Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 19, 2024, 3:49 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Theory number 3.
RE: Theory number 3.
Something that has to be mentioned, all of this talk about neurons immediately rules out anything without a central nervous system (not that we have any reason to do this, just that we seem intent on arbitrarily defining consciousness as the presence and -apparently- number of neurons). Why do this at all? The only way in which we have been able to detect the "consciousness" of these neurons, however many or in whatever configuration it takes is by their effects....effects which can be achieved by organisms with a pronounced lack of neurons. Do the neurons themselves have "neurons" of their own, no. Neurons appear to be only one of many ways to achieve an effect. All that could be said here is that things without neurons are unlikely to have a consciousness much like our own (or are unlikely to be able to express as many effects as those with neurons). Similarly, on the subject of instincts, it's difficult to conceptualize any process of said neurons that could not have their basis in the same. We have evidence of (and explanations for) instincts, but this non-instinctual stuff looks to be a very peculiar and very "human" notion. It always sends up warning flags for me when we attempt to describe some part of biology or behavior by means of setting our own biology and behavior as the standard (on the other hand, just how different are either of those things anyway?). Hehehe, life, a very tangled web.


Not that neurons (and central nervous systems) don't provide a good frame of reference for the discussion, and if you don't mind using them as our starting point Mystic, we could have some fun here.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Theory number 3.
Sure thing, Rhythm. I just have to go do more reading about the subject, as I said, it's an argument from semi-ignorance, but it does have potential to be proven scientifically and rationally.
Reply
RE: Theory number 3.
It'll be fun reading for me as well. Where to start with neurons. I suppose their structure maybe? We have dendrites, essentially a number of antennas that receive signals from other neurons that all lead to the soma, where the different "lines" established by the dendrites are condensed to a single axon. Now, when the dendrites receive a signal from other neurons the electrical polarity of the soma shifts, it could "fire" (along the single axon which itself may be "connected" to yet more dendrites via a synapse).

The comparison to logic gates is impossible to avoid. Specifically transistors. The structure of a neuron is such that any imaginable circuit we might care to take as an example is easily realized within the framework of what neurons are capable of doing and how they are structured. Also take into account that these neurons are stupendously small (though the axons can be very long.....) and so you can cram quite a few in a tiny space (like that spot between our ears). A very beefy modern CPU has 2.5 billion transistors. Our brains have 100 billion, give or take a few billion. Consider the advanced functions our computers can execute. They can play chess against you, they provide the NPC's in video games, and yes, there are some things they appear to be even better than us at. As we have found ways to increase the number of transistors (and clock speed of the assembly) our little machines have become capable of ever increasing complexity. They are capable of more, and more greatly pronounced "effects".

As others have mentioned, imagine a computer which was so complex (had so many transistors and such a high clock rate- for example) that it's simulation was indistinguishable from "the real deal". If you can imagine that you can at least conceptualize a consciousness sans magic.

Anything objectionable thusfar?

(I took some liberties...transistors are simpler than neurons - which are much more elaborate logic gates if we extend the analogy, but even by a 1 for 1 comparison you can see the gulf between the two.)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Theory number 3.
(October 28, 2012 at 10:57 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Well there would have to be logically a lot of steps (perhaps millions) to get to consciousness from unconsciousness. But at the same time, there has to be a point where it's actually conscious as opposed to not. But before that, it's not conscious. So there has to millions of steps but at the same time, there has to be but one step as well. Hence you have the problem.

Actually, this is where you have a problem. Since consciousness can - at its simplest - be defined as awareness to surroundings indicated by a stimulus-response process, we see that the distinction between conscious and unconscious isn't a single step but a thousand steps as well.

When you are cut, your blood responds by clotting. Does your blood have a separate consciousness of its own? What about your immune system, which responds to infection? What about the micro-organisms that attacked your body?

What about the Venus Flytrap which eats insects? Is it conscious or not? What about the Sunflower which constantly turns to face the sun?

Would you say all these things have consciousness?

(October 28, 2012 at 10:57 am)MysticKnight Wrote: This is non-sequitur, if consciousness is solely created by biological/physical, it doesn't mean evolution was capable of producing it.

Learn some logic. That is exactly what it means.

(October 28, 2012 at 12:17 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: What I mean by physical/biological, is that if we had no soul, it doesn't mean necessarily that consciousness could have arisen from evolution process.

Not necessarily - but we are conscious, so it did.
Reply
RE: Theory number 3.



It's not an argument from semi-ignorance. It's an argument from complete ignorance.


These issues are within my core specializations so I know them considerably better than you do, and you are buttfuckingly ignorant of:

a) biology and evolution
and,
b) cognitive science and consciousness in particular.

For what it's worth, the tetraform body plan likely emerged as a result of relatively few mutations, and having intermediates, as well as alternative body plans of similar complexity, likely in something analogous to a hox gene. This is why we have two arms, and it quite easily could have occurred as a point mutation (though probably more likely a result of a mutation of a transposon or similar). So even your own example demonstrates your profoundly ignorant and mistaken view of the subject.

Moreover, your argument appears to appeal to strands from irreducible complexity theory, as well as intelligent design. (I'll simply reference the Krebs cycle and blood clotting cycles as counter-examples.)

You appear, like many people, to conclude that consciousness is remarkable and mysterious because it is remarkable and mysterious to you. Most things you don't understand are mysterious to oneself, and your argument based on a series of assertions of incredulity is proof of nothing but your ignorance. I look at the origin of free will, as such, as having occurred, possibly, originating as a sort of 'scratch space' for anticipating where prey might go and developing effective responses to those potential moves. Needless to say, such a system is 'aware', but it's quite likely not aware that it is aware, nor is it conscious of a self. Matter of fact, the existence of a 'self' to be conscious of can be a very controversial question. Most people would likely want to draw the line at being aware that one is aware. The reason, most likely, having to do with speciesism. I see no reason why this aspect of our consciousness need be a defining property of consciousness in general. Moreover, we violate both self-consciousness and awareness of being aware on a regular basis. In the phenomena known as automatic driving, a person can drive from A to B without ever having been aware of the majority of decisions they made en route. Would we then say that they weren't conscious when they were driving? That's absurd. So common sense notions of consciousness are both regularly violated by margin cases (often revealed by brain trauma), and are founded on a poetic "awe" at the power and utility of the mechanism. In blindsight, though the person has no awareness of visual perception in a part of their visual field Yet they are aware of some information about that area of their visual field. In one case, you could wave a geometric shape in that area, and they could tell you the shape, but they do not actually "see" the shape. Are they conscious of the shape? It's not clear the question has a definite answer one way or the other. And what about Anton-Babinski syndrome. Hemi-neglect. Evil hand syndrome. Anasognosias. Split-brain subjects. Dreaming (is the lucid dreamer conscious that they are manipulating the dream?). Dissociative Identity Disorder. Fugue States. PTSD and reliving trauma. Phantom limb syndrome and therapy for phantom limb syndrome. Capgras delusion.....

The list goes on and on, and because of your ignorance, you don't know how to form intelligent questions, much less informed assertions.

In short, you have no business making any argument because you fundamentally do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

Fine. We need a cutoff point. I'll give you one. A bimetallic strip based thermostat is conscious. It responds to its environment, it takes action based on its responses to the environment, and its responses to the environment change the environment which ultimately affects its future behavior. A thermostat is conscious.

I fully expect you to disagree. Your disagreement doesn't interest me in the slightest. What I will expect however, is some reason why the thermostat does not pass as a conscious entity. What does a conscious entity posses, or do, that this entity does not do. And specifically, why possessing that property, process or capacity, is what we call consciousness (as opposed to, say, memory or blood circulation). No more handwaving about complexity. No more claiming a merely semi-ignorant argument, I'm considerably more confident that the difference between not knowing something and knowing it doesn't occur in a gradation of partial, intermediate steps than I am that you know that 'consciousness' can't arise over a short mutational chain (even if one were required; I refer back to the Krebs cycle, clotting, and other examples that incorporate considerable complexity, which arose by co-optation, repurposing of prior mechanisms, co-evolved traits, and the whole panoply of evolutionary effects which you who "doesn't believe in the theory of evolution" are buttfuckingly ignorant of).

Explain what additional properties or processes would be required for you to consider the thermostat to be conscious.


[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
RE: Theory number 3.
Apophenia, calm down. You are coming out very strong.

Yes I disagree with you, but not in the substance of what you said, but because none of it actually refutes what I said. There can be all sorts of levels of consciousness, I even said in the begining, you can call it 1% conscious. I didn't say because it's mysterious and I don't understand it must be impossible by process of mutations and evolution. This is a strawman.

Yes I am ignorant of this subject, which is why I said I have to go read about it, and I said it just seems to me to be the case, and why I personally am inclined to the idea of.

Did I even say I believe in the argument? Let alone others should accept it. I shared my personal view, and said since they seem true to me, it strengthens my hope. Did I say it's a conclusive argument?

What I mean by semi-ignorant as opposed to an argument from ignorance, is that an argument from ignorance says "how is it possible for this to go to step A to step B"...I'm not aware..therefore, it cannot happen. That's a complete argument from ignorance. And the problem of evil argument is in this form. What I formed is a paradox. Both of the premises that form the paradox seem true to me, but I don't know enough about it, to claim they are true.

And none of what you said is showing how you solve the issue yourself. I didn't even say it has to have concept of self or be aware it is aware.

And despite all those nice info, it doesn't address the argument. Painting a bunch of facts when none of them address the issue doesn't help the case. Or at least if they do have relevance, you should show it.

And the cut off point, I don't see how this even addresses what I'm saying at all.

You also seem upset that I don't believe in evolution, while at the same time you know I am ignorant of the subject in details (which I have stated I am in other posts). Am I suppose to just follow authority?

And who says I can't make any argument, if I don't know what I'm talking about? Suppose it is true and I am totally deluded in an argument, I better keep it to myself while it seems true to me, then have people refute it?

You know what a lot of people on Shiachat resorted to, when I showed problems with Quran. That I should basically go study all of hadiths and go investigate this issue with the scholars, and that until I do, I can't make an argument....
Reply
RE: Theory number 3.
@Apo.

Excellently argued.

Out of curiosity, is there an academically accepted cut-off point for consciousness?

As you said, on basis of "response to the environment" definition, a thermostat can be said to be conscious. So, academically, how do you distinguish between a conscious and a non-conscious entity?
Reply
RE: Theory number 3.
(October 29, 2012 at 1:10 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Yes I disagree with you, but not in the substance of what you said, but because none of it actually refutes what I said.

I specifically addressed your assertion regarding the requirement of the evolution of two arms being complex and requiring intermediate steps. Let me refresh your memory. You wrote:

(October 28, 2012 at 2:01 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: No evolutionist in biology ever argues that two arms could have just came out in one step of random mutations. There is a long process involved.

That is a lie. I get a little incensed when dickwads like you lie, evade their responsibilities, claim arguments from ignorance and bare assertion aren't arguments from ignorance and bare assertion, and so on. You bet I do. And you're courting being the first person I put on ignore after 30 years of electronic communication (15-20 internet, 10 local and global packet and bulletin board systems). You would be the first. But you repeatedly create thread after thread with the same type of lame bullshit arguments to attempt to justify your irrational beliefs. And thread after thread we shred your arguments, and you just make new ones or old ones disguised as new ones. Any of us who actually know cognitive science, evolution, the history of ID, specified complexity and irreducible complexity know you're talking out of your ass, and now you compound it with lies and half truths about what I said.

I also specifically pointed out that evolutionary theory doesn't require complex features to evolve by single point mutations through a gradation of intermediate stages for that trait, a claim which has been core to your argument. To claim that I didn't refute that is another lie. I pointed out the Krebs cycle and clotting, systems whose final function, in some ways likely "appeared" after evolving to serve other functions by single or short period mutations. To claim that I didn't refute that portion of your argument is a lie twice told.

(October 29, 2012 at 1:10 am)MysticKnight Wrote: There can be all sorts of levels of consciousness, I even said in the begining, you can call it 1% conscious. I didn't say because it's mysterious and I don't understand it must be impossible by process of mutations and evolution. This is a strawman.

I chose my examples specifically to avoid this sort of response. Many of the examples given appear to be conscious yet not conscious at the same time (automatic driving, blindsight, anosognosias, Capgras delusion, Split-brain subjects). To claim that I was refuting a position of claiming gradated consciousness I'll only fail to assign to conscious deception on your part because I doubt you are conscious of what half these terms mean. (Are you partially conscious of what an anosognosia is, or did you consciously conclude it wasn't relevant?) What does it mean to claim to know that something does X when you don't know what that something is? That is a kind of lying.

(October 29, 2012 at 1:10 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Yes I am ignorant of this subject,
Probably the only thing you said that has any merit.

(October 29, 2012 at 1:10 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Did I even say I believe in the argument? Let alone others should accept it.
This is disingenuous in the extreme. Am I now going to have to ask you after every assertion you make whether you believe your assertion is true, or perhaps that maybe you're just testing us. You've gone from lying to being a complete ass.

(October 29, 2012 at 1:10 am)MysticKnight Wrote: What I mean by semi-ignorant as opposed to an argument from ignorance, is that an argument from ignorance says "how is it possible for this to go to step A to step B"...I'm not aware..therefore, it cannot happen. That's a complete argument from ignorance. And the problem of evil argument is in this form. What I formed is a paradox. Both of the premises that form the paradox seem true to me, but I don't know enough about it, to claim they are true.

Here is what you wrote:

(October 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Again you acknowledge there needs to many steps between A and B and direction by natural selection. You also acknowledge there needs to be one step between A and B. You don't see the contradiction?

There must be no gap between A and B. [let's call this P]
There must a huge gap between A and B. [let's call this Q]

It's a contradiction. A paradox.

Your argument is that "I can't imagine how P and Q can both be true, therefore magic." That's an argument from ignorance, pure and simple. And I've already noted that P and Q can both be true for traits other than consciousness, so claiming this is a) not an argument from ignorance, b) is a fair representation of evolution, and c) hasn't been refuted is, a) a lie, b) a lie, c) a lie.

(October 28, 2012 at 1:16 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: And none of what you said is showing how you solve the issue yourself. I didn't even say it has to have concept of self or be aware it is aware.
Why would I share the pearls of my wisdom with someone who is a) constitutionally unfit to think clearly, b) dishonest, c) deluded and persistently irrational, and d) someone who by creating this thread and making multiple claims has voluntarily assumed the burden of proof, e) pretends to have partially met their burden of proof despite not doing so, f) someone who, though I have not claimed or assumed that burden complains that I haven't done so, and f) is lying even in that, as I have met my non-burden of proof by introducing a system which is conscious, and, which if a biological system, easily evades all your objections.

(October 29, 2012 at 1:10 am)MysticKnight Wrote: And despite all those nice info, it doesn't address the argument. Painting a bunch of facts when none of them address the issue doesn't help the case. Or at least if they do have relevance, you should show it.

More lies on your part. Do you do anything but create threads founded on bankrupt arguments that have been refuted ad nauseum many times before, bluff with argument from bare assertion and ignorance, and when counter-arguments are proposed, lie about what you said and what they said?

I think not.

(October 29, 2012 at 1:10 am)MysticKnight Wrote: And the cut off point, I don't see how this even addresses what I'm saying at all.
Again, it's because you're buttfuckingly ignorant. But prove us wrong, explain the evolution of the Krebs cycle as you understand it, and how that evolutionary sequence, even ex hypothesi, doesn't address your paradox. I doubt you even know what the Krebs cycle is. To claim that the evolution of the Krebs cycle doesn't address the argument you made regarding the paradox when you don't even know what the evolution of the Krebs cycle is constitutes sheer dishonest evasion (read: a lie).

(October 29, 2012 at 1:10 am)MysticKnight Wrote: You also seem upset that I don't believe in evolution, while at the same time you know I am ignorant of the subject in details (which I have stated I am in other posts). Am I suppose to just follow authority?
No Mr. Mystic, I expect you to die.

(October 29, 2012 at 1:10 am)MysticKnight Wrote: You know what a lot of people on Shiachat resorted to, when I showed problems with Quran. That I should basically go study all of hadiths and go investigate this issue with the scholars, and that until I do, I can't make an argument....
What you did there is of no relevance here, unless you are claiming that I likewise am telling you that you need a better understanding of evolution, cognitive science and the like to make a successful argument in support of your claim simply to avoid acknowledging the truth of your claim. If that is what you are claiming, it's a heinously disgusting thing for you to accuse me of simply to attempt to shield you from the collapse of your inadequate arguments. Regardless, what you and your fellow kiddy diddler lovers did in the past has no relevance here. Stop lying, stop pretending to understand my arguments just so you can lie about their relevance and start acting like a decent human being interested in the truth instead of a deist who is interested only in telling however many lies it takes to cling to his deluded self-image that his deist beliefs and arguments are rational.


[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
RE: Theory number 3.
@Genk (if you don;t mind Apo...lol, one of those rare moments that you and I are in lock-step on this subject..lol, I plan to milk it)

Academically....it is very difficult to distinguish between what is conscious and what is not without adding a boatload of additional qualifiers that are all, themselves, open to scathing criticism. What most people seem to be referring to when they say "consciousness" is decidedly higher order architecture. To move or sense or remember or react does not appear to be enough for most (why....well, that is beyond me, but any qualifier for consciousness one chooses to invoke wont leave us at a loss as to how biology did, does, or could have "done it").
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Theory number 3.
(October 29, 2012 at 8:59 am)Rhythm Wrote: @Genk (if you don;t mind Apo...lol, one of those rare moments that you and I are in lock-step on this subject..lol, I plan to milk it)

Academically....it is very difficult to distinguish between what is conscious and what is not without adding a boatload of additional qualifiers that are all, themselves, open to scathing criticism.

Well, obviously. Otherwise consciousness would not be such a fascinating subject. So, what is the line (along with those additional qualifiers)?
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How many of you atheists believe in the Big Bang Theory? Authari 95 3937 January 8, 2024 at 3:21 pm
Last Post: h4ym4n
  First order logic, set theory and God dr0n3 293 25086 December 11, 2018 at 11:35 am
Last Post: T0 Th3 M4X
  A loose “theory” of the dynamics of religious belief Bunburryist 6 1653 August 14, 2016 at 2:14 pm
Last Post: Bunburryist
  Top misconceptions of Theory of Evolution you had to deal with ErGingerbreadMandude 76 12278 March 7, 2016 at 6:08 pm
Last Post: Alex K
  A crazy theory Ruprick 11 2676 February 18, 2016 at 10:51 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  Hindu Perspective: Counter to God of Gaps Theory Krishna Jaganath 26 5655 November 19, 2015 at 6:49 pm
Last Post: Simon Moon
Thumbs Up Number of male vs female atheists? MentalGiant 36 6042 October 10, 2015 at 9:40 am
Last Post: houseofcantor
  So here's my theory RobBlaze 28 8908 August 12, 2015 at 4:10 am
Last Post: robvalue
Video Dr Zakir Naik Vs the Theory of Evolution Mental Outlaw 4 2461 July 23, 2015 at 10:27 pm
Last Post: Mental Outlaw
  my new theory about christians Jextin 49 7915 October 4, 2014 at 7:21 pm
Last Post: Lek



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)