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

[drkitten]

You really have to learn (a) what a strawman is

Yes. You do. Because you have yet to correctly identify a single straw man in this thread.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

Or we could just get back on topic.

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.

Fair enough. I do think QM should not be considered when forming a theory of consciousness, because the collection of properties that we call consciousness does not emerge at the level where QM is even close to being a valid model of reality.

It makes no more sense than considering QM when you are treating someone for a heart attack, or trying to figure out what causes buildup of plaque inside arteries.

Penrose and his ilk want to use the quantum weirdness to apply to macro world events (where things like human consciousness matter). The reason that stuff is considered "weird" is because it doesn't happen at the macro level.

Cats cannot be simultaneously alive and dead. Human beings can't be "entangled" the way a couple of subatomic particles can be.

Everything is the subject of physics.

No, it is not. I can make a very long list of things that are not the subject of physics, but here are just a few that we've touched on already:

building a house
diagnosing and repairing car troubles
human behavior
human anatomy and physiology
​

 

[RandFan]

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

If the definition of a living this is something which is capable of reproduction then it logically follows that if a thing is not capable of reproduction then it is not alive.

Why are you even disputing this?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

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

The counter is that suicide, as it exists in humans, breaks Orgel's rule. We know for a fact that it breaks Orgel's rule because we know that in many cases of suicide, the reason for the suicide is temporary and/or has treatable physical causes. If it's not beneficial to commit suicide when the temporary or treatable problem has passed or been treated, then it wasn't beneficial when it occured. This argument does not apply to cases of terminal or untreatable illness with little hope of an improvement in the quality of life. Suicide really is one case where we can be certain that something has "gone wrong." Exactly what has gone wrong is debatable and differs on a case-by-case basis, but it is hard to argue that this could be a beneficial adaptation. Evolution may be smart, but not smart enough to include unnecessary suicide due to temporary circumstances as a positive strategy produced by group selection.

 

[RandFan]

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

BTW: You are moving the goalposts.

They taught us how to define "living thing"...the most important of which was SOMETHING WHICH REPRODUCES ITSELF.

No "ability".

"Something which reproduces itself". Those are your words. Not mine.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes. You do. Because you have yet to correctly identify a single straw man in this thread.

Errr....apart from this one, which you said you'd "leave to Randfan" to explain:

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. "

 

[RandFan]

"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".

The ability to fly is most definitely NOT a key characteristic of birds. It might be a key characteristic of most birds but not all birds.

See Ostrich, Emu, penguin and other flightless birds.

Actually the key charichteristics of birds is winged, bipedal, endothermic (warm-blooded), vertebrate animals that lay eggs.

You should have picked a single species. Like Robin. Try that and we will have another go.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If the definition of a living this is something which is capable of reproduction then it logically follows that if a thing is not capable of reproduction then it is not alive.

Why are you even disputing this?

Because it DOESN'T LOGICALLY FOLLOW, Randfan.

Key defining characteristics of birds is that they have feather and can fly. These really are key defining characteristics of birds. It does not logically follow that anything without feathers or unable to fly is not a bird. All it means is that some unusual species of bird or certain individual birds are lacking a characteristic that is a key defining characteristic of birds.

Your "logic" assumes that for something to be a "key defining characteristic" it has to apply to every single case of the thing in question, without exception. If we were talking about physics or chemistry, this sort of logic might work. A key defining characteristic of water molecules is that they contain an oxygen atom. But this is not physics or chemistry, it's biology, and biology doesn't work like that. Even the definition of life itself, as we have seen, can't be nailed down with the sort of precision that purely physical and chemical entities can. I learned this when I was 12, and it is still true.

 

[RandFan]

The counter is that suicide, as it exists in humans, breaks Orgel's rule. We know for a fact that it breaks Orgel's rule because we know that in many cases of suicide, the reason for the suicide is temporary and/or has treatable physical causes. If it's not beneficial to commit suicide when the temporary or treatable problem has passed or been treated, then it wasn't beneficial when it occured.

The argument fails. Beneficial traits aren't always beneficial. The tend to be beneficial. You are making an unscientific argument. Evolution doesn't make the prediction that beneficial features must always be beneficial. Further, behaviors are often bi-products of features. Evolutionary biologists don't claim to be able to explain each and every behavior in terms of benefit or non-benefit in ever instance.

Again, you are deliberately breaking Orgel's rule.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

BTW: You are moving the goalposts.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to get you to FINALLY understand where the goalposts have been all along, and it is quite some way from where you have been kicking the ball.

"Something which reproduces itself". Those are your words. Not mine.

The strawman was what you did with them, Randfan. What you did was apply a "logical argument" to them to turn them into something else, and the logical argument in question only works for the hardest of the hard sciences, not biology.

 

[RandFan]

Because it DOESN'T LOGICALLY FOLLOW, Randfan.

What you are not getting is that it's your words that sink you. If you don't like your words then alter them. It's up to you.

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.

Look, add the word "ability". Add the words "tends to". Add the word organism. Anything you like.

A living thing is not necassarily something that reproduces itself.

 

[RandFan]

No, I'm not. I'm trying to get you to FINALLY understand where the goalposts have been all along, and it is quite some way from where you have been kicking the ball.

The strawman was what you did with them, Randfan. What you did was apply a "logical argument" to them to turn them into something else, and the logical argument in question only works for the hardest of the hard sciences, not biology.

No. See my last post.

 

[Robin]

Or we could just get back on topic.

It is actually a derail of the derail.

So we need to start two topics, one for the original derail and another for the derail of the derail.

What was it we were talking about in the first place?

 

[westprog]

I can make a very long list of things that are not the subject of physics, but here are just a few that we've touched on already:

building a house
diagnosing and repairing car troubles
human behavior
human anatomy and physiology
​

All of these are legitimate areas of study in their own right. They are also quite legitimate areas for Physics to investigate. Whether a house stands or falls is a matter of physics. How a car works is a matter of physics. Whether a bone breaks is a matter of physics. And whether you decide to go to the shops is a matter of physics.

It doesn't mean that only physicists should investigate anything, or that physics is the right tool for every job. It just means that everything is potentially in the area where physics is entitled to investigate, and if it's not understood in physical terms, it's not fully understood.

 

[Robin]

The whole life/reproduction debate here is based, as I said pages ago, on a logical flaw that:

If X is the definining characteristic of Y then X is not accidental​

That simply does not follow. That is a non-sequitur.

It would only be true if it were also true that Y was non-accidental.

 

[Robin]

I find it somewhat ironic that some of the people who insist that consciousness must be explained in terms of quantum physics are the same people who claim that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of physics at all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

All of these are legitimate areas of study in their own right. They are also quite legitimate areas for Physics to investigate.

No, they're not. You can learn everything you need to know about building houses without studying physics. You really can.

If you bring your car in for repairs, it would be laughable for the mechanic to invoke QM as an explanation of what's wrong.

Seriously, it is a fact that consciousness is not the subject of physics.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is actually a derail of the derail.

Oh well. . .if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. . . .

Because it DOESN'T LOGICALLY FOLLOW, Randfan.

Key defining characteristics of birds is that they have feather and can fly. These really are key defining characteristics of birds. It does not logically follow that anything without feathers or unable to fly is not a bird.

A logical definition is a list of all characteristics necessary and sufficient to describe objects of the class and to exclude objects that are not in the class.

The ability to fly is not one of those wrt to birds. Sorry, you're just wrong on this point. There are ratite birds, and there are plenty of animals that fly that are not birds. It's neither necessary nor sufficient to include all birds in the class of "birds" and exclude all non-birds from that class. (Note, I'm using "class" with a lower case "c" to refer to a logical class and not the Linnaean grouping of "Class".)

Now, what does this have to do with the study of consciousness?

 

[Robin]

Now, what does this have to do with the study of consciousness?

Here is the link.

The discussion was about whether consciousness was computational.

Westprog was asking for a definition of computational and said that computation was not physical.

So:

Westprog: It's not possible to describe it in physical terms because it's not a physical process.
PixyMisa: Neither is gravity
Cyborg: Nor anything else. How can I describe an electron in physical terms without appealing to how it behaves - i.e. what is its function?
Westprog: Behaviour is not function. Two very different concepts. An electron has no inherent purpose.
Cyborg Nor does a human.Your point?
UndercoverElephant: A human has an inherent purpose: to make more humans. Humans exist as a means for human DNA to replicate itself. As a biological entity, our purpose is to reproduce.
drkitten: Really? So gay humans are purposeless?
UndercoverElephant : No, they are just failing to fulfill their (biological) purpose.
dlorde: Many (most) animals have homosexual and/or non-reproductive individuals
UndercoverElephant: Not by choice they don't.
dlorde Homosexuality is pretty common, suggesting that it may have some selective advantage in groups, or is at least neutral.
UndercoverElephant: Hard to see what the selective advantage is. I'm not sure this works genetically.


....and so on and so forth.

So you see it is all very relevant to consciousness.

 

[Robin]

Oh wait... theres more:

UndercoverElephant Homosexuality, in humans or in other animals, is not and has never been associated with helping genetically-related humans pass on their genes. It is simply the normal human sexual drive which has for some reason gone a bit wrong.
Robin: So why do you say homosexuality is something that went "wrong"? In what sense do you mean that?
UndercoverElephant In the sense that it is a "misfiring" natural behaviour. There is an obvious reason why (most) humans have a strong sex drive. It is there to drive us to reproduce.
cyborg: Reproduction is accidential. A strong sex drive helps increase the accident rate.

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