Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

[BadBoy]

I thought I made it pretty clear that I am OK with pushing the button. Provided, of course, the "duplicate" is being created somewhere I want to go. And the reliability has been demonstrated. And, of course, that the cost for the service is not excessive. (Because spatial position, security, and money are all things that can be lost, so the benefits must outweigh the losses.)

Could lead to some interesting legal challenges. If you're not the same person, does that mean you can no longer be held legally accountable for some bad deed done before that point in time.

I predict the precedent would be set to show that you are indeed the same person, legally, which answers the question?

 

[BadBoy]

If the brain is the mind, why doesn't the brain disappear when the mind shuts down?

Wrong way around. I don't know of any case where the mind disappears when the brain is still functioning normally as before. If you are dead, the brain is no longer the same as it was. Cells have died from lack of oxygen. The brain goes though some physical changes before you lose your mind.

 

[MRC_Hans]

But the brain doesn't disappear when the mind is lost. The possibility of one being present, while the other is gone, suggests a non-equivalence, no?

Right. The brain is not equal to the mind. The brain produces the mind. If the brain stops working, it is still there, but the mind is not.

Note: All according to the materialistic POV, obviously, but since no evidence has so far been forthcoming for any other thesis, this must be the logical default position.

Engines and cars aren't the same thing, right?

OTOH, neither is much use without the other.

Hans

 

[SusanB-M1]

And this is just more sad "Oh lookit at me I'm so much more enlightened then you sheeple" nonsense.

I think I agree! I have followed this thread all the way through because I do so enjoy reading IS members' knowledge and opinions. I have only skimmed through most of Nick227's words ...

 

[Nick227]

Because you want there to be more to the process when there isn't.

Joe and Hans,

FACT - we don't know how consciousness emerges from brain processing. We have some level of neural correlation, see Dehaene, but that's just raw activity. Nowhere near enough to even make statements like "consciousness is happening inside the brain."

Epistemic hunger - not really your thing, I guess

 

[Nick227]

However, if you look up thread you might find where I explained how observation and observer are tied together materialistically.

Could you point me to that? Thanks

 

[Nick227]

Could lead to some interesting legal challenges. If you're not the same person, does that mean you can no longer be held legally accountable for some bad deed done before that point in time

You are the same person. That's materialism.

 

[Mojo]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating

Let's see: you're using a computer to post claims that science is devastated? How's that going?

 

[Nick227]

No, I want you to articulate what it looks like to you. Specifically, what benefits you think it offers.

Nothing looks different.

And we haven't even brought up what "going there" actually requires.

couple of possibilities...

Ruthless materialist investigation into this so-called observing self that is experiencing consciousness.

or

Ruthless subjective investigation into this so-called observing self that is experiencing consciousness

Tell you what. What you call the memeplex that gives me the false impression of an observing self, I'm going to call my observing self. That way neither of us is wrong.

Don't let it fool you, Myriad! It sees its chance and it's going for total control!

OK, maybe I spout a bit too mystical on occasions, but that's no reason to allow yourself to continue to be held hostage by a parasite that sucks your brain of truth. If you just observe it, it can't survive.

Finally, of course, it's up to you.

And all the while, scientific method remains remarkably un-devastated.

Scientific method, as a behaviour, remains. Yes, I agree.

 

[Myriad]

You are the same person. That's materialism.

But it's not science, to assume such a result without doing the experiment.

Maybe the person who comes out the other end of the transporter claims not to be the same person, in a different language they never spoke before. Maybe they arrive with the memories of one of their deceased ancestors, or with memories of spending years in the land of faerie since their departure. Maybe the transporter works fine with every kind of animal tested including gorillas and chimpanzees, but all humans transported arrive dead. Maybe an angry deity appears and smites the scientists, the test subject, and the equipment.

If any of those things happened, materialism would be challenged, but science would just be doing its job as usual.

You can go ahead and assume, for the sake of argument, that the person is successfully transported and appears to be the same person behaviorally. But keep in mind that that assumption makes this a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

 

[Nick227]

Let's see: you're using a computer to post claims that science is devastated? How's that going?

I'm saying the significance of scientific method collapses under materialism. I'm not saying the behaviour of undertaking science changes.

Objectivity requires a firm sense of subject-object boundaries or otherwise everything that's happening is just, well, behaviour. Yes, you can use scientific method to investigate and formulate laws and predict how to change systems. Specifically to help fulfil evolutionary imperatives. But if none of this is happening to anyone, and materialism asserts that it isn't, then scientific method has no firm basis on which to state that it is any more valid than anything else that is perceived to work.

I came out of philosophical retirement (!) and re-started this drama to protest the way homeopathy, for one, is currently being demonised by scientists in the media. The basis for this is that there's no scientific proof for it and no scientifically valid method of action. What materialism actually asserts here is that THIS DOESN'T MATTER!

That's my point. Materialism must assert a selfless universe and one upshot of this is that anything which people perceive as working for them must have equal validity.

 

[Myriad]

If you just observe it, it can't survive.

If who just observes it?

Is there an observing self, or not?

 

[marplots]

That's my point. Materialism must assert a selfless universe and one upshot of this is that anything which people perceive as working for them must have equal validity.

Equal validity for whom? Them or me?

Is there no good way to decide such things when two observers report different things? How should a third observer evaluate the opposite claims of the other two?

 

[Nick227]

But it's not science, to assume such a result without doing the experiment.

Maybe the person who comes out the other end of the transporter claims not to be the same person, in a different language they never spoke before. Maybe they arrive with the memories of one of their deceased ancestors, or with memories of spending years in the land of faerie since their departure. Maybe the transporter works fine with every kind of animal tested including gorillas and chimpanzees, but all humans transported arrive dead. Maybe an angry deity appears and smites the scientists, the test subject, and the equipment.

If any of those things happened, materialism would be challenged, but science would just be doing its job as usual.

You can go ahead and assume, for the sake of argument, that the person is successfully transported and appears to be the same person behaviorally. But keep in mind that that assumption makes this a philosophical argument, not a scientific one.

Well, in this case, Badboy is hypothesizing that he could use it to get out of being penalized for some former misdemeanour.

And, anyway, it's a thought experiment, usually used to see if people who claim to be materialists actually are.

I agree, if someday we build one, then we can see.

 

[Nick227]

Equal validity for whom? Them or me?

Is there no good way to decide such things when two observers report different things? How should a third observer evaluate the opposite claims of the other two?

Observers?

 

[marplots]

Equal validity for whom? Them or me?

Is there no good way to decide such things when two observers report different things? How should a third observer evaluate the opposite claims of the other two?

Observers?

I was referencing your comment, where you said, "...anything which people perceive as working for them must have equal validity."

So, the observers in question would be the "them" in your statement.

 

[Mojo]

I came out of philosophical retirement (!) and re-started this drama to protest the way homeopathy, for one, is currently being demonised by scientists in the media. The basis for this is that there's no scientific proof for it and no scientifically valid method of action.

Can you explain how testing homoeopathy using controlled trials is invalid?

 

[JoeMorgue]

The scientific method doesn't work because it's mean to homeopathy.

That's rich.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'd be willing to entertain even for a moment all these "Reality doesn't exist! Science is wrong!" threads if once, just once, it wasn't shown that the people starting them didn't have some pet Woo they are pissed off science proved wrong.

 

[MRC_Hans]

That's my point. Materialism must assert a selfless universe and one upshot of this is that anything which people perceive as working for them must have equal validity.

Your point is wrong. Materialism does not assert a selfless universe.

Hans