Do Materialism and Evolution Theory Undermine Science?

[PixyMisa]

Where is the point of observation?

That depends on what the question is supposed to mean.

It appears that I am a human being observing things in the world around me, that the locus of awareness is located somewhere behind my eyes. Yet actually, according to for example Dennett, this brain is simply a parallel processor creating simultaneous drafts (from data streams) and there is no place where consciousness is happening.

Here's a hint, Nick: Starts with B. Ends with RAIN.

One of the drafts it creates pretty much ongoingly is a little story about what's happening. This little story features the principle character "I," and it seems that this "I" is located somewhere inside the head, that it is the holder of opinions, the haver of feelings, the owner of a car, this kind of thing.

Yes.

This to me is the typical model for observation or experience, yet we know that it is false.

Wrong.

It is also dualistic

Wrong.

in that there are immediate infinite regress issues

Wrong.

that emerge as soon as one considers the possibility of this self existing within the body

Wrong.

brain

Wrong.

or located in some hypothesized non-physical space.

Meaningless.

One might claim that the subject of experience, the observer of things, is the whole organism, even though this is not how people invariably claim it appears to be.

What? What do you think people mean when they say "I"?

This I would consider valid in the sense of addressing the need for "I" to maintain psychological health but to me it is still dualistic in that one is inevitably left hypothesising non-physical entities to explain expressions like "my body."

No. One is not. You might be, but that is because you have no grasp of the subject at hand.

 

[Dancing David]

I was being cranky and glib. Not serious.

OOOOOps, nevermind.

 

[Dancing David]

Hmm...Its beena while but if I remember that particular discussion correctly I was arguing to the effect that mind is a process that can be considered an entity generated by the brain but not necessarily the brain itself. I was basically proposing a strong emergence argument. I believe I did use the term "immaterial" but spent several pages trying to qualify what I meant by that. I'll have to see if I can dig up that old discussion and review exactly what was said....

I've gotta habit of stating things in an odd manner -- my bad >_<

Thats cool, I would probably end up apologizing in the end.

I understand your position, i just don't agree with it, sorry for being snarky.

 

[Nick227]

This I would consider valid in the sense of addressing the need for "I" to maintain psychological health but to me it is still dualistic in that one is inevitably left hypothesising non-physical entities to explain expressions like "my body."

No. One is not. You might be, but that is because you have no grasp of the subject at hand.

Well, both Dennett and Blackmore pull this expression up. So kindly explain. To what does the "my" in the expression "my body" actually refer? What is the sense of it?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

But you did not give an argument as to why reducing objectivity to mere behavior undermines science. And frankly, I don't think you can.

That depends on what you consider science to be. If you regard it as a tool to make potentially useful changes to our environment, then I don't see how science is undermined by being considered just behaviour. When you start to think it's some kind of truth-generating paeon which will save the world from woo, well, to a degree I'd say that's correct, at least behaviourally, but there start to be problems that need addressing. Problems regarding the nature of objectivity. To be honest, I started this thread to discuss this area more. I don't know the whole answer, but would be happy to hear more views from people who can grasp the point. Things got a little side-tracked!

Like I said earlier, this "mere behavior" led to the computer you are using to argue that objectivity is "mere behavior."

For sure. It's great. I am not against science and I am not against objectivity. It is simply that I am for truth. You can't fight woo with more woo.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

Well, both Dennett and Blackmore pull this expression up. So kindly explain. To what does the "my" in the expression "my body" actually refer? What is the sense of it?

Nick

"my body" == "the body which supports the entity fabricating this statement."

 

[rocketdodger]

When you start to think it's some kind of truth-generating paeon which will save the world from woo, well, to a degree I'd say that's correct, at least behaviourally, but there start to be problems that need addressing.

For sure. It's great. I am not against science and I am not against objectivity. It is simply that I am for truth. You can't fight woo with more woo.

Except that when we say "X is true" or "X is woo" we really mean "There is an extremely high probability of X agreeing with past and future observations within and between individuals" or "There is an extremely small probability..."

The only thing that matters is internal consistency within and between individuals. You really could say that we create our own reality, because we do. It just so happens that the reality most of us create is very consistent, both with the reality created by others and the past and future of our own reality, so it works out.

So you could say that the "truth" science leads to is nothing but a very consistent notion of reality while the "woo" irrational thinking leads to is nothing but a very inconsistent notion of reality. It isn't perfect, but it can't be perfect -- materialism and the computational model of consciousness tells us that.

 

[PixyMisa]

"my body" == "the body which supports the entity fabricating this statement."

Precisely.

All of which is, of course, entirely material.

 

[plumjam]

here is an article which argues some of what Nick has been saying

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/004/11.37.html

 

[articulett]

here is an article which argues some of what Nick has been saying

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/004/11.37.html

Excellent... I can't wait to see all the evidence where they falsify materialism by, at last, showing consciousness existing absent a brain!

Here's someone arguing regarding what Nick hasn't been saying:

 

[plumjam]

Excellent... I can't wait to see all the evidence where they falsify materialism by, at last, showing consciousness existing absent a brain!

I'm trying to resist the temptation.

 

[articulett]

 

[thesyntaxera]

here is an article which argues some of what Nick has been saying

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/004/11.37.html

It was an interesting, mostly biased read. Apparently they have never heard of Spinoza, or the idea that what is natural may be god...

 

[rocketdodger]

here is an article which argues some of what Nick has been saying

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/004/11.37.html

lol -- Alvin Plantinga. This man wouldn't know a sound logical argument if it hit him on the head.

Let me ask you, plumjam, since I know you are always eager to answer: What is the definition of a "true" belief versus a "false" belief?

Because, if you didn't know already, Alvin Plantinga is particularly fond of slinging around terms like "true" and "false" without providing an associated meaning.

Of course, if he did provide a meaning, his arguments would instantly fall apart. So you can't really blame him -- he is behaving like any other theist would in his shoes.

 

[PixyMisa]

here is an article which argues some of what Nick has been saying

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2008/004/11.37.html

That's perhaps more coherent than Nick, but contains at least as many logical fallacies.

 

[Nick227]

"my body" == "the body which supports the entity fabricating this statement."

Entity? What is this entity if it is not the body?

Just take a look for yourself, when you say "my body" to what does the word "my" seem to refer?

Nick

 

[Darat]

It's a gerund.

 

[Nick227]

The only thing that matters is internal consistency within and between individuals. You really could say that we create our own reality, because we do. It just so happens that the reality most of us create is very consistent, both with the reality created by others and the past and future of our own reality, so it works out.

Personally, I do not believe you are creating your own reality. It is being created for you perhaps but I do not believe you are creating it.

Issues with determinism regardless, I find meme theory more likely here. As soon as the human brain developed the capacity to imitate so inevitably another replicator, aside of the gene, was born. We now have these big cumbersome brains highly adept at storing and transmitting memes and driven to do so by what Blackmore terms "the selfplex" - a pernicious memeplex. It's a variety of memes co-existing in a frequently uneasy relationship and maintaining their control over the organism's activity through the organism accepting that they represent "itself."

It would be good to untangle which aspects of the narrative self are created genetically and which memetically.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

It's a gerund.

I thought the gerund was the action aspect of a verb being used as a noun. How is "my" a gerund?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Well, both Dennett and Blackmore pull this expression up. So kindly explain. To what does the "my" in the expression "my body" actually refer? What is the sense of it?

"my body" == "the body which supports the entity fabricating this statement."

Precisely.

All of which is, of course, entirely material.

What is this "entity" if not the body? Are you claiming that the body has non-physical aspects?

The answer to the question is actually quite straightforward, as you would know if you actually understood the books you claimed earlier to have read...

The brain creates a sense of self from identifying with narratives that is inconsistent with reality. The programme may be considered either disfunctional, created for other functions than understanding self, or influenced by non-genetic replicators - depending on your orientation or who you read. But one thing is clear - the model of self the brain constructs through narratives is inconsistent with reality.

Nick