As such, we could not replace sciences like biology or cognitive science with chemistry. — Theorem
Try DNA. I say DNA works through biology, chemistry and physics. Chemical reactions taking place in living organisms, which could be described in terms of electron shells and all that. — Daemon
Can you explain then how we can ever become unconscious? Digestion continues in comatose patients. Can you explain that? — Daemon
↪Daemon
Can you explain then how we can ever become unconscious? Digestion continues in comatose patients. Can you explain that? — Daemon
This is how I conceive it. Consciousness for a human being is associated with highly complex forms of awareness(memory and recognition, affectivity, etc). But if one believes as I do that consciousness occurs within living things as a spectrum of complexity, ranging from the simplest proto-consciousness up through social behavior among humans, then one has to imagine how the ‘subjective’ experience of awareness changes as one moves up or down this spectrum of complexity. — Joshs
The question of whether and to what extent there is awareness in comotose patients or those in non-rem sleep has not been settled. I would argue that there is a dome of implicit consciousness , but it is so rudimentary inbrelation to what we typically demand of the term ‘conscious’ that we see my claim a complete lack of awareness is involved. — Joshs
I don't think you do get it Joshs. I'm making the same point as our friend Galuchat: the meaning of
I
is not in the line, it's in our minds.
Similarly, the meaning of the paint splodges (Mona Lisa) is not in the painting, it's in our minds.
Similarly, the meaning of the marks on the toast (Jesus) is not in the toast. — Daemon
The question of whether and to what extent there is awareness in comotose patients or those in non-rem sleep has not been settled. I would argue that there is a dome of implicit consciousness , but it is so rudimentary inbrelation to what we typically demand of the term ‘conscious’ that we see my claim a complete lack of awareness is involved.
— Joshs
Could you rewrite this please? — Daemon
Tell us the zoom level at which "information" plays a role in genetics. Describe what role it plays. — Daemon
. What the passage seemed to be suggesting is that DNA, letters, mathematical symbols, etc. are unique in their ability to store meaning, particularly meaning that can somehow represent violations of physical laws. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Try DNA. I say DNA works through biology, chemistry and physics. Chemical reactions taking place in living organisms, which could be described in terms of electron shells and all that. — Daemon
Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of the modern synthesis, has been one of the most outspoken supporters of the view that life is fundamentally different from inanimate matter. In The growth of biological thought [15], p. 124, he made this point in no uncertain terms: ‘… The discovery of the genetic code was a breakthrough of the first order. It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of nonliving material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years!’
That source, according to all- as in, every single bit, that I know of- established evidence from which to draw conclusions, suggests that such source is, in fact, the human brain itself. — Deleted User
Intelligence is not something that happened at the tail end of evolution, but was discovered towards the beginning, long before brains came on the scene.
From the earliest metabolic cycles that kept microbes’ chemical parameters within the right ranges, biology has been capable of achieving aims. Yet generation after generation of biologists have been trained to avoid questions about the ultimate purpose of things. Biologists are told to focus on the ‘how’, not the ‘why’, or risk falling prey to theology. Students must reduce events to their simplest components and causes, and study these mechanisms in piecemeal fashion. Talk of ‘goals’, we are told, skirts perilously close to abandoning naturalism; the result is a kind of ‘teleophobia’, a fear of purpose, based on the idea that attributing too much intelligence to a system is the worst mistake you can make.
But the converse is just as bad: failing to recognise intelligence when it’s right under our noses, and could be useful. Not only is ‘why’ always present in biological systems – it is exactly what drives the ‘how’. Once we open ourselves up to that idea, we can identify two powerful tricks, inspired by computer science and cybernetics, that allowed evolution to ‘hack’ its way to intelligence from the bottom up. No skyhooks needed.
In this way, pattern completion enables connections between modules at the same and different levels of the hierarchy, knitting them together as a single system. A key neuron in a lower-level module can be activated by an upper-level one, and vice versa. Like changing the march of an army, you don’t need to convince every soldier to do so – just convince the general, who makes the others fall into line. Consistent with the many parallels between neurons and non-neural signals, pattern completion shows us how a single event – say, a mutation – can change an army, or build an eye.
Similarly, the meaning of the marks on the toast (Jesus) is not in the toast. — Daemon
No, it is in both. — Joshs
I reject the notion that physical code is intrinsically semantic (contains meaning), because meaning can only be assigned by a mind (interpretation), and acquired by a mind (comprehension).
For example, after the end of ancient Egyptian civilisation, and before the translation of the Rosetta Stone, nobody knew what Egyptian hieroglyphs meant.
Communication requires that informer and informee have an intersubjective knowledge of the code used in a message.
It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of nonliving material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history of three thousand million years!’
He's using the word in a figurative way. My issue is with those who claim that information plays an actual role, in genetics, in computation, and in consciousness. — Daemon
How could information NOT play an actual role in all of those subjects? — Wayfarer
Information is not in (for example) DNA in the same way that the meaning "me" is not in this vertical line: I — Daemon
In genetics, DNA and RNA do the work. You can describe the whole process without mentioning information. — Daemon
We say the optic nerve carries information to the brain, but what it actually carries is electrochemical impulses. — Daemon
I'm making the same point as our friend Galuchat: the meaning of
I
is not in the line, it's in our minds. — Daemon
In genetics, DNA and RNA do the work. You can describe the whole process without mentioning information ... So it's a category error to believe that information plays an actual role there. — Daemon
DNA and RNA encode information. That is why I quoted the 'central dogma of molecular biology'. So how are 'instructions' not 'information'? — Wayfarer
That is a different matter. I don't know if the optic nerve 'carries information' - in that context, I'd agree that the use of the term 'information' is metaphorical. It's not 'information' until a subject interprets it. What is transmitted are electro-chemical reactions across cellular pathways. — Wayfarer
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a polymer composed of two polynucleotide chains that coil around each other to form a double helix carrying genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of all known organisms'. So how are 'instructions' not 'information'? — Wayfarer
We say the optic nerve carries information to the brain, but what it actually carries is electrochemical impulses. — Daemon
That is a different matter. I don't know if the optic nerve 'carries information' - in that context, I'd agree that the use of the term 'information' is metaphorical. It's not 'information' until a subject interprets it. What is transmitted are electro-chemical reactions across cellular pathways. — Wayfarer
Yes, genetic processes are carried out mindlessly, but information is mind-independent. Information exists everywhere causes leave effects. Take tree rings in a tree stump. The tree rings develop over time as a result of how the tree grows throughout the year. When an observer comes along and cuts down the tree and observes the tree rings and investigates other trees and forms a theory about what the tree rings are they discover that they are a result of how the tree grows and that each ring signifies a year in the tree's age. The observer did not make up the information. It is there in how the tree grows, and is there independent of any mind. Minds only come along after the fact and either correctly or incorrectly interpret the information that is already there.Why is it a different matter? If the neural impulses are not information until interpreted, why isn't it the same for DNA?
And where is the interpreting subject in each of these cases? Interpretation is something carried out by minds. Instructions, information and interpretation are metaphors when we are talking about DNA. The genetic process is carried out mindlessly. — Daemon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.