Do Materialism and Evolution Theory Undermine Science?

[Nick227]

And so we return to the pragmatic question: what’s the difference between the “sense of I” and there being an “I process” (besides it resembling a kind of word play)? Sure, there is identification too, but ultimately thoughts are simply happening. Some we act upon, for most we do not.

The difference to me is in how those thoughts flesh out. To consider that there exists an "I process" to me gives an impression that can lead to suspect considerations. To consider that there is a process that creates coherent peripheral activity, which leads to the sense of there being an "I" as some kind of centre of this activity - to me this is more accurate. For sure it's at least partly a personal thing.

This has been trivially true for a long time. There’s no “I” when downscaling to a sufficiently detailed level. It’s not exactly earth shattering news; it’s simply a matter of following an analytic path where it leads.

True.

Ok, Thanks for the clarification. So, when identification is made conscious… what then? What knowledge have we learned about the world or ourselves? Why not jump the extra steps and simply realize that identification is simply a process like any other?

I would say that ultimate free will is simply a dead end to begin with.

Yes, identification is made conscious, awareness of mental activity increases, and choices appear where previously only automatic behaviour existed.

Identification is a process, as I mentioned, but for me there are further issues here regarding free will. In considering that free will is illusory, one still has to accept the apparent experiential reality that it is not. The notion is counter-intuitive because it does not seem that way.

Thus, one needs to consider what is the effect of believing free will to be illusory? Does this affect one's decision-making? Does one start to disregard "I?" If one does then I think this is not so good. (Perhaps one might claim that all "I"'s would believe so!) Identification creates the sense of "I", and this "I" is used to frame and articulate desires and needs. Without its "I," or living in denial of its "I" through belief, the organism may not be able to sufficiently participate in identification to the point where it can develop the awareness to genuinely overcome it. To the thinking mind such a notion might appear to be one big non sequituur, but experientially I believe it is seen to be valid. One must participate fully in identification, with all its ecstasy and heartbreak, to have much chance of overcoming it.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

…So I said, oh my god, I can’t tell the difference between the activity from the outside and what I consider to be a voluntary movement. If I know that it is going to happen, then I think I did it, because I now understand this free will stuff and this volition stuff. Volition is what’s happening somewhere else in the brain, I know about and therefore I decide that I did it. It happens in science as well. You actually take possession of something that doesn’t belong to you…

Well, you are not taking possession of anything. The act of identification (done by no one) creates the sensation of there being an "I." These writers seem to me to be trying to track back from the false assumption, a la Descartes. No one is "understanding this free will stuff", it's just that thoughts arise, identification takes place, and it appears as though there is someone understanding.

I'm not suggesting one should write like there's no ego, but when dealing with this subject matter I think it's good to get clearer here.

Nick

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, you are not taking possession of anything. The act of identification (done by no one) creates the sensation of there being an "I." These writers seem to me to be trying to track back from the false assumption, a la Descartes. No one is "understanding this free will stuff", it's just that thoughts arise, identification takes place, and it appears as though there is someone understanding.

I'm not suggesting one should write like there's no ego, but when dealing with this subject matter I think it's good to get clearer here.

Nick... I think the whole ”you are not taking possession,” ”there’s no I,” and comments alike are quote unnecessary when it’s clear that no one is adhering to dualism. In fact, it’s getting rather tedious and more often halts communication rather than elevates it. Unless one is willing to at least try to read between the lines and put aside the inherent dualistic nature of langue, without stumbling at the first possible hurdle, nothing meaningful is achieved.

About the short quote I provided: First, it is from a transcript, thus it’s from an interview, not an analytical dissertation about free will and selfhood. Second, he was talking about his own experience – how he felt, from a first-person point of view – while trying out a pretty interesting testing procedure. Third, the snip I provided is only a kind of introduction to the text; to get the complete picture at least read pages 8-11. Fourth, it’s pretty clear that Llinás is not taking a dualist stand when reading the whole text (in fact, the mentioning of Descartes’ notion led him to discuss free will in the first place [page 8]). The reason I introduced the link was because I though you would be interested in Llinás’ perspective.

This is also exactly why I think having an automatic “duality-radar” set to maximum is rather mind-numbing in the wrong context. You said something quite well yourself in a previous post: “…identification is made conscious, awareness of mental activity increases, and choices appear where previously only automatic behaviour existed.” That would be a good thing to be aware of if you decide to read the transcript.

 

[Nick227]

Nick... I think the whole ”you are not taking possession,” ”there’s no I,” and comments alike are quote unnecessary when it’s clear that no one is adhering to dualism. In fact, it’s getting rather tedious and more often halts communication rather than elevates it. Unless one is willing to at least try to read between the lines and put aside the inherent dualistic nature of langue, without stumbling at the first possible hurdle, nothing meaningful is achieved.

About the short quote I provided: First, it is from a transcript, thus it’s from an interview, not an analytical dissertation about free will and selfhood. Second, he was talking about his own experience – how he felt, from a first-person point of view – while trying out a pretty interesting testing procedure. Third, the snip I provided is only a kind of introduction to the text; to get the complete picture at least read pages 8-11. Fourth, it’s pretty clear that Llinás is not taking a dualist stand when reading the whole text (in fact, the mentioning of Descartes’ notion led him to discuss free will in the first place [page 8]). The reason I introduced the link was because I though you would be interested in Llinás’ perspective.

This is also exactly why I think having an automatic “duality-radar” set to maximum is rather mind-numbing in the wrong context. You said something quite well yourself in a previous post: “…identification is made conscious, awareness of mental activity increases, and choices appear where previously only automatic behaviour existed.” That would be a good thing to be aware of if you decide to read the transcript.

I did find the quote somewhat confused at the time. Perhaps I got the wrong impression. I did mention that I appreciate the issues with language when entering into this area. I did not read the link further but will do so. Thanks for posting it.

I have the duality radar but I do also feel that the free will discussion is not really about duality. Operating from the "I" perspective is to me inevitably dualistic. So I figure this needs to be accepted and the "next best" use of language followed.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I've been away from the pc for a few days but I listened to a chunk of the lecture. Interesting, and some other interesting looking stuff there too. Thanks for the link. I don't see it, however, that Llinas is saying anything too different from what Ben Libet said some decades ago, when he did his thing with readiness potentials.

As I see it, free will exists at the level of the functioning organism, just as "I" exists at the same level. One might say that, functionally, a thinking organism needs "I" to partially reconcile the dualistic sensation inherent in thinking - that of being some thing having thoughts. Without the "I", all thinking would be third person and I imagine psychosis could be one result of this. So, identification is necessary. Yet identification would seem to potentially be overcome by examining thoroughly its activity, by constantly checking the thoughts we identify with traces of a hidden investment.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

Isee Nick227 still ascribes magic meaning to the word subjective and objective, rather typical neo Freudian twaddle.

Yep.

I gave up talking to Nick227, because all of his posts follow the same format and have basically the same content:

1) Quote a post, so that the reader thinks Nick actually read their post and will be responding to the information conveyed within.

2) Write a single sentence referencing that quoted post, to draw the reader in further.

3) Launch on a tangent, relying on fallacy after fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of the computational model of consciousness, that attempts to show the absurdity of materialism by "following it to it's logical conclusion."

I dare say Nick227 is the next generation of the "Kleinman" chatbot.

 

[rocketdodger]

Well, I assume you haven't read the thread or otherwise have not understood what it's on about, so we could go to basics....Give me hard, objective evidence for the proposition "I."

And I know you haven't read any of the threads on this subject, even the ones you pretend to participate in, because I (and others) have given you that evidence over and over and over.

In the context of materialism, Given a system S capable of referencing itself, "I" or "self" is the representation of S within S. Or to be less formal, "I" or "self" is a self-referential system's representation of itself.

I know you will utterly ignore that, Nick, but hopefully a few of the people you are trying to fool won't.

 

[Dancing David]

Yep.

I gave up talking to Nick227, because all of his posts follow the same format and have basically the same content:

1) Quote a post, so that the reader thinks Nick actually read their post and will be responding to the information conveyed within.

2) Write a single sentence referencing that quoted post, to draw the reader in further.

3) Launch on a tangent, relying on fallacy after fallacy and a complete misunderstanding of the computational model of consciousness, that attempts to show the absurdity of materialism by "following it to it's logical conclusion."

I dare say Nick227 is the next generation of the "Kleinman" chatbot.

The life span of monitors has increased since I put Nick227 on IGNORE, no more headbang marks and bruises.

 

[Nick227]

And I know you haven't read any of the threads on this subject, even the ones you pretend to participate in, because I (and others) have given you that evidence over and over and over.

In the context of materialism, Given a system S capable of referencing itself, "I" or "self" is the representation of S within S. Or to be less formal, "I" or "self" is a self-referential system's representation of itself.

I know you will utterly ignore that, Nick, but hopefully a few of the people you are trying to fool won't.

What exactly is defining the system as "itself?" Itself? Identity is a self-referencing evolutionarily-derived social convenience here. This aside, you are not providing evidence for "I," merely offering a definition. I could define the jolly green giant, this does not constitute evidence for its existence.

What I am pointing out is that objectivity is not as hard as it might seem at first examination. The borders between self and not self are not as straightforward as they might appear because...

a) phenomenology is created to reinforce objectivity (objectivity is evolutionarily favoured)

b) our sense of "I" is simply an artifact of thinking.

In truth, it is actually very hard to give a truly objective statement about anything, for the simply reason that objectivity, being so evolutionarily favoured, is itself simply not objective!

Science is simply an evolutionarily favoured behaviour.

Nick

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

What exactly is defining the system as "itself?" Itself? Identity is a self-referencing evolutionarily-derived social convenience here. This aside, you are not providing evidence for "I," merely offering a definition. I could define the jolly green giant, this does not constitute evidence for its existence.

It is assumed that the organism is capable of observing itself to at least a rudimentary degree. Systems like us do this all the time, abundantly. Rudimentary forms can be identified as a closed sensor-motor-sensor feedback loops (like when robots progress from simply re-acting to pro-acting; i.e., learning). Complex systems, like the human, are also capable of metarepresentation and metacognition; we don’t need to prove that the system can define itself as itself; we need to accurately describe the actual mechanisms behind it.

Your position is rather silly because what you ask for is, using your standard, unachievable. You could do the same with a banana: i.e., “give me evidence for the existence of a banana!” And then reject anything by saying: “that’s just carbon molecule-bonds, atoms or energy in different forms.” What is lacking is not so much evidence, but an agreeable level for defining something as existing (anything).

So yes, a definition is sufficient evidence when the organism is capable of defining itself as itself, especially when other organisms also agree that what is referred to, is the same organism which is doing the referring. The very act of defining would be sufficient evidence in such a case.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

What I am pointing out is that objectivity is not as hard as it might seem at first examination. The borders between self and not self are not as straightforward as they might appear because...

a) phenomenology is created to reinforce objectivity (objectivity is evolutionarily favoured)

b) our sense of "I" is simply an artifact of thinking.

How hard do you think objectivity is portrayed to be, so that you can confidently say that it’s much softer than that? The only reference point you give is… “at first examination”.

In truth, it is actually very hard to give a truly objective statement about anything, for the simply reason that objectivity, being so evolutionarily favoured, is itself simply not objective!

If it’s not objective, then it’s simply meaningless to say that it’s hard to give a truly objective statement about anything, it’s impossible. Nevertheless, we try to reach as close to the objective ideal as possible.

Science is simply an evolutionarily favoured behaviour.

I’m afraid your description is so vague that it’s indistinguishable from a tautology.

 

[Dancing David]

Nick227 appears to understand about as little of natural selection as they do the biology of organic systems.

 

[Nick227]

It is assumed that the organism is capable of observing itself to at least a rudimentary degree. Systems like us do this all the time, abundantly. Rudimentary forms can be identified as a closed sensor-motor-sensor feedback loops (like when robots progress from simply re-acting to pro-acting; i.e., learning). Complex systems, like the human, are also capable of metarepresentation and metacognition; we don’t need to prove that the system can define itself as itself; we need to accurately describe the actual mechanisms behind it.

Your position is rather silly because what you ask for is, using your standard, unachievable. You could do the same with a banana: i.e., “give me evidence for the existence of a banana!” And then reject anything by saying: “that’s just carbon molecule-bonds, atoms or energy in different forms.” What is lacking is not so much evidence, but an agreeable level for defining something as existing (anything).

So yes, a definition is sufficient evidence when the organism is capable of defining itself as itself, especially when other organisms also agree that what is referred to, is the same organism which is doing the referring. The very act of defining would be sufficient evidence in such a case.

You're going off at tangents. I originally asked, if I recall, for hard objective evidence for "I." A banana is, I submit, not comparable.

About your first paragraph, what I was previously referring to was more to do with borders. What defines self as self, as in, who sets the borders?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

How hard do you think objectivity is portrayed to be, so that you can confidently say that it’s much softer than that? The only reference point you give is… “at first examination”.

Well, I appreciate that for the more scientific mindset such statements are hardly ideal!

But what I'm basically saying is that objectivity is a behaviour. To be objective is a behaviour which creates a feeling of security and satisfaction. These feelings are a result of our evolutionary history because being able to create an object-centred phenomenology assisted organisms survive and reproduce.

In attempting to fulfil our desire to understand the universe, being objective feels good, but this in no way demonstrates that it actually gets anyone towards this goal. It just feels good because objectivity makes us feel reassured.

It seems to me more practical to ask if the desire is sated through all this objective examination, and if it is not then investigate what is going on more deeply.

If it’s not objective, then it’s simply meaningless to say that it’s hard to give a truly objective statement about anything, it’s impossible. Nevertheless, we try to reach as close to the objective ideal as possible.

Yes, and we have repeatedly failed throughout history. We do not understand the universe. We do not know reality beyond the representations that appear. This, I submit, is because one is simply following a behaviour which feels good rather than truly seeking the answers.

It strikes me that a more personal philosophical and self-examinatory approach is likely to yeild better results, though by their nature they may be hard to transmit to others!

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

What exactly is defining the system as "itself?" Itself? Identity is a self-referencing evolutionarily-derived social convenience here. This aside, you are not providing evidence for "I," merely offering a definition. I could define the jolly green giant, this does not constitute evidence for its existence.

What I am pointing out is that objectivity is not as hard as it might seem at first examination. The borders between self and not self are not as straightforward as they might appear because...

a) phenomenology is created to reinforce objectivity (objectivity is evolutionarily favoured)

b) our sense of "I" is simply an artifact of thinking.

In truth, it is actually very hard to give a truly objective statement about anything, for the simply reason that objectivity, being so evolutionarily favoured, is itself simply not objective!

Science is simply an evolutionarily favoured behaviour.

Nick

1) You clearly lack any education, of any type, in either computer or cognitive science.

2) You are clearly nothing more than a confused idealist that can't come to grips with your own notions, whatever the heck they are.

3) Your response above follows perfectly the 3-point template I described earlier. Notice how you

a) Give a one sentence response to my earlier post.
b) Reference my earlier post once more in the next sentence.
c) Spend the rest of your response blabbing on about something that has nothing to do with my earlier post.

In truth, it is actually very hard to give a truly objective statement about anything, for the simply reason that objectivity, being so evolutionarily favoured, is itself simply not objective!

4) ????

This sentence solidifies the conclusion many of us have reached: that you aren't worth arguing with because you are clearly insane.

 

[rocketdodger]

It strikes me that a more personal philosophical and self-examinatory approach is likely to yeild better results, though by their nature they may be hard to transmit to others!

Aaaahhh, at last.

After months of having to wade through your wordy quasi-pretend-materialist garbage posts, Nick, you finally expose your true colors.

Was there any doubt, really? I have known all along -- you never fooled me. You don't make a very good fake-materialist, if for no reason other than the fact that your posts on the subject are literally incomprehensible.

 

[rocketdodger]

What defines self as self, as in, who sets the borders?

How about "mathematics and the laws of physics?"

You think you are backing materialists into a corner, but you are not -- materialism has no corners to get backed into.

 

[Nick227]

1) You clearly lack any education, of any type, in either computer or cognitive science.

2) You are clearly nothing more than a confused idealist that can't come to grips with your own notions, whatever the heck they are.

3) Your response above follows perfectly the 3-point template I described earlier. Notice how you

a) Give a one sentence response to my earlier post.
b) Reference my earlier post once more in the next sentence.
c) Spend the rest of your response blabbing on about something that has nothing to do with my earlier post.

4) ????

This sentence solidifies the conclusion many of us have reached: that you aren't worth arguing with because you are clearly insane.

None of which, as usual, actually deals with the issue you attempted to deal with a few posts back. Where is your hard, objective evidence for "I?" You don't have any because there isn't any, as anyone with awareness or background in this area knows full well. So...why bother to try and answer the question in the first place? And if you are going to try and tackle it, well fair enough, but then why simply give an attempted definition of acutely questionable relevance?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

How about "mathematics and the laws of physics?"

You think you are backing materialists into a corner, but you are not -- materialism has no corners to get backed into.

I am more trying to find a real materialist here on this list. It seems to me to be populated rather by those whom Dan Dennett terms "cartesian materialists."

Materialists get into the teletransporter, RD. You won't.

Materialists do not believe in persisting selfhood, RD. You apparently do.

I am not trying to back you into a corner. I'm more trying to "out" you as the entrenched dualist you are, to use a metaphor of questionable taste.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

None of which, as usual, actually deals with the issue you attempted to deal with a few posts back. Where is your hard, objective evidence for "I?" You don't have any because there isn't any, as anyone with awareness or background in this area knows full well. So...why bother to try and answer the question in the first place? And if you are going to try and tackle it, well fair enough, but then why simply give an attempted definition of acutely questionable relevance?

Nick

Do you claim that for every system S in the universe, S cannot reference S?