Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nick227]

Can you link to anyone arguing that in this thread?

For sure.

Hans is doing it here.

 

[Mojo]

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...

Nope. It's relying on the fact that you are the observer. You observe the posts. That's how you are able to respond to them.

Something of an impasse seems to have been reached here, but it's really somewhat academic in light of your failure to answer a question I've asked a few times now:

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", or even by automata with neither? What difference would it make to procedures or results?

 

[MRC_Hans]

For sure.

Hans is doing it here.

No. Reading comprehension, Nick. Reading comprehension.

... But lacking an observer, I suppose you're excused.

Hans

 

[Nonpareil]

So, for the record, you're stating that this is empiric proof that observation exists?

Yes.

Because the brain creates a verbal report using the term "observation" this is empiric proof? This is your case? Correct?

No.

Read, Nick. Read. I'm not going to go back and dig up the links for you over and over when you apparently can't be bothered to read them the first time around.

This really isn't complicated.

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.

You are failing spectacularly.

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

These two statements are mutually contradictory. If observation occurs, there is, by definition, an observer, and vice versa. You cannot have one without the other.

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.

No one is arguing that.

You are just absolutely failing to understand anything said to you.

 

[Nick227]

You are just absolutely failing to understand anything said to you.

Nonpareil,

I would say that I completely understand what you and everyone else is saying.

But I'm pointing out that such a means of asserting the existence of an observer relies on words that do not point to any material phenomenon.

As I asked before... supply empiric evidence. Give me a good neural description of the observer, or of observation. And then we can take a look.

Because, I'm sorry, endlessly repeating that because I am answering this post means that an observer must exist does not really cut it for me.

 

[marplots]

Nonpareil,

I would say that I completely understand what you and everyone else is saying.

But I'm pointing out that such a means of asserting the existence of an observer relies on words that do not point to any material phenomenon.

As I asked before... supply empiric evidence. Give me a good neural description of the observer, or of observation. And then we can take a look.

Because, I'm sorry, endlessly repeating that because I am answering this post means that an observer must exist does not really cut it for me.

I don't know if you ever responded, but what do you think of the idea that any interaction should count as an observation? In the strictest physics sense. That seems like it would meet at least part of your criteria.

In this way, the light bouncing off the dial is interacting/observing the dial. The light changing some molecule in my eye is detected/interacts with/observed by the eye.

Can we get that far? An observation without yet creating an observer?

 

[tsig]

It seems to have made a valid point. Care to address it?

Shoulda used this.>

 

[Mojo]

For sure.

Hans is doing it here.

I take it back. You clearly aren't observing anyone's posts, not even your own.

 

[tsig]

Nonpareil,

I would say that I completely understand what you and everyone else is saying.

But I'm pointing out that such a means of asserting the existence of an observer relies on words that do not point to any material phenomenon.

As I asked before... supply empiric evidence. Give me a good neural description of the observer, or of observation. And then we can take a look.

Because, I'm sorry, endlessly repeating that because I am answering this post means that an observer must exist does not really cut it for me.

IOW there is no evidence that would cut it for you.

 

[Nick227]

I take it back. You clearly aren't observing anyone's posts, not even your own.

Well, Hans did state that my description of how the illusion of observation occurs neurally is what "observation" is! Did he not?

You guys are pretty funny. Really, I feel like a skeptic at a fundamentalist convention, wondering what delusions will next be presented as just plain apparent fact!

 

[Nick227]

IOW there is no evidence that would cut it for you.

Yes, there is, tsig. One iota of empiric evidence. 1230 posts and not one shred presented. Nada. Oaloo.

Personally, I think many God-botherers would have seen the error of their ways by now, if this discussion was God versus evidence. But you guys are really hardcore. You're absolutely unconcerned by the total lack of evidence. Maybe you should all move to Alabama and petition local government to ban neuroscience. Try and create a nice safe haven for yourselves, where science can't get in.

 

[Nonpareil]

I would say that I completely understand what you and everyone else is saying.

All evidence points to the contrary.

But I'm pointing out that such a means of asserting the existence of an observer relies on words that do not point to any material phenomenon.

Incorrect.

As I asked before... supply empiric evidence. Give me a good neural description of the observer, or of observation. And then we can take a look.

It has been done.

Because, I'm sorry, endlessly repeating that because I am answering this post means that an observer must exist does not really cut it for me.

That isn't the argument being made.

Pay attention this time, Nick. This is just getting tedious now.

 

[Nick227]

I don't know if you ever responded, but what do you think of the idea that any interaction should count as an observation?

It might be useful, before going down this road, to consider what benefit it is to try and formulate an observer where none exists.

If the neural description accounts for the erroneous belief in an observer, and I submit it does, then you need to present additional empiric evidence to show that something has been missed. Simply trying to redefine terms to "create an observer" isn't really going to cut it in science circles. You need to find something extra. Or you need to accept "Hey ho, there really is no observer. It's just a socially useful illusion."

 

[Nick227]

It has been done.

No it hasn't. All that you've done in the linked post is to re-describe aspects of neural processing as "observation." As I said to marplots just now, if you want to challenge a neural description, you either need to find empiric evidence of holes in it, or you need to find empiric evidence for bits that have been left out. Simply replacing the word "processing" with "observing" isn't really going to cut it. Except, as I've said before, in fundamentalist circles where there's a huge investment in believing in an illusion.

 

[Nonpareil]

No it hasn't. All that you've done in the linked post is to re-describe aspects of neural processing as "observation."

Precisely backwards.

That is what observation means. You are the one attempting to wave it away through redefining the term unnecessarily.

Simply replacing the word "processing" with "observing" isn't really going to cut it.

That is not at all what is being done. Go back, try again, and pay attention this time.

Again, read before responding.

 

[Nick227]

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.

Didn't he say something like that? I was trying to remember the scene. I think it was one of the movies they made with the original cast. Maybe you have a better memory than me. Would love to know if you can recall.

eta: Ah, OK, he was quoting Sherlock... Captain Spock once stated, "An ancestor of mine maintained that if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth." (Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country)

 

[Nick227]

Again, read before responding.

Well, I assume you're referring to this...

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.

Sorry, that's not a neural description.

Or did you mean something else you wrote in that post?

 

[Nonpareil]

Sorry, that's not a neural description.

Well, yes, actually. It is. Observation is a process (in the case of humans, one which takes place in the brain, thus making it neural in nature). The observer is the system performing that process.

This is not complicated.

 

[Nick227]

Well, yes, actually. It is. Observation is a process (in the case of humans, one which takes place in the brain, thus making it neural in nature). The observer is the system performing that process.

This is not complicated.

No. It's not complicated. But it's also neither correct nor a neural description. You are proceeding from defining observation as a brain process. Little wonder you end up proving it... to yourself! And anyone else who's desperate!

Now... try giving me an actual neural description - one that actually refers to the elements of neural activity which comprise what you're terming observation.

 

[marplots]

It might be useful, before going down this road, to consider what benefit it is to try and formulate an observer where none exists.

If the neural description accounts for the erroneous belief in an observer, and I submit it does, then you need to present additional empiric evidence to show that something has been missed. Simply trying to redefine terms to "create an observer" isn't really going to cut it in science circles. You need to find something extra. Or you need to accept "Hey ho, there really is no observer. It's just a socially useful illusion."

OK, never mind then.