Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nonpareil]

Sure, for it to function, yes. But for it to create useful data about the true nature of reality

"The true nature of reality" is not a meaningful descriptor.

Ask an incoherent question...

You don't think it's worth evaluating more deeply how veridical or otherwise perception might be then? This is your position? There's no value in this? It just doesn't matter?

Not in the context of how effective the scientific method is, because the flawed nature of human perception is already taken into account.

It's a feeling. If you're choosing to use language in the way you are above, all that actually would demonstrate is that there is someone that has the feeling

In which case, by definition, that person is an observer.

Essentially if you keep tying words together in this way, then how do you deal intelligently with a mechanistic processor that creates narratives it assigns to itself?

Assuming that by "creates narratives", you means "creates your not-really-an-illusion of self", then by labeling it as conscious.

What is your point?

Where in the link do you provide empiric evidence for an observer, one that appears as it seems to within our own awareness?

You are an observer, Nick.

That is empirical evidence, whether or not you like it, in the same way that an elephant is empirical evidence of elephants.

This is utterly trivial. I am uncertain why you continue to have such issue with it.

 

[LarryS]

aQUOTE=Nonpareil;11085739]


In which case, by definition, that person is an observer.

[/QUOTE]

When you use the expression 'that person is an observer', I suspect you don't mean the entire person, but some distinguishable aspect(s) of a person. For example, you've stated something like: the observer is the process of observing . . . is the observer entangled in the process of observing and that which is observed? When I see a tree I know I am not the tree, but subjectively and neurologically, is there some 'leakage' - - - if not, then subjectively I should be able to distinguish myself as observer independent of thoughts, memories and perceptions (this might require the dreadful and demeaning navel-gazing), and if there is no leakage, then we should be able to locate a discrete brain state that produces the observer. If there is leakage, isn't the existence of the observer at risk?

 

[Nonpareil]

When you use the expression 'that person is an observer', I suspect you don't mean the entire person, but some distinguishable aspect(s) of a person.

Yes. Specifically, the brain and nervous system; still more specifically, the neurochemical processes taking place within those systems.

For example, you've stated something like: the observer is the process of observing .

No, I haven't. I have stated, quite correctly, that the process of observing requires an observer. I have also stated that the neurochemical processes that Nick227 continuously tries to dismiss are the process of observation in question.

is the observer entangled in the process of observing and that which is observed? When I see a tree I know I am not the tree, but subjectively and neurologically, is there some 'leakage' - - - if not, then subjectively I should be able to distinguish myself as observer independent of thoughts, memories and perceptions (this might require the dreadful and demeaning navel-gazing), and if there is no leakage, then we should be able to locate a discrete brain state that produces the observer. If there is leakage, isn't the existence of the observer at risk?

Your question is incoherent. Among other things, you talk about "distinguishing yourself as observer independent of... perceptions", which is an oxymoron; if you do not perceive, you are not an observer.

I cannot answer this, because whatever you are actually asking has failed to parse.

 

[tsig]

aQUOTE=Nonpareil;11085739]


In which case, by definition, that person is an observer.

When you use the expression 'that person is an observer', I suspect you don't mean the entire person, but some distinguishable aspect(s) of a person. For example, you've stated something like: the observer is the process of observing . . . is the observer entangled in the process of observing and that which is observed? When I see a tree I know I am not the tree, but subjectively and neurologically, is there some 'leakage' - - - if not, then subjectively I should be able to distinguish myself as observer independent of thoughts, memories and perceptions (this might require the dreadful and demeaning navel-gazing), and if there is no leakage, then we should be able to locate a discrete brain state that produces the observer. If there is leakage, isn't the existence of the observer at risk?[/QUOTE]

I suspect you are not a mind reader and haven't a clue as to what he meant.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Nick, if a tree falls down in the middle of a forest, and there's no one around to hear it... Did it make a sound at all?

 

[marplots]

Nick, if a tree falls down in the middle of a forest, and there's no one around to hear it... Did it make a sound at all?

Did it even fall?

 

[Myriad]

Did it even fall?

Did it exist at all, while no one was around to see or hear it?

 

[Aridas]

I'm questioning the validity of empiricism. But fair enough, no problem.

It's completely reasonable to question empiricism and any other method before, during, and after usage. That doesn't mean that all criticisms forwarded are necessarily valid.

We don't know how reality is. We hope representations are veridical, as this allows our minds to explore using scientific method. A non-veridical world would be challenging for the mind that enjoys exploration by empiricism, for sure!

We assume that the reality we experience is at least based in an objective setting for functional reasons. This, and the surrounding topics and implications, are very well trodden territory, at last check.

Given that we don't know reality. And we don't know enough about neural function to reverse engineer it (sorry used the n word!), all we have is what evidence there is for veridicality against that for non-veridicality. This balance, this seesaw is moving.

In some ways, sure. In the ways that actually matter for the implications that you've suggested, not so much.

... and what needs are served by believing in observers. (And who's needs these are!)

The need to uphold some of the basic rules of language and honesty, perhaps? Personally, I'm not all that concerned about specific conclusions, either way, and am not hung up on calling myself or others observers or anything else in particular. It is, however, a label that accurately fits under the normal usage of the word, and you've notably failed to provide an alternate version that would not fit in any fashion that does not invoke fallacies. Thus, it would be rather dishonest of me to argue that I am not an observer.

As evidence accrues towards non-veridical perception, the question arises... what exactly are we examining - the outside world or the dynamics of neural representation? This is the issue. Do space and time exist outside of representation? Does gravity? Does monism? These to me are the questions that increasingly need evaluating.

All this really does is goes back to the issue of how trustworthy the representation actually is in the first place, which turns your overall position into something of a farce, because you've pushed together positions that end up depending on things being both true and false at the same time.

Do space and time exist outside of representation, for example? If no, then anything science has to say about anything is quite untrustworthy and your desire for all physics and space research to stop and be redirected into neuroscience is entirely pointless. If it does exist outside of representation, we are left in the same position that we are in now and nothing about it is weakened in the least, given that it's not supposed to be treated like divine revelation anyways and fundamentally couldn't honestly lead to the conclusion that space and time don't exist outside of representation. You seem to want somehow to hide in the space in between yes and no, though, from your previous comments, yet you have yet to give any indication about why we should trust the conclusions made with neuroscience any more or less than we should treat the conclusions made with chemistry or psychology or how employing neuroscience even could potentially lead to the conclusion that space and time don't exist without employing blatantly fallacious logic.

You may not believe this, but I actually have no problem with your description of observation. As I'm sure you agree it's been around for years. And it's not remotely complex. As I mentioned there have for ages been a core of posters on this forum using this description.

I have no problem believing that.

What is problematic for me is the following... This description of observation as system behaviour does not help us understand the phenomenon of the seeming observer, as it does not account for how this illusion appears. If any theory of consciousness seeks to be coherent then it needs to do this. It has to actually give an explanation for what appears, otherwise it is simply, and rightfully, accused of merely explaining away consciousness.

Is it actually explaining away lightning when lightning is explained as an electrical discharge between a cloud and the ground? Or is it just a simpler explanation, better suited for some situations than a full technical description?

And I'm not saying it's conclusive. I'm saying we need more research, and it's important we do it.

Sure! Just not for the reasons and logic that you're championing, because they don't actually work like you seem to think they work.

Well, we do actually have a coherent neuronal model to explain many aspects of this observer illusion, as I pointed out before.

Which, of course, does nothing at all to actually argue against the existence of observers in general. Even less so when "illusion" isn't being used in a way that could validly lead to such a conclusion.

 

[ynot]

Nick, if a tree falls down in the middle of a forest, and there's no one around to hear it... Did it make a sound at all?

What is the validity of one brain observing?

 

[Mojo]

Did it exist at all, while no one was around to see or hear it?

Can we assume that it existed while there was someone around to see it?

 

[Aridas]

Can we assume that it existed while there was someone around to see it?

The representation of it or an actual thing?

 

[Mojo]

The representation of it or an actual thing?

Yes.

 

[Nick227]

You haven't explained why the same assumption is not fine for science.

It depends what the science is being used to do. I think if it's just being used to make human needs more easier to fulfil, then to a degree I think science is absolutely fine for this. But when we have goals more relating to really understanding the nature of our universe, I think anything that can be done to remove potential sources of error, should these become more evident, is also needed.

Or how science could operate at all without observations that are assumed to be representative of the external universe.

Well, for me, this and other points are repeatedly being presented as black and white when the reality is more in between. The false dilemma, I think is one title for this.

Given that, previously, we only had philosophical musings to suggest that our sensory percepts might not reflect accurately an external reality, then to me it's entirely reasonable to ignore philosophy and simply proceed to investigate.

But, nowadays, modern research into how the brain creates consciousness is showing more and more evidence that these sensory percepts are constructed to help satisfy certain needs and they may be less useful for other tasks.

This does not mean science is no longer useful. It simply means that we need to assess the situation more. We need to try and ensure that our investigative strategies are truly fit for purpose.

 

[Nick227]

Nick, if a tree falls down in the middle of a forest, and there's no one around to hear it... Did it make a sound at all?

If you define a sound as something along the lines of - a vibration between certain frequencies audible to the human ear - then Yes.

If you define sound as being the representation of those frequencies within the human brain, then No.

 

[Nick227]

Did it exist at all, while no one was around to see or hear it?

There's actually no one around regardless of whether or not there's a body near the tree!

 

[Nick227]

Not in the context of how effective the scientific method is, because the flawed nature of human perception is already taken into account.

It's not that human nature is flawed here. Human consciousness is actually pretty good at what's it's been engineered to do - eat, kill, and shag, essentially. For these tasks it generally gets the job done.

But when you're using this eating, killing and shagging machine to try and determine the deepest truths about our universe... I mean, it's a little like trying to get a porn movie director to do a remake of Battleship Potemkin.

 

[Nick227]

You are an observer, Nick.

That is empirical evidence, whether or not you like it, in the same way that an elephant is empirical evidence of elephants.

This is utterly trivial. I am uncertain why you continue to have such issue with it.

So, essentially, your argument could be phrased as...

There is an observer. There just is.
I don't care whether there is any evidence or not. There just is.
I don't care whether there are any explanations for all the properties of observation that don't require an observer. There just is.
That's just how it is. There just is.

 

[Nonpareil]

It depends what the science is being used to do. I think if it's just being used to make human needs more easier to fulfil, then to a degree I think science is absolutely fine for this. But when we have goals more relating to really understanding the nature of our universe, I think anything that can be done to remove potential sources of error, should these become more evident, is also needed.

Come back when you have a coherent definition of "the true nature of the universe".

Until then, you have failed to ask a coherent question.

But, nowadays, modern research into how the brain creates consciousness is showing more and more evidence that these sensory percepts are constructed to help satisfy certain needs and they may be less useful for other tasks.

This does not mean science is no longer useful. It simply means that we need to assess the situation more. We need to try and ensure that our investigative strategies are truly fit for purpose.

The assessment has been made.

Science continues to work.

It's not that human nature is flawed here. Human consciousness is actually pretty good at what's it's been engineered to do - eat, kill, and shag, essentially. For these tasks it generally gets the job done.

But when you're using this eating, killing and shagging machine to try and determine the deepest truths about our universe... I mean, it's a little like trying to get a porn movie director to do a remake of Battleship Potemkin.

You are just repeating the already-addressed point.

The assessment has been made.

Science continues to work.

So, essentially, your argument could be phrased as...

There is an observer. There just is.
I don't care whether there is any evidence or not. There just is.
I don't care whether there are any explanations for all the properties of observation that don't require an observer. There just is.
That's just how it is. There just is.

No. Read before responding, Nick.

The actual argument being presented is:

1. The definition of observer is X.
2. Any entity which meets the definition of X is therefore an observer.
3. An entity exists which meets the definition of X.
4. Therefore, an observer exists.

This is pathetically simple, Nick. Your continued deliberate obtuseness serves no purpose other than to make you look extremely silly.

 

[abaddon]

It depends what the science is being used to do. I think if it's just being used to make human needs more easier to fulfil, then to a degree I think science is absolutely fine for this. But when we have goals more relating to really understanding the nature of our universe, I think anything that can be done to remove potential sources of error, should these become more evident, is also needed.

Seems odd that you are hell bent on adding extra errors in that case.

Well, for me, this and other points are repeatedly being presented as black and white when the reality is more in between. The false dilemma, I think is one title for this.

Yet somehow you are unable to even vaguely define what this "in between" might be because you don't even know what it is yourself.

Given that, previously, we only had philosophical musings to suggest that our sensory percepts might not reflect accurately an external reality, then to me it's entirely reasonable to ignore philosophy and simply proceed to investigate.

You cannot do that. According to you, there is no investigator and no observer. Hence, according to you, any "evidence" gathered is not evidence at all. Nobody observed it, according to you, therefore any claimed evidence is automatically invalid.

But, nowadays, modern research into how the brain creates consciousness is showing more and more evidence that these sensory percepts are constructed to help satisfy certain needs and they may be less useful for other tasks.

But who observed these findings? Not you. Not the scientists involved. Not the volunteers. In fact, according to you, nobody observed any of it. It thus never happened and has no evidential value at all.

This does not mean science is no longer useful.

Oh yes it does.

It simply means that we need to assess the situation more.

Without using science according to you. How do you propose doing that?

We need to try and ensure that our investigative strategies are truly fit for purpose.

Without science, how do you propose doing that either?

 

[abaddon]

<snip for brevity>
This is pathetically simple, Nick. Your continued deliberate obtuseness serves no purpose other than to make you look extremely silly.

This is a simple attempt to covertly crowbar in a god of the gaps. Nobody is buying it.