Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[Nick227]

Who is this "I" that does not exist? Seeing it does not see, observing it does not observe,...

...an emergent sense of existing independently, arising from an assortment of lower-order neural processess... illusory but very, very highly favoured

 

[Nick227]

You may as well say that it is a physical impossibility to have a point of observation under any system that doesn't invoke magic or fallacious reasoning, then, if that's the bar and line of argument that you're using.

Well, given that we don't know how a non-monist system would be, I'd say that's a reasonable statement.

You've claimed that under dualism, things are magically different, but have yet to demonstrate why your claim would be any less effective when it comes to dualism. For that matter, going by your actual mentioned descriptions, under dualism, the "observer" is even less of an observer by the arguments that you've used to try to claim that there cannot be an observer in a monist system.

Under Cartesian Dualism, which we know is not correct, the observer would be somewhere in a pool of rens cogitans in the pineal gland. Of course, there could be infinite regress issues.

In short, your claimed version is utterly nonsensical to use in the first place, both with regards to its nature, itself, and to your attempted application of it.

I am just pointing out a simple fact. In a monist materialist system you can't have a point of observation. It is a physical impossibility. You can wiggle and jiggle how you like, but you won't get round it.

The best a monist system can do is create the sense of there being a point of observation.

 

[annnnoid]

Well, given that we don't know how a non-monist system would be, I'd say that's a reasonable statement.

Under Cartesian Dualism, which we know is not correct, the observer would be somewhere in a pool of rens cogitans in the pineal gland. Of course, there could be infinite regress issues.

I am just pointing out a simple fact. In a monist materialist system you can't have a point of observation. It is a physical impossibility. You can wiggle and jiggle how you like, but you won't get round it.

The best a monist system can do is create the sense of there being a point of observation.

…and what does it mean to have a ‘sense’ of being? BTW…it is ‘being’ that is the appropriate term here, not ‘observer’. The phrase is…”I am”…not “I observe that I am.”

It is worth pointing out that monist materialism is metaphysics, not science. You are essentially attempting to argue that an abstract reality that has no basis in anything that we have any comprehension of supersedes a robust normative reality that is the defining feature of the defining creature that occupies this planet.

Basically…even if strict monist materialism cannot accommodate an ‘observer’ (a conclusion which itself is questionable)… so what? Science is not predicated on the gospel of materialism, science is predicated on the gospel of what works.

Secondly…monism only precludes the existence of an ‘observer’ to the degree that we currently lack the capacity to define the condition in monist terms. If, just for example, some variation of IIT is correct then an ‘observer’ can be easily accommodated within the appropriate monism.

 

[calebprime]

Well said, annnoid.

 

[Aridas]

Well, given that we don't know how a non-monist system would be, I'd say that's a reasonable statement.

In short, though, the version that you're using isn't a viable version to use for the purposes that you are trying to use it. You're making much ado out of nothing.

Under Cartesian Dualism, which we know is not correct, the observer would be somewhere in a pool of rens cogitans in the pineal gland. Of course, there could be infinite regress issues.

Infinite regress would not and could not solve anything, though, which is one of the primary issues with infinite regress in general and even moreso in this case specifically. When your logic is actually checked, the "observer" that you've claimed could exist under dualism cannot qualify as an "observer" any more than what you talk about under monism. Invoking special pleading inspires no confidence that you understand what you're talking about.

I am just pointing out a simple fact. In a monist materialist system you can't have a point of observation. It is a physical impossibility. You can wiggle and jiggle how you like, but you won't get round it.

The best a monist system can do is create the sense of there being a point of observation.

Why would I need to wiggle and jiggle? Or get around it? In the only ways that such even can be true, it's utterly trivial and completely useless for the purposes that you're trying to use it. In short, again, it's utter nonsense to try to use it like that.

 

[Nick227]

Basically…even if strict monist materialism cannot accommodate an ‘observer’ (a conclusion which itself is questionable)… so what? Science is not predicated on the gospel of materialism, science is predicated on the gospel of what works.

For me that changes when we understand both how the illusion of a point of observation is created, and how incredibly favoured this illusion is.

This point is a game-changer. No longer do we believe the illusion, unless we wish to remain like a child metaphorically.

To me, what you're saying is that it is better to dwell in illusion than examine what is really going on. I don't agree with that. Hopefully not many genuine scientists would either.

Secondly…monism only precludes the existence of an ‘observer’ to the degree that we currently lack the capacity to define the condition in monist terms. If, just for example, some variation of IIT is correct then an ‘observer’ can be easily accommodated within the appropriate monism.

Well, you don't need IIT to do that. You could, as Nonpareil did, simply define certain system properties of the brain as "observation," and then state that the brain must therefore be the observer.

But to me this is a back door. It using language to avoid confrontation with what is actually going on. It doesn't account for the phenomenon of the observer as it manifests, this sense that someone is looking. It doesn't account either for the phenomenon of a point of observation.

 

[tsig]

For me that changes when we understand both how the illusion of a point of observation is created, and how incredibly favoured this illusion is.

This point is a game-changer. No longer do we believe the illusion, unless we wish to remain like a child metaphorically.

To me, what you're saying is that it is better to dwell in illusion than examine what is really going on. I don't agree with that. Hopefully not many genuine scientists would either.



Well, you don't need IIT to do that. You could, as Nonpareil did, simply define certain system properties of the brain as "observation," and then state that the brain must therefore be the observer.

But to me this is a back door. It using language to avoid confrontation with what is actually going on. It doesn't account for the phenomenon of the observer as it manifests, this sense that someone is looking. It doesn't account either for the phenomenon of a point of observation.

Who/What is this "me". If you are right this "me" doesn't really exist so are we talking with nothing more than an illusion?

Your argument is self eliminating.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Even for navel gazing the amount of pointless silly word games at display here is approaching eye rolling levels.

If there is something to be observed and the act of observing is happening there is absolutely no logical way the existence of an observer can be questioned.

 

[LarryS]

Even for navel gazing the amount of pointless silly word games at display here is approaching eye rolling levels.

If there is something to be observed and the act of observing is happening there is absolutely no logical way the existence of an observer can be questioned.

depends on one's definition - if the observer is not distinguishable from the observing, then the observer has to abstracted from each individual act of observation, and the observer is then partially defined and different depending on what is being observed, and, the observer can not exist between observations . . . as compared to a distinct observer that persists from observation to observation, and even in gaps between observations. The latter case would require some kind of separate brain state.
Which definition suits you?

 

[Aridas]

For me that changes when we understand both how the illusion of a point of observation is created, and how incredibly favoured this illusion is.

This point is a game-changer. No longer do we believe the illusion, unless we wish to remain like a child metaphorically.

To alter that very slightly to show how utterly unimpressive the quoted here is in a more obvious way...

For me that changes when we understand how the illusion of talking to another person face to face when talking on a video call is created.

This point is a game changer. No longer do we believe the illusion that we are actually physically talking to a person face to face, unless we wish to remain like a child metaphorically.

Now... why, exactly, do you keep claiming that it's somehow a revelation that the illusion is simply a useful representation of the available input rather than the direct reality itself? Why, exactly, do you think that it's at all a game changer?

To me, what you're saying is that it is better to dwell in illusion than examine what is really going on. I don't agree with that. Hopefully not many genuine scientists would either.

To you, maybe, as you keep attempting to use terms far beyond their realm of usefulness and in a manner that's not very well aligned with how they are being used by others. What you quoted doesn't say that at all, quite frankly, if normal word usage is in play. It doesn't even remotely imply it. No wonder you thought the author of the article that inspired the content here is deeply scared if your reading comprehension is that faulty.

Well, you don't need IIT to do that. You could, as Nonpareil did, simply define certain system properties of the brain as "observation," and then state that the brain must therefore be the observer.

Your understanding is remarkably poor, still, then. Rather, accepting that certain functions are necessary parts in the "how it actually even can work" when going past the much more basic "processing in some fashion" for something to count as observation in the first place is the first step, then identifying that they do occur within the brain (if the substantial information at hand points correctly), and then coming to the conclusion that the brain qualifies as an observer would be more like what was actually being put forward. No circular logic necessary. No defining things into or out of existence like you've been trying to do.

But to me this is a back door.

A pointless set of objections. Let's take a look, though.

It using language to avoid confrontation with what is actually going on.

How? By incorrectly claiming that other party is trying to define things in or out of existence, using conflation, or employing circular logic?

It doesn't account for the phenomenon of the observer as it manifests, this sense that someone is looking. It doesn't account either for the phenomenon of a point of observation.

Of course what Nonpareil actually said doesn't. It was never intended to address that at all and you repeatedly trying to claim that it was is entirely dishonest of you. Nor does that being the case actually mean much of anything for you unless your actual argument is completely and utterly unable to accomplish the goals and implications that you've stated for it... which happens to inevitably be the case, regardless of how you try to squirm. The lines of argument that you've chosen are utterly worthless for the purposes that you've tried to use them, after all.

 

[Nick227]

Who/What is this "me". If you are right this "me" doesn't really exist so are we talking with nothing more than an illusion?

This "me" is an evolutionarily-favoured system behaviour. The important part is that it is not what it seems to be. But, technically, yes, two illusory senses of self are communicating with each other.

 

[Nick227]

Even for navel gazing the amount of pointless silly word games at display here is approaching eye rolling levels.

If there is something to be observed and the act of observing is happening there is absolutely no logical way the existence of an observer can be questioned.

It depends if you actually want to understand consciousness or not. If that's what actually motivating you. Because if you just want to defend a perspective that you perceive as working for you then, for sure, eye roll away. I mean, if eye-rolling helps you feel more secure that your perspective is right, then just go for it. If it reassures you. I think it's OK.

 

[Nick227]

Donald Hoffman's 2008 paper online here, chapter 2, contains a history of just how scientists, with admirable human optimism, have been asserting that perception is veridical, with little to back it up.

It's known, apparently, as the Hypothesis of Faithful Depiction (HFD), now under considerable threat from evolutionarily based scientific approaches. If the evolutionary approach is shown to demolish the HFD, it of course puts materialism into immediate crisis.

 

[Myriad]

If the evolutionary approach is shown to demolish the HFD, it of course puts materialism into immediate crisis.

And if a stratum of fossil trilobites is also shown to contain fossil chipmunks, it puts paleontology and evolution into immediate crisis.

I'd estimate those two "if" scenarios are about equally likely.

 

[Aridas]

Donald Hoffman's 2008 paper online here, chapter 2, contains a history of just how scientists, with admirable human optimism, have been asserting that perception is veridical, with little to back it up.

I'm not particularly impressed or convinced of anything new by that, quite frankly, but from my skim of that, it does a much better job than you have for arguing for a particular view. I have significant doubts about how coherent it actually is, on multiple levels, but here would not be the place to comment about that.

Either way, was there ever any serious doubt that a number of scientists have asserted that perception is directly veridical? I, for example, have expressed serious doubt about the trustworthiness of such claims in the first place, for example, but not that people have claimed such.

It's known, apparently, as the Hypothesis of Faithful Depiction (HFD), now under considerable threat from evolutionarily based scientific approaches. If the evolutionary approach is shown to demolish the HFD, it of course puts materialism into immediate crisis.

No. If the HFD is demolished, especially in that fashion, materialism would not even remotely be put into crisis by it being demolished. End of story. Once again, I say this as someone who isn't at all attached to materialism, but rather to valid arguments. Materialism never depended upon perception being veridical in the first place, after all.

 

[tsig]

Donald Hoffman's 2008 paper online here, chapter 2, contains a history of just how scientists, with admirable human optimism, have been asserting that perception is veridical, with little to back it up.

It's known, apparently, as the Hypothesis of Faithful Depiction (HFD), now under considerable threat from evolutionarily based scientific approaches. If the evolutionary approach is shown to demolish the HFD, it of course puts materialism into immediate crisis.

I look at your posts and I look at other posts and they both look pretty much the same, if your insight into the illusionary nature of consciousness is correct it doesn't seem to have any practical effect.

 

[Nick227]

No. If the HFD is demolished, especially in that fashion, materialism would not even remotely be put into crisis by it being demolished. End of story. Once again, I say this as someone who isn't at all attached to materialism, but rather to valid arguments. Materialism never depended upon perception being veridical in the first place, after all.

So if, for example, space was shown to actually be merely a neural construct... this would present no problem for materialist science?



sent using rogue memeplex 1.1 via Sony and Tapatalk

 

[tsig]

So if, for example, space was shown to actually be merely a neural construct... this would present no problem for materialist science?



sent using rogue memeplex 1.1 via Sony and Tapatalk

None of this philosophical piddle will have the slightest impact on science.

 

[Aridas]

So if, for example, space was shown to actually be merely a neural construct... this would present no problem for materialist science?

*sigh* If materialism is shown to be false, materialism is shown to be false. That's a somewhat separate issue than what you invoked before. To quote your link, though, to clarify what HFD is, before going further, because the case that I quoted you using before is very easily misleading and very possibly simply wrong -

A goal of perception is to match or approximate true properties of an objective physical environment. We can call this the hypothesis of faithful depiction (HFD).

Now, to point back at what you actually said that provoked the response you quoted -

It's known, apparently, as the Hypothesis of Faithful Depiction (HFD), now under considerable threat from evolutionarily based scientific approaches. If the evolutionary approach is shown to demolish the HFD, it of course puts materialism into immediate crisis.

There's a few points to consider then. First, as I said before, materialism is not dependent upon a fully veridical perception of reality. Nor, for that matter, is science. Your use of "Materialist science" can be simply given an eyeroll given the context it's being used in. Next, "evolutionary based scientific approaches" does not, in fact mean that "space may actually be a neural construct," quite frankly. Space may, in fact, be a neural construct, sure, but "evolutionary based scientific approaches" cannot reliably lead to that conclusion. On a slight, but related tangent, if we start with the presumption that space is actually a neural construct, whether before or after "concluding" that such is the case, the question of how we could honestly trust any of the current branches of science about anything is a very real one, including any that may be attempted to be used as support for such. On a slightly different tangent, why even invoke evolution there except for a thin facade of credibility?

Back to "evolutionary based scientific approaches," though. The only viable cases that you've brought up along those lines are fitness based models being contrasted against fully veridical models, with you clearly trying to identify the HFD with the latter and not the former for seemingly untrustworthy reasons and have not, in fact, backed up that it's actually HFD that's under any real threat rather than claims that were of rather questionable trustworthiness from the start. Still, for the sake of this, let's accept this usage for the moment. Going by your usage of HFD, it's worth looking at the fitness based models, which are the only viable "evolutionary" candidates that have been presented. Now, evolutionary fitness based models do not have any real conflict with either materialism or science, which makes your "crisis" comment quite clearly false.

Now, to wend our way back to the start, though to take a peek at your suggested model... what evolutionary benefits would there be to create a neural construct of space, except as a case where an objective reality is being better reflected? Bear in mind, of course, that potential benefits do not automatically count as evolutionary benefits and that I intentionally used "neural construct of space" which is a bit different than the model you suggested. On another hand, what basis would one have to accept that evolution even occurs if space itself is actually a neural construct? Yes, evolutionary ideas can potentially be applied, but an important question before that would be why should they be applied in the first place?

On a different note, it may be worth noting that the paper you pointed out disagrees with you. For example, it forwards a monist position and accepts observers as part of that.

 

[Nick227]

There's a few points to consider then. First, as I said before, materialism is not dependent upon a fully veridical perception of reality. Nor, for that matter, is science. Your use of "Materialist science" can be simply given an eyeroll given the context it's being used in. Next, "evolutionary based scientific approaches" does not, in fact mean that "space may actually be a neural construct," quite frankly. Space may, in fact, be a neural construct, sure, but "evolutionary based scientific approaches" cannot reliably lead to that conclusion.

They haven't done so yet. But from the research thus far done space has to be a main candidate for the chop. Time looks stronger, I would agree. But even with what we know about visual processing, space looks already weak, if you have eyes to see!

BTW, you can do your eyerolling pragmatism thing all you like if it makes you feel more secure. It's fine by me. I mean this. I don't mind.

On a slight, but related tangent, if we start with the presumption that space is actually a neural construct, whether before or after "concluding" that such is the case, the question of how we could honestly trust any of the current branches of science about anything is a very real one, including any that may be attempted to be used as support for such. On a slightly different tangent, why even invoke evolution there except for a thin facade of credibility?

It's the rise of evolution-based approaches that offers a new way of understanding perceptual systems. Hoffman claims to have demonstrated that fitness is always favoured over accuracy, and that is hardly surprising.

I've no doubt that, as we increasingly apply evolution-based approaches to wider aspects of consciousness study, so a lot is going to come out. Human consciousness is riddled with illusory properties that offer adaptive advantage but are simply, well, illusory.

This is the guts of the HPC. We ascribe properties to consciousness that are merely highly favoured illusions, and then claim that neural behaviour can't explain them. Because there's still no broad agreement on which properties are real and which are not, scientists writhe around all over the place.

There is so much illusion that some eliminativists start even to go so far as dismiss consciousness as entirely illusory! Which for me is going a bit too far, but when confronted by the reality that many of the most deeply held beliefs we have are actually illusion, of course there can be a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Now, to wend our way back to the start, though to take a peek at your suggested model... what evolutionary benefits would there be to create a neural construct of space, except as a case where an objective reality is being better reflected? Bear in mind, of course, that potential benefits do not automatically count as evolutionary benefits and that I intentionally used "neural construct of space" which is a bit different than the model you suggested. On another hand, what basis would one have to accept that evolution even occurs if space itself is actually a neural construct? Yes, evolutionary ideas can potentially be applied, but an important question before that would be why should they be applied in the first place?

Look, evolution can in reality even be just an algorithm, running in a highly nested astronomically-sized informational reality. It doesn't matter. Evolution as a concept fits the development over time, even if time is just a neural construct!

On a different note, it may be worth noting that the paper you pointed out disagrees with you. For example, it forwards a monist position and accepts observers as part of that.

Hoffman upholds Idealism and asserts the likelihood of "conscious agents." It's not clear for me what he thinks about observers.