• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

Nick227 said:
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
Click to expand...

What is it I said about reading, Nick?

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't actually understand what "evidence" or "proof" actually means, any more than you understand what "observer" does.
 
Nick227 said:
Hi Hlafordlaes,

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

Hi, there. I refer to the use of science in a mixed environment, brought in as if in support of argument, yet not. You cannot simply mix and match science and philosophy in argument and expect to get a meaningful result. You have to respect the domain of discourse and applicability of each.

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!
Click to expand...

Yet the attempt to link the philosophical idea of an observer with neural function is what does not work, in the positive or negative. You are taking the purported lack of an observer in neuroscience as evidence of a problem in a philosophical argument. This is like saying there is a lack of Vulcan visitors to Earth given that the science of cosmology finds none, and this result implies that life is not possible elsewhere. Cosmologists do not look for Vulcans, and neuroscientists do not look for observers. Not part of the remit; science focuses on a step-wise march forward from what is measurable.

You will find people of good reputation in science who do get all spacey about qualia, but this is a fringe minority.

I think you need to make your argument purely on the basis of reason, ie do some philosophy, not science, and be content with that.
 
Nick227 said:
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
Click to expand...

I think what you're saying is that no consciousness or observer has ever been found in the brain or elsewhere - but that discovery is just around the corner and to deny that is special pleading or appeal to the Gap . . . or was that Solipsism . . . I forget. Truth is the opposite, the observer is all we've got for sure and everything else is conjecture. Oh look a squirrel.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Heh. I think the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy's description of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal may apply to Nick's "observer": "...so profoundly unintelligent that, if you can't see it, it assumes it can't see you."
Click to expand...


Actually, I think it assumes that if it can't see itself it doesn't exist. A bit like someone counting the people in the room and coming up one short.
 
Nick227 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And that, my friend, is what 'observer' means.

If you want to use some different definition, you're welcome, but don't expect others to be much bothered about that.

Hans
 
Nonpareil said:
I'm beginning to suspect that you don't actually understand what "evidence" or "proof" actually means, any more than you understand what "observer" does.
Click to expand...

Well, let's take a look...

I think this quote from you sums up what you're proposing. Feel free to correct me if not...

Nonpareil said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, for the record, you're stating that this is empiric proof that observation exists? Because the brain creates a verbal report using the term "observation" this is empiric proof? This is your case? Correct?
 
Hlafordlaes said:
I think you need to make your argument purely on the basis of reason, ie do some philosophy, not science, and be content with that.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm doing my best to give a neuro-scientifically accurate description for how the process we come to regard as observation occurs within the brain. And why the notions of "observation" and "observer" are actually thus invalid under strict materialism.

I think one could validly argue that "observation" is an emergent. (eta: Maybe) But "observer" is dead in the water.

Now, if something does not exist at a neural level, and does not exist at an emergent level, how precisely does it exist?
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
I think what you're saying is that no consciousness or observer has ever been found in the brain or elsewhere - but that discovery is just around the corner and to deny that is special pleading or appeal to the Gap . . . or was that Solipsism . . . I forget. Truth is the opposite, the observer is all we've got for sure and everything else is conjecture. Oh look a squirrel.
Click to expand...

I'm saying there's no observer. Not at a neural level. Not at an emergent level. A story about an observer exists, yes. And a newspaper too!
 
Nick227 said:
So, for the record, you're stating that this is empiric proof that observation exists? Because the brain creates a verbal report using the term "observation" this is empiric proof? This is your case? Correct?
Click to expand...


You are responding to Nonpareil's post. You saw it on the forum, you clicked on the "Quote" button in its bottom right hand corner. You could not have done this without having observed it.
 
Mojo said:
You are responding to Nonpareil's post. You saw it on the forum, you clicked on the "Quote" button in its bottom right hand corner. You could not have done this without having observed it.
Click to expand...

"That's just your memeplex* talking.

*whatever that is
 
MRC_Hans said:
And that, my friend, is what 'observer' means.

If you want to use some different definition, you're welcome, but don't expect others to be much bothered about that.
Click to expand...


I certainly don't expect many skeptics to want to examine whether two areas of the brain being connected can intelligently be described as "observation," no.

Just as I don't expect many religious fanatics to want to examine whether it's really likely that God exists.

Both have a vested interest in maintaining that something exists without any empiric evidence for its existence!
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
You are responding to Nonpareil's post. You saw it on the forum, you clicked on the "Quote" button in its bottom right hand corner. You could not have done this without having observed it.
Click to expand...

No observer needed. No observation needed. Brain activity. No gaps.

You're whole argument relies on assuming that a brain-produced verbal report is conceptually correct. Kinda like another group of people on the planet... who are those guys that say those books are just correct, no arguments? Uhm, the Bible, the Quran...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom