Do Materialism and Evolution Theory Undermine Science?

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, in simply considering this "self-referencing" conceptually there must to my mind be problems. If there are only phenomenal representations at what point does this "self" come into actuality?

…only phenomenal representations? A more detailed approach would of course include the investigation of what exactly creates those representations, i.e. distinguishing what exactly is happening in the brain, where, and when. That would be where the “self” comes into actuality from a private point of view.

The organism is considered to be independent only through a variety of processes which take place. Thus it can be concluded that it is not actually separate, but that it merely appears to be. The notion that self-referencing is taking place only to my mind reinforces the illusion.

Don’t be silly. It is those specific processes that are under investigation. What you coin as illusion is trivially true in the broader context, like almost everything that deep down only appears to be independent.

The majority of scientists and philosophers already accept monism. Thus the underlying nature is already accepted.

Yes, I think I pointed this out to you some time ago already. That is why we first try to recognize what seem to be explicit patterns, distinguishable from each other, so that we’re able to investigate them at closer inspection in a systematic way. We already think everything is connected in some way or another, that doesn’t take away the incentive to take a closer look at what appears to distinguish particular processes from each other, how the function, and how they relate to each other.

All that is needed to begin to understand the bridge between monist reality and dualistic interpretation is to witness for yourself how an apparently dualised reality is constantly being created from a non-dual substrate.

I think here is where you muddle the waters. Private witnessing is merely a tiny aspect of it, and not necessarily that important in terms of being sure about what’s actually happening. It is by no means all that is needed to begin to understand… we already know that to be trivially true by simple analytical reasoning. What many of us want to know is the exact physical mechanism.

 

[Nick227]

…only phenomenal representations? A more detailed approach would of course include the investigation of what exactly creates those representations, i.e. distinguishing what exactly is happening in the brain, where, and when.

Yes, we can do that and it's all great. But still we are only dealing with representations and machine-acquired data. This must always be borne in mind.

That would be where the “self” comes into actuality from a private point of view.

That is certainly where the data points to.

Don’t be silly. It is those specific processes that are under investigation. What you coin as illusion is trivially true in the broader context, like almost everything that deep down only appears to be independent.

It's trivially true in the broader context but also directly true if you want to look. Simply examining who or what you are and what your world would look like, in the absence of thinking, is of immense value imo.

Yes, I think I pointed this out to you some time ago already. That is why we first try to recognize what seem to be explicit patterns, distinguishable from each other, so that we’re able to investigate them at closer inspection in a systematic way. We already think everything is connected in some way or another, that doesn’t take away the incentive to take a closer look at what appears to distinguish particular processes from each other, how the function, and how they relate to each other.

I think here is where you muddle the waters. Private witnessing is merely a tiny aspect of it, and not necessarily that important in terms of being sure about what’s actually happening. It is by no means all that is needed to begin to understand… we already know that to be trivially true by simple analytical reasoning. What many of us want to know is the exact physical mechanism.

Well, simple observation will reveal that the primary mechanism is thinking. I consider what you write above to be completely valid, but it also reveals the crazy side of science. Chained by identification, the brain is condemned to try and understand its apparent separation through thought-based objective analysis. Yet it is only thinking that is creating most of the separation in the first place and this can be simply observed by just a small child with reduced identification! It can be seen plain as daylight in an instant.

Scientists struggle to understand selfhood. Ramachandran is I think quoted as calling it the most complex issue he faces. I think his and other work is commendable and shines a lot of light on exciting neurological processes. But it is also completely true that the answer has been staring him in the face since the day he was born. He has simply been distracted by identification with thought.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

Well, that might be your vision of materialism. I don't share it. To me your position is akin to a religious type claiming that "the fact that God exists is hard, objective evidence for God."

You clearly have no idea what I am talking about. Let me make it as easy as possible.

1) We are talking about "I."
2) Thus "I" exists in some form, namely as a thought in the mind of you and I.
3) Every thought of a human is a material process.
4) Thus "I" is a material process.

Everyone else here is talking about the reference "I". You seem to be talking about the referrent. Why? We have made it clear that we are not talking about the referrent, yet you keep switching back to it. There is a huge difference. Learn computer science.

So, according to your vision of materialism Father Christmas exists?

Absolutely. As a reference. The referrent does not exist in objective reality. But that has no impact on the existence of the reference. Learn computer science.

But is there really a sensation of "I?" I think I should not have used the word "sensation" before. There is a sensation of the body but "I" is not really a sensation. My mistake, apologies. Perhaps it would be better to use the phrase "sense of I", or "notion of I." There is a body map. There is behaviour derived from mirroring and attenting. There are thoughts. These processes go on and they maintain the sense of selfhood, but this does not mean that selfhood is real beyond this sense.

It doesn't need to be real beyond that.

Now you are, to my mind, instituting duality at an even deeper level. It's quite needless to do this imo. You are, I submit, doing just what Descartes did. He assumed that "I" must be present. He took it as a given. The pattern of identification in Descartes' brain caused this to happen so he could not see around his preconception.

I am a computer scientist. My job is writing A.I. If anyone in the human population understood the material mechanisms of consciousness, it would be someone like me. I am very different from Descartes.

I am explaining to you that the existence of a reference is trivially true. The existence of a referrent in objective reality that matches a systems notion of that reference is not trivially true, or even true in general -- its truth depends on the system's definition.

If we can even think of "I", a reference exists. This does not imply that there is a real referrent that matches what we think of as "I," -- the existence of that depends on your definition of "I."

For materialists like lupus, pixy, paul, robin, and me (sorry to all who got left out there), we have altered our definition of "I" such that a referrent that matches our definition exists in objective reality.

Note that the source of your inability to accept this is the fact that you refuse to understand that other people have different definitions than you.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, simple observation will reveal that the primary mechanism is thinking. I consider what you write above to be completely valid, but it also reveals the crazy side of science. Chained by identification, the brain is condemned to try and understand its apparent separation through thought-based objective analysis. Yet it is only thinking that is creating most of the separation in the first place and this can be simply observed by just a small child with reduced identification! It can be seen plain as daylight in an instant.

…and thinking is the result of, and corresponds to, some underlying processes. What exactly corresponds to self-reference would be the question. What model is accurate enough to explain what we from a first-person perspective experience? How much is simply learned (what are the factors involved) and how much of a propensity is there for such manifestation (what are the exact mechanisms)? Those are questions we aspire to illuminate.

Thoughts are not “some-things” that simply float around in the head like clouds on the sky; at least I think there’s a much more tangible process that at least in principle can be subjugated to an accurate and systematic study. You seem to be treating thinking as a kind of residual category where you simply dump all the questions into, by which you therefore only can pretend to know what’s going on – “oh yes, it must, surely it must, be the result of thinking.”

It could perhaps be satisfying to a person who’s sitting on the fence struggling with whether he should believe in an immaterial soul or not. But besides for hunting homunculi, it’s not very helpful.

Scientists struggle to understand selfhood. Ramachandran is I think quoted as calling it the most complex issue he faces. I think his and other work is commendable and shines a lot of light on exciting neurological processes. But it is also completely true that the answer has been staring him in the face since the day he was born. He has simply been distracted by identification with thought.

This is a perfect example of where the naiveté of your position leads you: You assume selfhood is answered by throwing in two interdependent independent variables into the soup – ‘identification’ and ‘thought’ – and thus you think you have a final satisfying answer. Perhaps you have – this being the philosophy board and all – but in my opinion, you have barely highlighted the zone where personal psychology and philosophy must handle the baton to science (to find out what’s actually going on).

Sure it is a difficult problem for Ramachandran et.al., precisely because the “answer” has not been staring him in the face, but because, even if you are correct, ‘identification’ and ‘thought’ etc. still implies physical processes that must also be empirically described and modeled into a coherent explanation.

 

[Nick227]

…and thinking is the result of, and corresponds to, some underlying processes. What exactly corresponds to self-reference would be the question. What model is accurate enough to explain what we from a first-person perspective experience? How much is simply learned (what are the factors involved) and how much of a propensity is there for such manifestation (what are the exact mechanisms)? Those are questions we aspire to illuminate.

Yes.

Thoughts are not “some-things” that simply float around in the head like clouds on the sky;

Well, we don't know how thoughts are, or how thinking is, objectively. The "clouds in the sky" metaphor is often how this awareness of the transition from relatively thought-free awareness to more thought-filled awareness is frequently described. Of course, this descriptive process uses thoughts and indeed the intention to describe it, to share it, invokes thought.

at least I think there’s a much more tangible process that at least in principle can be subjugated to an accurate and systematic study. You seem to be treating thinking as a kind of residual category where you simply dump all the questions into, by which you therefore only can pretend to know what’s going on – “oh yes, it must, surely it must, be the result of thinking.”

Well, it does become clear, when identification begins to fall away, the immense role that thinking plays in our life. There is usually previously little realisation of the sheer extent to which thinking dominates activity. Generally it does stagger people because so much is based on thought, yet so much of it is taken for granted or ascribed to other factors. Thus, I do appreciate what you say when you say I am treating it like a residual category, but I have to ask whether you have personally become aware of the incredible extent to which thought dominates life?

This is a perfect example of where the naiveté of your position leads you: You assume selfhood is answered by throwing in two interdependent independent variables into the soup – ‘identification’ and ‘thought’ – and thus you think you have a final satisfying answer. Perhaps you have – this being the philosophy board and all – but in my opinion, you have barely highlighted the zone where personal psychology and philosophy must handle the baton to science (to find out what’s actually going on).

Sure it is a difficult problem for Ramachandran et.al., precisely because the “answer” has not been staring him in the face, but because, even if you are correct, ‘identification’ and ‘thought’ etc. still implies physical processes that must also be empirically described and modeled into a coherent explanation.

To me you are perfectly articulating the problems of a wholely objective mindset approach to the issue. The assumption is that it must be complex, that there must be a reason for all the zillions of thoughts expended trying to grasp what is going on, for all the directed attention. Objectivity is great, but when there is objectivity without awareness of just what objectivity actually is, of the assumptions it proceeds from, and of the immense role that thinking has in originally creating duality, then to me in this situation objectivity is little different from an addiction.

The objective mindset barricades itself in, and concludes that this must be the way. It tries to defend itself from what it perceives as attacks from other viewpoints using whatever it has to hand. But it cannot see that the whole dualistic issue that it is trying so hard to pin down and resolve is only arising with the process of thinking within the organism attempting to unravel it. This is why people laugh out loud when they start to get it. It's actually so simple people just slap their hands against their foreheads. But on reading this so the brain, if still identified with all the investment in objectivity it has appears to have made over the years, will invariably only go once again on the attack to try and refute the possibility of such a simplistic answer. It is pinned down by identification and has not the awareness to examine the possibility that it has been looking down the wrong path for so long time.

The objective pathway is fine. I salute Rama for his work and I am not being patronising when I say this. I mean it. It would be truly great to more and more unravel the neurological forces behind this experience of selfhood. But for those who wish it the answer is already there at a personal level.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

You clearly have no idea what I am talking about. Let me make it as easy as possible.

1) We are talking about "I."
2) Thus "I" exists in some form, namely as a thought in the mind of you and I.

Straight away you are assuming "I", RD. Might I suggest that if you are going to meaningfully examine this subject matter you are going to have find other terminology at the specific points where self-reinforcing assumptions could be made.

3) Every thought of a human is a material process.
4) Thus "I" is a material process.

Well, I prefer Dennett's view of the "I" as a "centre of narrative gravity." I think this starts to give a much clearer image - that of an apparent centre being created by coherent peripheral activity.

Everyone else here is talking about the reference "I".

Well, there is only me and Lupus and he doesn't seem to me to be so much considering the reference. I have to say that your near-constant reference to other people's viewpoints does somewhat inevitably lead me to conclude that actually you are not so sure yourself about what you're writing. This is totally fine but I think it would be better that you come out and say it, if it is so.

You seem to be talking about the referrent. Why? We have made it clear that we are not talking about the referrent, yet you keep switching back to it. There is a huge difference. Learn computer science.

I'm fine with considering the organism as a functioning whole embedded within an environment. I wouldn't be able to do much in life if I wasn't. But I submit that in a healthily inquisitive organism it is not normal to leave "I" as merely a reference. Inevitably one is interested - just what exactly is being referred to? Someone who is stuck at the level of behaviourism must only reply "You! You!" They have no choice. But I am happy to examine more deeply, and I don't think science would have proceeded so far without this attitude of investigation.

Absolutely. As a reference. The referrent does not exist in objective reality. But that has no impact on the existence of the reference.

Are you saying you do not exist in objective reality?

It doesn't need to be real beyond that.

Do your last two statements not demonstrate to you the problems with the behaviourist position? If it does not exist in objective reality, how come "it" suddenly has needs? You are caught between the two perspectives, RD, and it is good that you are, if you ask me, because without your natural inquisitiveness there would not be much dialogue here.

If we can even think of "I", a reference exists. This does not imply that there is a real referrent that matches what we think of as "I," -- the existence of that depends on your definition of "I."

To me, you're starting to sound pretty Idealist now. I find it quite exciting really.

Nick

 

[AWPrime]

How to objectively detect a 'I' of an organism is quite easy. A degree of I is necessary for planning and learning, therefore if the organism can plan or/and learn it has an 'I'.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, we don't know how thoughts are, or how thinking is, objectively. The "clouds in the sky" metaphor is often how this awareness of the transition from relatively thought-free awareness to more thought-filled awareness is frequently described. Of course, this descriptive process uses thoughts and indeed the intention to describe it, to share it, invokes thought.

Sure, using such a metaphor is all fine when describing the return from “la-la land”. Besides that, it’s not very helpful, but rather inane.

Well, it does become clear, when identification begins to fall away, the immense role that thinking plays in our life. There is usually previously little realisation of the sheer extent to which thinking dominates activity. Generally it does stagger people because so much is based on thought, yet so much of it is taken for granted or ascribed to other factors. Thus, I do appreciate what you say when you say I am treating it like a residual category, but I have to ask whether you have personally become aware of the incredible extent to which thought dominates life?

Yes. I also think you are making great fuss about perhaps insignificant issues. For some it might be earth shattering, for some it might not be that big of a deal at all. Generally we don’t consider acting upon the majority of our thoughts anyhow; there are also many thoughts we generally don’t ascribe identity to either.

You seem to be confusing a personal perspective with a scientific one, which is why you don’t seem to understand the requirements of what is taken to constitute a proper objective description and model of an area of investigation.

To me you are perfectly articulating the problems of a wholely objective mindset approach to the issue. The assumption is that it must be complex, that there must be a reason for all the zillions of thoughts expended trying to grasp what is going on, for all the directed attention.

Of course I’m articulating the objective approach here, that’s the only one which is any good in explaining stuff more reliably and in more detail.

Objectivity is great, but when there is objectivity without awareness of just what objectivity actually is, of the assumptions it proceeds from, and of the immense role that thinking has in originally creating duality, then to me in this situation objectivity is little different from an addiction.

You only come to this ridiculous conclusion by looking at objectivity from an immature point of view.

The objective mindset barricades itself in, and concludes that this must be the way. It tries to defend itself from what it perceives as attacks from other viewpoints using whatever it has to hand. But it cannot see that the whole dualistic issue that it is trying so hard to pin down and resolve is only arising with the process of thinking within the organism attempting to unravel it.

…and again, confusing what requirements are proper for different investigative perspectives is surprisingly immature here.

This is why people laugh out loud when they start to get it. It's actually so simple people just slap their hands against their foreheads. But on reading this so the brain, if still identified with all the investment in objectivity it has appears to have made over the years, will invariably only go once again on the attack to try and refute the possibility of such a simplistic answer. It is pinned down by identification and has not the awareness to examine the possibility that it has been looking down the wrong path for so long time.

…and again!

The objective pathway is fine. I salute Rama for his work and I am not being patronising when I say this. I mean it.

Look: you’re arguing from such a perspective that you couldn’t be patronizing even if you tried to (you would only look like Don Quixote).

It would be truly great to more and more unravel the neurological forces behind this experience of selfhood. But for those who wish it the answer is already there at a personal level.

...would be? That’s exactly what is taking place (among other things). I however prefer to leave the personal level to one’s own predilection and not claim it to be a universal resolution (simply because it is not).

 

[Nick227]

Yes. I also think you are making great fuss about perhaps insignificant issues. For some it might be earth shattering, for some it might not be that big of a deal at all. Generally we don’t consider acting upon the majority of our thoughts anyhow; there are also many thoughts we generally don’t ascribe identity to either.

Just to be clear, no one is ascribing identity to any thoughts. The act of identification creates the notion of a self which is acting. Whilst this act of identification is unconscious it persists.

You seem to be confusing a personal perspective with a scientific one, which is why you don’t seem to understand the requirements of what is taken to constitute a proper objective description and model of an area of investigation.

Neurology is all very well and fine. But neurology has yet to unravel selfhood. What frequently takes place prior to objective evaluation and testing is an assessment of the situation and the creation of a theory...

It can be seen that the action of identifying with thought creates the notion of a self that is doing the identifying. Because the identification is unconscious so the belief in this acting self persists. Thus in considering the scientific question of how a monist reality comes to appear so dualistic, or how free will seems to exist yet almost certainly does not, this model offers significant possibilities for comprehending the process. This is because both the elements in it - thinking and identification - appear to be neurological in nature.

The nature of identification intimates that it could well be a neurological process. It is clearly unconscious. It clearly induces a positive feeling in the organism and through this directs seeking behaviour. Thus, to my mind, it is reasonable to assume that one is looking for a dopamine-mediated process which incentivises the acting on certain types of thought. Furthermore, a basic grasp of psychology indicates that the specific thoughts it promotes are those which reflect emotional potencies not yet consciously realised.

In considering that emotions are, essentially, the executors of evolutionary logic one also has some beginnings to perhaps grasp how identification could have been favoured as a means to further maturation.

Seems an entirely reasonable theoretical model to me. Tell me what's wrong with it.

Nick

 

[rocketdodger]

Straight away you are assuming "I", RD. Might I suggest that if you are going to meaningfully examine this subject matter you are going to have find other terminology at the specific points where self-reinforcing assumptions could be made.

You obviously don't realize it, but the statement "you are assuming (the reference) "I" exists" is equivalent to "you are assuming the words of this sentence exist as references."

Of course I am assuming such a thing. Are you insane? Are you going to seriously take the stance that even references don't exist?

Well, I prefer Dennett's view of the "I" as a "centre of narrative gravity." I think this starts to give a much clearer image - that of an apparent centre being created by coherent peripheral activity.

So you agree that "I" is a reference, which references "centre of narrative gravity."

Well, there is only me and Lupus and he doesn't seem to me to be so much considering the reference.

Thats because you have no education in the requisite fields to understand what either lupus or I am talking about.

I have to say that your near-constant reference to other people's viewpoints does somewhat inevitably lead me to conclude that actually you are not so sure yourself about what you're writing. This is totally fine but I think it would be better that you come out and say it, if it is so.

In defense I reference the viewpoints of other intelligent forum members, who have never made a similar claim about me.

I'm fine with considering the organism as a functioning whole embedded within an environment. I wouldn't be able to do much in life if I wasn't. But I submit that in a healthily inquisitive organism it is not normal to leave "I" as merely a reference. Inevitably one is interested - just what exactly is being referred to? Someone who is stuck at the level of behaviourism must only reply "You! You!" They have no choice. But I am happy to examine more deeply, and I don't think science would have proceeded so far without this attitude of investigation.

I call bull**** on this. You are not happy to examine. Otherwise you would be having a discussion. All you have been doing for an entire year, Nick, is preaching. Don't you see that?

This is how every communication with you ends up:

me -- "this is what I consider 'I', and here is the hard objective evidence for it"

you -- "no no no, that is not 'I', here is the definition I prefer ... now show me evidence for it!"

me -- "wtf"

Well I am just sick of you, Nick. All you are doing here, all you have been doing for a year, is pretending to talk about this issue so that you can forward your pet theory, whatever it is.

Are you saying you do not exist in objective reality?

No -- my referrent for "I" exists in objective space. My referrent for santa claus does not.

Do your last two statements not demonstrate to you the problems with the behaviourist position?

No.

To me, you're starting to sound pretty Idealist now. I find it quite exciting really.

Yes Nick.

Pointing out that santa claus may or may not exist in objective space depending on one's notion of santa claus is idealism.

 

[rocketdodger]

Seems an entirely reasonable theoretical model to me. Tell me what's wrong with it.
Nick

Learn computer science.

 

[Wowbagger]

The "Model of I" being "a reference to a center of narrative" seems to be much more useful for discussing the nature of conscious, right now. Until we know more about the empirical nature of consciousness, it is not necessary to assume that the existence of "I" is indicative of any special objective existence.

The existence of "I" could be nothing more than the emergent behavior of various otherwise-disparate systems. And one of the best, most complete, most accepted, and empirically respectable theories of the mind is based on this claim: Daniel Dennett's Multiple Drafts theory.

I suggest you read Susan Blackmore's Consciousness: An Introduction, for a good summary of this, and other related issues. (I would have suggested Dennett's own book, Consciousness Explained, but it is rather difficult to read.)

 

[nonbeliever]

Are we still arguing about whether science is invalidated by evolution?

 

[rocketdodger]

Until we know more about the empirical nature of consciousness, it is not necessary to assume that the existence of "I" is indicative of any special objective existence.

It is indicative of the objective existence of the system(s) experiencing the "I."

The existence of "I" could be nothing more than the emergent behavior of various otherwise-disparate systems. And one of the best, most complete, most accepted, and empirically respectable theories of the mind is based on this claim: Daniel Dennett's Multiple Drafts theory.

That isn't the issue.

The issue is that Nick doesn't believe it is valid for a system to reference itself, because there is no "self" to begin with. What he fails to grasp is that when we say "system S references itself" we just mean "system S references system S," not "system S references it's dualistic self that inhabits the apriori netherworld."

That is why I keep telling him to learn computer science -- he assumes that I, an A.I. programmer, am using terms with a dualist meaning, and when I explain to him that I am most definitely not he simply accuses me of not knowing the meaning of the very words I use. I don't think the discussion can move forward until he realizes that it is possible for words to have definitions other than, or in addition to, the definitions he thinks they have.

 

[rocketdodger]

Are we still arguing about whether science is invalidated by evolution?

Yes. Here is the argument in a nutshell:

1) Humans are the product of evolution, which means our consciousness is probably not what most people think it is.
2) Materialism asserts that our consciousness is completely material.
.
.
.
63) Incomprehensible mumbo jumbo
.
.
.
234) Therefore, the universe is nothing but a whole lot of material, and any narrower or more meaningful description we give to any part or behavior of it -- namely, the dichotomy we have of self vs. not self -- is merely an illusion.
235) Therefore, there is no such thing as objective vs. subjective (because self does not exist).
236) Since science relies on "objectivity," it is thus invalidated.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Seems an entirely reasonable theoretical model to me. Tell me what's wrong with it.

Well, the intention is much more rigorous than simply proclaiming objectivity to be an addiction, how objectivity is trying to protect “itself” or more nonsense like that.

Usually we do it the other way around thou; we let the data show the way; we split it into smaller chunks so that we can test hypothesizes, then we create models, and finally perhaps a whole theory. We generally don’t consider ontology to be a scientific question, and we certainly try to avoid much of the fuzziness introduced in higher chains of reasoning by which you then seem to legitimize following lower chains of reasoning.

What you have is a vaguely coherent collection of assumption. What you don’t have, and what I already pointed out, is a stringent way by which you could actually start embedding reliable protocols for testing your claims in regards to your speculation you take as already being a fact. You’re awfully close to simply begging the question.

 

[thesyntaxera]

red or blue

Yes. Here is the argument in a nutshell:

1) Humans are the product of evolution, which means our consciousness is probably not what most people think it is.
2) Materialism asserts that our consciousness is completely material.
.
.
.
63) Incomprehensible mumbo jumbo
.
.
.
234) Therefore, the universe is nothing but a whole lot of material, and any narrower or more meaningful description we give to any part or behavior of it -- namely, the dichotomy we have of self vs. not self -- is merely an illusion.
235) Therefore, there is no such thing as objective vs. subjective (because self does not exist).
236) Since science relies on "objectivity," it is thus invalidated.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40520

Another way to break this down would be: humans are evolved, as a result of this evolution we are subjective. We subjectively assume selfhood without ever questioning it because our own existence above all things is one thing we are consistently provided evidence for. However, that does not make us contain an intrinsic self just the 'sense' of self. Because we have to rely on this sense of self to make our way through this world, and because this self is a fragile thing(as a good look throught DSM IV will show you) and subject to all kinds of changes it cannot be considered, ever, to be objective.

So we combine our 'selves' under the banner of materialism and science in order to make up for this inherent subjectivity in all of us and call the sum approximation of those efforts 'objectivity' and praise our 'selves' for creating such a clear and perfect vision of reality.

The problem is still that this clear picture of reality is based on collective subjective observations and are in no way absolute. They may be heavily tested, but the scientific truth is that they are consistently under revision, as they should be....for example, we all recognize the color red. Let's say for instance that the human race has a dramatic evolutionary change that takes the minority of those with color blindness (perhaps they see blue instead of red) and makes their genes that govern that part of their perception dominate across the species for some reason. Over time the majority of people no longer see red, but see blue instead. The minority of those who are color blind are actually made up of people who originally had the market cornered on the ability to perceive accurately, but now those same people are considered to be at a disadvantage when it comes to perception because the majority of observers see blue instead of red.

Essentially, there is no way to determine collectively a static materialistic perception of the world, and materialism as a philosophy should adopt the point of view that our world is a world of perceptions, and the most material thing about it is that our view of it is constantly changing, hence objectivity is a "behavior" or myth as Nick was saying in his OP.

Looking back at the OP I would say that I agree with everything, except the assumption that it undermines the value of science in any way. Science as a process has helped us to come to the point where we can realize that objectivity and materialism are not all they are cracked up to be. In the search for a clear picture of reality one may realize that the clearest picture is one that is indeterminate ultimately...hence the need for really rigorous science.

The only way I could see materialism devaluing science is when scientists latch too tightly to the notion that their preferred materialistic vision is the sole reality and not subject to change. Fortunately the scientific process has a way of weeding that out too.

 

[rocketdodger]

However, that does not make us contain an intrinsic self just the 'sense' of self.

But you are presuming that the only meaning of "self" is the dualistic one that Nick keeps talking about.

That isn't the only meaning.

As I keep saying, another meaning is the name given to system S's reference of system S by system S.

 

[Nick227]

It is indicative of the objective existence of the system(s) experiencing the "I."

But the issue for me is that "the system", if we're talking about a human system, only becomes bordered, on an intellectual level, through this action of identifying with thought. Without this act of unconscious identification the system loses its border, on an intellectual level. I say "on an intellectual level" because the human organism also has a somatosensory cortex, mirror neurons, and other functions which help to create selfhood on a sensational and behavioural level.

Thus, when one talks of a "self-referencing system", for me attention must be paid to the fact that the human system is largely being defined by this action of reference. Without the action of identification the borders of the system become considerably more loose. This is the point I am trying to make, because it seems to me that you are assuming the system is fully objectively defined prior to the action of reference.

In considering phenomenology, what creates the primary partition on an intellectual level - the sense of "I / not I" - is thinking and the action of identifying with thought. Without this activity phenomenology is rendered non-dual and experience ceases to exist for there is no longer anyone for experience to occur to.

I also urge you to read Blackmore and Dennett.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

What you have is a vaguely coherent collection of assumption. What you don’t have, and what I already pointed out, is a stringent way by which you could actually start embedding reliable protocols for testing your claims in regards to your speculation you take as already being a fact. You’re awfully close to simply begging the question.

I am not a neuroscientist. However I submit that the model does work intellectually. It matches experience and what we know, and to me this is no easy achievement given the degree of complexity commonly ascribed to understanding the phenomena of Self neurologically. Of course, it's not my own work. This model has been around in symbolic form for millenia. I'd put money on there existing a process which mediates identification with thought and that process being dopaminergic. For me it totally matches all data.

Nick