Explain consciousness to the layman.

[westprog]

It's easy for me to see DNA as an algorithm.

If it's a helpful way to look at it, then do so by all means. That's what mathematical models are for.

 

[westprog]

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.

The algorithmic model might be applied to DNA, but that doesn't mean that it can't be applied to a lot of other things as well.

 

[!Kaggen]

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.

Leumas responded adequately to your sidetrack on abstract computer modeling techniques.

Reading books on molecular biology and immunology (a branch of molecular biology) does not add up to knowing biology.

What do you know about plant physiology, animal physiology, plant anatomy, comparative anatomy, plant ecology, animal behavioral ecology, microbial ecology, soil ecology, conservation ecology. To name a few very important branches of biology.

I have degrees in Zoology, Botany, Soil Science and Horticulture.

I own and run a company that manufactures microbes for commercial applications.

I consult in agriculture.

I work everyday with biology.

You read a few books in an abstract branch of biology and suddenly your an expert.

I thought your attitude amusing once.
It is becoming tedious now and simply displays a lot of baggage.

 

[!Kaggen]

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

Seriously?

I assume your referring to traits being solely determined by DNA.

You might want to read up on epigenetic inheritance.

 

[!Kaggen]

The algorithmic model might be applied to DNA, but that doesn't mean that it can't be applied to a lot of other things as well.

Yes abstract models are just that, abstract.

 

[Mr. Scott]

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

No.

I wouldn't see more advanced/less advanced as the critical one dimensional attribute. You've revealed the hidden assumption that a conscious computer is "more advanced" than an unconscious one. That assumption should not lie unchallenged.

Our form of consciousness doesn't guarantee it provides us with correct answers about anything outside of the need to survive in the environment in which it evolved. Even inside that environment, it only guarantees better answers than without it more than half the time. The origin and fate of consciousness is not something our consciousness evolved to understand.

Life forms evolved through a highly error-prone process, particularly because of local maxima. We are riddled with non-optimal systems like our backwards-formed retina and its blind spot.

The best example is our hyperactive agency detection module. It helped us survive, but leads us to incorrect conclusions about how the universe works. It's not "advanced." It just is. On balance, its solving one set of problems (who's there?) outweighed the new problems it caused ("that rock is thinking about me").

Advanced / not advanced is a red herring. Consciousness did not arise to solve the problem of how it works. I was just contemplating the possibility that artificial consciousness, like natural consciousness, might spontaneously presume itself to be immortal, immaterial, and incomputable.

 

[Complexity]

Leumas responded adequately to your sidetrack on abstract computer modeling techniques.

Reading books on molecular biology and immunology (a branch of molecular biology) does not add up to knowing biology.

What do you know about plant physiology, animal physiology, plant anatomy, comparative anatomy, plant ecology, animal behavioral ecology, microbial ecology, soil ecology, conservation ecology. To name a few very important branches of biology.

I have degrees in Zoology, Botany, Soil Science and Horticulture.

I own and run a company that manufactures microbes for commercial applications.

I consult in agriculture.

I work everyday with biology.

You read a few books in an abstract branch of biology and suddenly your an expert.

I thought your attitude amusing once.
It is becoming tedious now and simply displays a lot of baggage.

As usual, I disagree.

Your views on computation and biology are simply wrong.

I have never claimed to be an expert in biology. While there is an immense amount about biology that I wish I knew more about, I have been reading for some time on an aspect of biology that is directly relevant to this discussion.

Some of Leumas's views are wrong and I suggested to him something that may enable him to see why I and some others think he has been wrong.

I have never found your attitude amusing.

 

[westprog]

You read a few books in an abstract branch of biology and suddenly your an expert.

One has to be impressed. Complexity masters any subject with such instant competence that he's able to dismiss arguments instantly.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Perhaps you can provide me with the definition of "instruction" so we can decide whether or not the brain or DNA fit this description.

Either way I think your use of the word "pseudoscience" was misguided. At worst, we're simply not using the right term.

 

[Belz...]

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

So your solution was to give both answers ? How does that work ?

I'm saying that there is no physical definition of computation.

[...]

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.

Do you agree that computation exists, that computers do it and that they produce physical effects as a result ?

 

[Minoosh]

Me:

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?

If we do something so higher-order as "evaluate," then we evaluate our impulses based on how adaptive they are to our current environment. On a more basic level we don't evaluate, our reinforcement is basically Darwinian, the behavior that prevails is that which maximizes our reproductive potential.

It's easy to sit around all day eating potato chips and it's evolutionarily adaptive. Salt, grease and carbs will keep me and therefore my genetic material alive. The extra lard I pack is a kind of savings account. If I've found the mother lode of salt, grease and carbs why would I ever move again?

It's maladaptive if I'm menopausal, a tad overweight and wondering why the house isn't cleaning itself.

Does this order of evaluation - applying thought to override instinctive behavior - exist in any other species? It's one reason human thought seems qualitatively different to me than 99.9 percent of all neural processes in existence on Earth.

I don't need a mate for reproduction but I might want one for companionship; therefore I might be motivated to stop eating potato chips and clean the house to be seen as a more desirable mate. Or, I can just want to watch my weight and enjoy the clean house in order to adapt to the circumstances of my own individual life. I don't think other animals do this.

 

[Complexity]

I don't need a mate for reproduction but I might want one for companionship; therefore I might be motivated to stop eating potato chips and clean the house to be seen as a more desirable mate. Or, I can just want to watch my weight and enjoy the clean house in order to adapt to the circumstances of my own individual life. I don't think other animals do this.

You don't think other animals do what?

Spruce up themselves and their things to attract mates?

They sure as hell do.

 

[Minoosh]

You don't think other animals do what?

Spruce up themselves and their things to attract mates?

They sure as hell do.

I don't think they hold in mind the fact that they are no longer fertile, while still valuing mating behavior enough to act as if they still are.

That could be explained in evolutionary terms by the fact that the men are still fertile and are attracted to the most fertile-seeming mate they can get. Or it could be that mating behavior confers sufficient benefit to individuals as to be reinforcing even in the knowledge that it will produce no offspring. The difference is humans can "consciously" know this yet still mate. Could another animal do so?

 

[Complexity]

I don't think they hold in mind the fact that they are no longer fertile, while still valuing mating behavior enough to act as if they still are.

That could be explained in evolutionary terms by the fact that the men are still fertile and are attracted to the most fertile-seeming mate they can get. Or it could be that mating behavior confers sufficient benefit to individuals as to be reinforcing even in the knowledge that it will produce no offspring. The difference is humans can "consciously" know this yet still mate. Could another animal do so?

Or... sex with someone else can be fun, comforting, and a way of connecting - not to mention habit.

 

[Minoosh]

Or... sex with someone else can be fun, comforting, and a way of connecting - not to mention habit.

Yes, "reinforcing." But do other animals have sex for fun knowing it won't make new critters? More to the point, is it in their capacity to know that?

Qualitative difference? Quantitative? I don't know.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Yes, "reinforcing." But do other animals have sex for fun knowing it won't make new critters? More to the point, is it in their capacity to know that?

Qualitative difference? Quantitative? I don't know.

If you're talking about an evolutionary context, the only thing that is important is that the individuals that are fertile do have sex. Given that the act was done, an individual can spring forth--so what does it matter why the act was done?

And what is the relevance of any other case, in an evolutionary sense? An individual who cannot have offspring will not have offspring if it mates or doesn't mate, so there's no particular advantage to refrain from mating. So why would you need an explanation for why it doesn't refrain?

Consider that, instead of mating, the individual who cannot reproduce plays a game of dominoes. Would that be "better" in any way than mating? How exactly? Both are simply ways to burn an afternoon.

 

[dlorde]

The difference is humans can "consciously" know this yet still mate. Could another animal do so?

It wouldn't surprise me if certain apes 'consciously' know that mating is a way to maintain status or alliances, etc., without reproductive intent.

[speculation] I'm not even sure your distinction between instinctive behaviour and conscious, reflective behaviour is as clear as it sounds. Much of what we believe to be conscious rational choice is the narrative self making post-hoc rationalisation of subconscious decisions; although that is not to say those decisions aren't based on complex and subtle evaluations.

In any case, I don't think we should expect consciousness in other animals to have of the same type or have similar knowledge or concerns as ours. Consciousness is an evolved trait, and will have developed in the selective context of the species. Different contexts, different forms or kinds of consciousness. Dogs have been bred to achieve a limited match of consciousness - they can communicate with us, and learn and understand in limited ways, but their level consciousness in the world of scents may be considerably more sophisticated - who knows what the scent focused consciousness of pack wolves hunting in the wild would be like? [/speculation]

 

[Complexity]

Yes, "reinforcing." But do other animals have sex for fun knowing it won't make new critters? More to the point, is it in their capacity to know that?

Qualitative difference? Quantitative? I don't know.

Do other animals have sex for fun knowing that it might make new critters?

Does it matter in the least?

 

[Minoosh]

... Consciousness is an evolved trait,

I've never understood why it would have evolved but the "why" may be irrelevant, if it's a mere byproduct of more neural activity.

If conscious creatures are more likely to pass on their genes, than I could see why it would be an evolved trait. In human terms some of the most "conscious" people I know are the ones who don't want to be parents.

Human beings just seem different, how's that for a rigorous argument. Our "consciousness" has boosted survival, it could just as easily diminish it if our ability to solve pollution problems does not exceed our ability to create them.

Our capacity for thought (and ensuant ability to alter our environment) might be merely a quantitative phenomenon - but if so it's such a large quantitative leap that it convincingly mimics a qualitative leap.

p.s. ALL my dog's senses are better than mine except gradient color (or to her perhaps gray scale) distinctions. She'll walk right over a yellow tennis ball on pink flagstone, which is odd given that she can find it in the dark.

 

[Complexity]

I've never understood why it would have evolved but the "why" may be irrelevant, if it's a mere byproduct of more neural activity.

If I remember correctly, the answer given in The Red Queen is sexual competition. A good case was made for it.