Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[JoeMorgue]

Ted: That's a cheeseburger.
Bob: No! There's no such thing as cheeseburgers.
Ted: What? Of course cheeseburgers exists. There's one on the plate in front of you right now!
Bob: No there isn't!
Ted: Then what the hell is that? *Points at cheeseburger*
Bob: Oh that. It's a hamburger with cheese.
Ted: That's a cheeseburger.
Bob: No it isn't. It's a hamburger with cheese.
Ted: No that's what I'm saying. A cheeseburger is a hamburger with cheese.
Bob: Nope. Not a cheeseburger. Hamburger with cheese.
Ted: Which is a cheeseburger. You're just playing semantics.
Bob: Nope. I'm making a grand point.
Ted: And what is your grand point?
Bob: That cheeseburgers don't exist.
Ted: But they do exist. There is an object which meets every definition of cheeseburger on the plate in front of you.
Bob: Ah you see but there's my genius. That's not a cheeseburger. As I explained it's a hamburger with cheese.
Ted: Which is a cheeseburger!
Bob: No! Cheeseburgers don't exist. Hamburgers with cheese exist.

 

[Myriad]

There's actually no one around regardless of whether or not there's a body near the tree!

Then no one is anywhere, and your concerns and ideas are utterly irrelevant as there is no one to be affected by them or their implications.

Glad we got that cleared up.

 

[LarryS]

No, I haven't. I have stated, quite correctly, that the process of observing requires an observer. I have also stated that the neurochemical processes that Nick227 continuously tries to dismiss are the process of observation in question.

No this is not true, what you are describing is an artifact of language. For example, when it thunders, that does not create a disembodied thunderer, nor does the flowing of a river create 'one who rivers'

 

[Myriad]

No this is not true, what you are describing is an artifact of language. For example, when it thunders, that does not create a disembodied thunderer, nor does the flowing of a river create 'one who rivers'

Thunder requires lightning. The flowing of a river requires a river.

 

[LarryS]

You're right, I did not make this clear. My point is: if one can not distinguish the observer from the process of observing, if one can not make this distinction subjectively or neurologically as in a discrete brain state - - then the observer does not exist.
BTW, I don't share NICKS position that the observer is an illusion or does not exist, I don't think we've nailed the observer down as of yet.

 

[LarryS]

Thunder requires lightning. The flowing of a river requires a river.

but they do not create a doer . . . using these analogies and the basic premise of materialism, observing requires a brain, but observing does not by definition create an observer as a flowing river does not create one who flows . . . unless that river be lazy and I've got a tube

 

[JoeMorgue]

Fire creates a flame, but does not create a fire-er.

Walking creates a walk, but does not create a walking-er.

It's a good thing the Geneva Convention doesn't cover torturing the language.

 

[LarryS]

Fire creates a flame, but does not create a fire-er.

Walking creates a walk, but does not create a walking-er.

It's a good thing the Geneva Convention doesn't cover torturing the language.

in the above example, venting does create a ventor

 

[JoeMorgue]

In what possible reality is "You can have an observation without an observer" anything than other then pure semantic meaninglessness?

 

[Myriad]

but they do not create a doer . . . using these analogies and the basic premise of materialism, observing requires a brain, but observing does not by definition create an observer as a flowing river does not create one who flows . . . unless that river be lazy and I've got a tube

Of course they don't create a doer. Nor has anyone claimed that observations create observers.

Observations imply the existence of observers, just as thunder implies the existence of lightning and the flowing of a river implies the existence of a river.

 

[ehcks]

but they do not create a doer . . . using these analogies and the basic premise of materialism, observing requires a brain, but observing does not by definition create an observer as a flowing river does not create one who flows . . . unless that river be lazy and I've got a tube

Observing doesn't require a brain. It doesn't even require a living thing.
Observing doesn't create an observer. The observer created the observation.
The river is the one who flows. The pathway for water creates the flow of water which then makes the pathway larger. The river creates itself.

 

[LarryS]

In what possible reality is "You can have an observation without an observer" anything than other then pure semantic meaninglessness?

I'm not sure if this is directed at me - but I have never stated that there is no observer - I am looking for a consistent and reasonable definition of the 'observer' other than 'process of observing requires an observer', and an explanation of the behavior.
As I see it, not being able to distinguish the observer from the process of observing is a problem - why make the semantic distinction if the distinction is not real?

 

[Nonpareil]

For example, when it thunders, that does not create a disembodied thunderer, nor does the flowing of a river create 'one who rivers'

Lightning causes thunder and the river does the flowing.

You cannot have an effect without a cause. You cannot have an action without an actor. You cannot have a process without a processor.

You're right, I did not make this clear. My point is: if one can not distinguish the observer from the process of observing, if one can not make this distinction subjectively or neurologically as in a discrete brain state - - then the observer does not exist.

This has been done. The process of constructing a neural representation of one's surroundings is observation; the neural system which performs this action is the observer.

 

[LarryS]

Of course they don't create a doer. Nor has anyone claimed that observations create observers.

Observations imply the existence of observers, just as thunder implies the existence of lightning and the flowing of a river implies the existence of a river.

OK, so the hi-lite above. Is the observer its own discrete brain state, or is the observer and process of observing entangled in the same brain state? If entangled in same brain state, why make the distinction except as a concession to language?

 

[Nonpareil]

OK, so the hi-lite above. Is the observer its own discrete brain state, or is the observer and process of observing entangled in the same brain state?

Neither.

The observer is the system responsible for creating and interpreting the brain state in question.

 

[barehl]

* At least 99% of modern scientific research into the brain points directly to it being the sole source of consciousness. Pretty much every aspect of conscious experience has now been tracked to brain activity.

I would say 100%. I can't think of any other argument that doesn't resort to special pleading.

* Consciousness emerges from brain activity.

I wouldn't use the word 'emerge' since this seems like a euphemism for 'has unknown origin'.

It's what neural processing actually looks like, actually is.

I'm not understanding this either. There is neural processing in the retina. I'm pretty sure that eyes are not conscious.

* If the brain is the source, or foundation, for consciousness then there cannot actually be an observing self.

Why?

Though it's a pervasive and convincing phenomena it can't be real, or we'd be back in dualism.

It would be dualism if self had to be separate from the brain or not a result of brain function. I'm not seeing why it would require dualism if self is a result of brain activity.

If we tell a materialist that they're going to be painlessly and instantaneously killed, and replaced with an identical copy, in theory they should be OK with it.

You've completely lost me. Why would I be okay with it? If you can make a copy of me then there is no reason for that copy to be me. This seems obvious.

It seems like something is going to be lost - them - but materialist logic dictates that this cannot be so in reality.

You've lost me with this claim. The closest I could get would be to assume that your argument was from an information reference.

* This seeming presence of an observing self is likely therefore some highly favoured illusion resulting from millions of years of selective pressure.

I'm not following this either. If it were an illusion, what would the observer of the illusion be?

It's useful primarily for evolutionarily favoured tasks - finding food, shelter, sex, and avoiding predators.

As far as I can tell, fruit flies manage to do these things. Are you claiming that they have an illusion of self? If you are then what are you saying is the difference between fruit fly cognition and human cognition?

* If selfhood is merely a highly favoured illusion then what does this say about some of the cornerstones of scientific method, principles and techniques used to determine the truth about things?

I'm trying to figure out why this wouldn't be a dualistic argument.

 

[Aridas]

But, nowadays, modern research into how the brain creates consciousness is showing more and more evidence that these sensory percepts are constructed to help satisfy certain needs and they may be less useful for other tasks.

This does not mean science is no longer useful. It simply means that we need to assess the situation more. We need to try and ensure that our investigative strategies are truly fit for purpose.

Modern research doesn't show that modern research is worthless? What a twist! Science still, by its nature, cannot lead to the conclusion that space and time and/or gravity do not exist outside of representation, contrary to your poor excuse for a case to the contrary. The nature of methodological naturalism is, perhaps, something that you should refresh yourself on? You seem to be mistaking it for something dramatically different than it actually is. Amazingly enough, science has limits, much as some of the posters here are conditioned to lash out at that being said. One of the types of limits is that which is imposed by the basic working assumptions of methodological naturalism. Many of your musings about why further investigation and research is needed fall into the category of "things that science cannot, even theoretically, validly conclude via that route of investigation or potentially any route of investigation" in fair part because of the basic working assumptions of methodological naturalism and because of the fact that any attempt to conclude such would negate the value of the tools used to reach the conclusion, and thus further negate the value of the conclusion.

Separately, you are aware, I hope, of the tendency for things to be used, and potentially used well, for purposes that they weren't directly intended for?

 

[BadBoy]

Originally Posted by Nick227 View Post
Sure, for it to function, yes. But for it to create useful data about the true nature of reality

Seems to me that if it (our observer) didn't then humans would probably have gone extinct years ago. We have to interact with reality whether we are observing it at the time or not. If I am put into a box so I cant see, feel or hear anything and thrown out of an airplane from 30,000 feet I will interact with the reality I am in quite significantly.

Because we are the result of our environment and thus our reality, our ability to survive in it is generally quite good (relatively speaking) and I would say that if our senses were not seeing it as it really is (to the degree we can sense it) we would struggle to survive.

I have also been thinking about how for example drugs and illness can affect not only our sense of our reality, but also our sense of self as well. It is quite obvious that physical changes and / or damage to our brains affect the observer and how it functions. If the observer were dualistic and separate from our physical brain then would we not retain our clear sense of self under those conditions?

As for observing our observer, and that there cannot be an observer if we cannot observe our own observer I think is a red herring. If consciousness occurs as a result of very high levels of neuron integration it cannot be possible to observe it because it's not a single entity to be observed. Cant see the wood for the trees while your in it so to speak. This only becomes a problem when you start thinking about the "observer" as a distinct entity, which it isn't. The brain, as a system is an observer and observes.

 

[Mojo]

It depends what the science is being used to do. I think if it's just being used to make human needs more easier to fulfil, then to a degree I think science is absolutely fine for this. But when we have goals more relating to really understanding the nature of our universe, I think anything that can be done to remove potential sources of error, should these become more evident, is also needed.

That is what the techniques used in science are an attempt to do.

How would you tell that the observations we make of reality are not actually representative of reality?

Incidentally, what errors are introduced by wrong assumptions about the presence or absence of an "observer"? What actual difference does it make?

 

[Mojo]

It depends what the science is being used to do. I think if it's just being used to make human needs more easier to fulfil, then to a degree I think science is absolutely fine for this.

Do you consider finding out which medical treatments work and which don't to make human needs easier to fulfil?