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

[UndercoverElephant]

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.

Before you can evaluate an argument with propositional logic you first have to make sure that what you are evaluating was the actual argument supplied not a "paraphrase" which subtly or overtly changes the meaning.

 

[westprog]

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.

If you don't understand why physics is relevant to football (any code), then you don't understand physics or football.

 

[drkitten]

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."

Wrong again.

Elementary modal logic. If X cannot possible exist, then X is necessarily non-existence.

If we cannot even assume the possibility that benefits exist, then such benefits are necessarily non-existent.

I.e there can be no benefits.

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

... except for the fact that they are provably synonymous via modal logic.

I'll leave the other one for RandFan, since there's no reason I should grab all the fun.

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

No, but simple logic reveals the brilliance of my arguments and the vacuity of your attempt to call straw-men on them.

 

[drkitten]

If you don't understand why physics is relevant to football (any code), then you don't understand physics or football.

Repeating and rephrasing an incorrect statement will not make it correct.

 

[tsig]

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.

Yours included?

 

[RandFan]

YET ANOTHER strawman.

Claiming a straw man isn't a get out of jail free card.

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.

No, this isn't what you said. I'm sorry but your words speak for themselves.

This IS what 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.

Thing 1, Thing 2 and Thing 3.

IOW: A living thing is something which reproduces itself. Therefore, a thing that doesn't reproduce itself isn't alive. QED.

 

[drkitten]

(DrKitten's) STRAWMAN

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."

Specifically, I'm fairly confident that does NOT mean "damn! Dr Kitten caught me saying something really stupid and showed that I'm not even familiar with my own ravings."

 

[RandFan]

I am suggesting nothing of the sort. At NO POINT did I say "individual organisms ["things"] which cannot reproduce are not living things."

You said that the definition of a living thing is something which reproduces itself.

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.

If Life is a thing that reproduces itself then a thing that does not reproduce itself is not alive. It's a fairly simple sylogism.

A is a living thing
B is reproduction
C is a thing that doesn't reproduce
If A requires B and C does not posess B then C cannot be a living thing.

If A = B
And C != B
Then C != A

QED

 

[!Kaggen]

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.

Why ask for a definition of consciousness whilst at the same time referring to neuroscience to explain consciousness? Neuroscience is the science of neurons. You want consciousness explained by the study of neurons, but you do not want to know how many neurons till you get consciousness.


As for memory being essential for consciousness, how is this different than an awareness of ones thoughts. No awareness of ones thoughts->no memory->no consciousness.

So I am going to attempt progress at the neuron numbers thingy.
One brains neurons - the neurons in the hippocampus = no consciousness.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

Assume there is no scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuals put any more effort into raising their relatives' children than anybody else does.

So what?

Does this imply that there are no possible group fitness benefits to having a few homosexuals?

I am not aware of anyone in this thread explicitly saying that we objectively know homosexuality provides a fitness benefit because of the raising of relatives' children. As far as I can recall, some people were simply using that as an example of what is possible.

How about we end all this quibbling right here and now with you simply admitting what you think. Do you think it is possible that there is some benefit for some populations of some organisms to have a percentage made up of homosexuals rather than heterosexuals? Yes or No.

 

[Hux]

What about the option that it may incur no advantage or disadvantage?

 

[rocketdodger]

What about the option that it may incur no advantage or disadvantage?

That is technically impossible.

Functionally, though, you can get the same effect if:

1) The advantage or disadvantage is insignificant.

2) The advantage is opposed by a disadvantage of the same magnitude.

And anyway, although you might disagree with the above, it is irrelevant because admitting that homosexuality might not confer either advantage or disadvantage to a population is also contrary to the notion that homosexuality is "wrong" in a biological sense -- how could it be "wrong" if it doesn't do anything?

 

[westprog]

Repeating and rephrasing an incorrect statement will not make it correct.

And yet...

Maybe it's just your strange definition of physics, which seems to be entirely different from the usual.

Do you think football games take place outside the physical universe? Do you think that the flight of a football is not subject to physical law? What aspect of the football match is not physical?

Wait, I've a better idea. Just say that I'm wrong. That'll do it.

 

[drkitten]

Maybe it's just your strange definition of physics, which seems to be entirely different from the usual.

If "the usual" definition of football involves physics, why are none of the participants trained in physics?

Wait, I've a better idea. Just say that I'm wrong. That'll do it.

I don't need to say that you're wrong. I can just quote some of the gibberish you write and every rational person reading this thread will realize it. Again.

 

[Robin]

If reproduction were accidental, then as far as I can see this would entail that life began as a result of either:
a) Purpose
b) Necessity
I have been asking you to clarify which you meant or if neither then what else non-accidental could mean.

Robin, reproduction cannot be accidental or incidental. It is absolutely necessary.

No reproduction -> no evolution -> no life on Earth.

And I never said or suggested otherwise.

I asked you if you thought life began as a result of purpose or necessity.

So is your answer that life on this planet began as a result of necessity?

The situation of reaching the limit of what the environment can sustain is a special case in the natural world.

However it was most likely to have been the case for the human race for most of our history.

For the rest of it there is a lot of irrelevant stuffing in your answer, but here is the part that actually addresses my question:

Specific individuals failing to reproduce in these circumstances will not have a significant effect on the survival chances of the group to which they belong, because by this point it is too late to make any difference

So in other words your answer is "no", when a population reaches the limit of what it's environment can sustain a fertile person failing to reproduce will have no adverse impact upon the groups survivability - which is all I asked. So a non-reproductive sex act is not necessarily "wasteful" in the sense that there is a genetic opportunity cost.

So we can progress.

I have no idea why you are bringing up our present circumstances or why you think that is relevant because - homosexuality did not emerge in the last 100 years. So forget all that stuff - we are necessarily talking about periods in our evolutionary history.

So the next point is - would you agree that it is likely that for the most of the human race's hunter forager period it did, in fact, have a population at the upper limit of what it's environment could sustain?

If you disagree can you please show reasoning and I will show mine.

 

[Robin]

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.

How did this get narrowed down to "couples"? Why are couples only relevant???

But if you say that childless gays (couples or otherwise) behave exactly like childless heterosexuals when it comes to the question of raising children I totally agree.

My mother was orphaned at a very early age and was raised by her childless aunts and uncle, all living together in a Glasgow tenement.

Throughout the second world war my father was looked after by my grandmother's childless cousin.

My grandmother, separated from her father by the Russian revolution went and stayed with her aunt.

My childless siblings often lend a hand to babysit for a day or two, pick up the kids from school - the same with my partner's childless siblings. In particular one sister lived with her twin and helped look after her children.

My partner also attests the constant presence of aunts in the house helping my mother in law look after he children.

All my gay friends frequently have neices and nephews in tow.

So it may be that the situation of my family, in-laws and friends is radically different from the norm - but if not then you would have to agree that if childless gays behave like childless hets with respect to raising children - then gays are motivated to help look after siblings children.

So do you have evidence that, on the whole, childless people are not motivated to help out with the raising of sibling's children?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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."
Wrong again.

Elementary modal logic. If X cannot possible exist, then X is necessarily non-existence.

If we cannot even assume the possibility that benefits exist, then such benefits are necessarily non-existent.

I.e there can be no benefits.

Right. So we are back to assuming the possibility of the benefits of suicide then....

I'll leave the other one for RandFan, since there's no reason I should grab all the fun.

Oh no, I think you really ought to defend yourself, given that in this case it was your strawman rather than his.

 

[drkitten]

Right. So we are back to assuming the possibility of the benefits of suicide then....

We are indeed, yes. And you've still not come up with a counter to Orgel's rule.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does."

Specifically, I'm fairly confident that does NOT mean "damn! Dr Kitten caught me saying something really stupid and showed that I'm not even familiar with my own ravings."

No, it means Dr Kitten misquoted me and then knocked down the misquotation.

What I actually said: "There is no evidence to support the claim that homosexuals spend any more time raising their relatives' children than anybody-else does"

What you quoted me as saying, and then attacked: "homosexual relatives cannot and will not help raise their relatives' children. "

That, my friend, is a strawman.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

You said that the definition of a living thing is something which reproduces itself.

If Life is a thing that reproduces itself then a thing that does not reproduce itself is not alive. It's a fairly simple sylogism.

A is a living thing
B is reproduction
C is a thing that doesn't reproduce
If A requires B and C does not posess B then C cannot be a living thing.

If A = B
And C != B
Then C != A

QED

And the idiocy continues.

The ACTUAL CLAIM (***READ THE ACTUAL WORDS***):

"There are several key defining characteristics of living things, the most important of which is the ability to reproduce."

Your ******* strawman version:

"the definition of a living thing is something which reproduces itself."

Now these two statements are similar. Somebody who was terminally stupid or deliberately being obtuse might be able to get them confused for quite a long period of time. However, they are NOT the same. Critically, the statement I actually made is true and your strawman rendering of it is false. It is TRUE that reproduction is a key characterististic of life. This is not a "2nd-grade oversimplification." It is BASIC EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY. Reproduction is absolutely key to the whole process. I know that. You know that. DrKitten knows that. Even cyborg knows it. So why on Earth have you wasted three pages of this thread persistently mis-stating it as "anything which can't reproduce isn't alive" when I did not say that, did not mean that and nobody in their right mind would think it was true?

You really have to learn (a) what a strawman is and (b) to stop depending on them in arguments.


"There are several key defining characteristics of living things, the most important of which is the ability to reproduce" does NOT mean "anything which can't reproduce is not alive" any more than "There are several key defining characteristics of birds, the most important of which are that it has feathers and can fly" means "anything which can't fly or has no feathers is not a bird".

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST UNTIL YOU HAVE GONE AWAY AND THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

Please keep on topic and be civil. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady