Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Hard to see how that doesn't involve magic, and it doesn't work for me at least.


Some people appear to have so fooled themselves, and then find it odd 'the world' often doesn't agree.

I don't understand. It's hard to see how the nature of how we define words and understand things (by comparison) doesn't involve magic?

 

[westprog]

Your repeated argument against computation is that "you can't find it in any physics textbooks."

Can you find molecular biology in any physics or astronomy textbooks?

Can you find the law of gravity in any molecular biology textbook?

Molecular biology isn't normally directly referenced, but everything that happens in molecular biology can be characterised by precise well-defined physical interactions. Insofar as life can be well-defined the actions of molecules within living tissue are well-understood physical processes.

That's not to say that molecular biology is itself a physical process. It's a combination of several processes.

The reason that gravity does not appear in biology textbooks is that science is a hierarchy. Physics deals with the most basic issues. Chemistry deals with a specialised subset of physics dealing with the interaction of different elements, mostly taking place in a narrow temperature range. Biology is the study of living organisms. Everything in chemistry or biology has to be compatible with physical law. There is nothing that happens in a chemical reaction or in living tissue that cannot be reduced to some kind of physical interaction, and until a process can be explained in terms of physical law, it cannot be said to have been understood fully.

If "computation" were a process as well understood and defined as "molecular biology", it might be possible to conjecture what the properties of such a process might be.

 

[westprog]

That isn't what he is saying at all. I think you misunderstand his argument.

He is saying that a cell and a computer have certain processes in common and that one of those characteristics/processes is that both rely on local increases in order (amongst many other things). Once again, it is the constraints on a system that define it as a system and that define what meaning it has or is capable of.

When the "local increases in order" were defined in terms of actual physical quantities - viz, entropy - they turned out to not be in any way confined to cells and computers, but turned out to be characteristic of many different physical processes.

 

[westprog]

Oh, I see the game.

So your position is that a cell and Saturn follow the same processes, but in different "ways."

Ok -- then computation is just a "way" of following a process, a "way" that cells and computers have in common that Saturn does not.

That was easy.

And everything completely covered except for the small matter of defining what particular "way" computation actually is. To the same degree of precision as for molecular biology would be a good start.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

When the "local increases in order" were defined in terms of actual physical quantities - viz, entropy - they turned out to not be in any way confined to cells and computers, but turned out to be characteristic of many different physical processes.

And as I explained to you earlier, that is only one of many constraints that are important to the two systems. It is the type of constraints that cuts out things like falling abacuses and the grand canyon.

 

[AlBell]

I don't understand. It's hard to see how the nature of how we define words and understand things (by comparison) doesn't involve magic?

Sorry. I was referring specifically to "The only way to know what ultimate reality *is* is if dualism is correct -- then the two substances can be related one to the other." I should have been more precise.

 

[westprog]

And as I explained to you earlier, that is only one of many constraints that are important to the two systems. It is the type of constraints that cuts out things like falling abacuses and the grand canyon.

And what are these constraints?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Sorry. I was referring specifically to "The only way to know what ultimate reality *is* is if dualism is correct -- then the two substances can be related one to the other." I should have been more precise.

Ah, OK, then we agree (as I think we probably do about many things). Dualism is fraught with problems and magic seems central to it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And what are these constraints?

I listed four in an earlier post as a beginning. And as I said then, find an exception in nature that follows all four and we'll start adding the others. There are many that are held in common between a nervous system and a computer. There are many in common between a cell and a computer.

 

[rocketdodger]

Neither I nor anyone else can answer that question.

"nor anyone else"

??

You seem to be about 60 years behind the curve when it comes to the biological sciences.

It is pretty well understood, by even university undergrads, what makes a creature "alive" compared to a rock.

 

[rocketdodger]

Molecular biology isn't normally directly referenced, but everything that happens in molecular biology can be characterised by precise well-defined physical interactions. Insofar as life can be well-defined the actions of molecules within living tissue are well-understood physical processes.

Computer science isn't normally directly referenced, but everything that happens in computer science can be characterised by precise well-defined physical interactions. Insofar as computation can be well-defined the actions of molecules within digital circuits are well-understood physical processes.

That's not to say that molecular biology is itself a physical process. It's a combination of several processes.

That's not to say that computer science is itself a physical process. It's a combination of several processes.

The reason that gravity does not appear in biology textbooks is that science is a hierarchy. Physics deals with the most basic issues. Chemistry deals with a specialised subset of physics dealing with the interaction of different elements, mostly taking place in a narrow temperature range. Biology is the study of living organisms. Everything in chemistry or biology has to be compatible with physical law. There is nothing that happens in a chemical reaction or in living tissue that cannot be reduced to some kind of physical interaction, and until a process can be explained in terms of physical law, it cannot be said to have been understood fully.

The reason that gravity does not appear in computer science textbooks is that science is a hierarchy. Physics deals with the most basic issues. Chemistry deals with a specialised subset of physics dealing with the interaction of different elements, mostly taking place in a narrow temperature range. Computer science is the study of algorithmic systems. Everything in chemistry or computer science has to be compatible with physical law. There is nothing that happens in a chemical reaction or in a solid state electrical device that cannot be reduced to some kind of physical interaction, and until a process can be explained in terms of physical law, it cannot be said to have been understood fully

If "computation" were a process as well understood and defined as "molecular biology", it might be possible to conjecture what the properties of such a process might be.

If "computation" were a process as well understood and defined as "computer science", it might be possible to conjecture what the properties of such a process might be.

Glad we got that cleared up.

 

[rocketdodger]

And everything completely covered except for the small matter of defining what particular "way" computation actually is. To the same degree of precision as for molecular biology would be a good start.

What do you mean "to the same degree of precision?"

Is "metabolism" really a precise definition?

How many different chemical reactions fall under "metabolism," westprog? How many different subprocesses? Eh? Do you have any idea?

Apparently you don't. Here is the answer -- a large number.

So why do you accept a vague notion like "metabolism," that is defined only according to the functional behavior of a system in such a way that a vast array of systems can be said to carry out metabolism, but not a vague notion like "computation?"

Double standards are the hallmark of the religious mind.

 

[AlBell]

"nor anyone else"

??

You seem to be about 60 years behind the curve when it comes to the biological sciences.

It is pretty well understood, by even university undergrads, what makes a creature "alive" compared to a rock.

Yup, we pretty well know the attributes of life. For example, 1.Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2.Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3.Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5.Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6.Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7.Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Indeed I know that too. And we know rocks don't have those attributes.

What we -- all of us -- still don't know is what necessary and sufficient conditions are needed for the result to be called life.

Sorry that you believe I'm as dumb as you think I am.

 

[westprog]

Yup, we pretty well know the attributes of life. For example, 1.Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2.Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
3.Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5.Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
6.Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
7.Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

Indeed I know that too. And we know rocks don't have those attributes.

Nor, indeed, do computers.

What we -- all of us -- still don't know is what necessary and sufficient conditions are needed for the result to be called life.

Sorry that you believe I'm as dumb as you think I am.

 

[rocketdodger]

What we -- all of us -- still don't know is what necessary and sufficient conditions are needed for the result to be called life.

But you just listed the attributes ....

How can you know the attributes of life but not know what is required for something to be called life?

At the very least you can say "a rock does not have the necessary and sufficient conditions to be called life."

Can you not?

 

[AlBell]

Why you are laboring under the impression I'm the one who can't recognize life? It's you and Pixy with that problem.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why you are laboring under the impression I'm the one who can't recognize life? It's you and Pixy with that problem.

Nope.

 

[AlBell]

You hide it well.

Perhaps on advice from your toaster?

 

[rocketdodger]

Why you are laboring under the impression I'm the one who can't recognize life? It's you and Pixy with that problem.

I can distinguish between a cell and a rock.

 

[westprog]

What do you mean "to the same degree of precision?"

Is "metabolism" really a precise definition?

How many different chemical reactions fall under "metabolism," westprog? How many different subprocesses? Eh? Do you have any idea?

Apparently you don't. Here is the answer -- a large number.

So why do you accept a vague notion like "metabolism," that is defined only according to the functional behavior of a system in such a way that a vast array of systems can be said to carry out metabolism, but not a vague notion like "computation?"

Double standards are the hallmark of the religious mind.

I've never denied the existence of a process called "computation". I've just pointed out that it's an operational, engineering term, with no precise physical meaning. A case could be made that "metabolism", while more precisely defined than "computation", has also no very precise physical meaning.