Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Mojo]

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

It is part of the process of making a visual observation.

 

[Nick227]

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.

I have actually explained the position as I see it throughout the thread. As I recall you came in somewhere midway, so perhaps you didn't see it, fair enough.

I am examining the situation at 2 levels of abstraction - neural and phenomenal - phenomenal being that of our experience.

I am saying that no observer exists at the neural level. There is simply a connection between the dominant neural representation and the part of the brain that creates verbal reports.

I am saying that no observer exists at a phenomenal level. It is merely that the sense of there being an observer emerges from certain aspects of brain activity - notably attending to the content of narratives (centre of narrative gravity effect) and the amplification of narratives (the sense of there being someone that hears thoughts). These 2 factors between them create the sense of there being an observer. It is thus essentially an unexamined assumption from which processing proceeds. This sense is so highly favoured that the brain just takes it for granted that an observer exists. It behaves as though an observer exists from such an early age it is not easy for it to give attention to the possibility that no observer exists and that it is all just socially-useful learned behaviour.

I have also listed at least 4 different, standard attacks on this perspective and why each is invalid. These I have placed in the context of 4 different levels of memeplex development.

 

[Nick227]

Most importantly, you cannot backdoor neuroscience once you introduce a top-down search for a philosophical concept, 'the observer.'

Hi Hlafordlaes,

I don't believe I am doing this, though I'm not completely sure what "backdooring" is! Could you explain more?

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

Oh, this thread if full of suggestions of how to reverse-engineer an observer from what we know of neural function. I don't need one!

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!

See above

 

[Nonpareil]

I am saying that no observer exists at the neural level.

And you are, quite bluntly, wrong.

There is simply a connection between the dominant neural representation and the part of the brain that creates verbal reports.

You seem unduly wrapped up in this idea of verbal reports. I have no idea why.

Meanwhile, the fact remains that the process of constructing a neural representation of one's surroundings through collection and processing of sensory data is observation.

I am saying that no observer exists at a phenomenal level.

You remain wrong.

It is merely that the sense of there being an observer emerges from certain areas of brain activity - notably the content of narratives and the amplification of narratives.

Meanwhile, the fact remains that the construction of these narratives in the first place is observation.

You are looking for a nonsensical, personal definition of "observer", looking for it in the wrong places anyway, failing to find it because of these twin issues, and then acting as though you have proven something.

It's rather impressive, really.

I have also listed at least 4 different, standard attacks on this perspective and why each is invalid, understood in the context of 4 different levels of memeplex development.

Your objections are invalid for a number of reasons that have already been explained, and your constant use of "impressive" words like "memeplex" does not change that.

 

[Nick227]

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....

How ever well intentioned I'm fairly sure that this approach is unlikely to work with our beloved HPC.

This is because several high profile figures, notably Chalmers and Searle but also many others, have repeated accused those proponents of creating a neurally valid definition of explaining consciousness away. John Searle has actually written a book, I believe, where he states that phenomenal consciousness is essentially inviolable, but I could be a little off here.

And I personally don't find this perspective so terrible.

There are explanatory gaps, and whether they require a paradigm-shifting resolution, is still debatable, as I see it.

Taking the observer out of the equation, for me definitely reduces the HPC issue. But it also introduces many other issues, so it's not a quick fix.

Perhaps if this thread continues for another 1000 posts, and a bulwark of people who grasp this perspective develops, we might get around to discussing some of the issues that arise for neuroscience and consciousness, given a selfless reality. One can but hope!

 

[Nick227]

Meanwhile, the fact remains that the process of constructing a neural representation of one's surroundings through collection and processing of sensory data is observation.

No, it is not. Unless you choose, against normal use of language, to define it as such. Observation, to me, refers to seeing. And an observer is one who sees. This is how I define.

The brain processes external stimuli into representations. Representations which are useful to help it fulfil its evolutionarily-derived objectives. This is not seeing. This is not observation. This is processing.

And anyway, the representations are not actually seen by anyone. There is merely the sense that they are.

 

[Nonpareil]

No, it is not. Unless you choose, against normal use of language, to define it as such.

Careful there, Nick. A man could die from so much irony.

Observation, to me, refers to seeing. And an observer is one who sees. This is how I define.

I am aware of your definition. The point still stands.

Gathering sensory data is seeing (or hearing, or touching, and so on). And you do see, so even by your own definition, you are an observer.

Your argument remains utterly incoherent.

The brain processes external stimuli into representations. Representations which are useful to help it fulfil its evolutionarily-derived objectives. This is not seeing. This is not observation. This is processing.

Rather afraid it's all of the above, Nick. And even if it weren't, you're still just playing pointless semantic games.

And anyway, the representations are not actually seen by anyone.

Mmmmmyes they are.

There is merely the sense that they are.

Oh, look. A sensation. An observation, even. Now, how do you suppose that there could be one of those without someone to experience it?

 

[Mojo]

And anyway, the representations are not actually seen by anyone. There is merely the sense that they are.

What difference does it make, as far as the scientific method is concerned, whether there is an observer or the sense of an observer?

 

[Mojo]

Oh, look. A sensation. An observation, even. Now, how do you suppose that there could be one of those without someone to experience it?

 

[Mojo]

Anyway, Nick, back to a question you asked earlier in the thread:

If our brains developed a sense of an observer existing, through evolutionary bias, then what does scientific method look like without this add-on ?

What would be the difference between the scientific method as practised by beings with an "observer", and the scientific method as practised by beings with a "sense of an observer"? What difference would it make to procedures or results?

 

[Nick227]

Careful there, Nick. A man could die from so much irony.

You're the one who is choosing to call neural processing "observation!" Have you checked your own life-insurance that you are covered against death by irony?

Your argument remains utterly incoherent.

My position is acutely counter-intuitive, yes. It would seem utterly ridiculous that there could be no actual observer, no one that is "doing" the seeing; that our sense of an observer could be merely learned behaviour. No doubt about it, it seems utterly ridiculous. Plain ludicrous, in fact.

But, if you look, you will see that there is actually nothing to suggest that observation is going on inside the brain at a neural level, and that our belief in an observer cannot be substantiated.

There is zero empiric evidence for an observer, in fact the very notion actually goes against materialism. We have good reasons why the sense of an observer, and the behaviour of an observer, are useful. And we have a valid mechanism to account for the sense of there being an observer, without there actually being one.

So, to paraphrase I believe Mr Spock, when all other possibilities have been proven false, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.

 

[Nonpareil]

You're the one who is choosing to call neural processing "observation!"

Mm, no. Read my posts before replying, Nick. This is not complicated.

My position is acutely counter-intuitive, yes. It would seem utterly ridiculous that there could be no actual observer, no one that is "doing" the seeing; that our sense of an observer could be merely learned behaviour. No doubt about it, it seems utterly ridiculous.

And incoherent.

Because it is.

But, if you look, you will see that there is actually nothing to suggest that observation is going on inside the brain at a neural level, and that our belief in an observer cannot be substantiated empirically.

Except for the fact that observation is occurring. Right now. As you read this. That is not only empirical evidence that observation is occurring, it is proof, because that is what observation means.

Read before you respond this time, please. This constant repetition of a simple point is getting tiresome.

 

[Nick227]

Except for the fact that observation is occurring. Right now. As you read this.

Unfortunately not.

Processing is going on in the brain. Neural activity is creating useful representations of external reality. The representation judged, by other autonomously-functioning neural circuitry, to be most useful is being amplified and broadcast across multiple brain areas.

One of these brain areas constructs a verbal report of the presence and content of this dominant representation. That report is created using learned linguistic protocols and refers to an "I" which is "observing" what's happening.

Thus formatted, the report is conveyed onto the laptop screen via typing.

At no point in this entire process is any actual observation going on, and at no point is there any observer.

These terms are just socially-useful artefacts of language use.

A story about an observer does not demonstrate the existence of an observer.

 

[Mojo]

Except for the fact that observation is occurring. Right now. As you read this.

Actually, Nick's responses rather suggest that it isn't.

 

[Nonpareil]

Neural activity is creating useful representations of external reality.

Using data gathered through observation, natch.

You really are missing the point rather spectacularly.

 

[tsig]

You're the one who is choosing to call neural processing "observation!" Have you checked your own life-insurance that you are covered against death by irony?



My position is acutely counter-intuitive, yes. It would seem utterly ridiculous that there could be no actual observer, no one that is "doing" the seeing; that our sense of an observer could be merely learned behaviour. No doubt about it, it seems utterly ridiculous. Plain ludicrous, in fact.

But, if you look, you will see that there is actually nothing to suggest that observation is going on inside the brain at a neural level, and that our belief in an observer cannot be substantiated. There is zero empiric evidence for an observer, in fact the very notion actually goes against materialism. We have good reasons why the sense of an observer, and the behaviour of an observer, are useful. And we have a valid mechanism to account for the sense of there being an observer, without there actually being one.

So, to paraphrase I believe Mr Spock, when all other possibilities have been proven false, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.

You mean other than the fact that humans have been able to observe tigers and avoid being eaten?

Sherlock Holmes said that.

 

[tsig]

I have actually explained the position as I see it throughout the thread. As I recall you came in somewhere midway, so perhaps you didn't see it, fair enough.

I am examining the situation at 2 levels of abstraction - neural and phenomenal - phenomenal being that of our experience.

I am saying that no observer exists at the neural level. There is simply a connection between the dominant neural representation and the part of the brain that creates verbal reports.

I am saying that no observer exists at a phenomenal level. It is merely that the sense of there being an observer emerges from certain aspects of brain activity - notably attending to the content of narratives (centre of narrative gravity effect) and the amplification of narratives (the sense of there being someone that hears thoughts). These 2 factors between them create the sense of there being an observer. It is thus essentially an unexamined assumption from which processing proceeds. This sense is so highly favoured that the brain just takes it for granted that an observer exists. It behaves as though an observer exists from such an early age it is not easy for it to give attention to the possibility that no observer exists and that it is all just socially-useful learned behaviour.

I have also listed at least 4 different, standard attacks on this perspective and why each is invalid. These I have placed in the context of 4 different levels of memeplex development.

Memeplex seems to be your go to explanation for everything, you are aware that it is a made up word?

 

[tsig]

Actually, Nick's responses rather suggest that it isn't.

 

[abaddon]

You're the one who is choosing to call neural processing "observation!" Have you checked your own life-insurance that you are covered against death by irony?



My position is acutely counter-intuitive, yes. It would seem utterly ridiculous that there could be no actual observer, no one that is "doing" the seeing; that our sense of an observer could be merely learned behaviour. No doubt about it, it seems utterly ridiculous. Plain ludicrous, in fact.

But, if you look, you will see that there is actually nothing to suggest that observation is going on inside the brain at a neural level, and that our belief in an observer cannot be substantiated.

There is zero empiric evidence for an observer, in fact the very notion actually goes against materialism. We have good reasons why the sense of an observer, and the behaviour of an observer, are useful. And we have a valid mechanism to account for the sense of there being an observer, without there actually being one.

In science, an observer need not even be conscious at all.

So, to paraphrase I believe Mr Spock, when all other possibilities have been proven false, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be true.

Couldn't even get that right, I see.

 

[Nick227]

This constant repetition of a simple point is getting tiresome.

Perhaps if you introduced some empiric evidence it would spice things up for you.

I mean, I agree, it can't be much fun endlessly repeating a script that merely articulates how things seem