|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
28th November 2015, 04:59 PM | #1 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion
Does materialism spell the end for scientific method? I've been pondering this question for some time. It looks like this...
* At least 99% of modern scientific research into the brain points directly to it being the sole source of consciousness. Pretty much every aspect of conscious experience has now been tracked to brain activity. * Consciousness emerges from brain activity. It's what neural processing actually looks like, actually is. * If the brain is the source, or foundation, for consciousness then there cannot actually be an observing self. Though it's a pervasive and convincing phenomena it can't be real, or we'd be back in dualism. If we tell a materialist that they're going to be painlessly and instantaneously killed, and replaced with an identical copy, in theory they should be OK with it. It seems like something is going to be lost - them - but materialist logic dictates that this cannot be so in reality. * This seeming presence of an observing self is likely therefore some highly favoured illusion resulting from millions of years of selective pressure. It's useful primarily for evolutionarily favoured tasks - finding food, shelter, sex, and avoiding predators. * If selfhood is merely a highly favoured illusion then what does this say about some of the cornerstones of scientific method, principles and techniques used to determine the truth about things? Surely perspective is finished. Objectivity must be in quite some trouble if there is in reality no subject. Separation - got to be an illusion. Distance - sounds dubious. These concepts, so much the bare bones of our daily existence, must just be artifacts of our hunter-gatherer past, not reflections of reality. Even empiricism, perhaps not blown away, but surely weakened now. Materialism - could it spell the end of science? Nick |
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
28th November 2015, 05:11 PM | #2 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
28th November 2015, 05:17 PM | #3 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
|
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
28th November 2015, 05:26 PM | #4 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 835
|
Doesn't this only make Hume's scientific approximation more likely? You're arguing against scientific realism not materialism, and even if we assume scientific approximation the scientific method itself is left untouched.
ETA: In other words, you're confusing epistemology (realism vs. approximation) for ontology (monism vs. dualism). |
28th November 2015, 05:33 PM | #5 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,187
|
Why? Can you show your reasoning for this?
Objectivity in science need only mean instituting various procedures and methods such that it doesn't matter, in principle, whether it is person A or B who runs an experiment or produces a finding: the same results, within some margin of error, should occur. Nothing in there relies upon the self not being an illusion. Can you define separation and distance? Do you mean these in physical terms, or what? Can you show your reasoning for this one, too? |
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell |
|
28th November 2015, 05:39 PM | #6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
|
|
__________________
"Sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. = godless Dave |
|
28th November 2015, 05:49 PM | #7 |
I say nay!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
|
нет
|
__________________
Memento Mori |
|
28th November 2015, 06:00 PM | #8 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
You agree that if consciousness is purely a brain phenomenon then this must indicate a selfless reality?
So, everything is just happening, observed by no one. This is as near as we can get to a True statement here, as opposed to a socially useful one. Then it seems reasonable to me that our sense of perspective, of things being near or far, is just an artifact of evolution. Yes. I'd say to a degree. Mathematical principles shouldn't be under any threat, for example. But the sheer weight of value given by scientists and others to method must be weakened by the reality that there isn't actually a subject, an observer. How about we start from here? Thanks for your reply BTW Nick |
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
28th November 2015, 06:07 PM | #9 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
|
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
28th November 2015, 06:50 PM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
|
Bin there. Done that.
Quote:
|
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick |
|
28th November 2015, 06:54 PM | #11 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
28th November 2015, 07:04 PM | #12 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
|
I always need clarification for some reason.
Are you saying that the universe existing, whether our consciousness is able to properly observe it or not, is somehow evidence against materialism? |
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor |
|
28th November 2015, 07:07 PM | #13 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
|
Whilst I understand that the basis for this philosophical argument is to create a justification for you believing in woo, a "tu quoque" approach is perhaps not the best way to go about it.
Woo remains woo, even if your convoluted backformation of desired conclusion into a required set of premises reaches its end. And science will remain science and continue to deliver results, even over your objections. |
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it.... |
|
28th November 2015, 07:23 PM | #14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
I don't understand the argument.
|
28th November 2015, 07:29 PM | #15 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
|
|
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick |
|
28th November 2015, 07:58 PM | #16 |
Metaphorical Anomaly
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brownbackistan
Posts: 8,054
|
Sorry, but I don't see a connection. I'm not even sure that you know the definitions of the words you are using. I might just be failing to understand you, but my reading comprehension is generally pretty good. This almost reads as word salad to me. I'm failing to see the connections you are trying to make. If you think you can explain it better, please do.
|
28th November 2015, 08:49 PM | #17 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
|
Define 'self'.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
28th November 2015, 09:55 PM | #18 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Bleep blorp.
|
28th November 2015, 09:56 PM | #19 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
28th November 2015, 10:10 PM | #20 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
28th November 2015, 11:12 PM | #21 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
|
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
28th November 2015, 11:22 PM | #22 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
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. |
28th November 2015, 11:24 PM | #23 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
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 |
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
28th November 2015, 11:29 PM | #24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
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.
|
28th November 2015, 11:29 PM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
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? |
28th November 2015, 11:34 PM | #26 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
In this context, an observer.
Quote:
Quote:
Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk |
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
28th November 2015, 11:36 PM | #27 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
|
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
28th November 2015, 11:39 PM | #28 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
|
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
28th November 2015, 11:44 PM | #29 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
|
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
28th November 2015, 11:57 PM | #30 |
I say nay!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,892
|
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 |
__________________
Memento Mori |
|
28th November 2015, 11:59 PM | #31 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
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. |
29th November 2015, 12:01 AM | #32 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
|
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
29th November 2015, 12:01 AM | #33 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
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. |
29th November 2015, 12:01 AM | #34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
29th November 2015, 12:09 AM | #35 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
|
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
29th November 2015, 12:15 AM | #36 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
|
|
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it.... |
|
29th November 2015, 12:17 AM | #37 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
|
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
29th November 2015, 12:20 AM | #38 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hove, UK
Posts: 3,956
|
|
__________________
... they seek him here... they seek him there... those skeptics seek him everywhere... that damned, elusive... observer! Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth |
|
29th November 2015, 12:57 AM | #39 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,841
|
|
29th November 2015, 01:54 AM | #40 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Francisco, California Republic
Posts: 835
|
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. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|