My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Computation" has a very well-defined meaning. Computers do it by design. Humans appear to do it (to any degree of testing we've been able to determine).

I think we can show that neurons do computation. I think the function of the axon hillock is essentially to sum the graded inputs from all the dendrites; if that sum is at or above a threshold, the cell "fires" an action potential along its axon.

That sounds like computation to me.

"Consciousness" does not have such a well-defined meaning. But since the proposed "physical" (i.e. QM-based) explanations are demonstrably inadequate in several regards -- basically, they get both the physics wrong and the neuroanatomy wrong, the "computational" explanation at least wins by default in head-to-head competition.

And I think all these other functions I've been mentioning are included in this collection of functions we call "consciousness"--memory, various kinds of sensory perception, volitional movement, level of arousal or wakefulness, etc.

As such, neuroscience wins by miles over QM as a way of learning about "consciousness".

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You have species X on an island - A,B,C,D,E are male - V, W, X, Y, Z are female. All have appropriate sexual drives. A is better at everything than BCDE. All the females are better off with his genes. BCDE are best served by pairing up and moving in together, since the girls aren't interested.

But then BCD and E don't get to pass on their genes...

You are confusing "better off" in terms of something which could only make sense from the POV of a post-20th century human with "better off" in terms of reproductive fitness.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Um just as when birds have younger sibs raised by older sibs, if you have non-reproducing members in a group who help rear children there is apossible benefit.

Sibs share 50% of genetic material so homsexual sibs have an investment in other sibs they raise.

Correct. What has this got to do with homosexual humans? Do they generally devote themselves to helping to raise their siblings' children? Not usually. Usually they want to adopt their own or get surrogate mothers involved.

"Group" in this case has to refer to genetically-related individuals, or it doesn't work genetically.

 

[Robin]

Hard to see what the selective advantage is. I'm not sure this works genetically.

Yep, homosexuality is clearly a result of intelligent design.

 

[Robin]

Correct. What has this got to do with homosexual humans? Do they generally devote themselves to helping to raise their siblings' children? Not usually. Usually they want to adopt their own or get surrogate mothers involved.

"Group" in this case has to refer to genetically-related individuals, or it doesn't work genetically.

Hmmm... I am not completely convinced that our evolutionary ancestors had adoption agencies and surrogacy programs.

 

[drkitten]

I think we can show that neurons do computation.

Not in the sense necessary for Turing-equivalence, but definitely in the sense necessary to be components of a Turing-equivalent system. (As in, neural networks have been shown to implement a UTM, but no single neuron appears to have that capacity.)

Yet another point in favor of the Strong AI hypothesis, but unfortunately not conclusive.

 

[drkitten]

Correct. What has this got to do with homosexual humans? Do they generally devote themselves to helping to raise their siblings' children?.

Actually, they generally do. Most humans help raise their siblings' children. Didn't you get Christmas presents from your aunts as a child?

What homosexual humans have is more disposable resources (and time) that they can spend on their sibs' children, because they aren't using them on their own. I always got better presents from my unmarried aunt. And she was more often free to babysit, too.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What has this got to do with homosexual humans? Do they generally devote themselves to helping to raise their siblings' children? Not usually.

I think you're wrong except in extremely recent human times. Raising children in a strictly-defined nuclear family only dates back to about the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that I would say rearing siblings (and other members of the extended family, clan, or tribe) was the rule and not the exception.

(Basically the same thing Robin said. Prior to the nuclear family, a concept like "adoption" didn't even make sense.)

 

[Dancing David]

Correct. What has this got to do with homosexual humans? Do they generally devote themselves to helping to raise their siblings' children? Not usually. Usually they want to adopt their own or get surrogate mothers involved.

"Group" in this case has to refer to genetically-related individuals, or it doesn't work genetically.

Think ,most of humanity, think hunter gatherers.

If you have non-productive members who contribute to rearing children it might have a benefit.

 

[westprog]

But then BCD and E don't get to pass on their genes...

You are confusing "better off" in terms of something which could only make sense from the POV of a post-20th century human with "better off" in terms of reproductive fitness.

If they share genes with A, (which in a small community they probably do) then the survival of their group will be enhanced by the arrangement.

I didn't say that they didn't mate due to unfittness - it's because A is more attractive to VWXYZ and they aren't getting any lovin' anyway. They can either have violent conflicts with A and end up wiping out the whole group, or else find love elsewhere.

 

[quarky]

The subject gets more complex, or poorly defined when considering a dreaming state.
The sleeping person might be having a dream that involves thinking and speaking, yet be seen as unconscious to observers. Is consensus and aspect of consciousness?

 

[Robin]

I think you're wrong except in extremely recent human times. Raising children in a strictly-defined nuclear family only dates back to about the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that I would say rearing siblings (and other members of the extended family, clan, or tribe) was the rule and not the exception.

(Basically the same thing Robin said. Prior to the nuclear family, a concept like "adoption" didn't even make sense.)

Also there is the evidence that many primitive societies practiced infanticide - probably as a response to scarcity.

It shouldn't be assumed that more heterosexual activity in a given group necessarily translates into more genes being passed on.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yep, homosexuality is clearly a result of intelligent design.

Just because some characteristic or behaviour has no selective advantage does not lead to the conclusion that it is the result of intelligent design. Cancer has no selective advantage either. Sometimes things go wrong.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I think you're wrong except in extremely recent human times. Raising children in a strictly-defined nuclear family only dates back to about the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that I would say rearing siblings (and other members of the extended family, clan, or tribe) was the rule and not the exception.

(Basically the same thing Robin said. Prior to the nuclear family, a concept like "adoption" didn't even make sense.)

Yes, but you aren't talking about homosexuality here. The original claim which I disputed was that homosexuality probably exists as a result of group selection. I am afraid that claim just doesn't hold water. Sure, if we look back a couple of hundred years then there was much more of an extended family structure which helped each other out, but this had got absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality, in humans or in other animals, is not and has never been associated with helping genetically-related humans pass on their genes. It is simply the normal human sexual drive which has for some reason gone a bit wrong. There are many other ways that it can go a bit wrong...I don't need to list them. None of them are associated with group selection and the passing on of genes.

You could make exactly the same argument regarding, say, beastiality. Why do some humans want to have sex with animals? Well, it's so they can help help raise their siblings offspring, of course! The argument doesn't work...

 

[Robin]

Just because some characteristic or behaviour has no selective advantage does not lead to the conclusion that it is the result of intelligent design. Cancer has no selective advantage either. Sometimes things go wrong.

Or right for that matter.

I really ought to learn to put in a smiley when I am making a joke.

But I would have to point out that cancer has no selective disadvantage either, overwhelmingly it hits after the age of reproduction.

 

[Robin]

Yes, but you aren't talking about homosexuality here. The original claim which I disputed was that homosexuality probably exists as a result of group selection. I am afraid that claim just doesn't hold water. Sure, if we look back a couple of hundred years then there was much more of an extended family structure which helped each other out, but this had got absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality, in humans or in other animals, is not and has never been associated with helping genetically-related humans pass on their genes. It is simply the normal human sexual drive which has for some reason gone a bit wrong. There are many other ways that it can go a bit wrong...I don't need to list them. None of them are associated with group selection and the passing on of genes.

So why do you say homosexuality is something that went "wrong"? In what sense do you mean that?

 

[Robin]

Yes, but you aren't talking about homosexuality here. The original claim which I disputed was that homosexuality probably exists as a result of group selection. I am afraid that claim just doesn't hold water. Sure, if we look back a couple of hundred years then there was much more of an extended family structure which helped each other out, but this had got absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. Homosexuality, in humans or in other animals, is not and has never been associated with helping genetically-related humans pass on their genes.

And you know this, how? You are stating it as an absolute certainty - where exactly does this certainty come from?

I mean personally I wouldn't go for the group selection theory or your "something went wrong" theory.

There isn't any right or wrong with evolution. In the words of Homer it is just a bunch of stuff that happened.

To me it is just a consequence of the fact that evolution is a blind process and can develop a strong sexual drive but cannot necessarily target it.

But I wouldn't go shouting that my theory trumps all others unless I had something to support it.

The idea that the reason that homosexuality is so prevalant today despite it's apparent evolutionary disadvantage might have something to do with group selection is a perfectly sound theory and can hardly be ruled out.

 

[Hux]

Homosexuality is exhibited in virtually every other animal on the planet, and especially in the Primates. It appears to have no effect on the fecundity of the species - babies just turn up everywhere. It just seems to be a case of "If you caqnt be with the one you love, well then love the one you're with..."

There's no sense that anything has gone 'wrong' whatsoever. And I dont think the participants demure over it either.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So why do you say homosexuality is something that went "wrong"? In what sense do you mean that?

In the sense that it is a "misfiring" natural behaviour. There is an obvious reason why (most) humans have a strong sex drive. It is there to drive us to reproduce. Sometimes humans become sexually attracted to the "wrong" thing - members of their own sex, animals, dead bodies, inflicting pain or experiencing pain, and in at least one recorded case a white mini metro. I'd say all these are examples of a natural behaviour that has gone wrong.

I don't have any sort of problem with homosexuals. I live in the "gay capital" of the UK - a city where homosexuality and all other forms of (legal) sexual-oddness are openly acknowledged and accepted. I am not saying it is morally wrong or unacceptable.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Homosexuality is exhibited in virtually every other animal on the planet, and especially in the Primates. It appears to have no effect on the fecundity of the species - babies just turn up everywhere. It just seems to be a case of "If you caqnt be with the one you love, well then love the one you're with..."

There's no sense that anything has gone 'wrong' whatsoever. And I dont think the participants demure over it either.

What about people who believe they have born the wrong sex? Anything "gone wrong" there? What about the young man who became sexually-obsessed with his mini metro car? Where do you draw the line, or do you consider all of these things to be "normal".