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

[RandFan]

The peacock's TAIL is the classic example of sexual selection. It is useful because (a) it helps the peahens decide which is the healthiest male and (b) it confuses the hell out of would-be predators - a forest of eyes looking at you.

It also slows the peacock down and makes it an easy target. Other birds don't need the tail and have survived.

Not in the sense that I was using "wrong." You are straw-manning me again, Randfan. Please stop it.

No. I'm telling you that the word conotates a judgement. Which is why I went on to say that if you chose a different word or means to express yourself you wouldn't have the problem. I assume you want to be understood, right? Why make every effort to not be?

 

[RandFan]

What does Orgel's second rule have to say about suicide?

Suicide may very well be a useful adaptation. Perhaps some peopel are not capable of dealing with certain stress and pressure. It would be Darwinian to select those folks out in difficult times. I certainly wouldn't call suicide "wrong". That's silly. It leads to confusion and contention.

 

[quarky]

Geez. I couldn't even lighten-up this thread with gay bestiality.

 

[drkitten]

What does Orgel's second rule have to say about suicide?

That if a tendency to suicide is genetic, then it's probably beneficial. (And at least one benefit is rather obvious; dead suicides free up resources that would otherwise be spent maintaining unhealthy members of the tribe, most of whom share genes.)

I'm not familiar with any evidence that suicide is genetic, though. Which makes this a rather boring hypothetical.

And, for that matter, I'm not familiar with any evidence that bestiality -- or paedophilia, for that matter -- is genetic, either. Which again makes the application of Orgel's second rule rather problematic.

 

[westprog]

A peacock's tale is wasteful and is the result of sexual selection. It's not wrong. It's just the result of evolution. It's a means of the peacock to telagraph his fitness. It could be the peacock would not have survived without its tail. Thing is no other birds require such a tail.

The problem with your judgement is that it isn't scientific. If you were to simply say that homosexuality is maladaptive to reproduction I don't think you would have any problem. If you said that homosexuality isn't normative, again no problem. "Wrong" indicates a judgement. Something that went wrong according to a goal. A preconcived event. Evolution doesn't work that it way. There are simply changes.

I've no particular problem with the "wrong" word once it's been precisely defined what is meant.

As Pinker states, homosexuality is a puzzle because it hasn't been selected against and humans are succesful. We persist inspite of it. And as Orgle has said, evolution is smarter than you are.

It's the certain statement that homosexuality cannot have any useful purpose that I found strange, but that seems to no longer apply, so I might just get back to the main thread.

I'm waiting for

• You've been given lots of evidence and you just ignored it.
• The Irrelevant URL.
• The List Of Irrelevant URL's together with the instruction to come back when I've digested them all.
• You're a closet theist.

 

[Belz...]

This thread is ludicrous.

I remember being 12 years old and sitting in my first ever biology lesson at secondary school. What did they teach us? They taught us how to define "living thing". Wanna know how they defined "living thing?" Well, there were about four or five general characteristics, the most important of which was SOMETHING WHICH REPRODUCES ITSELF.

LUDICROUS.

So.... eunuchs aren't alive ?

 

[RandFan]

Wanna know how they defined "living thing?" Well, there were about four or five general characteristics, the most important of which was SOMETHING WHICH REPRODUCES ITSELF.

{sigh} The vast majority of ants, termites and bees DON'T REPRODUCE THEMSELVES.

Therefore they are not alive.... really?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

{sigh} The vast majority of ants, termites and bees DON'T REPRODUCE THEMSELVES.

Therefore they are not alive.... really?

Didn't get around to educating yourself about ant and bee genetics then, did you.

I have already told you this once. Ant and bee workers are, mathematically, better off serving their queen than mating themselves. This is because different types of ant/bee within the colony have different numbers of chromosomes. Some have two copies and others only have one. That's what "haplodiploid" means.

I am not continuing this, Randfan. You do not know what you are talking about.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Suicide may very well be a useful adaptation.

Christ Almighty. I have read some idiotic nonsense in this thread, but you just took the biscuit.

 

[RandFan]

Christ Almighty. I have read some idiotic nonsense in this thread, but you just took the biscuit.

Why wouldn't it be? In times of famine or unrest there could very well be some who sacrifice for the continuation of the species. I'm not sure why you think rhetoric and personal attack is any kind of argument.

 

[RandFan]

I remember being 12 years old and sitting in my first ever biology lesson at secondary school. What did they teach us? They taught us how to define "living thing". Wanna know how they defined "living thing?" Well, there were about four or five general characteristics, the most important of which was SOMETHING WHICH REPRODUCES ITSELF.

{sigh} The vast majority of ants, termites and bees DON'T REPRODUCE THEMSELVES.

Therefore they are not alive.... really?

I have already told you this once. Ant and bee workers are, mathematically, better off serving their queen than mating themselves. This is because different types of ant/bee within the colony have different numbers of chromosomes. Some have two copies and others only have one. That's what "haplodiploid" means.

I know why many ants and bees don't reproduce themselves.

THAT'S NOT A VALID ANSWER.

There are consequences to the things you say.

UCE: To be a living thing that thing must reproduce itself.
RF: Not all ants reproduce themselves. By your logic, those that don't are not alive.

Don't get pissed at me when you say something that comes back to bite you in the ass. You are speaking out of bothsides of your mouth. Slow down. Take a deep breath and think about what you are saying.

 

[Dancing David]

Geez. I couldn't even lighten-up this thread with gay bestiality.

Is that a show by Setpehn Sondheim or Andrew Lloyd Weber?

 

[drkitten]

Christ Almighty. I have read some idiotic nonsense in this thread, but you just took the biscuit.

No, I'm afraid that YOU just took the biscuit.

Especially when you make this asinine post right after discussing bees and ants.

In case you don't realize it, every time a bee stings you, it is committing suicide. Of course, that doesn't really damage the genetics of the colony because it's typically dying in defense of the members of the hive who actively reproduce.

There are non-reproductive members of other species as well. A simple example of that are wolves. A typical wolf pack will have one breeding couple; the other wolves do not breed, but nevertheless help hunt and gather resources. Sounds an awful like like "homosexuals" who do not themeselves breed helping raise other people's children, doesn't it?

 

[Robin]

Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand my posts?

No, in fact trying very hard to understand them.

Most people spend a certain amount of time looking after the children of siblings or close friends. What I am saying is unsubstantiated, unsupported pseudoscience is the claim that childless homosexuals spend more time doing this than anybody else does.

That is simply not the case, they could even spend less time than childless heterosexual couples doing this and it still might have an impact since it is probable that there are going to be more childless gays than hets.

In fact they could show no interest at all in child rearing and there could still be an impact since they could be fulfilling subsistence roles leaving more time for the actual parents to perform carer activities.

I never said they didn't. In fact, I explicitly stated that they DID. That's why they try to adopt, in those countries where it is legal for them to do so.

So it is quite plausible that in a neolithic culture where there is no adoption agencies the same nurturing instinct could motivate them to care for siblings.

I see *NO* essential difference between behaviour in heterosexual couples and gay couples apart from that gay couples can't produce their own offspring.

And as I have already pointed out, childless heterosexuals often spend time helping to rear siblings, even in this nuclear family age.

So you would have to agree that a childless gay is at least as motivated to do this as a childless het.

It is the people who are proposing these ludicrous pseudoscientific theories that need there to be a difference. They need gay couples to be happy to devote their time to raising other people's children INSTEAD OF WANTING THEIR OWN.

No, as I pointed out it only requires that they show at least as much interest as hets in this. The point is that your average neolithic gay is more likely to be childless than your average neolithic het, so you don't have people with more interest, you just have a greater number with the same interest.

On the other hand your ludicrous pseudo-scientific theory requires childless gays to show no interest at all in lending a hand to siblings with children, or even to contribute in ways that would take the pressure off them.

That is utterly improbable, so your ludicrous pseudo-scientific theory requires we believe something that is patently not true.

 

[Robin]

This thread is ludicrous.

I remember being 12 years old and sitting in my first ever biology lesson at secondary school. What did they teach us? They taught us how to define "living thing". Wanna know how they defined "living thing?" Well, there were about four or five general characteristics, the most important of which was SOMETHING WHICH REPRODUCES ITSELF.

LUDICROUS.

Your continued non-sequiturs are ludicrous. Was the fact of biological reproduction pre-planned?

There, I don't think I made typo there, so you have no excuse not to answer it this time.

 

[Robin]

It does in terms of evolutionary biology.

No, doesn't. The concept of "waste" implies an opportunity cost, even in evolutionary biology.

If a genetically similar population is at the upper limit of environmental sustainability the extra reproductive event would not have increased the chances of transmitting genetic information. The opposite would in fact be the case.

When this situation arises what happens is what happened on Easter Island.

No, that is just one outcome. But the evidence is that for most of our evolutionary history we have been in just this situation. Either the population suffers a massive decline, or else they use some method of population control, for example infanticide. Alternately they can try to invade some other groups territory in order to gain more resources.

As I said before, a higher percentage of reproducers in such a group does not enhance survivability for the group. I don't know why you don't even understand that point.

According to your "theory",...

As I have already said, it is not my theory, I am only showing it to be more plausible than your "theory".

... the Easter Islanders should have all turned homosexual and stopped producing children.

Oh dear, what a silly, silly straw man, you are desparate aren't you ?

Tell me - would an Easter Islander be decreasing their survival prospects by not reproducing?

 

[Robin]

Didn't get around to educating yourself about ant and bee genetics then, did you.

I have already told you this once. Ant and bee workers are, mathematically, better off serving their queen than mating themselves. This is because different types of ant/bee within the colony have different numbers of chromosomes. Some have two copies and others only have one. That's what "haplodiploid" means.

That is pretty much what he said with more detail added.

How on earth do you think this counters what he said?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That is pretty much what he said with more detail added.

How on earth do you think this counters what he said?

I give up (again). So ants aren't alive.

I am not going to argue for the sheer hell of it. There has to be a point about what we are arguing about and in this case I have no idea what it is. I appear to be defending the claim that the ability to reproduce is a key characteristic of living thing. Why I should have to defend such a claim I do not know.

 

[drkitten]

I appear to be defending the claim that the ability to reproduce is a key characteristic of living thing. Why I should have to defend such a claim I do not know.

Well, the reason you are being forced to defend that claim is because it isn't true. It's at best a secondary-school level oversimplification, precisely because of the numerous exceptions that it has.

 

[RandFan]

I give up (again). So ants aren't alive.

By your logic no. They aren't. See, that's why we don't accept your proposition.

I appear to be defending the claim that the ability to reproduce is a key characteristic of living thing.

Could you make up your mind.

UCE: To be alive a thing must reproduce.
RF: The vast majorit of ants don't reproduce.
UCE: Ants pass on there genes through the queen.
RF: True but the individual ants, those are living things. They don't reproduce.
UCE: So ants aren't alive.
RF: If your proposition were true they couldn't be.

SHEESH.