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

[Belz...]

I am saying there is normal sex and there is everything else. Homosexuality and necrophilia, for me, both fall into the category of "everything else."

Tell that to dogs and chimps.

Reproductive fitness is not strictly an individual thing. Most of your cells don't really pass on their genes.

 

[Dancing David]

So humans are not the dominant species on Earth?

That's funny, 'cause don't recall ever being cut down by a tree, or harvested by corn, or being hunted by a deer, or butchered by a cow, or trapped by a mouse, or netted by a fish, or poisoned by a weed, or nearly driven extinct by antibodies, etc.

Psst: its the termites!

 

[Dancing David]

No, I am specifically concentrating on thinking and the resultant thoughts as something that I consciously and actively participate in.




What I mean is the origin of verbal cognition.



In review I should perhaps clarify that consciousness as related to my usage of the terms thinking and thought could be classified as self-consciousness. I think the term self-consciousness is double speak, but it might avoid confusion to those who use consciousness and awareness interchangeably.
Awareness for me has more to do with sensations as related to ones environment and self-awareness as sensations related to oneself. Consciousness than is something more than just an awareness which implies a passive activity. Consciousness is an active process. Classifying consciousness then as awareness of ones thoughts might then first appear to contradict this until it is noted that thoughts do not appear out of nowhere and need to be actively produced. Based on this then only a thinking being (having verbal cognition) is self-conscious (using the updated term). Whereas just having a nervous system qualifies for having an awareness.

So to answer the question



To quote Wittgenstein
7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

More later,

So you put yourself in a box and won't communicate outside of it.

Sad really.

 

[westprog]

But how would you know ?

If we're talking about functionality then a pile of non-connected computer parts or an unplugged computer isn't the same as a functioning computer.

But how does that relate to working brains vs working computers ?

We know that the components and the working computer are physically identical. We also know that the computer and the brain are entirely different. We know that the physical processes going on in the brain are very different to those going on in the computer.

What the Strong AI theory rests on is the supposition that there is a mathematical model which describes certain processes going on in the computer, and that the same model might be applicable to the mind, and that certain activities in the mind, viz. consciousness, are entirely dependent on the brain's execution of this mathematical model, and entirely independent of the physical functions of the brain.

I find this unconvincing.

 

[!Kaggen]

More later,

So you put yourself in a box and won't communicate outside of it.

Sad really.

Interesting observation.
How would you recommend one gets outside the box?

 

[drkitten]

We know that the components and the working computer are physically identical.

Physically identical, but functionally different.

We also know that the computer and the brain are entirely different.

Physically different, but functionally nearly identical. (Networks of neural models have been proven to be Turing equivalent.)

We know that the physical processes going on in the brain are very different to those going on in the computer.

... but the functional processes going on appear to be identical.

What the Strong AI theory rests on is the supposition that there is a mathematical model which describes certain processes going on in the computer,

That's not a supposition. That's a fact.

and that the same model might be applicable to the mind,

Break it up. It's a fact that the same model is applicable to the brain. It's a supposition that the mind is housed in the brain, so yes, it's a supposition that the same model is applicable to the mind.

But most other theories of mind assume that the mind is housed in the brain. The "physicalist" theories of consciousness (such as Penrose) are even explicit about it. So this supposition is hardly unique to Strong AI.

and that certain activities in the mind, viz. consciousness, are entirely dependent on the brain's execution of this mathematical model,

There's a lot of empirical support for this view, and no counter evidence has been found,

I find this unconvincing.

Unfortunately, you're also woefully ignorant of the actual amount of evidence supporting this view, which makes your "finding" at best uninformed and at worst anti-scientific ravings.

 

[Belz...]

Human babies have large heads.

So do puppies.

 

[drkitten]

Interesting observation.
How would you recommend one gets outside the box?

Meditate. Or listen to jazz. Both come with a long history of being used to free oneself from the prison of believing that thoughts have to be words.

 

[RandFan]

No it doesn't. I'm not going to educate this entire forum on how evolution works. All sorts of features which are not beneficial persist in organisms for all sorts of reasons. You CANNOT assume that if a characteristic exists then it must have been beneficial. You can't even assume it isn't harmful. Evolution is an IMPERFECT mechanism of design.

No one said that we must assume that it is beneficial. You MOST CERTAINLY CAN assume the possibility that it is.

BTW: You really are misstating the views of scientists. Sickle cell anemia is harmful and beneficial. A trait or feature can be benign, harmful, beneficial or all three depending on the environment. Environments are not static. THAT'S, in large part, the reason for evolution.

 

[drkitten]

No one said that we must assume that it is beneficial. You MOST CERTAINLY CAN assume the possibility that it is.

And, actually, most biologists are very comfortable assuming that the trait is beneficial (or at least neutral) precisely because it's more likely that there is an unknown benefit than it is that a harmful trait has not been selected against. (Obligatory quibble -- for this to be true, the trait has to be "unfixed," i.e. not universally present in (virtually) all members of the species, and it has to be common enough that it can't simply be dismissed as a recent mutation. Homosexuality, if genetic, qualifies under both traits).

This is often summarized as Orgel's rule (or Orgel's second rule) : "Evolution is smarter than you are." Unpacking this aphorism turns into : "Although we may not understand the purpose of a particular evolved feature, it is likely to have some adaptive function that outweighs its ridiculousness."

Which makes UE's position doubly wrong.

 

[RandFan]

And, actually, most biologists are very comfortable assuming that the trait is beneficial (or at least neutral) precisely because it's more likely that there is an unknown benefit than it is that a harmful trait has not been selected against. (Obligatory quibble -- for this to be true, the trait has to be "unfixed," i.e. not universally present in (virtually) all members of the species, and it has to be common enough that it can't simply be dismissed as a recent mutation. Homosexuality, if genetic, qualifies under both traits).

This is often summarized as Orgel's rule (or Orgel's second rule) : "Evolution is smarter than you are." Unpacking this aphorism turns into : "Although we may not understand the purpose of a particular evolved feature, it is likely to have some adaptive function that outweighs its ridiculousness."

Which makes UE's position doubly wrong.

Thanks.

There are so many examples where Evolutionary Biologists thought a particular feature was harmful and they came to find out that it wasn't so simple as to declare it harmful (see Sickle Cell anemia). There is no wrong. There are only features that contribute to the continuation of a species or they are neutral to the continuation or they are harmful to the continuation. No "wrong".

But UCE isn't going to educate us.

ETA: Isn't UCE arguing from ignorance?

UCE: I don't see how this feature is benificial and given that I've no evidence that it is benificial then it is "wrong" (whatever the hell that means from an evolutionary perspective).

 

[Dancing David]

Interesting observation.
How would you recommend one gets outside the box?

There are methods other than just phenomenology of your private experience.

More later.

 

[drkitten]

ETA: Isn't UCE arguing from ignorance?

UCE: I don't see how this feature is benificial and given that I've no evidence that it is benificial then it is "wrong" (whatever the hell that means from an evolutionary perspective).

Aside from the fact that UCE seems to be able to spell "beneficial" correctly , yes. Exactly.

And, in fact, he's actively ignoring evidence that has been presented about how it's beneficial: kinship support networks.

 

[RandFan]

Aside from the fact that UCE seems to be able to spell "beneficial" correctly , yes. Exactly.

Mea culpa.

And, in fact, he's actively ignoring evidence that has been presented about how it's beneficial: kinship support networks.

Thanks.

 

[Belz...]

No it doesn't...

Actually, yes. Yes it does.

 

[Belz...]

We know that the components and the working computer are physically identical.

Well if you exclude behaviour from "physics", which would be illogical, then sure. But behaviour of an object is just as important as the object itself, and just as physical. In fact, objects ARE behaviours.

We also know that the computer and the brain are entirely different.

In structure, perhaps. In function, less so.

consciousness, are entirely dependent on the brain's execution of this mathematical model, and entirely independent of the physical functions of the brain.

I find this unconvincing.

Well, as soon as you find an unphysical, real thing, let me know.

 

[westprog]

Unfortunately, you're also woefully ignorant of the actual amount of evidence supporting this view, which makes your "finding" at best uninformed and at worst anti-scientific ravings.

If all the references to the mountains of evidence supporting Strong AI had been actual evidence supporting AI I might have learned something. Or perhaps not.

 

[drkitten]

If all the references to the mountains of evidence supporting Strong AI had been actual evidence supporting AI I might have learned something. Or perhaps not.

Given that you still don't understand the mathematics of Turing-equivalence and refuse to accept that there is a substantive difference between a working computer and a pile of parts,....

... no, you probably wouldn't have. But that's hardly the fault of the mountains of actual evidence that have been presented to you.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Reproduction is accidential.

Of course it ****** isn't! Reproduction is the KEY characteristic of all living things.

Apply any flawed moral reasoning to that you want. Just do try to remember that it is a fallacy to pretend that if it is decided to be "immoral" it is "unnatural".

The only thing I have stated to be immoral in this thread is active paedophilia, and that wasn't on the grounds that it was unnatural.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, somehow ants manage with most of their population unable to reproduce.

Totally different case, because ant genetics work differently to mammallian genetics. Worker ants actually pass on more genes by serving their queen that they would if they mated themselves (which some ant and bee workers CAN but almost never do).

Homosexual relationships in other animal species may lead to better group cohesion.

Pseudoscience. Sociopolitically-motivated theorising based on no evidence.

No advantage at all ?

None that I can see, regardless of all the unsupported theories being proposed.