Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nonpareil]

But the issue surrounding veridicality is not the same as I see it. The belief is that we are investigating reality, not merely neural behaviour. So we do need to be to able quantify any deviation between the two, otherwise all bets are off. Being able to reproduce experiments makes no difference if we can't find a way to assess how accurate neural representations are.

If the experiment is reproducible, it doesn't matter how accurate or inaccurate the neural representations are. They are interpretations of an outside universe; so long as they are consistent, it doesn't matter whether or not you are seeing the "thing in itself", or whatever else you wish to call it.

If what I see as blue is what you see as red, the actual effect is... nothing. The universe behaves consistently regardless, and we both still refer to the same colors by the same name.

How about a little patience?

I am being quite patient. This is, in fact, why I have not left the discussion.

I will, however, admit to being exceptionally blunt, and that is not going to change. Aside from being admittedly inept when it comes to diplomacy, I tend towards bluntness during discussions like this because I would consider anything else to be an insult to the intelligence of the other participants and any other readers.

The only non-dualist means of creating an observer I know of are (1) through defining system behaviour as observation

This is entirely valid, and is what the vast majority of speakers mean when they say "observation".

You have yet to produce a coherent objection to this definition.

As soon as you examine how the observer appears to be and try to account for that you need dualism.

No.

Accounting for the illusion, you mean?

No. For consciousness and the existence of observers.

You have yet to coherently explain how either of these is an illusion.

 

[JoeMorgue]

1. Is there any functional difference between the two "Materialism" threads currently active?

2. Can I get a direct, no word salad definition of just what the bloody hell a "Memeplex" is?

3. Can I get a direct, no word salad response to how we can have observation without an observer and how a non-observer making an observation is functionally different from just having an observer?

4. Can I get a direct, no word salad explanation of how any of this makes magical memory water not a complete and total bunch of bunk.

 

[Nonpareil]

1. Is there any functional difference between the two "Materialism" threads currently active?

Originally, yes. I've been trying to restrict observer-related posts to this thread, but it's not working very well.

2. Can I get a direct, no word salad definition of just what the bloody hell a "Memeplex" is?

A collection of mutually-reinforcing ideas, generally cultural in origin.

3. Can I get a direct, no word salad response to how we can have observation without an observer and how a non-observer making an observation is functionally different from just having an observer?

4. Can I get a direct, no word salad explanation of how any of this makes magical memory water not a complete and total bunch of bunk.

Nope.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Nick's definition of an 'observer' appears to be some kind of Cartesian homunculus (an assumption, because he has never given a coherent description) while everybody else in this thread is calling every system that performs an observation an observer.
His gloating at everybody's supposed secret dualism (arrogantly ascribed to extistential dread) is quite misplaced.

And he has never even begun to explain how this would mean that the scientific method would be devastated. This thread is getting boring.

 

[tsig]

Nick's definition of an 'observer' appears to be some kind of Cartesian homunculus (an assumption, because he has never given a coherent description) while everybody else in this thread is calling every system that performs an observation an observer.
His gloating at everybody's supposed secret dualism (arrogantly ascribed to extistential dread) is quite misplaced.

And he has never even begun to explain how this would mean that the scientific method would be devastated. This thread is getting boring.

While philosophers are picking nits with reality scientists continue on discovering new things almost as if philosophy makes no difference.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

While philosophers are picking nits with reality scientists continue on discovering new things almost as if philosophy makes no difference.

I suppose if it keeps them busy not screwing with actual science it's not all bad.

 

[Nick227]

1. Is there any functional difference between the two "Materialism" threads currently active?

Probably not.

2. Can I get a direct, no word salad definition of just what the bloody hell a "Memeplex" is?

memeplex - Universal Darwinism - a cluster of memes who's survival/reproduction advantage is enhanced by their gathering in groups. See also selfplex - a term coined by Susan Blackmore for her notion of the personal self as a memeplex. The Meme Machine (1999) is a great book on this subject.

3. Can I get a direct, no word salad response to how we can have observation without an observer and how a non-observer making an observation is functionally different from just having an observer?

The brain is doing these things without any observer. If you start calling processing "observation" then, if you do that, it seems that there must be an observer.

4. Can I get a direct, no word salad explanation of how any of this makes magical memory water not a complete and total bunch of bunk.

Can't manage that one!

 

[Nick227]

OK, I have to sign off. But here is me stepping on a toe, perhaps. I wish for you to do some homework.

Sure. Tell me.

Knowing we will come back to address recent perspectives in neuroscience, consider the topic prohibited for now. Because you later wish to use these ideas to address the subject/object dichotomy and also question empiricism, you need to deal with that. This is best done in the proper realm of discourse.

I'm questioning the validity of empiricism. But fair enough, no problem.

I will then quickly cheat and bring in some things as I see fit. However, if you wish to use science to make points in philosophy, which is the domain questioning empiricism leads to, you have to take the long road, or risk having things blow up logically.

If they blow up, they blow up. So what? I did a lot of encounter therapy, back in the day. Things are endlessly blowing up. It's a great learning.

So, what do you mean by an accurate representation? What is represented, how is it represented (referring to minds, not brains, for now), and how does all this relate back to empiricism?

We don't know how reality is. We hope representations are veridical, as this allows our minds to explore using scientific method. A non-veridical world would be challenging for the mind that enjoys exploration by empiricism, for sure!

Given that we don't know reality. And we don't know enough about neural function to reverse engineer it (sorry used the n word!), all we have is what evidence there is for veridicality against that for non-veridicality. This balance, this seesaw is moving.

Now you can bring in observers, who we are, and what we can accomplish, or what "unmanned" observations allow.

... and what needs are served by believing in observers. (And who's needs these are!)

Or question either notion. But all within the realm of philosophy, that is, reasoning based on shared introspection and shared experiential descriptions.

ETA: May not be too active for a couple of days; much work. It depends, so maybe sooner.

I look forward to your return

 

[Nonpareil]

The brain is doing these things without any observer.

If the brain is doing these things, it is an observer.

That is what "observer" means.

 

[Nick227]

If the experiment is reproducible, it doesn't matter how accurate or inaccurate the neural representations are. They are interpretations of an outside universe; so long as they are consistent, it doesn't matter whether or not you are seeing the "thing in itself", or whatever else you wish to call it.

If what I see as blue is what you see as red, the actual effect is... nothing. The universe behaves consistently regardless, and we both still refer to the same colors by the same name.

I agree with what you are saying but that is not the point I'm making.

As evidence accrues towards non-veridical perception, the question arises... what exactly are we examining - the outside world or the dynamics of neural representation? This is the issue. Do space and time exist outside of representation? Does gravity? Does monism? These to me are the questions that increasingly need evaluating.

This is entirely valid, and is what the vast majority of speakers mean when they say "observation".

You may not believe this, but I actually have no problem with your description of observation. As I'm sure you agree it's been around for years. And it's not remotely complex. As I mentioned there have for ages been a core of posters on this forum using this description.

What is problematic for me is the following... This description of observation as system behaviour does not help us understand the phenomenon of the seeming observer, as it does not account for how this illusion appears. If any theory of consciousness seeks to be coherent then it needs to do this. It has to actually give an explanation for what appears, otherwise it is simply, and rightfully, accused of merely explaining away consciousness.

I could also nitpick about a few other points here but this above is the main one.

 

[Mojo]

We hope representations are veridical, as this allows our minds to explore using scientific method.

It's a basic assumption that the scientific method makes, yes. It's also an assumption that everyone makes in their daily life. Everyone sane, that is.

 

[Nonpareil]

I agree with what you are saying but that is not the point I'm making.

Yes, in fact, it is. Whether or not you intend it to be, that is what your argument boils down to. You have simply substituted "veridical red" for "Bob's red".

As evidence accrues towards non-veridical perception, the question arises... what exactly are we examining - the outside world or the dynamics of neural representation?

The outside world. Any attempt to argue otherwise is just a repeat of the aforementioned semantic issue.

You may not believe this, but I actually have no problem with your description of observation.

And yet you keep going.

What is problematic for me is the following... This description of observation as system behaviour does not help us understand the phenomenon of the seeming observer, as it does not account for how this illusion appears.

Bolding mine.

Of course it doesn't. That's not what it's for.

We know that observers exist, because the term "observer" is defined in such a way that it includes ourselves. We do not yet have the details on how observers come to exist, because that is a matter of neuroscience and other relatively new fields that have yet to reach a conclusive answer on the subject, but no one can argue that they don't.

If your entire issue is just that we don't know how observers come to be, that is a valid question to raise. But not knowing exactly what the mechanism is does not in any way indicate that the phenomenon does not occur.

 

[Nick227]

Yes, in fact, it is. Whether or not you intend it to be, that is what your argument boils down to. You have simply substituted "veridical red" for "Bob's red".

Actually not. You are, as I pointed out before, assuming a very high degree of veridicality here. And I don't see that as being reasonable, given the weight of evidence slowly accruing on the other side of the scale.

And I'm not saying it's conclusive. I'm saying we need more research, and it's important we do it.

Of course it doesn't. That's not what it's for.

Great. Thank you.

We do not yet have the details on how observers come to exist, because that is a matter of neuroscience and other relatively new fields that have yet to reach a conclusive answer on the subject, but no one can argue that they don't.

Well, we do actually have a coherent neuronal model to explain many aspects of this observer illusion, as I pointed out before.

We also have a well established understanding of how the brain uses narratives to construct a sense of personal mental selfhood.

In terms of the observer illusion, I'd say there's actually precious little left to discover really.

If your entire issue is just that we don't know how observers come to be, that is a valid question to raise. But not knowing exactly what the mechanism is does not in any way indicate that the phenomenon does not occur.

But not one shred of empiric evidence, Nonpareil. And perfectly good explanations to account for the illusion. Come on! It's not looking too good, is it?

 

[Nick227]

It's a basic assumption that the scientific method makes, yes. It's also an assumption that everyone makes in their daily life. Everyone sane, that is.

Yes. Representations are engineered by evolution to help us get needs met. For daily life they are fine.

 

[Nick227]

While philosophers are picking nits with reality scientists continue on discovering new things almost as if philosophy makes no difference.

Well, for me they are still proceeding from unexamined assumptions. Science becomes little more than a dubious algorithm operating under mass consumerism.

And, as I said to Ron, come the Singularity you may yet regret not examining those assumptions a little closer. When the Paperclip Maximiser Mk 4 is chasing you around your house you may yet find yourself thinking "You know what, maybe that Nick had a point after all!"

 

[Nonpareil]

Actually not. You are, as I pointed out before, assuming a very high degree of veridicality here.

No, I'm not. Again, all that is required for science to function is consistency. Whether or not our perceptions are anywhere near veridical is irrelevant so long as that consistency is present.

Unless you want to assert that even the appearance of consistency is in doubt, in which case you are again retreating to solipsism - and, as has already been explained, that position is incoherent and reliant on semantic games in order to exist at all.

Well, we do actually have a coherent neuronal model to explain many aspects of this observer illusion, as I pointed out before.

We also have a well established understanding of how the brain uses narratives to construct a sense of personal mental selfhood.

Yes. You have said this many times.

You still have yet to provide a coherent explanation as to how there can be a sense without an entity capable of sensing - that is, an observer. If these illusions are being constructed at all, there must by definition be an observer that they are fooling.

But not one shred of empiric evidence, Nonpareil. Come on! It's not looking too good, is it?

We have been over this.

Ignoring the answers given to you does not help your argument. It only serves to make you look rather silly.

 

[tsig]

Well, for me they are still proceeding from unexamined assumptions. Science becomes little more than a dubious algorithm operating under mass consumerism. And, as I said to Ron, come the Singularity you may yet regret not examining those assumptions a little closer. When the Paperclip Maximiser Mk 4 is chasing you around your house you may yet find yourself thinking "You know what, maybe that Nick had a point after all!"

Whut??

The Singularity is a science fiction concept.

ETA: We materialists will be weeping and wailing and gnashing our teeth while the philosophers will go on to the Elysian fields, Sounds like a Christian enjoying atheists going to hell.

 

[Nick227]

No, I'm not. Again, all that is required for science to function is consistency.

Sure, for it to function, yes. But for it to create useful data about the true nature of reality, you need to take into account, as much as possible, the medium in which its operating.

Whether or not our perceptions are anywhere near veridical is irrelevant so long as that consistency is present.

You don't think it's worth evaluating more deeply how veridical or otherwise perception might be then? This is your position? There's no value in this? It just doesn't matter?

Unless you want to assert that even the appearance of consistency is in doubt, in which case you are again retreating to solipsism - and, as has already been explained, that position is incoherent and reliant on semantic games in order to exist at all.

I'm asserting no such thing.

You still have yet to provide a coherent explanation as to how there can be a sense without an entity capable of sensing - that is, an observer.

What I'm saying is that there can be a sense of an observer, yes. It's a feeling. If you're choosing to use language in the way you are above, all that actually would demonstrate is that there is someone that has the feeling, not that there is an observer.

I personally wouldn't use language in this way, as it's not useful here to understand how phenomena emerge. Essentially if you keep tying words together in this way, then how do you deal intelligently with a mechanistic processor that creates narratives it assigns to itself? All that happens then, is that your use of language merely reinforces the illusions.

We have been over this.

Where in the link do you provide empiric evidence for an observer, one that appears as it seems to within our own awareness?

 

[Nick227]

Whut??

Yes, an algorithm running from untested assumptions largely according to what can likely be sold.

The Singularity is a science fiction concept.

Yes, but one that is also taken seriously by many respected scientists and researchers. Though things are digressing now.

ETA: We materialists will be weeping and wailing and gnashing our teeth while the philosophers will go on to the Elysian fields, Sounds like a Christian enjoying atheists going to hell.

Why do you think I'm pointing these things out now! I also have a program running telling me that being paperclip maximised will not help me fulfil my needs.

 

[Mojo]

Yes. Representations are engineered by evolution to help us get needs met. For daily life they are fine.

You haven't explained why the same assumption is not fine for science. Or how science could operate at all without observations that are assumed to be representative of the external universe.