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

[RandFan]

Randfan, you are talking ****. A lot of bravado, but you gave up actually trying to argue with me several posts ago. Calm down, have a cup of tea and go away and think about what I ACTUALLY SAID.

No. I'm quite calm and quite fine. I've read what Pinker, Dawkins, E.O. Wilson and other eminent scholars have said and it's not as simple as declaring homosexuality "wrong". "Wrong" is a judgment that has no basis in evolutionary biology. I've already explained that to you. What works for one species may not work for another species (carnivore vs herbivore). That doesn't make either "wrong".

 

[cyborg]

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.

I think the point here is that is too simplistic a view of the nature of the game. For a bacterium this is just about spot on - but if we reproduced like bacteria we'd die in a Malthusian population crash.

As such it is not unreasonable to hypothesise that traits that lead to such unbeneficial extremes would not survive as long as those that are more tempered - just like virial infections that eventually become milder forms because being too damaging to the host ultimately slows the spread of the virus.

There's absolutely no sense in which one can say the virus wants this outcome - it's just the natural outcome in most circumstances.

So it may infact be a more optimial use of resources - a genetic landscape that moves from a few highly competitive genomes leading to a chaotic environment moving to a landscape of many less competitive and more related genomes leading to a different set of benefits for the population as a whole.

 

[westprog]

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?

When two entirely different physical processes are described by the same model - for example, the inverse square law used to describe gravity and the electromagnetic forces - we cannot extrapolate from that to assume that there are other underlying connections between them. We are limited to the predictions of the model. We can't, for example, assume that antigravity must exist because there is such a things as electromagnetic repulsion.

All we can assume from a common mathematical model is what is predicted by the model. Since the Turing model(s) don't make any predictions about intelligence or consciousness, they imply nothing.

 

[westprog]

It is possible that homosexuality is beneficial,

Thank you.

 

[rocketdodger]

All we can assume from a common mathematical model is what is predicted by the model. Since the Turing model(s) don't make any predictions about intelligence or consciousness, they imply nothing.

For you to honestly state that the computational model of consciousness makes no predictions about intelligence or consciousness illustrates just how ignorant you are when it comes to this issue.

This is the "ignoring the mountains of evidence" that drkitten spoke of, in case you were wondering.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes. But it's still accidental.

*bangs head against wall*
*has to remind himself which board he is posting on*

Reproduction is about the least accidental feature of living things that I can think of.

Time to go and eat those Lactarius deliciosus I think...

 

[cyborg]

Reproduction is about the least accidental feature of living things that I can think of.

In what evolutionary sense is ANY feature of living things NOT accidental?

Keep banging your head and eventually we might just bang out every last vestage of teleology in it.

 

[Robin]

CF provided resistance to the black death, but only if you only carried ONE copy of the gene (i.e. you were a carrier of CF, not a full-blown victim).

And perhaps other things besides

It has been of no selective advantage since the 15th century.

Err... you are aware of the time scale that evolution works on, aren't you? The 15th century was a few seconds ago.

The fact that carriers do not die means that this defect will persist in the human population for a very long time. It will not get "selected out", regardless of the fact that is both (a) useless and (b) actively harmful if you have two copies. Evolution is an imperfect mechanism of design.

Whoever suggested otherwise????

 

[Robin]

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

Non-sequitur. The fact that it is the key characteristic of all living things does not mean that it is not accidental.

 

[Robin]

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.

What you fail to see is that you are making a positive scientific claim here.

Those who are talking about group selection have only said "probably" or "possibly"

But you have asserted your position as absolute dogmatic truth with no possibility of error.

And offered no science to back up your assertion.

I have already demonstrated the flaws in the reasoning you have presented and you have not even acknowledged this, but gone on insisting your claim is true with even greater vigour.

You accuse anybody who suggests that there might be another possibility of political motivation and pseudo-science.

But I think this particular accusation fits you better than it fits anybody else here.

 

[Robin]

*bangs head against wall*
*has to remind himself which board he is posting on*

Reproduction is about the least accidental feature of living things that I can think of.

So the fact of biological reproduction was pre-planned?

 

[Robin]

I never said it wasn't, Randfan. That was your strawman, remember?

That is funny. He directly quotes the part where you deny the possibility and you still deny saying it and accuse him of straw man? Are you saying he hacked into your account and forged that?

And you still can't spell "benefit".

Wow, all those years of philosophy education didn't go to waste did they?

 

[Robin]

It is possible that homosexuality is beneficial, but there's no evidence support the claim that it actually is.

Just as it is possible that homosexuality is in your words "...a waste of energy, time and biological resources" but there's no evidence to support the claim that it actually is.

And yet you continue to make the claim.

And there is, I think, evidence that too strong a heterosexual drive is maladaptive in some circumstances.

Scarcity has been a common circumstance in our evolutionary history and in these cases a population with a greater percentage of reproducers would have no advantage over a population with a smaller percentage of reproducers, in fact plausibly a disadvantage.

The proposition you are arguing so furiously against is that the population with fewer reproducers might have more carers resulting in a higher survival rate for those who are born.

I don't see why that is such an unreasonable proposition.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Just as it is possible that homosexuality is in your words "...a waste of energy, time and biological resources" but there's no evidence to support the claim that it actually is.

And yet you continue to make the claim.

That's like asking for evidence that water is wet. From the point of view of evolutionary genetics, sex which cannot lead to the production of offspring is a waste of resources, unless you can demonstrate that it is useful for something else, which has not been done in this case.

The proposition you are arguing so furiously against is that the population with fewer reproducers might have more carers resulting in a higher survival rate for those who are born.

I don't see why that is such an unreasonable proposition.

There's absolutely no reason to believe it is true, that is why. The proposition is that somehow homosexuality is useful to groups because the non-reproducing homosexuals altruistically care for the offspring of others. Sorry, but I just don't see this happening in the real world. What I see in the real world is homosexual couples behaving pretty much like heterosexual couples, except for that they cannot actually produce offspring. They do not habitually devote their time to raising other people's children. If anything, they attempt to produce their own by some method, or adopt, exactly like infertile heterosexual couples do. I am rejecting the proposition because it is pseudoscientific claptrap.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

In what evolutionary sense is ANY feature of living things NOT accidental?

Because it is useful for survival..

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Non-sequitur. The fact that it is the key characteristic of all living things does not mean that it is not accidental.

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone here actually know anything about biology?

I give up.

 

[RandFan]

Because it is useful for survival..

According to the dictionary your usage of the word is not unprecedented. However, I think your usage is more likely to cause confusion than to elucidate.

BTW: All traits and features are the result of an accident depending on which usage you choose.

There is no goal of evolution. There are only changes. Creationists call all of these changes accidents. And to some extent they are. You have just narrowed your usage to mean non-beneficial change.

accident

1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : chance <met by accident rather than by design>
2 a : an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance b : an unexpected and medically important bodily event especially when injurious <a cerebrovascular accident> c : an unexpected happening causing loss or injury which is not due to any fault or misconduct on the part of the person injured but for which legal relief may be sought d —used euphemistically to refer to an involuntary act or instance of urination or defecation
3 : a nonessential property or quality of an entity or circumstance <the accident of nationality>

 

[westprog]

For you to honestly state that the computational model of consciousness makes no predictions about intelligence or consciousness illustrates just how ignorant you are when it comes to this issue.

This is the "ignoring the mountains of evidence" that drkitten spoke of, in case you were wondering.

Gee, there I was asking for actual evidence and along comes Rocketdodger with...

...an assertion that there is evidence.

WHY IS IT SO HARD TO STATE SOME OF THIS ACTUAL EVIDENCE? WHY IS IT ALWAYS JUST BEHIND THE CURTAIN?

No, it's not good enough for a succession of posters to claim that there is a mass of evidence. No, it's not good enough for Pixy Misa to produce a string of assertions and non sequitors and state that they are facts.

If you are making an argument you have to, y'know, MAKE AN ARGUMENT. Not refer to arguments that you claim have been made by someone, sometime.

Look at the above statement. You're claiming that the computational model makes predictions about consciousness. Would it kill you to actually STATE one of those predictions?

The claim that computers can, or will be able, to duplicate all the functions of the human mind by purely computational means is an actual specific claim, and it's not good enough to say that it is supported by evidence, without giving the supporting evidence. That's necessary if you want other people to grok it.

 

[westprog]

There's absolutely no reason to believe it is true, that is why. The proposition is that somehow homosexuality is useful to groups because the non-reproducing homosexuals altruistically care for the offspring of others. Sorry, but I just don't see this happening in the real world. What I see in the real world is homosexual couples behaving pretty much like heterosexual couples, except for that they cannot actually produce offspring. They do not habitually devote their time to raising other people's children. If anything, they attempt to produce their own by some method, or adopt, exactly like infertile heterosexual couples do. I am rejecting the proposition because it is pseudoscientific claptrap.

That wasn't my proposition. My proposition was that homosexual behaviour was something that might occur among members of one sex when access to members of the other sex was limited. This can happen for many reasons, one being that a member of the opposite sex would tend to select a partner who seems likely to produce the best offspring, even if this means having to share him/her. (And it will probably be him, since the choice of the female has more lasting consequences).

If this were true, one might expect homosexual behaviour to be more prevalent in single-sex environments such as prisons or boarding schools.

 

[Robin]

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone here actually know anything about biology?

I give up.

Instead of being a drama queen about it, why not simply answer the question: "Is the fact of biological reproduction was pre-planned? "