is that we construct a sensible world from the somewhat limited input we get. There is a gap. What could be wedged into that gap is a completely different question.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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

Aha, so we can skip the neuroscience and move to the experiential aspects that can be described consensually; i.e., agreed-to aspects of the 'inner life' experience. Forum fodder, for centuries, in other words.

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.

That is both representation and interpretation, the two cannot be separated, at least not in terms of conscious thought. Both the ongoing inner narrative and outside events shape ongoing experiential gestalt.

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.

Uh, see above.

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.

This, your most core definition stated so far, is philosophy. Most importantly, you cannot backdoor neuroscience once you introduce a top-down search for a philosophical concept, 'the observer.'

Or back to the scans, medical consciousness is 'the observer' if you need one, and Bob's your uncle.

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

Given what is actually involved in a voluntary verbal report, you just missed a good chance to catch a glimpse of the observer you seek, at least in philosophical terms. As we are no longer bounded by a scan and can start with consensual descriptions of 'what things are like' inside us, my phenomenal observer says... boo!

 

[Aridas]

But you're not doing this, Aridas.

Oh? It's certainly true that I wasn't poking at that. You are the one doing that.

The simple truth is that we don't know the degree to which science and scientific method is affected by what's being discovered in neuroscience. We don't know because the neuroscience isn't sufficiently complete yet. That's why I'm saying a lot more scientific attention needs to be focussed on understanding more fully the process of neural representation in the brain.

As a general rule, I am firmly in favor of increased understanding. With that said, I strongly doubt the claim that any revelations that neuroscience has much chance of providing will notably impact the scientific method itself, given the nature of the scientific method, which seems to be one of the things that you're trying to ignore the most. There are many things of value that have the potential to be learned by investing in neuroscience, certainly, and quite a few reasons to learn them. Your reasoning, however, seems to be completely off the mark when it comes to making a viable argument to those ends, though. I'm a fan of the concept of full immersion VRMMO's, for example, which likely can't really happen all that completely until more advances are made in that direction. That can certainly be expanded into a viable line of argument for increased support of research in a number of areas of neuroscience. Your line of argument, on the other hand, seems to be little more than trying to talk up an old, well-known potential issue that has long been accounted for as something ground-breaking and potentially paradigm-breaking with no valid theoretical basis for how that would actually happen or be the case.

Fiddlesticks! We didn't have the tech before so we just proceeded as though everything was OK. That's human nature, no problem. But the situation is changing. The reality of a problem is emerging.

What problem? That we can't point at the finger that makes up the entire hand, so hands don't exist?

But that is an honest appraisal of the situation. An issue is emerging. It needs to be recognised and then some intelligence can be brought to bear upon it.

And you've so far completely failed to communicate what issue that is without resorting to fallacious logic.

I agree. I'm not trying to claim that predictive coding reduces the likely existence of an observer. I'm pointing out that, in the list of reasons why we urgently need more brain research, both of these stand out.

What we have is this...

* the need to create a neural basis for optical illusions
* the discovery of bayesian predictive coding
* the discovery that we can trigger locus-shifting experiences (such as oobes) by electrical stimulation to parts of the brain

These 3 reinforce the notion of non-veridical reality.

* the reality that an observer can't exist

This undermines the notion of objectivity being real.

Less than you seem to think, given that you appear to be making some notably unsubstantiated leaps here and are fighting against not particularly viable versions of "observer" and "objectivity." Again, your argument only really starts to have value at the point that you get rid of the assumption that an objective reality is what one's subjective representation is generally representing. Before that point, your observers cannot exist claim crumbles. After that point, while the argument could stand, your overall position becomes nonsensical.

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

It does.

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.

You do realize that this is a trait potentially shared by pretty much all systems of understanding reality? It's common sense that lightning is caused by the angry gods, after all. Anyone who doesn't understand that is an idiot who may be inviting divine punishment upon us all.

Either way, when it comes to the scientific method, "common sense" has been shown to be lacking as a guide far more effectively than by any other means that I know about.

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.

That sound... a lot like a lack of imagination and research to me. Quite a bold claim, at the least, unless the claim is actually that understanding the truth of reality completely is the most challenging task that the human mind has ever ventured on. That, at least, would be reasonably defensible.

 

[Pixel42]

There's a free online course starting in April which might be of interest to participants in this thread:

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses...gn=13_01_2016_FL_newsletter&utm_content=image

This free online course will bring together learners and practitioners interested in how the mind works. It aims to build bridges between traditionally antagonistic approaches to understanding the mind.

What is a mind?

This question has perplexed philosophers, scientists, historians and ordinary people across time and cultures.

While advances in the medical understanding of how the brain functions can shed light on neurological functions and disorders, the essential question of what the mind is speaks to a different problem.

This problem cannot be answered by a purely scientific understanding of the brain, nor by a purely philosophical or psychological approach. Many disciplines have attempted to address the question’, resulting in multiple and sometimes antithetical answers.

New understandings of the mind

On this course, Professor Mark Solms, Chair of Neuropsychology at the University of Cape Town, will adopt a multidisciplinary approach.

He will bring in perspectives from a range of disciplines, to explore four specific aspects of the mind- subjectivity, intentionality, consciousness and agency. Together, these will help us think about the fundamental questions: what it is to be a mind, why we have a mind and what it feels like to have a mind.

It's a six week course with an estimated 3 hours of study per week. I've registered for it, and might start a thread for it closer to the start date.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

There's a free online course starting in April which might be of interest to participants in this thread:

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses...gn=13_01_2016_FL_newsletter&utm_content=image



It's a six week course with an estimated 3 hours of study per week. I've registered for it, and might start a thread for it closer to the start date.

Cool. Not sure I can commit to the course, but I look forward to your thread. Quite eager to hear what you find interesting.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Think I'll take a little leap.

Toward a Scientific View of Consciousness​

The so-called 'hard' problem, Cartesian Theater, homunculi and their ilk... the discussion about consciousness is riddled with uncertainty as to what it is one wishes to define, and how to go about it with science. There is a lingering doubt that there must be more to it than what meets the eye (or fMRI). Is there? And where to start?

My take:

Where to start: There is a working definition of consciousness that is used in the medical profession. This state is associated with a set of observable behaviors externally, and internally with what can be read from a brain scan. Rather than any sort of definition from literature or philosophy, this measurable phenomenon is the best starting point.

What to look for: Just as above, nothing other than what the system itself reveals. That is, what the activities, signals, and states that can be measured and tracked during medical consciousness are. Later, sets of measurements for the brain activities that are associated with partial consciousness, coma, and other intermediates. (The hard slog and extremely long-term part: associating the physical to the cognitive in a detailed fashion and across the board.)

What kinds of answers: Descriptions of the actual workings of whatever is needed to provide workable, medical consciousness, what behavior is enabled by it, and... Bob's your uncle. No more needed; same way of doing science as in other, less belief-tainted areas.

The point: There is no need for philosophical fishing expeditions if one is interested in the science of the brain. Whatever the broad and/or narrow enabling of functionalities the brain is capable of may be, that is what is there, what is done, or what is going on. We may continue to call a resulting set of some of these descriptions consciousness, or simply use the terms that arise in the research. Either way, in my view this is the way to approach the mind scientifically; i.e., by studying the machine that behaves as a mind.

In the end: I would not be surprised to find that a good number of the preconceived attributes or elements of the mind from philosophy are found to have rough equivalencies, and the old labels then applied to the new data. However, it would be going precisely backwards to start with those old labels, and is misguided to do so.

***
Just a thought, as I twiddle thumbs waiting for an 8.1 to 10 Windows upgrade on another machine to finish.

 

[Nick227]

No. People have been explaining it to you for the last 30 pages. If you want keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La la la" and pretend that the entire science of neurology doesn't exist just so you can continue to believe in magical water fine but I'm not going through the same loop again. You haven't listened to one thing, even listen to it just to disagree with it, anyone has said this entire thread.

Joe,

So... when you open your eyes that is not neural representation? What is it then?