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

[RandFan]

Now will you please stop wasting my time and filling this thread up with pointless ****.

Would you please address your own quotes? How is it I can quote you directly and you can turn around and then say you didn't say what you clearly said.

Here. I'll quote you one more time.

"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. "

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sure sounds like this thread has experienced a bit of topic drift.

So is anyone defending Penrose or still claiming that QM is likely to help us understand consciousness more than, say, neuroscience?

Again, the term "consciousness" is a pretty fuzzy, but I think it refers collectively to many functions/properties that arise from various brain structures. I've been offering as one of several examples, memory.

I was just thinking about that man with a damaged hippocampus who lost the ability to form new memories. I remember reading bits of his journal--he constantly felt as if he'd just woken up. Surely the ability to form and retrieve memories is an integral part of "consciousness".

So is sensory perception, arousal, etc. All subjects of neuroscience, and none of them the subject of QM or physics.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Right - but is it necessary that such systems would exist? That was the question.

It is absolutely necessary. Without reproduction, evolution would never have even got started. If reproduction stopped, so would evolution. It follows that it reproduction is an absolutely necessary component of any living system, with the sole exception of a being like Q from Star Trek which is omnipotent and immortal.

Clearly it is not.

For about the fifth time, of course it bloody is. Your argument appears to be "Some living things don't reproduce, therefore reproduction isn't necessary for life." This is a non-sequitor. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. Just because certain individual organisms do not reproduce it does not follow that reproduction is not necessary for life.

Hence reproduction is still accidental.

Your argument is this:

Premise: Some living things cannot or do not reproduce
Conclusion: The existence of reproductive systems in living things is accidental.

This argument is so bad it defies description. It is exactly same as this one:

Premise: Some humans can't see (are born blind)
Conclusion: The existence of eyes in humans is accidental.

NB: Do not even think about responding to this by saying "mutations are accidental."

Yes - but you're still missing the fundamental point here. And I would argue that the nuts and bolts of evolution are inhertiance and mutation - you can have reproduction and death without change.

Neither inheritance nor mutation are possible without reproduction.

 

[RandFan]

It is absolutely necessary.

It's not necassary on Venus or Mars. Why was it necessary on Earth? Hint. It wasn't. It's not necassary. It's only necassary for the continuation of life. Life isn't necassary. No one planed for life. Life isn't requisite to anything. Life is no more requisite to the universe than plastic is.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't understand why UCE can claim that worker bees and ants are fullfilling their purpose by helping pass on the geneset, but homosexuals are not fullfilling their purpose by helping pass on the geneset.

I'm not. I am saying that there is no evidence to support the claim that homosexuals put any more effort into raising their relatives children than anybody-else does. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that if at all possible, they would like to have their own children. They do not behave any differently to infertile heterosexual couples, and for the argument to work they would have to behave differently.

The hypothesis is not being driven by scientific evidence. It is being driven by an attempt refute an argument, and conflicts with the available evidence, which is that homosexual couples behave exactly like infertile heterosexual couples when it comes to the question of raising children.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Would you please address your own quotes? How is it I can quote you directly and you can turn around and then say you didn't say what you clearly said.

Here. I'll quote you one more time.

"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. "

Where in that sentence does it say "Any specific organism which can't reproduce does not qualify as alive"?

This time you have actually managed to quote me correctly, but the quote doesn't say or mean what you previously quoted me as saying.

 

[westprog]

Sure sounds like this thread has experienced a bit of topic drift.

Perhaps the moderators could transfer the gay ants to a different thread?

So is anyone defending Penrose or still claiming that QM is likely to help us understand consciousness more than, say, neuroscience?

I don't think anyone, anywhere, discussing this subject, has suggested abandoning neuroscience. What has been suggested is that QM should not be considered when forming a theory of consciousness.

Again, the term "consciousness" is a pretty fuzzy, but I think it refers collectively to many functions/properties that arise from various brain structures. I've been offering as one of several examples, memory.

I was just thinking about that man with a damaged hippocampus who lost the ability to form new memories. I remember reading bits of his journal--he constantly felt as if he'd just woken up. Surely the ability to form and retrieve memories is an integral part of "consciousness".

So is sensory perception, arousal, etc. All subjects of neuroscience, and none of them the subject of QM or physics.

Everything is the subject of physics.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sure sounds like this thread has experienced a bit of topic drift.

The thread was driven miles off course by a group of people who couldn't cope with the words "homosexuality" and "wrong" appearing in the same sentence, and who do not appear to want to stop posting even though the arguments they have been posting for the last four pages have consisted entirely of drivel.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not. I am saying that there is no evidence to support the claim that homosexuals put any more effort into raising their relatives children than anybody-else does. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that if at all possible, they would like to have their own children. They do not behave any differently to infertile heterosexual couples, and for the argument to work they would have to behave differently.

Some would like to have their own children.

The hypothesis is not being driven by scientific evidence. It is being driven by an attempt refute an argument, and conflicts with the available evidence, which is that homosexual couples behave exactly like infertile heterosexual couples when it comes to the question of raising children.

No, it's an attempt to answer a question just as Pinker states. You overlook the points made by Pinker. It persists in the human species. Humans have survived in spite of it. We may very well have survived because of it. You are forgeting Orgel's rule. You are declaring something wrong without knowing that it is wrong. Again, I wouldn't have a problem if you simply declared that it was not normative or maladaptive. "Wrong" is just silly.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It's not necassary on Venus or Mars. Why was it necessary on Earth?

OH

MY

GOD

You have now strawmanned "reproduction is necessary for life" into "reproduction is necessary on all planets, even those which are lifeless."

Hint. It wasn't. It's not necassary. It's only necassary for the continuation of life.

*bangs head on desk*

I ONLY EVER CLAIMED IT WAS NECESSARY FOR LIFE. Having strawmanned my argument into something else, you are now repeating my own (real) argument back to me!

Life isn't necassary. No one planed for life. Life isn't requisite to anything. Life is no more requisite to the universe than plastic is.

SO ****** WHAT???

 

[drkitten]

The thread was driven miles off course by a group of people who couldn't cope with the words "homosexuality" and "wrong" appearing in the same sentence, and who do not appear to want to stop posting even though the arguments they have been posting for the last four pages have consisted entirely of drivel.

Er, no. The arguments you have been posting for the last four pages have consisted entirely of drivel. Your insistence on repeatedly posting them is why the drift continues.

For example, your insistance that the direct quotation "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" somehow misrepresents what you wrote.

For example, your insistence in the teeth of Orgel's rule that there can be no benefits to a behavior of which you yourself are personally unaware.

For example, your insistence that homosexual relatives cannot and will not help raise their relatives' children.

I could go on at length. But I don't think I really need to.

 

[RandFan]

Where in that sentence does it say "Any specific organism which can't reproduce does not qualify as alive"?

{sigh} By definition, YOUR DEFINITION, A "living thing"... [is]SOMETHING WHICH REPRODUCES ITSELF. The undeniable logic is that if something doesn't reproduce itself it isn't alive.

Come on UCE. Your words and statements have consequences. You might not have meant what you said but you said it.

This time you have actually managed to quote me correctly, but the quote doesn't say or mean what you previously quoted me as saying.

I'VE QUOTED THIS 3 OR 4 TIMES.

 

[drkitten]

I don't think anyone, anywhere, discussing this subject, has suggested abandoning neuroscience.

Except for you:

Everything is the subject of physics.

 

[Wudang]

Everything is the subject of physics.

Of course it is. Though why my physics PhD thesis on the use of Jungian archetypes in Jane Austen novels was rejected baffles me.

 

[RandFan]

so ****** what???

so THAT'S the goddamn point!

Reproduction is an accident that allowed life to continue. If it fails it isn't "wrong" as it was never planed for in the first place. It just means that it stops working. No wrong in there. Just accidents of nature. Oh, and BTW, that some individuals don't reproduce isn't evidence of "wrong".

 

[westprog]

Except for you:

Whatever about the subject in general, I certainly don't know how your mind works. Whatever mechanism led you from one concept to the other is something I cannot grasp.

 

[RandFan]

Er, no. The arguments you have been posting for the last four pages have consisted entirely of drivel. Your insistence on repeatedly posting them is why the drift continues.

For example, your insistance that the direct quotation "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" somehow misrepresents what you wrote.

For example, your insistence in the teeth of Orgel's rule that there can be no benefits to a behavior of which you yourself are personally unaware.

For example, your insistence that homosexual relatives cannot and will not help raise their relatives' children.

I could go on at length. But I don't think I really need to.

Bears repeating UCE. You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that we don't know what if any evolutionary advantage there is for homosexuality as it pertains to the Human species or any other species. You just declare by fiat that there is none.

We know that there are many examples of individuals that do not reproduce so the idea is not unprcedented. We aren't claiming that we know precisely why homosexuality has persisted in the human species. We don't know why it wasn't selected out. We know it's here and we know that there could be an answer. We've provided possible answers but we just don't know.

 

[westprog]

Of course it is. Though why my physics PhD thesis on the use of Jungian archetypes in Jane Austen novels was rejected baffles me.

I don't say that we are at the stage where physics can have anything interesting to say about any given phenomenon, but as soon as we can understand what physics has to say about something, then physics can legitimately intervene.

The alternative is to suppose that Jungian archetypes in Jane Austen novels come about by some non-physical process. It may be that the archetypes themselves are non-physical objects, as are Jane Austen novels, but that doesn't mean that we can't trace everything physical that brings them about.

And the mere fact of noting this obvious fact doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to examine phenomena on other levels, whatever DrKitten thinks.

 

[Wudang]

I don't say that we are at the stage where physics can have anything interesting to say about any given phenomenon, but as soon as we can understand what physics has to say about something, then physics can legitimately intervene.

The alternative is to suppose that Jungian archetypes in Jane Austen novels come about by some non-physical process. It may be that the archetypes themselves are non-physical objects, as are Jane Austen novels, but that doesn't mean that we can't trace everything physical that brings them about.

That's what I said to the doctorate review board. My theory was that Jane Austen plots could only be understood properly if we assumed that quatum microtubules guided narratrons (the fundamental particle of narratives) in a non-deterministic manner. Otherwise the plots would be linear.

 

[drkitten]

Of course it is. Though why my physics PhD thesis on the use of Jungian archetypes in Jane Austen novels was rejected baffles me.

Oh, that? You wrote that one?

I was one of the readers, and I can tell you. It wasn't comprehensive enough, as it didn't address the issues of the Avignon papacy and its development. Not enough historical content.