Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nick227]

That includes the stipulation that GCS theory is right. If it is then I can. But, I'm saying that there is an observer. I'm saying that this can be defined and explained.

OK, great. Please go for it.

ps what's gcs theory please?

 

[Nick227]

Watching two philosophers discuss consciousness is like watching two interior decorators who have never picked up a hammer discuss how to build a house. If philosophy alone could have answered the question then it would have a millennium ago. You don't seem to be aware that consciousness is much more complex than you are describing.

Actually I worked in construction for years!

I'm not describing consciousness. I'm pointing out that under monist materialism there can't be an actual observer or a point of observation.

If I were to try and describe it I'd guess I'd go for the currently fashionable notion that... duh duh... consciousness is the reduction in uncertainty that develops when a larger system creates more information than it's component subsystems. But I'm just following the herd...

 

[Nick227]

Not being seen by 'anyone': What did you expect to find? If you agree that brains hosts minds, and the rest are details, what are you looking for, precisely? In reality, no less? This still smacks of homunculus hunting, while debating veridical perception, a fun topic in... philosophy.

So you're happy that no point of observation can exist under monist materialism?

Because, you see, people redescribe system behaviour and call it observation. And from this assert that the brain, being the system, is thus the observer. Which is all very well and fine, but for a start does not account for illusory sense of a point of observation, or an observer. And secondarily could be accused of simply trying to reverse engineer a phenomenon which is actually an illusion.

And, having reversed engineered their way out they go back to believing in a locus of awareness!

The sense we have of observation occurring: Obviously it takes self-awareness to have a sense of this kind, a sort of meta-observation allowed by the sense of self.

I'm not convinced, to be honest.

I think it's more likely to be an aspect of some map or schema that the brain has created, placing useful representations within it. It has a certain ethereal quality we associate with awareness. The brain may also have learned to create mystical sounding descriptive language for awareness for adaptive advantage. And likewise to assert that it can't just be machine activity.

 

[Nick227]

How long does it take two philosophers to change a tire? Forever, since they can't agree on what 'flatness' means.

How many materialists does it take to find an observer?

None. Real materialists don't waste their time with obviously futile tasks!

 

[Nick227]

With a statement that flat, you imply more of yourself than you show. There is some due diligence missing.

Yes, come on, Barehl! I'm actually interested to hear your theory. I'm not going to shoot it down sentence by sentence like some do. I'm happy to let it accrue a reduction of uncertainty as it settles in.

 

[tsig]

How many materialists does it take to find an observer?

None. Real materialists don't waste their time with obviously futile tasks!

Right, no true materialist would look for an observer.

You still haven't explained why matter/materiel cannot give rise to an observer.

 

[Aridas]

As I've repeatedly said to Nonpareil, who did finally concur, redescribing observation as a system property

It's not redescribing. To be observation in the first place, it must be a system behavior/property of some kind. There's no valid way around that. The exact nature is up for dispute, sure. Not that it's a system behavior/property, though, which makes this particular claim of yours worthless, from the start, before getting to how it was actually being used.

is valid but does not account for how things appear to be, in this instance.

Duh...? That is not at all a defense of trying to claim that observation is not system behavior, which is exactly what you were doing to spur that response. If it was unintentional, perhaps you should choose your words better? Saying that people are "redescribing" an apple when they call it a fruit isn't going to win you any points. Fully accounting for how things appear to be is a completely different beast, though not one that you've made much of a meaningful and defensible point about yet.

This is important when we consider monism and science.

Honestly, I quite fail to see how, without one or more fallacies being invoked, at least. Saying that a scientific theory of consciousness should be able to account for the relevant observed phenomena is not at all controversial, yes. Saying that it is inappropriate to call an apple either a fruit or an apple rather is controversial, though. As is effectively claiming that science is sabotaging science because the results of experiments surrounding already well-known phenomena were within completely predictable territory.

Seriously, if you actually want to poke at science, an overwhelmingly more valid and effective route would be to poke at the somewhat absurd amount of trash papers that get published as science. That, at least, has some valid basis and actual consequences when it comes to science, unlike what you've been trying to push in this thread.

 

[Aridas]

So, what does this tell you about distance and measurement?

That what we observe about them is observed and is, indeed, not always interpreted in the same way by the processor. The only potential implications related to such that might have an impact on science, given the actual nature of science, are those that lead to models that are effectively equivalent to solipsism, though, and you've repeatedly made it clear that you don't want to venture there. So, no, you're not making much of a case at all when it comes to how distance and measurement should be treated or considered.

Or consider this process of neural representation, which we're both leaning towards...

First thing the brain does with it - give it ownership. It's my visual field. A priori? Nope. Adaptive advantage.

Next thing it does with it... break it up into me and not me. The body - me. Other stuff - not me. A priori? Nope. Adaptive advantage.

After that... this locus business described above. Very handy to have a constant seeming locus. A priori. Nope.

After that... inside and outside. These thoughts are inside. That visual field is outside. A priori? Nope. Adaptive advantage.

Now, it is certainly the case that simply because none of this is a priori does not mean implicitly that it's not veridical. But it sure doesn't look too good.

Depends on how veridical you're talking about. If you're ignoring the reasons why there would be adaptive advantage to such, you might tentatively be able to make the case related to science that you've been trying to... one which can be easily countered by not ignoring the adaptive advantage that you've explicitly drawn into play anyways.

No observer, no point of observation even.

If you're literally defining observers out of existence beforehand, sure! Since you like bringing up god, though, that's worth about as much to those who don't like defining things in and out of existence as theological arguments that try to define a god into existence.

But, oh for sure, none of this poses any problem for good old science! Yeah right!

Your empty rhetoric is still empty, it seems. None of that poses any problem to science, given the nature of science. Seriously, just give it up when it comes to those lines of argument. Those lines of argument are worthless for the purposes that you're trying to use them for. Even the crazy "science is a giant conspiracy" attempts would be less worthless.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, possibly! Though I can at least spell comprehension! I understood that you were saying that reality can't be affected by what we know. I apologise if I misinterpreted.

I was commenting on this part of your post:

You're saying that reality can't be affected by what we know? So, if a child believes that pulling a rabbit out of a hat is real, then it's true that animals can materialise out of thin air?

Obviously, it does not even parse internally.

Let's take a look at something and you can explain it to me.

Your visual field right now is assembled to infer a locus, a point of observation, a few inches back from the eyes. Would you agree?

Good enough for the purpose of this discussion, yes.

Do you think this perspective is a priori, that's to say, innate? That would seem reasonable, as it's unlikely it's ever shifted whilst you've been alive. What do you figure?

The perspective is determined by the position of our eyes. The tend to stay more or less in the same place.

Because actually it's just this way because that perspective is the most favoured for survival. Take a dissociative anaesthetic, or apply electrical stimulation to a certain part of the brain, and the locus will shift. On the ceiling, beside the wardrobe, in that corner where we never hoover, all over the place. So, it's clear, the brain is just assembling the visual field a certain way because that's how it evolved to behave.

Not quite correct. The brain has evolved to do this because it fits reality. We can, through various manipulations, make the brain imagine a different locus, and also imaginary objects, but it does not enable us to actually perceive any actual thing we can't see from from the normal perspective.

So, what does this tell you about distance and measurement?

Nothing at all, except that pure visual assessment is error-prone. That is the reason we invented yard-sticks and such.

Or consider this process of neural representation, which we're both leaning towards...

First thing the brain does with it - give it ownership. It's my visual field. A priori? Nope. Adaptive advantage.

Wrong. It is a priori (pending your presentation of evidence to the contrary, of course). I can only see my visual field, not yours, and vice versa.

Next thing it does with it... break it up into me and not me. The body - me. Other stuff - not me. A priori? Nope. Adaptive advantage.

Do you really mean this, or are you just trolling? Are you in any real doubt which part of the world you encompass? That keyboard in front of you ... is it part of you or not? How do you think you can find out?

Hans

 

[GraculusTheGreenBird]

Your visual field right now is assembled to infer a locus, a point of observation, a few inches back from the eyes. Would you agree?

Do you think this perspective is a priori, that's to say, innate? That would seem reasonable, as it's unlikely it's ever shifted whilst you've been alive. What do you figure?

Because actually it's just this way because that perspective is the most favoured for survival. Take a dissociative anaesthetic, or apply electrical stimulation to a certain part of the brain, and the locus will shift. On the ceiling, beside the wardrobe, in that corner where we never hoover, all over the place. So, it's clear, the brain is just assembling the visual field a certain way because that's how it evolved to behave.

The locus appears to be this way, because that's where the eyes are positioned, obviously, and where the information is coming from.

And you can see your nose, and bits of your cheek, etc etc. so of course the point of perception appears to be behind the eyes.

Does the nose suddenly disappear in these other cases you are mentioning, where you purposely hijack and twist normal perceptions?

 

[Nick227]

We can, through various manipulations, make the brain imagine a different locus, and also imaginary objects, but it does not enable us to actually perceive any actual thing we can't see from from the normal perspective.

Good point. But as far as I'm aware that is not the case. Olaf Blanke famously induced and studied OOBEs, and people saw parts of their bodies that would not be visible with the normal locus. I admit I don't know whether he, or various other scientists who've been involved in this area, tested to see if the dissociated perspective was genuinely perceived, or rather mentally fabricated from the body schema or whatever.

Nothing at all, except that pure visual assessment is error-prone. That is the reason we invented yard-sticks and such.

Well, if the actual locus can shift, then perspective would be seen to be non-veridical. So, what we've been measuring with our yardsticks would not really be coherent, rather an anomaly of the evolution of neural representation.

Wrong. It is a priori (pending your presentation of evidence to the contrary, of course). I can only see my visual field, not yours, and vice versa.

But there is no actual psychological self. There is not actually anything the word "my" applies to. It's a useful illusion.

Yes, as far as we know, the brain creates the representation. The representation is the result of brain activity. Nevertheless it is useful to understand that assigning it ownership is just construction.

Are you in any real doubt which part of the world you encompass? That keyboard in front of you ... is it part of you or not? How do you think you can find out?

I'm just pointing out the facts of the matter. Many things that we take for granted about our visual field and other neural representations simply cannot be demonstrated to be a priori. They are being constructed by the brain to appear as they do, because there has been an adaptive advantage in them appearing this way.

 

[Nick227]

You still haven't explained why matter/materiel cannot give rise to an observer.

I'm saying that it cannot give rise to an observer in the sense in which we usually believe it to exist. There cannot be a "point of observation" under monist materialism.

Thus, for example, Fudbucker's very human assertion that we can't know for sure if other people are experiencing conscious awareness is actually untrue under monist materialism.

 

[Nick227]

It's not redescribing. To be observation in the first place, it must be a system behavior/property of some kind. There's no valid way around that. The exact nature is up for dispute, sure. Not that it's a system behavior/property, though, which makes this particular claim of yours worthless, from the start, before getting to how it was actually being used.

The term "observation" is coming originally from the pseudo-dualistic perspective that the brain generates - there seems to be a locus of attention, there seems to be someone looking from within.

Personally, I think it's not useful to use terms that have arisen in this way, because you can end up "explaining away" phenomena, as opposed to accounting for them, something that does regularly happen in this field.

Fully accounting for how things appear to be is a completely different beast, though not one that you've made much of a meaningful and defensible point about yet.

Well, I am trying to. But I find it not easy with skeptics. They seem hard-wired to try and defend a common-sense viewpoint. That's how it appears to me, that for them something tangible is threatened in this reality that there is no observer.

For me, I can happily accept observation as a system property. I can happily accept the observer as the brain, in this context. It's not problematic. And I can also see that this does not cover so much ground in explaining the phenomenon of the observer, or point of observation, as it appears.

Seriously, if you actually want to poke at science, an overwhelmingly.........

It's not about poking at science. I'm exploring potential huge fallacies in our means of deriving scientific understanding of our world.

Did you see that movie The Big Short? I feel like that character Christian Bale plays here. Morgan Grenfell and Lehman Brothers think their position is completely unassailable - that it's just untouchable. But he can see the huge weakness at the heart of their market.

 

[Nick227]

That what we observe about them is observed and is, indeed, not always interpreted in the same way by the processor. The only potential implications related to such that might have an impact on science, given the actual nature of science, are those that lead to models that are effectively equivalent to solipsism, though, and you've repeatedly made it clear that you don't want to venture there.

God, not solipsism again! Semantic games, solipsism, semantic games, solipsism - it's like discussing something scary with a Sinclair ZX. It just goes into this defensive program, trotting out terms that have not a shred of significance, apparently in the belief that they will make the scary possibility go away.

Aridas, please explain me this.... how can the argument for no observer be solipsist?

(Go on, Aridas, tell me this question is a semantic word game! I dare you!)

 

[ehcks]

God, not solipsism again! Semantic games, solipsism, semantic games, solipsism - it's like discussing something scary with a Sinclair ZX. It just goes into this defensive program, trotting out terms that have not a shred of significance, apparently in the belief that they will make the scary possibility go away.

Aridas, please explain me this.... how can the argument for no observer be solipsist?

(Go on, Aridas, tell me this question is a semantic word game! I dare you!)

It is, but for a slightly different reason.

Solipsism is the belief that only one's own mind exists. You go a step further and say that no mind exists. That thoughts themselves don't exist. It's like some weird extreme version of nihilism. Not only does life not matter, it's not even real.

And I simply sit here, observing your attempt to obscure your redefinition of observe into some impossible thing.

 

[Myriad]

Not quite correct. The brain has evolved to do this because it fits reality. We can, through various manipulations, make the brain imagine a different locus, and also imaginary objects, but it does not enable us to actually perceive any actual thing we can't see from from the normal perspective.

Exactly.

Imagine two organisms equipped with eyes. They are standing in a veldt a few dozen yards from a large rock.

In this scenario, the shape of the rock and the position of the organisms make it a fact that if there were a tiger behind the rock, they could not see it. That is to say, ambient photons reflected from the tiger would not reach their eyes because the rock is in the way.

One of the organisms' imaginary locus of attention is just behind his eyes. It says, "I don't see a tiger. But there could be one behind that rock where I can't see. I'd better be cautious."

The other one's imaginary locus of attention is from ten yards overhead looking directly down. It says, "I don't see a tiger anywhere. I can't see underneath the rock, but tigers don't lurk under rocks. It's safe." It gets eaten by the tiger.

Nick appears to wish to reverse evolutionary cause and effect, by claiming that systematic mis-perceptions of reality occur because they're (in unexplained or implausible ways) "adaptive." In actuality, it's adaptive to perceive reality in ways that accurately reflect or usefully model what reality contains.

 

[ynot]

I'm exploring potential huge fallacies in our means of deriving scientific understanding of our world.

So how's your exploration going so far?

Found any actual “huge fallacies” yet?

If so, has your means of deriving scientific understanding of our world been improved?

If not, has your means of deriving scientific understanding of our world been improved?

 

[Aridas]

The term "observation" is coming originally from the pseudo-dualistic perspective that the brain generates - there seems to be a locus of attention, there seems to be someone looking from within.

Personally, I think it's not useful to use terms that have arisen in this way, because you can end up "explaining away" phenomena, as opposed to accounting for them, something that does regularly happen in this field.

Word usages do tend to change over time, for a variety of reasons, though, and so may the surrounding paradigms. Saying that we should not use "lightning" to describe lightning because "lightning" used to be considered to be acts of Thor or Zeus would be entirely missing the point about the nature of its usage. Similarly, even if "observer" and "observation" were originally created from a pseudo-dualistic perspective, the normal usage of the word tends to have very little to nothing that is actually dependent upon that perspective. Objecting to the usage of words to describe things by citing things that are largely irrelevant to the usage in question can't really lead to a particularly convincing argument, after all.

Regarding the "explaining away" bit, I am a little curious though. Is it really explaining away or is it just putting off explaining a number of specifics given a current lack of data until there is enough to meaningfully address the topic? It very much sounds like there is simply not enough data available to meaningfully address the topic, at this point, so giving the topic a temporary pass is entirely reasonable while research continues to gather potentially relevant information.

Well, I am trying to. But I find it not easy with skeptics. They seem hard-wired to try and defend a common-sense viewpoint. That's how it appears to me, that for them something tangible is threatened in this reality that there is no observer.

As noted before, the only thing that I, at least, have found threatened by the claim is the proper usage of language and honesty. Admittedly, I do value both of these things.

For me, I can happily accept observation as a system property. I can happily accept the observer as the brain, in this context. It's not problematic. And I can also see that this does not cover so much ground in explaining the phenomenon of the observer, or point of observation, as it appears.

Of course. When observation and/or an observer is reduced to being referred to as a system property (or anything is being dealt with at that level of generality), the issue at hand generally has nothing to do with specifics in the first place, though, which quite brings in issues of relevance for even bringing up such. It also leads to the question, "Why would you think that one would be using it as at all explanatory of the specific phenomena, in the first place?"

It's not about poking at science. I'm exploring potential huge fallacies in our means of deriving scientific understanding of our world.

By invoking known issues that only really have much meaning for science at points where science pretty much collapses anyways.

Did you see that movie The Big Short? I feel like that character Christian Bale plays here. Morgan Grenfell and Lehman Brothers think their position is completely unassailable - that it's just untouchable. But he can see the huge weakness at the heart of their market.

So you've said. And in this case, it's really not that the position is regarded as unassailable, anyways. Rather, that issues that you've brought up seem to just basically be rephrasings of potential issues that have been well known for a long time or simply could not be relevant from the start.

God, not solipsism again! Semantic games, solipsism, semantic games, solipsism - it's like discussing something scary with a Sinclair ZX. It just goes into this defensive program, trotting out terms that have not a shred of significance, apparently in the belief that they will make the scary possibility go away.

Aridas, please explain me this.... how can the argument for no observer be solipsist?

(Go on, Aridas, tell me this question is a semantic word game! I dare you!)

It's a semantic word game! There, dare met. More seriously, no, I wasn't going to go there. Regarding arguments for no observer? There's multiple ways, frankly. Regardless, to deal with this instance, when you're invoking a line of argument about senses being untrustworthy, which is exactly what you're doing when it comes to distance and measurement, you're setting yourself up to have to deal with such, from the start. Science, as part of how it works, does just about everything that can be done reasonably to reduce and remove error caused by untrustworthy senses. If those measures are actually not very effective against a basic error like that, it fairly inevitably begs the question about what can be trusted about science, because such would mean that basic assumptions of science, upon which all of science is built and depends, are simply wrong. Furthermore, it brings the question about what we can actually trust about anything, given that at that point, we simply cannot trust the information that we can gather beyond very trivial conclusions. In other words, equivalent to solipsism in that regard. Once you remove any real way to distinguish between what is real and what is not, like you would have to do when it came to distance and measurement to lead to any meaningful impact regarding science, you're in that territory and science is worthless anyways. When you speak about them solely existing as a representation, as well, you've already negated any actual value that science even could potentially have, given that you're throwing out basic assumptions that science cannot work or be trusted without.

It is, but for a slightly different reason.

Solipsism is the belief that only one's own mind exists. You go a step further and say that no mind exists. That thoughts themselves don't exist. It's like some weird extreme version of nihilism. Not only does life not matter, it's not even real.

And I simply sit here, observing your attempt to obscure your redefinition of observe into some impossible thing.

It's worth noting that I said "effectively equivalent to solipsism" rather than solipsism, too, I think.

 

[barehl]

ps what's gcs theory please?

General Cognitive Systems theory.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Good point. But as far as I'm aware that is not the case. Olaf Blanke famously induced and studied OOBEs, and people saw parts of their bodies that would not be visible with the normal locus. I admit I don't know whether he, or various other scientists who've been involved in this area, tested to see if the dissociated perspective was genuinely perceived, or rather mentally fabricated from the body schema or whatever.

No evidence has yet been presented to show that the OBE perspective provides information not available from the normal perspective (or by fantasy). This in spite of million dollar prizes and such.

Well, if the actual locus can shift, then perspective would be seen to be non-veridical. So, what we've been measuring with our yardsticks would not really be coherent, rather an anomaly of the evolution of neural representation.

No. A yardstick is not dependent of perspective. That's sort of the idea behind them. .... You do know what a yardstick is, right?

As for the evolutionary advantage, it does not compute. IF you could shift your locus of perception and see arouns rocks and corners, it would be an enormous avolutionary advantage, and we would all do it routinely.

But there is no actual psychological self. There is not actually anything the word "my" applies to. It's a useful illusion.

Yes, as far as we know, the brain creates the representation. The representation is the result of brain activity. Nevertheless it is useful to understand that assigning it ownership is just construction.

You are evading the question: Are you really in any doubt what part of the world is YOU, and what is not?

I'm just pointing out the facts of the matter. Many things that we take for granted about our visual field and other neural representations simply cannot be demonstrated to be a priori. They are being constructed by the brain to appear as they do, because there has been an adaptive advantage in them appearing this way.

Finally, you might want to reexamine your own argumentation. IF our locus could shift from the eyes (and other senses), then it would NOT be a mere material brain function, and then there WOULD be an oberver entity.

Hans