Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nick227]

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

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

The point is anyway not relevant because, as Nonpareil admits, redescribing observation as a system property does not account for how the observer appears to manifest.

It seems very much as though someone is looking. Seeing this laptop screen it does seem very much as though there is really a "someone" that is looking at it. This is the sense. A coherent theory of consciousness will need to account for this sense.

Nonpareil does have the honesty to admit that simply redescribing observation as a system property does not do this.

It is easy to these days to find people asserting that the materialist theory of consciousness has it pretty much all done and dusted. But if we just for a second examine the two key properties of phenomenal consciousness - that of its very existence and this sense of there being someone seeing it - neither are well accounted for. I am at least pointing out how some of the ascribed properties of the latter may be dealt with materialistically.

But, on this so-called materialist forum, it seems everyone is actually desperately trying cling to the observer! It seems that you're trying to create a group delusion where if you all reinforce each other reasoning. As though redescribing observation as a system property means you don't have to account for how it appears to manifest!

I mean, it is pretty hysterical to find this on a skeptic forum, where posters merrily lambast delusional thinking in God-believers and the like! Where, theoretically, clinging to insubstantiable phenomena is actually to be frowned upon, not reinforced!

And now you're going to do it all again! Perhaps a nice barrage of posts all seeking to reinforce an utterly delusional perspective, to avoid dealing with the reality that materialism asserts - There Is No Observer.

 

[Nick227]

Neither.

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

Then why does it appear to have a phenomenal existence? Why does it seem that, specifically, "someone" is looking.

 

[Nick227]

Seems to me that if it (our observer) didn't then humans would probably have gone extinct years ago.

Yes. It's reasonable to assume a survival advantage in things appearing the way they are, I agree.

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

Well, in situations where an accurate representation could compete against a fit one, the fit one always wins. Accuracy is not favoured of itself.

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

So... it doesn't seem like anyone's seeing the screen in front of you, right now? You need to think about it for a while for this sense to build up?

 

[Nick227]

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

Glad we got that cleared up.

The brain does not need a "someone." It just uses a memeplex to create a vaguely convincing illusion of a personal self.

As long as that brain doesn't follow materialist logic too ruthlessly it will work fine.

Of course the resulting brain is fairly weak-minded and prone to believe in anything which it thinks might help it fulfill its evolutionary objectives, evidence regardless.

 

[Nick227]

I don't share NICKS position that the observer is an illusion or does not exist, I don't think we've nailed the observer down as of yet.

We can nail down how the illusion is created, or at least a fair chunk of it.

As long as the illusion is convincing, you don't need an actual observer.

 

[Nick227]

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

er... the reality that we are all existing in.

Even then, "observation" is quite an abstract concept. You'd be better off getting rid of that, rather than throwing good money after bad, and using it to assert an "observer". The concorde effect, it's called in management.

 

[Aridas]

The point is anyway not relevant because, as Nonpareil admits, redescribing observation as a system property does not account for how the observer appears to manifest.

It seems very much as though someone is looking. Seeing this laptop screen it does seem very much as though there is really a "someone" that is looking at it. This is the sense. A coherent theory of consciousness will need to account for this sense.

Nonpareil does have the honesty to admit that simply redescribing observation as a system property does not do this.

It is easy to these days to find people asserting that the materialist theory of consciousness has it pretty much all done and dusted. But if we just for a second examine the two key properties of phenomenal consciousness - that of its very existence and this sense of there being someone seeing it - neither are well accounted for. I am at least pointing out how some of the ascribed properties of the latter may be dealt with materialistically.

But, on this so-called materialist forum, it seems everyone is actually desperately trying cling to the observer! It seems that you're trying to create a group delusion where if you all reinforce each other reasoning. As though redescribing observation as a system property means you don't have to account for how it appears to manifest!

I mean, it is pretty hysterical to find this on a skeptic forum, where posters merrily lambast delusional thinking in God-believers and the like! Where, theoretically, clinging to insubstantiable phenomena is actually to be frowned upon, not reinforced!

And now you're going to do it all again! Perhaps a nice barrage of posts all seeking to reinforce an utterly delusional perspective, to avoid dealing with the reality that materialism asserts - There Is No Observer.

There's a simple concept when it comes to skepticism, among other things. Valid evidence is required before accepting radical claims. So far, you've notably failed to present anything either new or of particular note, frequently employed fallacious logic to try to support your case, and gone on repeated rants like the quoted, among other things. Why should anyone even begin to take you or your arguments seriously? Again, I say this as a person who is not really attached to materialism in the first place, much less whether materialism actually does assert that "There Is No Observer."

 

[Aridas]

The brain does not need a "someone." It just uses a memeplex to create a vaguely convincing illusion of a personal self.

As long as that brain doesn't follow materialist logic too ruthlessly it will work fine.

Of course the resulting brain is fairly weak-minded and prone to believe in anything which it thinks might help it fulfill its evolutionary objectives, evidence regardless.

You realize, of course, that this just begs the question about what, exactly, counts as a "personal self" is, in the first place. Much like other terms, your argument can only work if you're projecting a, frankly, nonsensical definition of what counts as a personal self onto the people who you disagree with. Naturally, it's a bit annoying to have such positions foisted upon oneself, which has a fair bit to do with why you've met with such resistance. And then, of course, you try to play the martyr! Oh, woe is you! These supposedly smart people just can't see your overwhelming brilliance because they're trapped by their mistaken and empty assumptions!

We can nail down how the illusion is created, or at least a fair chunk of it.

As long as the illusion is convincing, you don't need an actual observer.

The illusion of a sense of self? Sure. You keep neglecting that for various phenomena "observed" by the illusion to occur, observers are, in fact, required, unless you want to invoke concepts along the lines of solipsism. The fallacy fallacy seems to be a bit similar to what you keep trying to do, quite frankly.

 

[Nick227]

There's a simple concept when it comes to skepticism, among other things. Valid evidence is required before accepting radical claims. So far, you've notably failed to present anything either new or of particular note, frequently employed fallacious logic to try to support your case, and gone on repeated rants like the quoted, among other things. Why should anyone even begin to take you or your arguments seriously?

Well, personally, I take something seriously if I consider it has weight. I try not to just form opinions via association, like oh this person seems like this so then I will either regard or disregard what they say accordingly.

Yes, I do rant at skeptics a bit. But then it is also ironic how they gather together and exhibit precisely the same behaviour God-believers do when their own pet fantasy is challenged. I mean, it is kind of amusing.

 

[Nick227]

You realize, of course, that this just begs the question about what, exactly, counts as a "personal self" is, in the first place.

A sense of psychological selfhood. Of course, one could go around in circles for ages trying to define these things, just as one could for "consciousness" or "material" or "observer" but I think there is generally enough consensus to discuss if you're sincerely interested in the subject matter.

Naturally, it's a bit annoying to have such positions foisted upon oneself, which has a fair bit to do with why you've met with such resistance.

I'm not bothered about the resistance. I'm bothered about what I perceive as an utter lack of intellectual honesty.

 

[tsig]

Well, personally, I take something seriously if I consider it has weight. I try not to just form opinions via association, like oh this person seems like this so then I will either regard or disregard what they say accordingly.

Yes, I do rant at skeptics a bit. But then it is also ironic how they gather together and exhibit precisely the same behaviour God-believers do when their own pet fantasy is challenged. I mean, it is kind of amusing.

I'm glad we can entertain you but you might entertain the idea that you are the one claiming esoteric knowledge given only to the specially enlightened, a very religious idea.

 

[tsig]

A sense of psychological selfhood. Of course, one could go around in circles for ages trying to define these things, just as one could for "consciousness" or "material" or "observer" but I think there is generally enough consensus to discuss if you're sincerely interested in the subject matter.



I'm not bothered about the resistance. I'm bothered about what I perceive as an utter lack of intellectual honesty.

And there it is, if we don't agree with you it must be because of some personal fault in us not some fault in your argument.


sigh

 

[abaddon]

Well, personally, I take something seriously if I consider it has weight.Consider what exactly has weight? It is your claim that there is no observer at all, including yourself.

I try not to just form opinions via association, like oh this person seems like this so then I will either regard or disregard what they say accordingly.

Then you need practice because you keep doing it.

Yes, I do rant at skeptics a bit.

It seems the rant is all you offer.

But then it is also ironic how they gather together and exhibit precisely the same behaviour God-believers do when their own pet fantasy is challenged. I mean, it is kind of amusing.

You have yet to offer anything substantive.

 

[Nick227]

And there it is, if we don't agree with you it must be because of some personal fault in us not some fault in your argument.


sigh

Tsig,

Believe it or not, I would actually love it if you could create a coherent argument, regardless of whether or not it agreed with mine. I enjoy debating.

However, endlessly repeating that there must be an observer because otherwise this debate couldn't happen doesn't really cut it for me. The brain does not need an observer, a point no one has managed to dispute. It is fine doing precisely everything it's ever done without an observer.

 

[Nick227]

Naturally, it's a bit annoying to have such positions foisted upon oneself, which has a fair bit to do with why you've met with such resistance. And then, of course, you try to play the martyr! Oh, woe is you! These supposedly smart people just can't see your overwhelming brilliance because they're trapped by their mistaken and empty assumptions!

Well, I don't really feel like a martyr!

I did notice, however, that I could identify with the character played by Christian Bale in The Big Short. It's 2005 and he's spotted something no one in the whole finance system apparently has - subprime bonds with a AAA rating are actually composed of B rated risks amassed in such a way to make it seem they are secure. He can bet short and Morgan Grenfell are laughing at him, happy to take his money. But he's actually examined the system close enough to see a whopping great weakness that the bankers apparently haven't. And, more to the point, he can see that it has to burst relatively soon because of the way the market is moving.

Likewise, top-down attention-management systems in the brain have to operate according to evolutionary imperatives. This is how they've been programmed. But the dynamic environment is changing. Science is actually investigating these processes and the results of that investigation are slowly being fed back into the system. Plus, the riskiness of the environment is shifting. The AAA rating that science itself is given is actually composed of multiple zero-value reflections only justifiable within the context of evolution-derived needs. Science seems unassailable, just as Bear Stearns did in 2007. But would you put money in science-based skepticism if it was a stock option? I certainly wouldn't!

The illusion of a sense of self? Sure. You keep neglecting that for various phenomena "observed" by the illusion to occur, observers are, in fact, required, unless you want to invoke concepts along the lines of solipsism.

That is simply completely untrue.

 

[LarryS]

Is this thread about the illusion of an observer . . . if re 'science' then think of science as consistent observing between twitching brain stems . . . don't need an observer to do science. Don't even need Materialism for science since the capacity of observing, measurement and quantity are included in all half-baked frameworks including Materialism and Idealism.

 

[Aridas]

Well, personally, I take something seriously if I consider it has weight. I try not to just form opinions via association, like oh this person seems like this so then I will either regard or disregard what they say accordingly.

Indeed. Invoking obvious fallacies as part of an argument, though, makes it hard to take seriously, which is part of why I specifically pointed out such.

Yes, I do rant at skeptics a bit. But then it is also ironic how they gather together and exhibit precisely the same behaviour God-believers do when their own pet fantasy is challenged. I mean, it is kind of amusing.

When it comes to trolling, the ISF is a very easy place to do so, by all appearances. And?

A sense of psychological selfhood. Of course, one could go around in circles for ages trying to define these things, just as one could for "consciousness" or "material" or "observer" but I think there is generally enough consensus to discuss if you're sincerely interested in the subject matter.

And most of your audience here doesn't actually consider that term to equate with the sense, itself, just like with "observer" by the look of it, which leads to distinct issues in communication from the start, before getting to the issues of how relevant and valid your usage actually is for the purposes that you're trying to use it. The sense of psychological selfhood, itself, is likely to be generally considered nearly completely superfluous compared to the various distinct actual sets of behaviors and thought patterns that accompany such behaviors when "personal self" is referred to here, especially when it comes to how relevant each of the two versions are for the purposes that you seem to be employing them for. Invoking the sense, alone, for either personal self or observer, rather seems to be worthless when it comes to anything but the very trivial and inconsequential. Certainly, nothing of the scope that you've tried to argue for elsewhere.

Either way, while the general subject is interesting to me, for the purposes of this thread, my interest is limited to trying to evaluate the arguments presented and going from there.

I'm not bothered about the resistance. I'm bothered about what I perceive as an utter lack of intellectual honesty.

A potential consequence of invoking notably different versions of the same terms than your audience and then by all appearances to your audience, completely misusing such.

Tsig,

Believe it or not, I would actually love it if you could create a coherent argument, regardless of whether or not it agreed with mine. I enjoy debating.

Tsig has frequently put forth coherent arguments. I think I have yet to see him create them, though, or show much actual skill in distinguishing between good and bad arguments.

Well, I don't really feel like a martyr!

It was, admittedly a little bit of hyperbole. Not very far off from the content of some of your rants, though.

Is this thread about the illusion of an observer . . . if re 'science' then think of science as consistent observing between twitching brain stems . . . don't need an observer to do science. Don't even need Materialism for science since the capacity of observing, measurement and quantity are included in all half-baked frameworks including Materialism and Idealism.

Well, I'll quite agree that science doesn't need Materialism. The original case and much to do with the continuations, though, were more along the lines of "Materialism inherently sabotages science, if actually accepted" or, going further with bits like

Likewise, top-down attention-management systems in the brain have to operate according to evolutionary imperatives. This is how they've been programmed. But the dynamic environment is changing. Science is actually investigating these processes and the results of that investigation are slowly being fed back into the system. Plus, the riskiness of the environment is shifting. The AAA rating that science itself is given is actually composed of multiple zero-value reflections only justifiable within the context of evolution-derived needs. Science seems unassailable, just as Bear Stearns did in 2007. But would you put money in science-based skepticism if it was a stock option? I certainly wouldn't!

"Science is sabotaging science." Much of what he's actually used to argue for his position, though, seems to actually be poorly thought through restatings of old, well-known and accounted for potential issues that don't actually help his case in any notable way or simply irrelevant. Of indirect note after that, though, he's admitted that this thread is as a reaction to not liking the way that science has treated homeopathy. Either way, I have no problem with agreeing that something deemed a "sense of being an observer" is unnecessary for observation to occur, for consciousness, for a personal self, and the like. I'm not at all convinced by the claim that there is no observer or sense of being an observer, though, based on the fact that science is officially demonstrating specifics about things that show that the interpretation of the incoming data isn't 100% veridical and that this likely has serious implications for how much we should trust science, for example. From the number of typos that I've corrected or found after I can no longer fix them despite rereading to try to catch them, before getting to the rest, that's not even remotely groundbreaking new information to me. Nor should it be considered notably groundbreaking news to science, except with regards to the specifics themselves, given that the scientific method was created in fair part to remove as much of human error as possible.

 

[Mojo]

But, on this so-called materialist forum, it seems everyone is actually desperately trying cling to the observer! It seems that you're trying to create a group delusion where if you all reinforce each other reasoning. As though redescribing observation as a system property means you don't have to account for how it appears to manifest!

I mean, it is pretty hysterical to find this on a skeptic forum, where posters merrily lambast delusional thinking in God-believers and the like! Where, theoretically, clinging to insubstantiable phenomena is actually to be frowned upon, not reinforced!

You would probably find it less hysterical if you understood that the observers they are telling you exist are not the same as the observers you say they are desperately trying to cling to.

 

[Nick227]

You would probably find it less hysterical if you understood that the observers they are telling you exist are not the same as the observers you say they are desperately trying to cling to.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't have any problem with anyone choosing to define observation as a system property, based on the system's behaviour. And then, if you want to say that there must be an observer because you've just termed this behaviour observation, well, OK. Then you're left with the brain being the observer.

But I'm pointing out that this does not account for how the observer appears to manifest. And that any coherent theory of consciousness needs to do this. Otherwise, you will rightly be accused of explaining the phenomenon away.

And I'm calling your position and that of others on this thread intellectual dishonesty because I'm assuming you can understand this argument. If you can't, if it's just too much or all Greek to you, then I apologise.

Thus far, only Hlafordlaes and Nonpareil have accepted the issue.

 

[Nick227]

Tsig has frequently put forth coherent arguments. I think I have yet to see him create them, though, or show much actual skill in distinguishing between good and bad arguments.

Care to link me some of his coherent arguments on this thread?

Of indirect note after that, though, he's admitted that this thread is as a reaction to not liking the way that science has treated homeopathy.

Well, I do take a bit of a Zorro position with homeopathy. That is true. But that wasn't what originally inspired the thread actually.
I read Mike Shermer's column in Sci Am a few months back on the Interface Theory of Perception and I thought he raises some good points but, you know, the guy is scared. I could feel it. He's no fool and he can see what's potentially coming down the pipe towards science in general and skepticism specifically. So I thought to start a thread along these lines, bringing in of course an old favourite, the observer delusion. Maybe I could have thought about the approach a bit more, I was a bit impulsive it's true.

Either way, I have no problem with agreeing that something deemed a "sense of being an observer" is unnecessary for observation to occur, for consciousness, for a personal self, and the like. I'm not at all convinced by the claim that there is no observer or sense of being an observer, though, based on the fact that science is officially demonstrating specifics about things that show that the interpretation of the incoming data isn't 100% veridical and that this likely has serious implications for how much we should trust science, for example. From the number of typos that I've corrected or found after I can no longer fix them despite rereading to try to catch them, before getting to the rest, that's not even remotely groundbreaking new information to me. Nor should it be considered notably groundbreaking news to science, except with regards to the specifics themselves, given that the scientific method was created in fair part to remove as much of human error as possible.

Well, I have been arguing two separate points and you are conflating them here.

The observer - you can't have an observer under monist materialism, simple as that. Because there's no place in the brain that can be termed "observer." And no place that is outside the system under monism. You can redescribe system behaviour as observation and then conclude that the brain must be the observer, but this is not intellectually honest when trying to ascribe a material basis to a subjective phenomenon of this type. There's no way out if you have a basic level of understanding and reasonable honesty. Least I've not seen one. There are neuroscientists who clearly understand this, and there are others who clearly struggle. The depth and persistence of this illusion is to me a big reason why we don't make the progress we could with consciousness research. Scientists can be extremely intelligent, but that can actually be a problem in this field, if there is too much reliance on thought-based representations.

Veridical Perception - so, is it veridical or is it just representation? Science is deciding, that's the reality. The more we study the brain the more the scale tips towards representation. If you want to say that doesn't potentially affect the reality of science... then you go ahead.