• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

Nick227 said:
If your mind accepts a selfless reality, either as the logical extension of materialism, or as the result of subjective analysis, then it will change.
Click to expand...

Materialism does not imply a selfless reality. It implies that the self is a product og the physical brain.

What's your position? If you could push a button and be painlessly dematerialized, and an identical copy in that moment created, would you be OK with it? Do you accept that if nothing material is lost then nothing is lost?
Click to expand...

It is cheap to answer yes, since such an apparatus does not exist. However, the argument is moot since there is no particular reason to assume that a possible dualist self/spirit/soul would not follow the transfer.

Hans
 
Nick227 said:
As I said to you before, Myriad, it's red pill, blue pill. You have to look for yourself for this one.
Click to expand...


Disappointing cop-out. See the top row of this xkcd strip: https://xkcd.com/566/

The Matrix philosophy leads only to... The Matrix sequels. (See the bottom row of the same xkcd strip.) No place worth going to.

If your mind accepts a selfless reality, either as the logical extension of materialism, or as the result of subjective analysis, then it will change. The core program that it's been running from early childhood, running for so long it's unaware that it's just a program, is realized for what it is. It can still run the program, play the game. There's not a problem there. But a deeper awareness is present also.
Click to expand...


The ancient (1971) wisdom revealed in the great Deteriorata sums it up thusly: "Know thyself." (It then goes on to sagely advise, "If you need help, ask the FBI.")

You've gotten hold of a corner of some interesting ideas. The implications of strict materialism are indeed so precisely opposite to the world view of mysticism that on some level they're equivalent. For instance, mysticism: humans are a conduit conveying order and intelligence as it flows "downward" from the highest spiritual plane, the great cosmic all, toward the lower planes where it manifests as spirits, mind, and energy, right down to the lowest plane of "inert" physical matter. Materialism: order and intelligence originate in the ambient laws of the material universe by which the properties of physical matter (which is frozen stabilized energy) give rise to "emergent" pattern, evolution, computation, and eventually intelligence, by which the universe in some sense comprehends itself. That's barely scratching the surface; outlining the full extent of the opposites and their near equivalence will require a lengthy essay I haven't written yet. The interesting thing is, for some of the conclusions that can be drawn from both models, the opposite elements cancel out and the conclusions come out the same. For instance, both systems suggest that the boundaries between the self and the world are not as well-defined as they seem to be, to the point where they might be described as illusory. And both systems suggest that death is as valid a part of the process of life as any other, rather than being a tragedy, punishment, or flaw.

I pondered the question, what is the difference, as far as the writer of these words is concerned, between dying and being reincarnated with a different physical body and brain, different ensuing life experiences, and no direct memories of this current life and mind-set (the prevailing mystical view); and just dying and someone else being born instead (the materialist view)? The answer I arrived at is, no difference whatsoever.

Now, these ideas are not prevalent, and might not even be particularly appreciated, among practical materialists. Regardless, I find that materialists in general are more at peace with life and death than many people who claim "deeper" understanding of such things, especially those who worry about the surety of their salvation or their progress on the wheel of karma or the depth of their awareness. People come to their own understandings, whether deep or not, whether they examine the nuances or not. They don't need preaching at, especially in cartoonish "red pill blue pill" terms.

After all your talk of parasitic memes, you're trying to spread some "deeper awareness" meme. Why?

What's your position? If you could push a button and be painlessly dematerialized, and an identical copy in that moment created, would you be OK with it?
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter whether I'm okay with it or not, and there's no need to push a button. It's what happens every moment of every day. Where is the me who was here a few seconds ago writing that previous paragraph? I don't see any sign of him, do you? Gone, gone, gone, and only those words and this imperfect copy (perhaps better, perhaps worse) to carry on.

Do you accept that if nothing material is lost then nothing is lost?
Click to expand...


Of course, but you have to be careful with phrasings and definitions here because it's easily misinterpreted. People will say that you can burn a painting or kill a person and claim "nothing material is lost," because all the atoms still exist. That's fallacious. Patterns, narratives, processes, organisms; the meaning of the words on the page and not just the ink; are also material.
 
Myriad said:
Of course, but you have to be careful with phrasings and definitions here because it's easily misinterpreted.
Click to expand...

But you see that's the point. Oh yes I'm sure much care will be taken with phrasing but in the opposite direction. What we will get is simple truisms or shallow contradictions phrased in the most obtuse, wordy, ponderous word salad ways possible to ensure the maximum chance of people misunderstanding or asking for clarification so certain entities can continue to act out a sad old "Wise Man on the Mountain" routine.

Or to add yet another XKCD quote into the mix... "Communicating badly and acting smug when you aren't understood is not cleverness."
 
annnnoid said:
Your argument basically boils down to...something you call 'you'...somehow (you don't explain how) has the capacity to understand that something called 'you' does not exist.

Leaving aside the obvious absurdity of such an observation...what is it that exists if 'you' do not?
Click to expand...

Well that sure illustrates all the confusion you display in the consciousness threads. You don't even know what's being discussed. No wonder you dismiss the conclusions.
 
Nick227 said:
No, I agree. It does it anyway.

But this actually has little to do with what I'm saying here, which is... you can become aware of the process which is making it seem like there's someone writing this, someone observing this, someone experiencing this... and that awareness changes things.

Strict materialism is one way to deduce that we must exist in a selfless reality, however ridiculous such a proposition might, on the surface, sound.

But, as Parfit's Transporter demonstrates, there are actually precious few strict materialists around. Materialism is a philosophy which has a lot of "fair-weather friends!"

So, subjective observation is a useful back-up
Click to expand...
Still not essential or a devastator of the scientific method
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Sure, let's say that under materialism my sense of self is a simulation run by a brain. A meta-object, not physically there and perhaps not even completely reducible to the neurological activity from which it emanates. An artefact of observation, like a rainbow.
How does that remove the "Observer" from the observation?
Click to expand...

Explanation here

It's nothing like a rainbow. The Observer is an unexamined assumption.

Also see - The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore p225 onwards. Great introduction to the self as memeplex
 
Myriad said:
The Matrix philosophy leads only to... The Matrix sequels. (See the bottom row of the same xkcd strip.) No place worth going to.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Monica Belluci arguably aside.

I used the phrase to indicate that this place you have to see for yourself, you can't model it.

Do you want to know reality? Or do you want continue believing there really is someone observing?


After all your talk of parasitic memes, you're trying to spread some "deeper awareness" meme. Why?
Click to expand...

It's not a meme.

The interaction is memetic - rogue memeplex #1. But the destination not.


It doesn't matter whether I'm okay with it or not, and there's no need to push a button. It's what happens every moment of every day. Where is the me who was here a few seconds ago writing that previous paragraph? I don't see any sign of him, do you? Gone, gone, gone, and only those words and this imperfect copy (perhaps better, perhaps worse) to carry on.
Click to expand...

So, you are OK with pushing the button... or not?

Of course, but you have to be careful with phrasings and definitions here because it's easily misinterpreted. People will say that you can burn a painting or kill a person and claim "nothing material is lost," because all the atoms still exist. That's fallacious. Patterns, narratives, processes, organisms; the meaning of the words on the page and not just the ink; are also material.
Click to expand...

The body is recreated exactly. Will you push the button or not? Do you believe there is something that is lost when you push?
 
Last edited:
Nick227 said:
Totally agree. Monica Belluci arguably aside.

I used the phrase to indicate that this place you have to see for yourself, you can't model it.
Click to expand...


If you can't model it, then how can one determine whether "it" is reality or not? Many aspects of many direct experiences are, after all, illusory.

Do you want to know reality? Or do you want continue believing there really is someone observing?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't mind hearing your case for your view. But "you have to see it for yourself" is an abdication of making any such case, so it looks like I'll have to continue deciding for myself what to believe, based on the evidence available to me, without your assistance.

So, you are OK with pushing the button... or not?
Click to expand...


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.)
 
Nick227 said:
Spoken like a true skeptic.
Click to expand...

So basically you're dropping all pretense that "skepticism" is actually a quality to strive for and are just gonna use it as an open ended backhanded insult.

Yes he spoke like a true skeptic. He didn't let you shift the burden of proof or special plead your argument.
 
Nick227 said:
Apologies. Didn't realise it would upset you.


It's valid but not necessary. And much confusion arises when the brain starts to believe it's real. I'm not suggesting that we replace it with the third person, or some similar device. I'm saying it's important to appreciate the limitations of the device.
Click to expand...

"valid but not necessary"? So not necessarily valid? Again evidently "much confusion arises when the brain starts to believe" it isn't real as well. Ah, "the limitations of the device". Illionsionary limits per chance, "valid but not necessary" limits perhaps? No? Real, valid and necessary limits and real, valid and necessary device then?


Nick227 said:
I'm saying it's usually not useful to start a theory from an axiom which can be falsified. Of course there are situations where it's valid, but imo consciousness research is not one of them. There's enough confusion as it is. And if you should believe that this is still a valid approach here, then at least the author of the paper should explain why he or she is saying "let x equal y" or whatever somewhere in his introduction.
Click to expand...

Again something is an axiom of a system specifically because it can't be proven or disproven within that system.


Nick227 said:
... not "inconsistent use of language," rather language having developed for a purpose, the nature of which you now want to investigate, and language itself having certain problematic ways of tying concepts together.
Click to expand...

Language was developed for the purpose of communication. Inconsistent use of language results in inconsistent (if any) communication. That language has some limitations in expressing concepts in no way eliminates the advantage of language as a way of expressing concepts and even tying them together. Formal languages like logic and mathematics developed specifically, by their rigorous consistency, to address those limitations of informal language.

Nick227 said:
For example, in our normal usage of English, the term "observation" invariably suggests that there must be an "observer." Yet this is actually not true. It's simply that the brain creates a subject here as an aid to communication.
Click to expand...


Again, inconsistent and contradictory if "the brain creates a subject here" even "as an aid to communication" then an "observer." is, by that assertion, ture. Again word games don't eliminate the inconsistency and contradiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom