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

[UndercoverElephant]

So do puppies.

*bangs head against wall*

 

[RandFan]

None that I can see...

So argue from ignorance. Because if you can't see it then god knows it can't be otherwise. Now, appeal to your own authority again.

*Bangs head against wall.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

The fact that environments are not static is just one part of a much larger picture. Sickle cell anaemia, like cystic fibrosis once was, is only beneficial if you have only ONE copy of the gene - i.e. if you do not have full blown CSA.

My point still stands: you cannot take any feature in isolation (be if CSA, homosexuality or anything else) and claim that it is beneficial simply on the grounds that it has never been selected out. It's not that simple.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

WHY?

I stated that you cannot assume that a feature is beneficial simply because it is present. Nothing you have said contradicts that.

Sorry, but the claim that homosexuality probably exists because it is evolutionarily beneficial is, at best, unsupported pseudoscience. There's no actual evidence to support it. The reason it has been repeatedly hypothesised in this thread is socio-political, not scientific.

Paedophilia is also widespread but not fixed. Wanna hypothesise that that is beneficial simply on the grounds that it hasn't been selected out?

 

[RandFan]

My point still stands: you cannot take any feature in isolation (be if CSA, homosexuality or anything else) and claim that it is beneficial simply on the grounds that it has never been selected out. It's not that simple.

No one is making this claim. We are saying that if it is not selected out then it's possible that there is a benefit. Also, if humans survive and flourish with the feature then there is a good possibility that it isn't harmful.

See Orgel's second rule.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

Bold mine.

This is where your error lies -- your understanding of "independent" is wrong.

The execution of a mathematical model ("instantiation" is a better word) must be dependent upon the physical functions. That is the only way a mathematical model can be instantiated.

And I really don't quite understand how you can honestly say that the instantiation of certain mathematical models -- like the formulae used to model particle behavior -- is OK while the instantiation of other models -- like a TM equivalent computer -- aren't.

At what point does the instantiation of a mathematical model cease to be physical and begin to be functional, westprog?

 

[RandFan]

WHY?

I stated that you cannot assume that a feature is beneficial simply because it is present. Nothing you have said contradicts that.

You are stating that homosexuality is wrong. You can't know that and you cannot demonstrate that. See Orgel's second rule.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But UCE isn't going to educate us.

ETA: Isn't UCE arguing from ignorance?

UE is about the only person posting in this thread who actually knows what he is talking about.

 

[RandFan]

BTW: UCE, "wrong" isn't an aspect of evolution. There are only features that are beneficial, neutral (benign) or harmful at any given moment depending on environmental variables.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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).

Strawman! That was not my argument. I said there is no reason to assume it is beneficial and that it is clearly harmful from the point of view of the individual organism which fails to pass on its genes. This is BASIC evolutionary theory.

 

[westprog]

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.

It's amazing how little evidence has actually been presented on this topic. There have been endless allusions to how people who understand this stuff know what they are talking about - but actual evidence showing that the fundamental contentions of Strong AI are correct - I'm still waiting.

In fact, I'm not even convinced that there is a particularly strong constituency among AI researchers for the Strong AI belief system. AI is a field with a lot of practical applications. Engineers in general tend to content themselves with making things work, rather than wondering what it feels like to be a machine.

It's also not clear that even among supporters of Strong AI who thing machines can be made to think in the same way as human minds that they believe that machines will experience anything, or that it's even an interesting question.

As for neurologists - I'm sure there must be some neurologists who are proponents of the view that machines can be equivalent to brains, but they don't seem very prominent. They seem more involved in learning about how the brain works than in trying to duplicate its function.

I'd be genuinely interested to hear some of the specific evidence for Strong AI, or the articles by neurologists describing how consciousness in the brain worked just like a computer - and I don't know why the references aren't being posted. When references are posted, they tend to be misleading or basic overviews. I have a respectable cellulose-based data retrieval system on the subject already.

 

[RandFan]

UE is about the only person posting in this thread who actually knows what he is talking about.

UCE is demonstrably arguing from ignorance.

UCE: I can't see how it benefits therefore it's harmful.

IOW: I'm ignorant of the benefits threfore it's harmful.

 

[RandFan]

Strawman! That was not my argument. I said there is no reason to assume it is beneficial and that it is clearly harmful from the point of view of the individual organism which fails to pass on its genes. This is BASIC evolutionary theory.

Then by your logic most ants are wrong from the point of view of the individual organism.

A homosexual shares genes with his or her family memebers.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

Nonsense. There is no evidence to support the claim that homosexuality promotes kinship support networks. None. Lots of people making that claim because it happens to support their preconcieved socio-political viewpoint does not make it science.

 

[RandFan]

Nonsense. There is no evidence to support the claim that homosexuality promotes kinship support networks. None. Lots of people making that claim because it happens to support their preconcieved socio-political viewpoint does not make it science.

Kinship support has explanatory power and can fit an Evolutionary Stable Strategy.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No one is making this claim. We are saying that if it is not selected out then it's possible that there is a benefit.

So what? I never said it was impossible that there was a benefit, merely that there is no evidence to support the claim that there is.

Also, if humans survive and flourish with the feature then there is a good possibility that it isn't harmful.

See Orgel's second rule.

Ah, that'll mean that paedophilia isn't harmful then.

 

[RandFan]

Now, appeal to your own authority again.

UE is about the only person posting in this thread who actually knows what he is talking about.

Am I prescient or what?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

BTW: UCE, "wrong" isn't an aspect of evolution. There are only features that are beneficial, neutral (benign) or harmful at any given moment depending on environmental variables.

I applied the adjective "wrong" to a biological process viewed from the POV of human DNA. For the DNA which makes us want to have sex, any sort of sex which has no hope of passing on genes is "wrong." It is a waste of energy, time and biological resources.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

UCE is demonstrably arguing from ignorance.

Rubbish. You do not know what "argument from ignorance" means, apparently.

UCE: I can't see how it benefits therefore it's harmful.

Total strawman. UE neither said nor implied this. I stated that I cannot see any benefit and that from the POV of the DNA which is driving the behaviour it is quite clearly harmful. Sorry that you weren't able to understand this simple point.

IOW: I'm ignorant of the benefits threfore it's harmful.

How you got from what I actually posted to this strawman I do not know.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Then by your logic most ants are wrong from the point of view of the individual organism.

Look up ant and bee genetics on the internet then come back when you have some idea what you are talking about, Randfan. Try "Haplodiploid sex-determination system".