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

[drkitten]

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.

And we are indeed at a stage where we can understand what physics has to say about consciousness.

"Nothing whatsoever."

No useful predictions of human behavior and/or consciousness have come out of the idea that human consciousness is a QM function of the microtubules, and in point of fact the underlying physics that suggests that it might has been independently demolished.

In light of the total absence of any useful theories, models, or findings, we are completely justified in not paying a whit of attention to QM as a base for human consciousness. Especially since we have an abundance of useful theories, models, and findings that are based on computational theory and/or neuroscience.

 

[westprog]

And we are indeed at a stage where we can understand what physics has to say about consciousness.

"Nothing whatsoever."

No useful predictions of human behavior and/or consciousness have come out of the idea that human consciousness is a QM function of the microtubules, and in point of fact the underlying physics that suggests that it might has been independently demolished.

In light of the total absence of any useful theories, models, or findings, we are completely justified in not paying a whit of attention to QM as a base for human consciousness. Especially since we have an abundance of useful theories, models, and findings that are based on computational theory and/or neuroscience.

Note the jump from "physics" to "QM function of the microtubules".

I'll repeat the truism which is so obvious that it should be unnecessary to state it - if you don't understand the physics, you don't understand the phenomenon. Any mathematical model must relate to the physical world if it is to be a meaningful model.

In the meantime, by all means carry on with as many different approaches as seem fruitful, but in the end, the physical world is described by physics.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Er, no. The arguments you have been posting for the last four pages have consisted entirely of drivel.

Of course! Claiming that reproduction is key defining feature of life is total drivel!

You have a big mouth and a lot of confidence, drkitten. Your arguments aren't always big enough to match.

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.

OK, shall we do this in baby steps?

(1) What I actually said was above.
(2) Randfan turned this into "Anything which doesn't reproduce isn't alive" and then declared it was hopelessly wrong.
(3) I accused him of misquoting me.
(4) He then actually correctly quoted me and claimed that it still agreed with his argument. It doesn't. What he correctly quoted me as saying is TRUE. What he strawmanned it into is FALSE.

Understand?

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.

STRAWMAN NUMBER 1. I simply did not say that. What I actually said was "I cannot see any benefits." I did NOT say that this neccesarily means that there aren't any.

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

STRAWMAN NUMBER 2. I simply did not say that. What I actually said (several times) was "There is no evidence to support the claim that homosexuals spend any more time raising their relatives' children than anybody-else does."

I could go on at length.

I am sure you could go on erecting strawmen all evening, DrKitten.

 

[drkitten]

I'll repeat the truism which is so obvious that it should be unnecessary to state it - if you don't understand the physics, you don't understand the phenomenon.

Yes, it's indeed obvious -- it's obviously WRONG.

I understand, for example, that Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election and that McCain lost; I can even give you breakdowns in terms of electoral votes and demographics. I understand it quite well. And "physics" does not enter into my explanation at any level.

I understand that the Steelers lost to the Bengals this weekend past; I even understand why (they scored fewer points, which is a truism). Again, "physics" does not enter into it.

 

[drkitten]

Of course! Claiming that reproduction is key defining feature of life is total drivel!

Yes. And the counterexamples that have been shown to you should illustrate that.

I am sure you could go on erecting strawmen all evening, DrKitten.

I probably could -- but I've not erected any yet in this thread, I'm afraid.

 

[drkitten]

STRAWMAN NUMBER 1. I simply did not say that. What I actually said was "I cannot see any benefits." I did NOT say that this neccesarily means that there aren't any.

Wrong. You claimed (post 867) that we could not even assume the possibility that there might be benefits.

STRAWMAN NUMBER 2. I simply did not say that. What I actually said (several times) was "There is no evidence to support the claim that homosexuals spend any more time raising their relatives' children than anybody-else does."

Wrong. Post 763.

I am sure you could go on erecting strawmen all evening, DrKitten.

As I said, I could,.... but I don't need to. I'm having more fun pointing out the straw men you try to erect and then run away from as soon as you're caught.

 

[RandFan]

You said:

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.

Asserting straw men where there is none isn't going to fly.

Randfan turned this into "Anything which doesn't reproduce isn't alive"

1. By definition a "living thing" [is] "something which reproduces itself.
2. Therefore, a thing that doesn't reproduce itself isn't alive.

QED.

 

[drkitten]

You said: Asserting straw men where there is none isn't going to fly.

1. By definition a "living thing" [is] "something which reproduces itself.
2. Therefore, a thing that doesn't reproduce itself isn't alive.

QED.

No, no, don't you see? A think that doesn't reproduce itself isn't a "living thing," but it's still "alive." You're making the unwarranted assumption that there is a necessary relationship between being "alive" and being "living."

Rather like Woody Allen's line that "I'm not scared of death; I'm frightened of it."

 

[cyborg]

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".

What he said.

You are attributing an intent to reproduction that does not exist.

Either it happens or it does not. There is no "try".

 

[Dancing David]

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.

You and I are on the same page, it is why I ask for the definition of 'consciousness', it includes many things, so a 4 from column A and two from column B approach.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

 

[RandFan]

No, no, don't you see? A think that doesn't reproduce itself isn't a "living thing," but it's still "alive." You're making the unwarranted assumption that there is a necessary relationship between being "alive" and being "living."

Rather like Woody Allen's line that "I'm not scared of death; I'm frightened of it."

As funny as that is, and perhaps this is a bit cynical of me, I think you are correct. I don't know any other way to reconcile it. I've parsed it 9 ways to Sunday and it comes out the same every time.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes. And the counterexamples that have been shown to you should illustrate that.

Really? Somebody who chooses to cut their own balls off demonstrates that reproduction isn't a neccesary component of living things? You really think that argument works?

Hint: It doesn't.

I probably could -- but I've not erected any yet in this thread, I'm afraid.

Apart from the two in the last post, both of which are textbook examples of strawmen. Anybody can go and check for themselves, DrKitten. Do you want me to go back and find the exact quotes I made and your exact strawmen?

You are contributing nothing to this thread but your own ego.

 

[drkitten]

Really? Somebody who chooses to cut their own balls off demonstrates that reproduction isn't a neccesary component of living things? You really think that argument works?

Yes. Unless he dies immediately upon removal of his testes.

Because at that point he is no long capable of reproduction, but it still "alive."

So unless you're suggesting that something can be "alive" without being "a living thing," then we have an example of "a living thing" that does not and cannot reproduce.

 

[drkitten]

Apart from the two in the last post, both of which are textbook examples of strawmen. Anybody can go and check for themselves, DrKitten. Do you want me to go back and find the exact quotes I made and your exact strawmen?

You don't need to. I've already given direct citations so that interested parties can confirm for themselves that I have accurately represented your statements.

In fact, I'd strongly advise against your finding the exact quotes, because RandFan will probably reduce them to propositional logic and give another mathematical proof of your wrongness. At least this way you can comfortably pretend to yourself that I'm erecting strawmen.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Wrong. You claimed (post 867) that we could not even assume the possibility that there might be benefits.

STRAWMAN NUMBER 1. I simply did not say that. What I actually said was "I cannot see any benefits." I did NOT say that this neccesarily means that there aren't any.

Wrong. You claimed (post 867) that we could not even assume the possibility that there might be benefits.

STRAWMAN NUMBER 3. "We cannot assume the possibility of benefits" is not the same as "there can be no benefits to a behavior of which you yourself are personally unaware."

The two statements bear not the slightest resemblance to each other.

STRAWMAN NUMBER 2. I simply did not say that. What I actually said (several times) was "There is no evidence to support the claim that homosexuals spend any more time raising their relatives' children than anybody-else does."

STRAWMAN NUMBER 3, part 2. "There is no evidence to support the claim that homosexuals spend any more time raising their relatives' children than anybody-else does" is not "homosexual relatives cannot and will not help raise their relatives' children. " These two statements bear no resemblance to each other either.

This is pathetic.

As I said, I could,.... but I don't need to. I'm having more fun pointing out the straw men you try to erect and then run away from as soon as you're caught.

Your bravado does not conceal the poor quality of your arguments.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You said: Asserting straw men where there is none isn't going to fly.

1. 
   [*]By definition a "living thing" [is] "something which reproduces itself.
2. Therefore, a thing that doesn't reproduce itself isn't alive.

QED.

YET ANOTHER strawman.

I said that the ability to reproduce was one of several defining characteristics of living things. It does not follow from that that every single living organism is necessarily capable of reproduction.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What he said.

You are attributing an intent to reproduction that does not exist.

Either it happens or it does not. There is no "try".

I am not "attributing intent" to reproduction. I have no idea what you are talking about. I said that reproduction was an essential feature of life. I said nothing about intent or purpose, apart from in the strictly biological sense that eyes have the purpose of seeing. Penises have the purpose of reproducing.

NB: Don't even think about responding to this with "penises also have other purposes" OR "penises are accidental."

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No, no, don't you see? A think that doesn't reproduce itself isn't a "living thing," but it's still "alive." You're making the unwarranted assumption that there is a necessary relationship between being "alive" and being "living."

Rather like Woody Allen's line that "I'm not scared of death; I'm frightened of it."

(DrKitten's) STRAWMAN NUMBER 4: Did I say "A think [sic] that doesn't reproduce itself isn't a "living thing"? NOPE.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes. Unless he dies immediately upon removal of his testes.

Because at that point he is no long capable of reproduction, but it still "alive."

So unless you're suggesting that something can be "alive" without being "a living thing," then we have an example of "a living thing" that does not and cannot reproduce.

I am suggesting nothing of the sort. At NO POINT did I say "individual organisms ["things"] which cannot reproduce are not living things." That is just one of several persistent strawmen being raised by you and others.