Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[tsig]

Someone that experiences phenomenal consciousness.

The laptop in front of you right now... is it being seen by anyone... or it is just there? There's a neural representation in front of you, correct? Is that representation witnessed by anyone?

I'm saying that this sense of there being "someone that sees the laptop" is emerging from brain activity, but that this is just a sense of an observer emerging, not an actual observer emerging.

I'm saying that under monism you cannot have someone that experiences phenomenal consciousness. No matter how powerful the illusion may seem, it's not possible that it's real.

As this thread has shown, there exists precisely zero empiric evidence for an observer of phenomenal consciousness.

When philosophy conflicts with reality lose the philosophy.

 

[Nick227]

When philosophy conflicts with reality lose the philosophy.

Ah, a slight variation of memeplex 1.0!

However, like hlafordlaes, you are I submit creating artificial divisions. It is not so much philosophy but simple logic that is the issue here.

I refer you to the Spock/Holmes/Conan-Doyle quote... When all other possibilities have been tried, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be correct.

There is no observer.

 

[abaddon]

Someone that experiences phenomenal consciousness.

The laptop in front of you right now... is it being seen by anyone... or it is just there? There's a neural representation in front of you, correct? Is that representation witnessed by anyone?

Right now there are three, none of which is a laptop and only two of which are functioning. Can you tell which ones?

I'm saying that this sense of there being "someone that sees the laptop" is emerging from brain activity, but that this is just a sense of an observer emerging, not an actual observer emerging.

Saying anything does not make it so. You need to provide evidence and you have so far failed to do so.

I'm saying that under monism you cannot have someone that experiences phenomenal consciousness. No matter how powerful the illusion may seem, it's not possible that it's real.

You can say what you wish. It remains unevidenced navel gazing baloney unless and until you provide anything in support of your claim.

As this thread has shown, there exists precisely zero empiric evidence for an observer of phenomenal consciousness.

It is your unevidenced claim that is at hand. To date you have provided no evidence at all for it. Stop attempting to reverse your burden of proof for your unevidenced claim. It will not work.

 

[Nick227]

So still you, then. Presumably, anyway, unless you want to argue that you don't possess phenomenal consciousness.

In strict materialist terms, I don't! The brain constructs both phenomenal consciousness and the sense of it having ownership.

No. There is a computer in front of me, and a neural representation of that computer inside my brain.

That's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking if there is anyone that sees the neural representation.

The representation is the witnessing

How so? Please explain.

You have still not presented any sort of coherent objection to the existence of an observer.

Really?

I've pointed out that there's zero empiric evidence for it.

And I've provided an uncontested neurally valid description of how the illusion is created.

What else do you want?

In order for there to be a sensation, there must be a consciousness capable of sensing

No. That notion is just an artefact of using language.

 

[Nick227]

Possibly. The answer to this is largely dependent upon semantics, and how narrowly you define "consciousness" and "observation".

There are still issues here. The Cartesian model of an observer is, I submit, how it seems. This is how we traditionally envisage an observer existing. Someone that acquires information about our surroundings and acts upon it.

You are saying that aspects of the brain's behaviour fulfill the same function and thus the brain can be considered an observer.

But Descartes was wrong. There is no rens cogitans in the pineal. No one looking.

Thus the brain's capacity to fulfill these functions could be considered observation. I'd say that not unreasonable if you're just interested in function and behaviour and not in neural reality. But this does not make it an observer.

 

[Nick227]

It is your unevidenced claim that is at hand. To date you have provided no evidence at all for it. Stop attempting to reverse your burden of proof for your unevidenced claim. It will not work.

I am providing plenty of evidence. But as I said before... You can lead a memeplex to water...

 

[marplots]

I refer you to the Spock/Holmes/Conan-Doyle quote... When all other possibilities have been tried, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be correct.

The problem, of course, is trying to decide if all other possibilities have been tried. Have they?

 

[Nick227]

The problem, of course, is trying to decide if all other possibilities have been tried. Have they?

You got any others?

To meet its pretty academic but I like to stay open to the possibility of a proof.

* We have a neural description for the illusion.
* there are many functional descriptions
* The notion of self as memeplex has been around for 15 years

But of course the illusion is so favoured it's not easy for even the most conscientious researcher to break free.

ETA: and of course it does hold up consciousness research as many are still convinced that the brain must possess properties that it can't possibly have!

 

[marplots]

You got any others?

None that you haven't already addressed. However, I wouldn't presume to have exhausted all the possibilities, a requirement of the aphorism you quoted.

 

[Nick227]

None that you haven't already addressed. However, I wouldn't presume to have exhausted all the possibilities, a requirement of the aphorism you quoted.

Marplots,

You can't actually have an observer under monist materialism. It's a physical impossibility.

This is something a fairly basic machine intelligence could tell you in about a millisecond. But the human brain has been so conditioned by aeons of natural selection it's very, very hard for it to examine this possibility.

I can tell you where the main remaining challenge will come from - the possibility that monist materialism only applies at the level of neural representation. That it is actually only phenomenal consciousness that is monist. That the underlying reality is not, and that the observer exists but is outside phenomenality.

 

[marplots]

Marplots,

You can't actually have an observer under monist materialism. It's a physical impossibility.

This is something a fairly basic machine intelligence could tell you in about a millisecond. But the human brain has been so conditioned by aeons of natural selection it's very, very hard for it to examine this possibility.

I can tell you where the main remaining challenge will come from - the possibility that monist materialism only applies at the level of neural representation. That it is actually only phenomenal consciousness that is monist. That the underlying reality is not, and that the observer exists but is outside phenomenality.

Yes, I have been following the discussion. But thank you for the summary nonetheless.

What do you think of the other things we "feel?" Things like anger, love, etc.? Same pathway or different?

 

[Nick227]

Yes, I have been following the discussion. But thank you for the summary nonetheless.

What do you think of the other things we "feel?" Things like anger, love, etc.? Same pathway or different?

All qualia are fine under materialism, as I see it... as long as you don't start asserting someone who's experiencing them!

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Someone that experiences phenomenal consciousness... there exists precisely zero empiric evidence for an observer of phenomenal consciousness.

That's one too many. There is no need for an observer of phenomenal consciousness; it is that which observes (processes incoming signals). You are stuck before a mental mirror wondering who is the source of the image, or neural representation as you would have it. That would be you.

 

[Nick227]

You are stuck before a mental mirror wondering who is the source of the image, or neural representation as you would have it. That would be you.

Well, actually that's just another aspect of processing.

Constructing a sense of self and ascribing phenomenal consciousness to it are both just aspects of brain activity.

There is a survival advantage in this behaviour, that's all.

 

[Nick227]

When 1354 posts have been expended, attempting but failing to validate other possibilities, then increasingly the one remaining option, no matter how utterly improbable or ridiculous it appears, must be.... true!

There is no observer.

 

[marplots]

When 1354 posts have been expended, attempting but failing to validate other possibilities, then increasingly the one remaining option, no matter how utterly improbable or ridiculous it appears, must be.... true!

There is no observer.

I don't think you'll have difficulty finding other posters who agree with this part.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Well, actually that's just another aspect of processing.

Constructing a sense of self and ascribing phenomenal consciousness to it are both just aspects of brain activity.

There is a survival advantage in this behaviour, that's all.

Agreed.

When 1354 posts have been expended, attempting but failing to validate other possibilities, then increasingly the one remaining option, no matter how utterly improbable or ridiculous it appears, must be.... true!

There is no observer.

How about this: agreed the science says nothing/cares not/doesn't look for an observer, and nothing matching the description of a homunculus has been found, nor is likely to be, ever. This does not mean there is no science indicating intentional autonomous behavior in the case of agents is real and can be tested for.

All that still does not mean empiricism is shakier than before, at least not on this basis.

 

[Myriad]

When you're up to your ass in solipsism, it's hard to remember your original intention was to shame the allopaths.

 

[tsig]

When 1354 posts have been expended, attempting but failing to validate other possibilities, then increasingly the one remaining option, no matter how utterly improbable or ridiculous it appears, must be.... true!

There is no observer.

Since you dismiss any other possibilities as 'memeplexes' no wonder there's nothing left.

 

[tsig]

When you're up to your ass in solipsism, it's hard to remember your original intention was to shame the allopaths.

Memeplex 101, or is that 1.1, the I that does not exist wonders.