Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[exchemist]

Yeah, the fact that Write4U didn't source it had not escaped me. I've heard the term, but not in any marginally credible science-y context.

But if it's not even sourced in some pseudoscience somewhere, then this thread may not even meet the criteria for the PseudoScience forum; it my have to go straight to Free Thoughts, where it can happily prance in open grassy fields, with no danger of stepping into any science-y gopher holes, breaking its leg and having to be shot to put it out of its misery.

Yup.

Cue the usual Write4U runaround, in which he switches back and forth between the somewhat loose and various meanings of a term in common speech, and the precise technical definition required for the term to have any meaning in physics. He has never understood this distinction and it is at the root of a lot of his interminable mumbo-jumbo about "functions", "potentials" and all the rest of it.

The difference this time is that, instead of starting with a technical term from physics and then misusing it by interpreting it in its common speech sense, he starts with a common speech term and then pretends it has a technical meaning in physics!

 

[DaveC426913]

I'll repeat the link:

satisfy

As expected, write4u has delivered a perfectly spurious response that is in no way what was being challenged.

He pretends that the word "satisfies" is what was being challenged, when in fact, what was being challenged is the phrase "direction of greatest satisfaction" and the weaselly use of "needs" and "wants".

He fancies that this attempt at sleight-of-hand is enough to distract or confuse us. In fact, we are all aware from past experience that this is write4u's standard way of backtracking and redirecting, pretending that his woo claim hasn't been eviscerated.

Everything back to post 1060 - where he introduced the "greatest satisfaction" gaff - is on-the-record as having been thoroughly dismantled. The term does not belong in in this forum.

 

[exchemist]

As expected, write4u has delivered a perfectly spurious response that is in no way what was being challenged.

He pretends that the word "satisfies" is what was being challenged, when in fact, what was being challenged is the phrase "direction of greatest satisfaction" and the weaselly use of "needs" and "wants".

He fancies that this attempt at sleight-of-hand is enough to distract or confuse us. In fact, we are all aware from past experience that this is write4u's way of backtracking and redirecting, pretending that his woo claim hasn't been eviscerated.

What we should ask him for is a physics reference to the "principle of greatest satisfaction".

If there were to be such a thing, the term "satisfaction" would need to be quantitative and measurable, with dimensions and units of measure.

But there won't be.

 

[Write4U]

As expected, write4u has delivered a perfectly spurious response that is in no way what was being challenged.

He pretends that the word "satisfies" is what was being challenged, when in fact, what was being challenged is the phrase "direction of greatest satisfaction" and the weaselly use of "needs" and "wants".

He fancies that this attempt at sleight-of-hand is enough to distract or confuse us. In fact, we are all aware from past experience that this is write4u's way of backtracking and redirecting, pretending that his woo claim hasn't been eviscerated.

No, nooo, you don't get away with that weak argument.

Let us unpack the phrase "in the direction of greatest satisfaction" and substitute the definition in the proper context. You do not get to change context.

And then, when I give ample examples of the other uses of the term in context of mathematical values and functions, I am accused of obfuscating the issue. But you are doing the deliberate obfuscation.

All three of you know exactly what I am saying and that proves the effectiveness of the phrase. The rest is pure BS.

 

[DaveC426913]

What we should ask him for is a physics reference to the "principle of greatest satisfaction".

I think that would be giving it too much credit.
It's been dismantled. no need to waste another page and a half in a science subforum humouring the defense of woo.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let us unpack the phrase "in the direction of greatest satisfaction" and substitute the definition in the proper context.

Indeed. Let's do that.
Let's use the proper terms and dispense with this woo and its weasel words.

And then, when I give ample examples of the other uses of the term in context of mathematical values and functions, I am accused of obfuscating the issue.

And justly so.

There is no mathematical application of an inert object having "needs" or "wants" - let alone "satisfaction".

 

[Beer w/Straw]

"in the direction of greatest satisfaction"

Sex?

 

[exchemist]

I think that would be giving it too much credit.
It's been dismantled. no need to waste another page and a half in a science subforum humouring the defense of woo.

Fair enough. Anyway it's now a candidate for my Write4U Bingo list.

 

[exchemist]

Sex?

Yes please. Your place or mine?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Yes please. Your place or mine?

We're under lockdown and there's that thing with the Atlantic Ocean.

lol.

 

[Write4U]

What we should ask him for is a physics reference to the "principle of greatest satisfaction".

If there were to be such a thing, the term "satisfaction" would need to be quantitative and measurable, with dimensions and units of measure.

Are you mad? Look at the list of definitions. Are you telling me that they all need to offer a specific measurable quantity and quality, for the term to be applicable?

But there won't be.

I gave you an entire page of reference to the mathematical principle of greatest satisfaction. That's not good enough for you? Or are you now going to argue my use of the term Mathematics instead of Physics?

 

[Write4U]

Indeed. Let's do that.
Let's use the proper terms and dispense with this woo and its weasel words.

No, you are skating again. Let's use the term in proper context, which you persist in dismissing.

And justly so. There is no mathematical application of an inert object having "needs" or "wants" - let alone "satisfaction".

Except I just gave a you page full of mathematical applications of the term "satisfaction".

You keep trying to change the context by talking about physically inert objects, where I am drawing attention to mathematical functions, which may "need" or "want" specific parameters in order to yield a result that mathematically "satisfies" a functional equation.

There is nothing weasily about my posts. It's the unwarranted weasily attempts to detract from the content of the message that irk me. Yet I stay the course, in spite of several unwarranted criticisms and other distractions thrown in for good measure.

 

[Write4U]

I think that would be giving it too much credit.
It's been dismantled. no need to waste another page and a half in a science subforum humouring the defense of woo.

Yesssssssss, please give it a rest. You've done enough unwarranted damage.

p.s. this is not a science subforum. This is an On-the-fringe subforum, which this thread satisfies in several respects. Another misplaced accusation detracting from the content.

 

[billvon]

If you are going to cherry-pick make sure you consult the dictionary or else you are arguing against defined English language.

Coming from you that is VERY funny.

 

[DaveC426913]

Except I just gave a you page full of mathematical applications of the term "satisfaction".

As pointed out, that is not what is in contention.

You have yet to produce a dictionary definition of "in the direction of greatest satisfaction" that has any basis in science or math.
You also have yet to show any mathematical justification for the use of "need" or "want" in terms of math, science, atoms or pendulums.

And therein lies the woo.

 

[Write4U]

Coming from you that is VERY funny.

Based on what rumor of literary incapacity?

Perhaps some of my specific use of terms that may seem "old" or "obscure" or "distantly related", but after consultation, I use them precisely for their specific (if obscure) definitions. In effect, you are trying to dumb down my use of the English language, whereas I am trying to expand (keep) its range of literary uses and expression.

A physical function "In the direction of greatest satisfaction" presents an entirely satisfactory use of the term "satisfaction" as an indication of "meeting certain specific requirements", i.e. to satisfy the conditions of a natural state or change in a mathematically based environment .

All expressed physical events (reality) satisfy the mathematics of the values and functions pertinent to that event or the event cannot be physically expressed at all. The definition (as cited) of the term "satisfaction" in this context is entirely appropriate. "Satisfaction = All conditions were met = The law of Necessity and sufficiency"

In
logic and mathematics, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between two statements. For example, in the conditional statement: "If P then Q", Q is necessary for P, because the truth of P guarantees the truth of Q (equiv., it is impossible to have P without Q).[1][2] Similarly, P is sufficient for Q, because P being true always implies that Q is true, but P not being true does not always imply that Q is not true.

In general, a necessary condition is one which must be present in order for another condition to occur, while a sufficient condition is one which produces the said condition.[4] The assertion that a statement is a "necessary and sufficient" condition of another means that the former statement is true if and only if the latter is true.[5] That is, the two statements must be either simultaneously true, or simultaneously false.

In ordinary English, "necessary" and "sufficient" indicate relations between conditions or states of affairs, not statements. For example, in a gender conforming family, being a male is a necessary condition for being a brother, but it is not sufficient—while being a male sibling is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a brother.

All conditions were met, including the Constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs)

Constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs) are mathematical questions defined as a set of objects whose state must satisfy a number of constraints or limitations. CSPs represent the entities in a problem as a homogeneous collection of finite constraints over variables, which is solved by constraint satisfaction methods.

CSPs are the subject of intense research in both artificial intelligence and operations research, since the regularity in their formulation provides a common basis to analyze and solve problems of many seemingly unrelated families. CSPs often exhibit high complexity, requiring a combination of heuristics and combinatorial search methods to be solved in a reasonable time.

Constraint Programming (CP) is the field of research that specifically focuses on tackling with this kind of problems[1][2]. Additionally, boolean satisfiability problem (SAT), the satisfiability modulo theories (SMT), mixed integer programming (MIP) and answer set programming (ASP) are all fields of research focusing on the resolution of particular forms of the constraint satisfaction problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constraint_satisfaction_problem

Seems that satisfaction suggests a deeper meaning than a scoop of strawberry ice-cream, no?

 

[Write4U]

As pointed out, that is not what is in contention.

You have yet to produce a dictionary definition of "in the direction of greatest satisfaction" that has any basis in science or math.
You also have yet to show any mathematical justification for the use of "need" or "want" in terms of math, science, atoms or pendulums.

And therein lies the woo.

See above.

 

[DaveC426913]

See above.

Indeed. And you still haven't.

This is yet another example of Write4u's penchant for acting like a Chinese Room.
It is possible he hasn't comprehended the passages he's quoted. He's just found keywords like "satisfaction" and decided that they somehow make his case. ("Look, here's math that uses the word satisfy! The defense rests!" )

Because if he had, he would realize that satisfying an equation has nothing to do with satisfying an object's "needs". Chinese Room.

He's completely given up on the original context, where he tried to suggest things can have needs and wants that have to be satisfied. He's moved his goalposts back quite a ways.

 

[Write4U]

Sex?

All the way down to the single celled paramecium! Oh, and lets not forget the romantic menage a trois of Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms. They have been attracted to each other since they met, a long, long time ago.....

 

[Write4U]

He's completely given up on the original context, where he tried to suggest things can have needs and wants that have to be satisfied. He's moved his goalposts back quite a ways.

No Dave, apparently the conversation may have been outside your philosophical perspective. I am not manufacturing scientific mathematical arguments and/or the applicable terminology. I cite them in the development of my arguments on consciousness (and what that means). And they are from reliable links .

With all your derision , you have not in any way rendered my posts as being wrong. You disagree with my phraseology, but that's a whole different matter.

phra·se·ol·o·gy, noun
1.a mode of expression, especially one characteristic of a particular speaker or writer:"legal phraseology"

https://languages.oup.com/