No. I'm saying materialism must at least devalue scientific method
Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Isn't it funny how science has done far more to improve the lives of people than the philosophy of science ever has?
Show me a materialism that can grow more efficient crops, that can better harness energy and generate power, that can forge lighter and stronger materials, that can carry more information at less cost, that can prolong human life while reducing human suffering. Show me that, and I will show you a materialism that spells the end of science.
Show me what you've got in this thread, and I will show you exactly so much inconsequential navel-gazing.
Will materialism spell the end of science? Might as well ask if science will spell the end of people being pseudo-mystical superstitious jackasses.
Yes, it will deliver results. But not necessarily accurate ones. You need to take into account evolutionary bias in perception and cognition. Like we ensure machines are properly calibrated before use.
Separation and perspective seem very strong to the human consciousness. Almost unassailable. But this must in part be because the brain evolved a sense of personal subject.
Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Materialist logic says no such thing, that it doesn't matter whether the materialist's body is destroyed, as long as it is copied in another one. What nonsense. This idea has been discussed before, most recently by me (an unyielding materialist) here.
Isn't that something that animals in general have? The separation and perspective part? My dogs don't seem to have any difficulty figuring out how to get the treat into their own mouths, even when there's another dog standing right next to them. They seem quite capable of lunging at just the right time to bring their jaws right where they need to be.
How is this a human thing?
In this context, an observer.
How so?
Not really a good analogy for the sense of an observer. It's an illusion that developed for specific purposes, and can corrupt data interpretation for others.
Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
If our brains developed a sense of an observer existing, through evolutionary bias, then what does scientific method look like without this add-on ?IIUC, If our brains are nothing but materiel then how can we use materiel brains to understand the materiel universe.
Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
The quote you posted actually demonstrates that neither you nor your copy are materialists.
A persisting self can't exist under materialism. It's created in the moment but selective pressure has made it seem to be constant.
Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
Science has been defeated. What do you suggest we use instead of it? bear it mind it should have the same and or better track record of making things in general better for humanity.
I'm partial to wizardry
I'm partial to wizardry
Seem to whom?
In that case I'll keep the one I've got, if you don't mind. And that one is an expression of the activity of my physical structure. So I'll hold on to that too.
Your theory of reality is a highly restricted one. Some people might believe that only their minds exist. They are "solipsists". For my amusement I have imagined people who believe that only other prople's minds, and not their own, exist. These, if they are indeed to be found, would be "solaltrists". But you don't believe that "self" exists at all, so that whether my material body (and therefore conscious self) exists or not must be a matter of indifference to me. Me? Who's that anyway?
I'll look at the implications of that. But it is in my view very far from being a form of materialism.
I'm not saying it's defeated. I'm saying it needs to assess and compensate for evolutionary bias
Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
This premise is wrong. Even to materialist, copy are all different instances. You are asking if be8ing replaced by another instance and getting killed is fine.
Hu. No. There is absolutely nothing in materialism which state that. You make the same type error of judgement that religious people take toward atheist "yeah then if there is no paradise and hell then there is no need for moral and everything is allowed". Hu. No.
The brain is the SOLE basis of consciousness and from its physico chemic property and networking emerge various physico chemical process in network. The sum of those processes is what gives us our feeling of self, and you can as accident, illness , stroke, destroy part of them changing the self. Those sum is what is called the observing self. There is no indication either that that emerging process needs duality of any kind.
Finally, again, I have to wonder why it is so hard for non materialist to swallow, identical copy are not the same instance ! Killing an instance spells its end ! Why would such instance accept being replaced by a copy ? There is nothing in materialism which state that various identical instance must accept to be replaced by each other. In fact materialism state that all those copy instance are separate entities with separate emerging consciousness. Think of it as perfect twin with the same memory than copy. Why would a twin accept to be killed and replaced by his brother ?
That make no sense. Do not attribute to materialist what they do not say.
I would like to suggest more cooking shows. Not the scientific ones, but you know, the regular, non-sciency cooking shows.
In hard science terms, to no one. Selfhood in this context is just a combination of instinct and learned behaviour, not an actual reality.
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
Show me where so called hard science makes that claim
or how about a TV show, where all the thinkers in the world have to fight it out until only one remains? Then we all accept what they believe. Or has that already been done?
It's straight materialism. You can't have an observer. Do you look for an observer within the brain? No. So it has to emerge. Can it have actual reality? No, that would be dualism. End of story.
That story was brought to you by Hard Science. But where is Hard Science to be found? Do you look for it within the brain? No, it has to emerge. But can it have actual reality? Ah, that is the question.
The Nimble Pianist
Muse
OK. You're definitely conflating epistemology and ontology. Whether someone believes in Cartesian dualism or a strictly monist materialism says nothing about the validity of scientific realism or antirealism. You can be a monist who accepts, say, Daniel Dennett's "Multiple Drafts Model" and still believe in scientific realism. Such a person would say that while the "Mind's Eye" is indeed an illusion it is nevertheless an emergent property of real material things: namely neurons, and these real entities provide a (for the most part) faithfully recreated depiction of how the universe really is. It is therefore incumbent on us to understand scientific theories to be talking about real things. I myself am example of such a materialist scientific realist, though I'm far more certain of my materialism than my realism.
Now, even if I were to concede the point that monism/materialism is difficult (though not impossible) to reconcile with scientific realism, and so scientific antirealism is more likely true this would still not "devastate" the scientific method as you have outlined in your OP. In such a scenario we'd simply reinterpret the results of said method as being an approximation or construct of reality. The scientific method would still be useful even if we started to understand science as an invention of models rather than the discovery of truth since, you know, it seems to work pretty damn well. Atomic theory works and its predictive power is unmatched no matter if "atoms" are actually real.