Re: Are you Conscious?
From: Michael Ragland (ragland66_at_webtv.net)
Date: 11/03/04
- Next message: Anthony Campbell: "Re: Are hobbits for real?"
- Previous message: JudeH: "Re: Why are blacks better sprinters?"
- In reply to: Catherine Woodgold: "Re: Are you Conscious?"
- Next in thread: Peter F: "Re: Are you Conscious?"
- Reply: Peter F: "Re: Are you Conscious?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 04:22:36 +0000 (UTC)
I think of it this way:
Suppose A is the awareness of the colour red, and B is the
awareness of both A and B.
Then B is an example of consciousness.
A can be quite simple: a mechanical sensor can detect red. But B has to
be a complex system. I don't think it's as complex as that big number in
Goedel's theorem, but there may be some similarities. Or maybe we only
have imperfect, incomplete consciousness.
Here's another way to think of it: it would be relatively easy for
neurons to evolve to do arithmetic efficiently. Numbers would be passed
to a certain part of the brain and the answer would come back very
quickly. However, if this were the case, some individuals might have
mutations or illnesses causing them to get wrong answers; and they might
never notice. Bridges would be build with a hundred times the necessary
thicknesses of beams, etc.
But when one does arithmetic consciously, one is not only getting the
answer, but also at the same time watching how the answer is arrived at
and seeing that it must be correct.
Consciousness may have evolved as a way to do arithmetic and many other
mental processes in a self-checking, self-correcting way: in a way such
that one can say "no, that's not right" and meaningfully redo it,
without relying too much on the precise sets of genes and neuronal
connections designed to do each task.
The human brain does not merely calculate that two plus two is five: it
sees that that answer is correct -- a far more complex task.
-- Cathy P.S. I address your points Cathy but I do my schpiel first. First, thank you for the response! I thought it was such an interesting topic and relevant to Darwinian evolution that I thought more readers would post on the subject. But apparently it has been traditionally ignored by the biological sciences and even cognitive psychologists and currently research on consciousness is in its infancy. I believe there are some who regard "consciousness" in biology as meaningless, akin to the concept of free will. Genetic determinism is still alive and well even though such folks will sometimes acknowledge the interaction between genes and environment many believe we are more or less biological automatons. Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology take this tack. For example, sociobiology is the biological study of social behavior in animals, based upon the understanding that social behaviors can be genetically encoded and evolve through the evolutionary process of natural selection. A more recent cousin of sociobiology is evolutionary psychology which is defined by WordIQ as: "Evolutionary psychology or (EP) proposes that human cognition and behavior could be better understood by examining them in light of human evolutionary history. Specifically, EP proposes that the brain comprises a large number of functional mechanisms, called psychological adaptations, that evolved by natural selection to effect or facilitate the reproduction of the organism. These mechanisms are universal in the species, with the exception that some will be specific to one sex or to persons of a certain age. Uncontroversial examples of psychological adaptations include vision, hearing, memory, and motor control. More controversial examples include male and female mating preferences and strategies, incest avoidance mechanisms, and cheater detection mechanisms." Evolutionary psychology or (EP) proposes that human cognition and behavior could be better understood by examining them in light of human evolutionary history. Specifically, EP proposes that the brain comprises a large number of functional mechanisms, called psychological adaptations, that evolved by natural selection." The supposed difference between evolutionary psychology and sociobiology is the substitution of "psychological" for "genetic" but both equally emphasize the importance of natural selection WHICH is NOT psychological but genetic. Of course, there are those who would insist that the psychological is part of the genetic and I would agree. However, behavioral genetics has so far largely been a flop although some progress has been made. This is from the Human Genome Project Information: "More recently investigators have added the search for pieces of DNA associated with particular behaviors, an approach that has been most productive to date in identifying potential locations for genes associated with major mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Yet even here there have been no major breakthroughs, no clearly identified genes that geneticists can tie to disease. The search for genes associated with characteristics such as sexual preference and basic personality traits has been even more frustrating. Genetics and molecular biology have provided some significant insights into behaviors associated with inherited disorders. For example, we know that an extra chromosome 21 is associated with the mental retardation that accompanies Down's syndrome, although the processes that disrupt brain function are not yet clear. We also know the steps from gene to effect for a number of single-gene disorders that result in mental retardation, including phenylketonuria (PKU), a treatable metabolic disorder for which all newborns in the United States are tested. In general, it is easier to discern the relationship between biology and behavior for chromosomal and single-gene disorders than for common, complex behaviors that are of considerable interest to specialist and nonspecialist alike. So the former are at the more informative end of a sliding scale of certainty with respect to our understanding of human behavior. At the other end of the scale are the hard-to-define personality traits, while somewhere in between are traits such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder—organic diseases whose biological roots are undeniable yet unknown and whose unpredictable onset teaches us about the importance of environmental contributions, even as it reminds us of our ignorance. There are several scientific obstacles to correlating genotype (an individual's genetic endowment) and behavior. One problem is in defining a specific endpoint that characterizes a condition, be it schizophrenia or intelligence. Another problem is in identifying and excluding other possible causes of the condition, thereby permitting a determination of the significance of a supposed correlation. Much current research on genes and behavior also engenders very strong feelings because of the potential social and political consequences of accepting these supposed truths. Thus, more than any other aspect of genetics, discoveries in behavioral genetics should not be viewed as irrefutable until there has been substantial scientific corroboration." Sociobiology which posits a genetic basis for human social behavior couldn't deliver the goods. That is not to say there isn't a genetic basis for human social behavior (as there certainly is) but that sociobiology was incapable of scientifically discovering the genes responsible for various human social behaviors. Sociobiology is still taught in colleges but it seems to have been eclipsed by its offshoot which is evolutionary psychology. Since we're no longer focused on the "genetic basis" of human social behavior evolutionary psychologists have alot more leeway for their theories of human evolution. In general, both sociobiology and evolutionary psychology focus on human phenotypes in light of our evolutionary history and use this to seek a possibly better understanding of ourselves. However, without actually discovering the underlying genetic mechanisms of such human social behaviors which are a part of evolutionary history there is a danger of what I call "phenoanthropism" ascribing human phenotypical characteristics to our genotypes. This is potentially dangerous simply because we haven't even yet really begun to understand the genetic mechanisms of human social behavior which are a part of our evolutionary history. How is it dangerous? We can take our phenotypical social behaviors for granted assuming they reflect a genetic substrate without actually having discovered such a substrate/enzymes. As the Human Genome Project Information stated, "Much current research on genes and behavior also engenders very strong feelings because of the potential social and political consequences of accepting these supposed truths. Thus, more than any other aspect of genetics, discoveries in behavioral genetics should not be viewed as irrefutable until there has been substantial scientific corroboration." For example, there have been scientists such as Phillip Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Charles Murray, William Shockley, etc. who have all asserted "blacks" are intellectually inferior to "whites" and there is a likely genetic basis for this? But have they actually scientifically proved this "genetically"? No, they haven't. They rely of IQ and other measurements. In our "gene crazed" age there have been assertions of genes responsible for criminality, aggression, homosexuality, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc. Have these researchers scientifically found the "gene" or "genes" which cause criminality, aggression, homosexuality, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc.? No, they haven't! In the case of aggression research (which I'm most familiar with) researchers have found several different mechanisms (some genetic) that have been performed on mice which are involved in aggression. But they haven't found the Holy Grail "aggression gene" and its clear from current aggression research we know far less than what we know. The danger here is we have some scientists who either because of self aggrandizement or because they have an ideological/social axe to grind are misleading the public. If enough of the public begins to believe them this could lead to very negative social and political consequences. One sometimes hears the charade one is afraid to "speak the truth" because of the negative social and political consequences. I would just reiterate, "Thus, more than any other aspect of genetics, discoveries in behavioral genetics should not be viewed as irrefutable until there has been substantial scientific corroboration." You write, "I think of it this way: Suppose A is the awareness of the colour red, and B is the awareness of both A and B. Then B is an example of consciousness. A can be quite simple: a mechanical sensor can detect red. But B has to be a complex system. I don't think it's as complex as that big number in Goedel's theorem, but there may be some similarities. Or maybe we only have imperfect, incomplete consciousness." I believe we have an imperfect and incomplete consciousness and IMHO that prevents us from adapting to our current environment. I don't believe consciousness is represented by an end point like B even if it is representative of an almost infinite number. I consider consciousness as existing along a continuum. This makes it all the more difficult to understand. You state, "Here's another way to think of it: it would be relatively easy for neurons to evolve to do arithmetic efficiently. Numbers would be passed to a certain part of the brain and the answer would come back very quickly. However, if this were the case, some individuals might have mutations or illnesses causing them to get wrong answers; and they might never notice. Bridges would be build with a hundred times the necessary thicknesses of beams, etc." This is true but such individuals would be naturally selected against. You add, "But when one does arithmetic consciously, one is not only getting the answer, but also at the same time watching how the answer is arrived at and seeing that it must be correct. Consciousness may have evolved as a way to do arithmetic and many other mental processes in a self-checking, self-correcting way: in a way such that one can say "no, that's not right" and meaningfully redo it, without relying too much on the precise sets of genes and neuronal connections designed to do each task. The human brain does not merely calculate that two plus two is five: it sees that that answer is correct -- a far more complex task." You raise some very interesting points especially as it pertains to human epistemology. What is the nature of human knowledge? We still don't understand how written human language came about. There are theories but we really don't know. How did mathematics come about? I don't know. Maybe there is an explanation for that one. How did Darwinian evolution cause us to develop beyond the apes and create written language, technology, science, art, etc.? I'm a full believer Darwin shattered the idea of separateness between humans and other animals yet it is interesting we have retained so many of our Darwinian instincts similar to other animals and yet managed to create what we have. Arthur Clark who appeared to be no fan of the human species. He once wrote, "That fact there is intelligent life in the universe is that nobody has visited here" came up with the science fiction scenario that extraterrestrial life was responsible for advancing human evolution. I don't believe that but in terms of developing written language, inventing the printing press, the development of science and technology (which has really only occured recently in our evolutionary history) I think there are alot of unknowns. Our recent progress in science and technology (within the last two hundred or so years) appears to be linear or there is a progression. In contrast, Darwinian evolution is a non-linear process which doesn't equate with progression. There are some who would dispute this and consider science and technology a part of Darwinian evolution. I don't. As far as I'm concerned the two are a very deadly mix and the Twentieth Century despite its amazing wonderful discoveries and continuation of progression bear this out. What is the cause of this disconnect between science and technology or cultural evolution and Darwinian evolution? First, our biological evolution lags far behind our cultural evolution e.g. advances in science and technology. In many respects our behavior is the same way it was ten thousand years ago. One of the most important things for humans is to be able to define themselves. I think today with all the advances which are being made in science and technology it has become increasingly difficult to define ourselves due to our tremendous lack of complexity as an organism. What am I? What is reality? Now obviously "Joe Blow" who picks his nose, has jacked up tires and a dixie flag in his back window isn't thinking about these questions. That's precisely my point. And there are many "Joe Blows" in the world. And that is why I think it is likely the human species will destroy itself. You write, "Consciousness may have evolved as a way to do arithmetic and many other mental processes in a self-checking, self-correcting way: in a way such that one can say "no, that's not right" and meaningfully redo it, without relying too much on the precise sets of genes and neuronal connections designed to do each task. The human brain does not merely calculate that two plus two is five: it sees that that answer is correct -- a far more complex task." A "colleague" of mine (he's not really a colleague but our relationship is such in an intellectual sense) said to me, "I can't stay here very long but our we increasing what we think is knowledge or are we really increasing our knowledge." I said to him, "Two hundred years ago there were no airplanes. Today there is the space shuttle. That is hard technological evidence." So he conceded there was a "progression" but I don't know if that really answered his question. I don't really think you can separate the two. In terms of mathematics I think it depends on the level in terms of what genes or neuronal connections are used. 2+2=4 may not require many genes or neuronal connections but if you were a theoretical physicist like Einstein or Hawking I think more would be involved. You write, "The human brain does not merely calculate that two plus two is five: it sees that that answer is correct -- a far more complex task." I think the two are interrelated. Michael Ragland "It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value. Bacteria do quite well without it." Stephen Hawking
- Next message: Anthony Campbell: "Re: Are hobbits for real?"
- Previous message: JudeH: "Re: Why are blacks better sprinters?"
- In reply to: Catherine Woodgold: "Re: Are you Conscious?"
- Next in thread: Peter F: "Re: Are you Conscious?"
- Reply: Peter F: "Re: Are you Conscious?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
