On Consciousness

[Roboramma]

seven totally wrong posts

Given that you seem to be referring to my post above as one of "seven totally wrong posts", I went back and read over it.

I didn't see a single thing in there that could conceivably be called "totally wrong", let alone summing up the whole post that way.

Thanks for polite discussion.

 

[PixyMisa]

We need a moderated thread that accepts only alternative points of viewpoint for every other post, where I dont feel I have the need to reply to seven totally wrong posts one by one, by which time there will be another seven.

You could start by not writing seven totally wrong posts.

 

[PixyMisa]

Does anyone have a reference to a full deconstruction of Orch-OR? There's so much wrong with it that one hardly knows where to begin. It's wrong in terms of mathematics, physics, computation, and cognitive science; it fails to predict things that happen and predicts things that do not.

I've seen mathematicians attacking the mathematics, physicists attacking the physics, and neuroscientists attacking the neuroscience, but haven't seen it all together in one place.

Edit: This looks promising: http://mind.ucsd.edu/papers/penrose/penrosehtml/penrose-text.html

 

[Zeuzzz]

Does anyone have a reference to a full deconstruction of Orch-OR? There's so much wrong with it that one hardly knows where to begin. It's wrong in terms of mathematics, physics, computation, and cognitive science; it fails to predict things that happen and predicts things that do not.

I've seen mathematicians attacking the mathematics, physicists attacking the physics, and neuroscientists attacking the neuroscience, but haven't seen it all together in one place.

Pixy.

You seem to be suffering from academic subject specific intellectual myopia void of any sort of interdisciplinary consideration.

I don't know what the cure is, but I hope you will find it one day.

Please listen to this talk as a perfect example.

An astrophysicist discussing the discovery of a worm type fossil in an asteroid with a biologist, is the context.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I5Fl1Qn-Do#at=4155

 

[PixyMisa]

You seem to be suffering from academic subject specific intellectual myopia void of any sort of interdisciplinary consideration.

No. I'm not, and nor do I seem to be. On the contrary, I am applying precisely the interdisciplinary considerations Penrose and Hameroff so thoroughly failed at.

 

[PixyMisa]

Anyway, read this: http://mind.ucsd.edu/papers/penrose/penrosehtml/penrose-text.html

I haven't finished reading it yet, but it appears to be what I was looking for: A methodical examination into all the faults (and there are many) within Penrose & Hameroff's Orch-OR.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I didn't mention penrose and hameroff.

But, since you did, can you give me the date of that work you linked to? and the journal it was published in?

And can you comment on the contents of the video I linked to?

Many thanks.

 

[PixyMisa]

I didn't mention penrose and hameroff.

Consciousness is likely at its core non computational (Penrose, Hameroff 2011) and in-deterministic in its nature, so can not be implemented by any Turing-machine equivalent computer (ordinary, parallel, neural, otherwise). No matter how hard people are trying to.

But, since you did, can you give me the date of that work you linked to? and the journal it was published in?

Don't know. But the entire article is right there.

And can you comment on the contents of the video I linked to?

Yes. He (Neil deGrasse Tyson) is wrong. The biologist had very good grounds for his objections, which Tyson doesn't explore, instead assuming that it's simple bias, and demonstrating a bias of his own in the process. And as the evidence turned out, the biologist was correct, the little wormy things were not life.

 

[PixyMisa]

And indeed, that's the interdisciplinary thing again.

If something is ten times smaller than the smallest living thing discovered on Earth, it's extremely unlikely to be a living thing, no matter where it might originate. There are limits to the size of biological processes, and those limits depend on the laws of physics, which don't vary from one world to the next.

Life on Earth has done a thorough job of exploring all the possible biological niches over the past few billion years, and an order-of-magnitude size difference is excellent prima facie evidence for rejecting the idea that the little wormy things were microfossils.

And, as I said, the biologist was right.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'm selling parachutes.

They are amazing at their job, they work best when open.

Want me to implant one into your brain pixy? I'll try, but I have feeling it's padlocked.

 

[Zeuzzz]

the little wormy things were not life.

Guess you'd be able to relate well then.

 

[Zeuzzz]

And where did u get your avatar from? Because its continually scaring me, hate clowns and puppets

What subject of academia do you work in, if you dont mind me asking?

 

[PixyMisa]

Want me to implant one into your brain pixy? I'll try, but I have feeling it's padlocked.

As I have amply demonstrated, that's your problem, not mine.

And where did u get your avatar from? Because its continually scaring me, hate clowns and puppets

It's Florence from The Magic Roundabout.

What subject of academia do you work in, if you dont mind me asking?

My current research could probably best be described as computational sociology.

 

[Zeuzzz]

There are limits to the size of biological processes, and those limits depend on the laws of physics, which don't vary from one world to the next.

NOTE: Everything italizised ignore for now till you answer this:

a) first define mathematically and spatially the " limits to the size of biological processes " and what laws of physics constrict them, topologically, with what force and based on what elements.

b) State the laws of physics (not in relation to DNA or the three main macromolecules that give rise to all life on earth) that forbid alterior forms to exist elsewhere in the universe.

The idea that DNA and 'we' are universally special I thought was abolished by common sense years ago.

The laws were based on our unique earth bound environmental experimental evidence, we assume these laws hold the same nearly to a universal extent by mere assumption at the moment, and assign aribtrary values to things we can not directly measure to make the theories work, when in reality they are nothing more than mathematically elgegant fantasies that likely bear no relation to the actual scientific method of experimental evidence we will discover in the distant future.

 

[PixyMisa]

NOTE: Everything italizised ignore for now till you answer this: first define mathematically and spatially the " limits to the size of biological processes " and what laws of physics constrict them, topologically, with what force and based on what elements.

The limits to the size of biological processes are ones of complexity. To be alive an organism must be able to metabolise and replicate. Viruses can't do that, for example; they're not complex enough.

As for fundamental limits, the Pauli exclusion principle and the Shannon limit are the main two. One is why atoms are the size they are, and the other is why DNA needs to be so large.

State the laws of physics (not in relation to DNA or the three main macromolecules that give rise to all life on earth) that forbid alterior forms to exist elsewhere in the universe.

There aren't any, of course, and nothing I ever said could be rationally taken to imply any such thing. But what I said is still entirely accurate, the biologist was correct in his reasons and correct in fact, and Tyson was entirely wrong.

The idea that DNA and 'we' are universally special I thought was abolished by common sense years ago.

Sure, but that's entirely irrelevant.

The laws were based on our unique earth bound environmental experimental evidence, we assume these laws hold the same nearly to a universal extent by mere assumption at the moment, and assign aribtrary values to things we can not directly measure to make the theories work, when in reality they are nothing more than mathematically elgegant fantasies that likely bear no relation to the actual scientific method of experimental evidence we will discover in the distant future.

Baloney. We can observe the laws of physics in action at a distance of billions of light years.

Is there anything else you wished to be corrected on?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Is there anything else you wished to be corrected on?

No thats fine for now, thanks. Reading links and will get back to you

My current research could probably best be described as computational sociology.

Link to some of your work please? Would be ace to read. PM if you dont want public.

 

[quarky]

Oops. I lied. Back for a moment.

Pixy is a pistol, that's for sure, and I wouldn't want to be married to him or her, though I admire the confidence and the passion.
Zeuzzz is cool tool; fighting the good fight without getting too nasty, and showing gratitude for data.

There is some irony in the above exchange.
On the one hand, a conscious computer is a likelihood; on the other hand, there are universal constraints on the size of life forms.

Personally, I don't see the harm in energy being conscious of energy.
If that smacks of intelligent design, its not.
I don't think that the pre-bang singularity had (or has) an agenda, but from it, consciousness has evidently spewed forth.

And occasionally, spewed froth.

 

[PixyMisa]

Zeuzzz is cool tool; fighting the good fight without getting too nasty, and showing gratitude for data.

And wrong about everything.

There is some irony in the above exchange.
On the one hand, a conscious computer is a likelihood; on the other hand, there are universal constraints on the size of life forms.

Yes?

Personally, I don't see the harm in energy being conscious of energy.

What?

I don't think that the pre-bang singularity had (or has) an agenda, but from it, consciousness has evidently spewed forth.

Nope.

 

[quarky]

Gee-whiz, Pixy.

I was trying to compliment you.

Your final "nope" baffles me, unless you simply enjoy the final "nope".

The "yes?" was a bit meaningless, if neutral.



(The "What?" was totally understandable.)

 

[PixyMisa]

Gee-whiz, Pixy.

I was trying to compliment you.

Your final "nope" baffles me, unless you simply enjoy the final "nope".

No; that's a direct response to the preceding sentence, which was nonsensical.

The "yes?" was a bit meaningless, if neutral.

I'm waiting for you to point out the irony.

(The "What?" was totally understandable.)

Consciousness is a process. Energy, of itself, cannot form the necessary structures to carry out such a process.