Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Complexity]

What a surprise.....predictable religious response.

I think she responded admirably.

She informed other readers that your statements are wrong without investing any more than the minimum time required to do so. Anything more would have been wasted effort.

 

[Wowbagger]

I think it would be fun to have a bunch of laymans read this thread, and then ask their opinions on which posts were most helpful in explaining consciousness to them.

If anyone wants to take a guess, here, we would probably have to cut the thread off to before this post was made, somehow, so as not to influence their opinion unfairly. Maybe a printed version will suffice for a few folks.

 

[Minoosh]

I recently discovered this video which is not really a video.

Thanks for all the cites. I can't always play videos, my software suite is hostage to a missing password, but the BBC one seemed to be working and the brain convolutions looked really cool.

 

[Minoosh]

We can't.

And indeed, when you look at it closely, the question doesn't make sense: We are biological machines run by biological computers; our thoughts and decisions are just more biology.

So ... no free will?

Can we evaluate our impulses to select which ones to reinforce and which to disregard? "I" like having a clean house but my impulse says, "No. Stay on thread. Argue." So I do but eventually I notice - yikes there's crap all over my house - my brain notices and realizes that sitting on my bum is not making the house any cleaner and says "up. no get up no clean house." So I get up and start the dishes? Then my brain says "oh dish clean good dish clean keep cleaning dishes ... dishes clean, feels good, clean more!"

 

[Minoosh]

... That doesn't mean that DNA is "doing algorithms" any more that the motion of the planets is doing calculus ...

I think of DNA as binary instructions for how to knit proteins - because there are only two base pairs. In that sense it's algorithmic. A zygote runs through the DNA or the DNA runs through it telling it what to do, which at first is "divide, divide, divide," then after a certain number of divisions each cell is ready for new instructions and the cells "know" where they are - what layer or quadrant they are in, based on the number of divisions - and each cell knows whether the next bit of code applies to them. If it does they start knitting the proteins called for in the next sequence of instructions.

An unfertilized egg can start growing into a dermoid tumor which is weird - an ovarian cyst can contain a full-grown tooth.

It's easy for me to see DNA as an algorithm. The zygote is going to grow into what's called for by its DNA.

 

[yy2bggggs]

So ... no free will?

Can we evaluate our impulses to select which ones to reinforce and which to disregard?

I think you're somehow assuming that if your brain is in control, your brain must control you, and therefore you are not in control.

But if your brain is, in fact, you, then there's no problem. (If it's the "biological computer" part that bugs you, simply reread this post and replace "brain" with "biological computer").

 

[!Kaggen]

Again, nonsense.

I urged Leumas to investigate genetic algorithms so that he might understand why his posts on these issues have been wrong.

I will not urge you to do the same.

I would urge you to study biology then you might understand why genetics is only one aspect of biology and a highly overrated one at that.

 

[!Kaggen]

I think she responded admirably.

She informed other readers that your statements are wrong without investing any more than the minimum time required to do so. Anything more would have been wasted effort.

I think you misjudge other readers.
This is a skeptics forum.
We can expect critical thinking especially were no argument is actually made.
Pixy and your arguments by your own authority are not only pathetic they are rather boring.

Oh and Pixy is a he and he likes playing with model trains.

 

[!Kaggen]

I don't quite see what that has to do with whether DNA is algorithmic.

If you feel that DNA is not algorithmic, what would you say to the DNA and Natural Algorithms Group - are they wasting their time?

Nothing, it has to do with DNA being a part of an organism like all other parts. None being more " important" than the other. Research groups trying to model DNA is not a waste of time as long as the research is always related back to the context of the whole organism and it's ecology. Unfortunately in my experience this is often not the case and we end up with researchers becoming dogmatic about the importance of their work as if it was the only relevant facet of biology.This is exactly the same problem with computer scientists and AI. They are hypnotized by the models of computer science and ignore everything else. They end up doing pseudoscience. Ignoring an incomplete understanding as fact because they have a model.
It is really a stumbling block to progress and as I have said relates to innate hidden religious motives.

 

[Complexity]

I would urge you to study biology then you might understand why genetics is only one aspect of biology and a highly overrated one at that.

Actually, I have. Two of my favorite interests over the past several years have been molecular biology and immunology.

I have worked my way through more than one edition of Lewin's text on molecular genetics and molecular biology, starting with the fifth edition, Genes V.

I have also read Immunobiology by Janeway, Travers, Walport, and Shlomchik. I am currently rereading this text and reading some related information pointed to by this work.

I am fascinated by many aspects of biology and shall continue to spend a fair amount of my time reading. Evolution has been a major interest of mine since I was a teenager. Neurology and brain architecture is an area that I wish to spend time on, starting in the near future.

Nothing you have posted suggests to me that you have any more knowledge of biology than you do of computer science.

ETA: I don't think you have a clue what 'genetic algorithm' means.

 

[Complexity]

I think you misjudge other readers.
This is a skeptics forum.
We can expect critical thinking especially were no argument is actually made.
Pixy and your arguments by your own authority are not only pathetic they are rather boring.

Oh and Pixy is a he and he likes playing with model trains.

My apologies to Pixy for forgetting. I have misremembered his sex before and, I'm afraid, may do so again.

I am a skeptic, as much as anyone can be, and I aspire to become a better skeptic over time.

I am quite good at critical thinking.

My time and Pixy's time is not yours to claim. If you want a longer answer than 'No', you will have to earn it. So far, you have not.

 

[dlorde]

So ... no free will?

Depends what you mean - but let's not go there now.

Can we evaluate our impulses to select which ones to reinforce and which to disregard?

We do - but what do you think those evaluations are based on? why do you select one rather than another?

 

[Irony]

Natural selection applies to organisms not DNA nor brains. An organism being the smallest unit of a species which can reproduce and interact with its environment.

So, because natural selection acts upon individuals, the traits of those individuals do not matter?

Seriously?

 

[PixyMisa]

So ... no free will?

That's a subject for an even longer and more contentious thread, but the quick answer is: In the libertarian sense, no, there is no free will; the concept doesn't even make sense. In the compatibilist sense, yes, we have free will, and that would be possible even if the Universe were deterministic.

Can we evaluate our impulses to select which ones to reinforce and which to disregard?

Sure. But that's a biological process too.

"I" like having a clean house but my impulse says, "No. Stay on thread. Argue." So I do but eventually I notice - yikes there's crap all over my house - my brain notices and realizes that sitting on my bum is not making the house any cleaner and says "up. no get up no clean house." So I get up and start the dishes? Then my brain says "oh dish clean good dish clean keep cleaning dishes ... dishes clean, feels good, clean more!"

You've been to my place, then?

Yes, you can do that, but it's just more biology. There's no central you in control of that biology; the biology is you.

 

[yy2bggggs]

That's a subject for an even longer and more contentious thread, but the quick answer is: In the libertarian sense, no, there is no free will

Or more precisely, there is no libertarian sense of free will.

 

[westprog]

In other words your "yes" is actually a "no".

I found that by answering the question yes or no, I was making a category error.

 

[westprog]

It's about cursors. Like what we're talking about, here:



So we can define the apparent motion of something that doesn't exist, and that's physical,

No. Sorry if I gave that impression, but apparent motion is not a physical process - though it is created by physical processes.

but we can't define the apparent action of something we know exists (consciousness) ?

I'm talking about computation, not consciousness, as being undefined as a physical process.

What ARE you saying, anyway ?

I'm saying that there is no physical definition of computation. That computation always involves some physical action, but that action can be just about anything.

Hence, I'm claiming that unless a physical definition of computation is provided, it's not possible to claim that it produces a physical effect.

If we are to continue to chase analogies, I would say that motion does produce physical effects. I would also say that apparent motion doesn't produce physical effects, beyond the effect it has on the consciousness of people and animals.

If it were possible to find a physical effect inexorably tied to apparent motion, then that would imply that it had a physical definition.

You seem to be incapable of following a conversation. YOU are the one who is saying there is no physical terms to define consciousness. I'm giving you counter examples.

 

[westprog]

When you get right down to it, you can dumb down any concept.

But do you agree that DNA contains what can be interpreted as a series of instructions for the production of proteins by cell organs ?

"What can be interpreted". The mathematical model can be applied. That doesn't mean that a specific algorithmic physical process is taking place.

 

[westprog]

Criticize this:

A criteria for a conscious entity is that it may spontaneously conclude that it's internal subjective experience is due to something immaterial and uncomputable, magical, and/or immortal.

Say, we implement and Mr. Scott conscious computer, where it collects input, remembers lots of it, compares its memories with new input, and can include this process in its process. Now add anticipation -- comparing the past with the present to extrapolate the future. Now ask it to imagine it's own death (being switched off). It probably couldn't, since its process is all it knows about itself. It may find the non-existence of its process inconceivable, so it may conclude it's immortality, and that it would survive the physical denial of power to the machinery it's running on -- that it's mind was supernatural and immaterial.

So if we get a computer sufficiently advanced, we can be assured of getting inaccurate information from it?

 

[Complexity]

Or more precisely, there is no libertarian sense of free will.

No free will.