There is a fine line there. I can well understand an organism reacting to its environment or altering its actions based on its interaction with said environment and I can also see something like a cell or atom appearing to do the same, but in reality simply following basic laws of physics.

Some viruses form cysts in order to hibernate until conditions are better suited for them, but it is a fairly well understood process based on simple chemistry and not based on the virus making an informed and aware-like choice.

People that base their beliefs on mysticism, the supernatural, or blind faith like to blur that line of awareness and reaction into a smear of indistinctness because that serves...

There is a fine line there. I can well understand an organism reacting to its environment or altering its actions based on its interaction with said environment and I can also see something like a cell or atom appearing to do the same, but in reality simply following basic laws of physics.

Some viruses form cysts in order to hibernate until conditions are better suited for them, but it is a fairly well understood process based on simple chemistry and not based on the virus making an informed and aware-like choice.

People that base their beliefs on mysticism, the supernatural, or blind faith like to blur that line of awareness and reaction into a smear of indistinctness because that serves them much better. Easier to simply make a blanket claim than to actually defend a position with any accuracy or legitimacy and it avoids them having to back pedal when a claim has been disproved.

When you start to base your beliefs on what we don't know or understand its because you are afraid to actually examine your beliefs and you want to simply hide them in ignorance. Religion does this a lot. They make many excuses based on what we do not know. Ironically those gaps of knowledge grow ever smaller and religion finds fewer places to hide.

@AtlLib

That's why the meaning of words do make a difference. Awareness implies a certain degree of consciousness. I'd state that a cell or a group of cells is without this quality.

I would love to agree with you on this because it makes sense. But is it true? (We must be careful.) Notice the assumptions you are making without proof.

You have no actual knowledge that "a cell or a group of cells is without this quality." Each cell could in fact have awareness! Until you can prove that individual or group cells do not have awareness, you are making an unwarranted assumption. (We as humans consist of a group of cells, and yet we have awareness.)

And so even though I would p...

@AtlLib

That's why the meaning of words do make a difference. Awareness implies a certain degree of consciousness. I'd state that a cell or a group of cells is without this quality.

I would love to agree with you on this because it makes sense. But is it true? (We must be careful.) Notice the assumptions you are making without proof.

You have no actual knowledge that "a cell or a group of cells is without this quality." Each cell could in fact have awareness! Until you can prove that individual or group cells do not have awareness, you are making an unwarranted assumption. (We as humans consist of a group of cells, and yet we have awareness.)

And so even though I would prefer to agree with you on a gut level, my intellectual honesty says I cannot.

The same with a zygote reacting to its environment. It is simply a reaction.

And so might be everything you do be the result of chemical reactions (straight determinism). Does it deny that you are conscious?

In this sense, I have to agree with Oortcloud. We don't want to make the same mistake as religion. Let's not make decisions (or harbor beliefs) based on what we DON'T know.

Let's let the evidence tell her story without our preferences or biases getting ahead of her.

Also, using hypotheses in arguments to replace facts is a dangerous ploy to take. And as OC pointed out, argument from ignorance is never a good choice.

And an organism reacting to its environment is often interpreted by us as acting with a purpose but this is merely our anthropomorphizing what we observe. It has been speculated that as a survival tool we view the world based on cause/effect This is whether or not such a condition exists.

A clump of cells attaching to a uterine wall has not developed any neural pathways whatsoever, not to even say a self recognizing brain. Therefore it is unable to be conscious. Consciousness requires a means by which sensory input can be recognized.

And ...

Also, using hypotheses in arguments to replace facts is a dangerous ploy to take. And as OC pointed out, argument from ignorance is never a good choice.

And an organism reacting to its environment is often interpreted by us as acting with a purpose but this is merely our anthropomorphizing what we observe. It has been speculated that as a survival tool we view the world based on cause/effect This is whether or not such a condition exists.

A clump of cells attaching to a uterine wall has not developed any neural pathways whatsoever, not to even say a self recognizing brain. Therefore it is unable to be conscious. Consciousness requires a means by which sensory input can be recognized.

And lastly, when I hear the arguments for "mystery" based on what we don't know it screams to me of the old discredited "god of the gaps" argument. I prefer and am quite comfortable to have holes in what we understand about the universe. They are the fuel that drives future investigation not something to conveniently slip the latest hypothesis and claim that that is what is. There is a process to the accumulation of knowledge and it's called the scientific method. Throwing "mysteries" into these "holes" of our understanding may have worked well in the bronze age but we can do better today.

@AcesLucky
You slipped in your comment while I was typing Sorry.

I'll have to say I don't agree with some of what you argued.

Until you can prove that individual or group cells do not have awareness, you are making an unwarranted assumption.

I hold the view that to be aware in the sense of being conscious requires a quite advanced neural system which usually requires a brain.

(We as humans consist of a group of cells, and yet we have awareness.)

True. Yet if we eliminate the group of cells we call the brain we have no awareness.

You have no actual knowledge that "a cell or a group of cells is without this quality." Each cell could in fact have awa...

read more»

@AcesLucky
You slipped in your comment while I was typing Sorry.

I'll have to say I don't agree with some of what you argued.

Until you can prove that individual or group cells do not have awareness, you are making an unwarranted assumption.

I hold the view that to be aware in the sense of being conscious requires a quite advanced neural system which usually requires a brain.

(We as humans consist of a group of cells, and yet we have awareness.)

True. Yet if we eliminate the group of cells we call the brain we have no awareness.

You have no actual knowledge that "a cell or a group of cells is without this quality." Each cell could in fact have awareness!

Oooops! This seems to be to be an argument from ignorance. You're asking me to prove a negative. Show evidence that a group of cells acts with conscientiousness without input from a neural system and I'll be swayed.

Let's not make decisions (or harbor beliefs) based on what we DON'T know.

I agree wholeheartedly.

@ AtlLib

You stated:

Therefore it is unable to be conscious.

I stated:

You have no actual knowledge that "a cell or a group of cells is without this quality." Each cell could in fact have awareness!

You said:

Oooops! This seems to be to be an argument from ignorance. You're asking me to prove a negative. Show evidence that a group of cells acts with conscientiousness without input from a neural system and I'll be swayed.

Nope. I didn't say "Each cell HAS awareness!" but rather each cell COULD have awareness. I am openly admitting my ignorance by stating "I don't know... it COULD or it couldn't." Therefore I must not assume either!

What I a...

@ AtlLib

You stated:

Therefore it is unable to be conscious.

I stated:

You have no actual knowledge that "a cell or a group of cells is without this quality." Each cell could in fact have awareness!

You said:

Oooops! This seems to be to be an argument from ignorance. You're asking me to prove a negative. Show evidence that a group of cells acts with conscientiousness without input from a neural system and I'll be swayed.

Nope. I didn't say "Each cell HAS awareness!" but rather each cell COULD have awareness. I am openly admitting my ignorance by stating "I don't know... it COULD or it couldn't." Therefore I must not assume either!

What I am accusing you of is asserting that a cell (or group of cells) does NOT have awareness! So, no, I am not making an argument that it DOES have awareness, rather, I am stating that you are making the claim that it does NOT have awareness... without evidence.

That, my friend, is making a positive claim from a position of ignorance. You have no knowledge that your claim is in fact true.

You are thus making a claim (or harboring beliefs) based on what we DON'T know.

The fact that a living thing may have no nervous system does not prove non awareness.

cont..

mcsmithblack alluded to our own doors to the outside world, our senses and sensing machines, being limited to the scope of our senses. And I would agree.

If none of us had sight, could color be "sensed" by sound or touch or taste or smell? Color would be a whole range of information unavailable to us. But how would we ever know there is such a thing as color except by interpreting data from the other four senses?

It would in fact be another dimension of awareness that we may never know is there. But yet color most certainly IS there. But does the external world of color go away simply because we have no awareness of it?

In this sense mcsmithblack has a valid point. And so there ma...

cont..

mcsmithblack alluded to our own doors to the outside world, our senses and sensing machines, being limited to the scope of our senses. And I would agree.

If none of us had sight, could color be "sensed" by sound or touch or taste or smell? Color would be a whole range of information unavailable to us. But how would we ever know there is such a thing as color except by interpreting data from the other four senses?

It would in fact be another dimension of awareness that we may never know is there. But yet color most certainly IS there. But does the external world of color go away simply because we have no awareness of it?

In this sense mcsmithblack has a valid point. And so there may or there may not be an awareness inside a cell. (We don't know. We ONLY know according to OUR senses, not the cell's.)

And so to say that awareness "requires" a nervous system is to assert knowledge that we don't know, and has yet to be demonstrated.

Examine the plant world and their methods of warfare against predators. And yet they don't seem to have a central nervous system, and they certainly are a set of living cells. And they certainly appear to be aware.

sorry posted the wrong version of my comment. It should read

Just a little pedantic point Aces, but..

But does the external world of color go away simply because we have no awareness of it?

If there is no being/creature with sight then colour does stop existing. Electromagnetic waves with various frequencies will still exist. But colour is a perception not a physical thing. In red light the colour blue does not exist. It is not that blue looks black in red light, it IS black (i.e reflecting no light).

Just as when a tree falls in the forest and there is nothing around to hear it, it does not make a sound. It creates compression waves in the air, which would be perceived as ...

sorry posted the wrong version of my comment. It should read

Just a little pedantic point Aces, but..

But does the external world of color go away simply because we have no awareness of it?

If there is no being/creature with sight then colour does stop existing. Electromagnetic waves with various frequencies will still exist. But colour is a perception not a physical thing. In red light the colour blue does not exist. It is not that blue looks black in red light, it IS black (i.e reflecting no light).

Just as when a tree falls in the forest and there is nothing around to hear it, it does not make a sound. It creates compression waves in the air, which would be perceived as sound to any creature with the right sense organs and grey matter. Without such a being the idea of sound and colour is meaningless.

Examine the plant world
and their methods of warfare against predators...

I
think you've just hit on what I was saying earlier about our
anthropomorphizing non-human entities. As you put it, "they certainly
appear to be aware". You further state they they don't seem to have a
CNS. Actually, as a former biology major, I can state pretty
definitively that plants indeed do not posses a CNS. We must not fall
into the trap of making assumptions on what seems to be "intention"
when what we're actually observing is simply reaction.

Without a brain, there is no consciousness as the brain is the seat
of consciousness. No brain = no memory. No brain = no ability to imagine a future....

Examine the plant world
and their methods of warfare against predators...

I
think you've just hit on what I was saying earlier about our
anthropomorphizing non-human entities. As you put it, "they certainly
appear to be aware". You further state they they don't seem to have a
CNS. Actually, as a former biology major, I can state pretty
definitively that plants indeed do not posses a CNS. We must not fall
into the trap of making assumptions on what seems to be "intention"
when what we're actually observing is simply reaction.

Without a brain, there is no consciousness as the brain is the seat
of consciousness. No brain = no memory. No brain = no ability to imagine a future. And a whole host of other functions.

I understand the basic premise of your argument but think that we need to define what is meant by awareness and consciousness. I'm thinking that your definition of awareness is much broader than the one that I was using.

And so there may or there may not be an awareness inside a cell.

And there may be invisible awareness fairies inside of cells! You see, this gets us nowhere. True, we can not be100% sure but we can resort to a scientific methodology that investigates claims using experimentation and is falsifiable.

As John points out (he got in his comment as I was typing - I'm pretty slow) there is a vast difference between perception and what is.

Now if I've missed a point in your comment please let me know as I've been known to read between the lines sometimes and sometimes I get completely off base.

Nope. I didn't say "Each cell HAS awareness!" but rather each cell
COULD have awareness. I am openly admitting my ignorance by stating "I
don't know... it COULD or it couldn't." Therefore I must not assume
either!

What I am accusing you of is asserting that a cell (or
group of cells) does NOT have awareness! So, no, I am not making an
argument that it DOES have awareness, rather, I am stating that you are
making the claim that it does NOT have awareness... without evidence.

That,
my friend, is making a positive claim from a position of ignorance. You
have no knowledge that your claim is in fact true.

Just to further address what you said earlie...

Nope. I didn't say "Each cell HAS awareness!" but rather each cell
COULD have awareness. I am openly admitting my ignorance by stating "I
don't know... it COULD or it couldn't." Therefore I must not assume
either!

What I am accusing you of is asserting that a cell (or
group of cells) does NOT have awareness! So, no, I am not making an
argument that it DOES have awareness, rather, I am stating that you are
making the claim that it does NOT have awareness... without evidence.

That,
my friend, is making a positive claim from a position of ignorance. You
have no knowledge that your claim is in fact true.

Just to further address what you said earlier. Unless further research uncovers another method of awareness that does away with the brain I don't see any reason to speculate if a non-proven, hypothetical other type of consciousness exists. In this regard I suppose you can call me a materialist. I have no belief in a soul, which is the only other type of consciousness that comes to mind.

As far as my assertion of a cell not possessing consciousness, it hinges on what you define as consciousness. If you can show me how an isolated cell could possess consciousness, what mechanism could be responsible for its consciousness, I'll take that into consideration. As far as I know, no mechanism like this exists so it is logical to state that a cell does not possess this quality. It makes as much sense to me as stating a doorknob has no consciousness.

Let me know if I'm still not getting what you were saying. I go off on tangents sometimes.

@ AtlLib

Actually, as a former biology major, I can state pretty definitively that plants indeed do not posses a CNS.

And yet they rapidly change in ways that augment their "own" survival. A pencil, for example, also made of cells, does not.

What properties exist in the tree that makes it grow and adapt to environmental changes "to survive" that does not exist in a pencil made of the same wood?

Is it not in fact reaction to stimuli as mcsmithblack suggested?

If a CNS is not necessary for reaction to stimuli why must it be necessary for awareness? I might be wrong in my definition, but if a thing is aware it is necessarily alive. (It may NOT follow that if a thing is al...

@ AtlLib

Actually, as a former biology major, I can state pretty definitively that plants indeed do not posses a CNS.

And yet they rapidly change in ways that augment their "own" survival. A pencil, for example, also made of cells, does not.

What properties exist in the tree that makes it grow and adapt to environmental changes "to survive" that does not exist in a pencil made of the same wood?

Is it not in fact reaction to stimuli as mcsmithblack suggested?

If a CNS is not necessary for reaction to stimuli why must it be necessary for awareness? I might be wrong in my definition, but if a thing is aware it is necessarily alive. (It may NOT follow that if a thing is alive it is necessarily aware. But on what grounds MUST I assert that a thing is not aware even though it is alive and reacts to stimuli?)

I am not prepared to make that leap, though you clearly have.

We must not fall into the trap of making assumptions on what seems to be "intention" when what we're actually observing is simply reaction.

Agreed.

Without a brain, there is no consciousness as the brain is the seat of consciousness.

To me, that's the very anthropomorphizing you warn against. You're attributing a human requirement to something else entirely.

A leaf that "turns" to the light may be a reaction (as opposed to an intent), but it's reactions are for the benefit (survival) of the plant nonetheless. Why do these plants react for their own benefit instead of just doing nothing?

Such reactions (like you dodging a pencil thrown at you) seem to be a property of awareness.

Is it not in fact reaction to stimuli as mcsmithblack suggested?

Naturally.

If a CNS is not necessary for reaction to stimuli why must it be necessary for awareness?

Define what you mean by awareness. This is the problem. It seems to me that you're implying consciousness when you use the word awareness.

In a loose sense a plant is "aware" but not in the same way that organisms that possess a CNS. If by awareness you mean the plants ability to primitively react to stimuli than that is true. But it is not the same as an organism that is exposed to a threat and reacts. A tree does not descriminate when it encounters "threats". It is a simple reaction. There i...

Is it not in fact reaction to stimuli as mcsmithblack suggested?

Naturally.

If a CNS is not necessary for reaction to stimuli why must it be necessary for awareness?

Define what you mean by awareness. This is the problem. It seems to me that you're implying consciousness when you use the word awareness.

In a loose sense a plant is "aware" but not in the same way that organisms that possess a CNS. If by awareness you mean the plants ability to primitively react to stimuli than that is true. But it is not the same as an organism that is exposed to a threat and reacts. A tree does not descriminate when it encounters "threats". It is a simple reaction. There is no cognition that occurs.

And your comparison with a pencil? Come on!

Without a brain, there is no consciousness as the brain is the seat of consciousness.

To me, that's the very anthropomorphizing you warn against. You're attributing a human requirement to something else entirely.

Yes, I was fast and loose when I used the term brain. Organized neural organ probably would have been better.

Why do these plants react for their own benefit instead of just doing nothing?

Plants, like all organisms, have evolved. The phrase, "for their own benefit" is a bit misleading though since the plant doesn't possess awareness of its existence in the same sense that we use the term. What we interpret as action in a plant is merely reaction to stimuli that the plant developed in its evolution that enabled it to survive. The plants that didn't develop this reaction died off. There is no volition involved. Change occurred in the plants DNA that were shaped by natural selection. We observe the action of the plant and it seems to us that the plant is aware of it's surroundings. But all it's doing (not to denigrate plants, they're quite fascinating) is following the genetic blueprint that natural selection has shaped its DNA to follow. It fails to do

@AtlLib

It seems to me that you're implying consciousness when you use the word awareness.

You may have a defining point. Awareness, to me, is the broader term in that we may be aware of something but not necessarily conscious of it.

I've been speaking in terms of awareness, (so, "yes" to answer your question directly), by the organism "as" consciousness because it never mattered to me if said awareness was conscious or unconscious.

And, to me it doesn't matter if the awareness is conscious or unconscious because if the organism can react to external stimuli for its own "benefit" it is necessarily aware of itself "in relationship" to that which is not itself. (Take a qui...

@AtlLib

It seems to me that you're implying consciousness when you use the word awareness.

You may have a defining point. Awareness, to me, is the broader term in that we may be aware of something but not necessarily conscious of it.

I've been speaking in terms of awareness, (so, "yes" to answer your question directly), by the organism "as" consciousness because it never mattered to me if said awareness was conscious or unconscious.

And, to me it doesn't matter if the awareness is conscious or unconscious because if the organism can react to external stimuli for its own "benefit" it is necessarily aware of itself "in relationship" to that which is not itself. (Take a quick look at this article in Science Daily, titled Plant Communication: Sagebrush Engage in Self-recognition And Warn of Danger, (June 20, 2009).

What we interpret as action in a plant is merely reaction to stimuli that the plant developed in its evolution that enabled it to survive.

Certainly. This is also true for us. But that fact doesn't preclude the ability for awareness. In the article above, one plant is "offering" external stimulus to another plant to warn of danger.

Why would it care about danger (let alone to another plant) if it had no sense of self awareness?

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

Why would it care about danger (let alone to another plant) if it had no sense of self awareness?

That's the point! It doesn't "care" nor does it posses a sense of self awareness except on the biological level when it issues, as the article points out "cues" (I'm assuming some sort of chemical interaction since they covered some plants with plastic baqs and no "communication" occurred). And since the volatile cues affected genetically identical plants more strongly could easily be explained by the ways that the clones could better make use of the triggers. When they use terms like self-recognition they're referring to having the same dna ...

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

Why would it care about danger (let alone to another plant) if it had no sense of self awareness?

That's the point! It doesn't "care" nor does it posses a sense of self awareness except on the biological level when it issues, as the article points out "cues" (I'm assuming some sort of chemical interaction since they covered some plants with plastic baqs and no "communication" occurred). And since the volatile cues affected genetically identical plants more strongly could easily be explained by the ways that the clones could better make use of the triggers. When they use terms like self-recognition they're referring to having the same dna structure. It's biochemistry, not social interaction.

In the article above, one plant is "offering" external stimulus to another plant to warn of danger.

Herein lies the danger of language. The is no offering in the sense that you are implying and to suggest that the plant is warning of danger would suggest that the plant is able to foresee and imagine future events!

The plant emits a "volitile" substance that triggers a reaction when disturbed (eaten by grasshoppers or cut by scissors).

This is not materially different from the plant sensing where the sun is and regulating the turgidity of cells opposite of the suns position to enable it to follow the sun. It reacts to any light source in much the same way. It is a completely biological reaction triggered by external stimuli. The plants that couldn't accomplish this in the dim past didn't fare as well and couldn't compete. They failed to pass on their DNA and died off.

@AtlLib

It's biochemistry, not social interaction.

I want to agree, but...

"What we interpret as action in a plant is merely reaction to stimuli that the plant developed in its evolution that enabled it to survive."

I'm just not sure how you can make such an unequivocal conclusion without applying it to all living things. But let's go ahead and assume that its true.

(I'm a determinist, a physicalist really, as you are a materialist.)

The fact of a central nervous system doesn't change that we also merely react to external stimuli developed via evolution that enabled us to survive. Therefore (and here's my point)...

Let me try to be specific. Suppose for t...

@AtlLib

It's biochemistry, not social interaction.

I want to agree, but...

"What we interpret as action in a plant is merely reaction to stimuli that the plant developed in its evolution that enabled it to survive."

I'm just not sure how you can make such an unequivocal conclusion without applying it to all living things. But let's go ahead and assume that its true.

(I'm a determinist, a physicalist really, as you are a materialist.)

The fact of a central nervous system doesn't change that we also merely react to external stimuli developed via evolution that enabled us to survive. Therefore (and here's my point)...

Let me try to be specific. Suppose for the sake of argument that plants really are not just aware, but conscious!

How would we know... since their awareness is 'not' via a central nervous system?

For example..

Now let's suppose that another set of beings wanted to test if humans were conscious, but those other beings had senses and sense organs completely different than ours for sensing "innies".

But they made the mistake of testing us for awareness of an external stimulus (innies) of which we have no sense? Net result...? Fail.

To them, we would be like mobile plants. Unaware and merely reacting to external stimuli, but certainly not conscious.

Why not conscious? Because they sense "innies" through their "innie" organ. And we can't sense "innies." And since they don't have sight, sound, touch, etc.. they can't understand that we are conscious via these things.

If we don't have a Central "Innie" System, or rather the "innie" organ, how can we be conscious?

The fact of a central nervous system doesn't change that we also merely
react to external stimuli developed via evolution that enabled us to
survive.

Sort of. While it's true that we react to external stimuli this is not the only cues we look at when interacting with the world. Since we have a brain which stores memories, is capable of imagination and is able to postulate future actions and speculate on their effect we are not limited to simply reacting in a predetermined way, the way plants do.

Let me try to be specific. Suppose for the sake of argument that plants really are not just aware, but conscious!

How would we know... since their awareness is 'no...

read more»

The fact of a central nervous system doesn't change that we also merely
react to external stimuli developed via evolution that enabled us to
survive.

Sort of. While it's true that we react to external stimuli this is not the only cues we look at when interacting with the world. Since we have a brain which stores memories, is capable of imagination and is able to postulate future actions and speculate on their effect we are not limited to simply reacting in a predetermined way, the way plants do.

Let me try to be specific. Suppose for the sake of argument that plants really are not just aware, but conscious!

How would we know... since their awareness is 'not' via a central nervous system?

By experimentation? If plants possess this quality then it must have a loci. I'm assuming it does not simply magically appear. It is our job to speculate on how this "conscious producer" works and see if we can develop a means of quantifying it.

As far as the innie sensing aliens I imagine they could look at us and have whatever thoughts they wanted (if these hypothetical beings had thoughts). It has little to do with the world we live in which adheres to a set of known laws. We have found that nature, while amazingly complex, still is shaped by natural cause and effect. It is our job to find out the ways in which they work.

BTW, why not simply substitute the Central Innie System with a soul? It also is undetectable by us humans. Oh, wait, I forgot that there's a special group of humans that can detect the soul and have even developed a vast body of knowledge with evidence to support its existence! You see how this could get out of hand!

I prefer to deal with what is. The "what might exist" is fine and in fact is the fuel which drives future research. But to make the leap that our musing is real without evidence is simply wishful thinking.

Believe me I certainly understand your point. I don't even disagree with it, really. What I'm afraid of is our lack of sense for anything but the ones we "share". And that leaves us open to mistake.

Perhaps my empathy goes too far.

Just as an aside: what would plants (or anything else) have to do before it could be definitively shown to be: a.) conscious, or b.) unconscious?

(I'm thinking of a Venus Fly Trap right now.)

Is it that ability to imagine the future? What is doing the imagining if its something "other than" chemical reactions in an organ? And if it's nothing more than chemical reactions in an organ, what separates our "being" from that of a plant?

AtlLib, it's not that I...

Believe me I certainly understand your point. I don't even disagree with it, really. What I'm afraid of is our lack of sense for anything but the ones we "share". And that leaves us open to mistake.

Perhaps my empathy goes too far.

Just as an aside: what would plants (or anything else) have to do before it could be definitively shown to be: a.) conscious, or b.) unconscious?

(I'm thinking of a Venus Fly Trap right now.)

Is it that ability to imagine the future? What is doing the imagining if its something "other than" chemical reactions in an organ? And if it's nothing more than chemical reactions in an organ, what separates our "being" from that of a plant?

AtlLib, it's not that I agree with the other point of view, its just that I can see it (where others are coming from) pretty well.

Perhaps my empathy goes too far.

I think the only way that could ever be a problem is if it begins to interfere with your judgment. IMO we often cause problems not with the overabundance of empathy but with the lack of it.

Just as an aside: what would plants (or anything else) have to do
before it could be definitively shown to be: a.) conscious, or b.)
unconscious?

(I'm thinking of a Venus Fly Trap right now.)

Or the mimosa tree which folds its leaves when stroked.

This is a sticky problem because from infancy we've been told stories about many actions we observe in the world to be the result of a consciousness. Think of all the fairy tales w...

Perhaps my empathy goes too far.

I think the only way that could ever be a problem is if it begins to interfere with your judgment. IMO we often cause problems not with the overabundance of empathy but with the lack of it.

Just as an aside: what would plants (or anything else) have to do
before it could be definitively shown to be: a.) conscious, or b.)
unconscious?

(I'm thinking of a Venus Fly Trap right now.)

Or the mimosa tree which folds its leaves when stroked.

This is a sticky problem because from infancy we've been told stories about many actions we observe in the world to be the result of a consciousness. Think of all the fairy tales we've heard growing up. It just seems natural to ascribe conscious thought to actions that appear to be done with volition and intent. Also, this could very well be an evolutionary trait that enables us to more readily respond to threats.

Is it that ability to imagine the future? What is doing the imagining
if its something "other than" chemical reactions in an organ? And if
it's nothing more than chemical reactions in an organ, what separates
our "being" from that of a plant?

That is an excellent question and not an easy one to answer.At the same time we have to be careful when we use the term consciousness or other self referencing terms when we're talking about internal ideation. It is common for us to externalize these thoughts and in an almost Platonic manner concretize them. But they occur as a product of our thinking and yes, it is "merely" an electro/chemical process. But what a process it is. It all does come down to evolution and our brain.

We continually discover amazing instances of what appears to be "thinking" in other species which in fact are found to be the products of countless centuries of evolution. Think of social insects. Our understanding about them has grown exponentially.

From the article:

“Two cells which are biochemically identical can have very different behaviors, depending upon their spatial organization. With new technologies such as PALM, we are able to see exactly how cells are organized and relate spatial organization with biological function.”

Deep, ain't it? I find stem cells fascinating too. Self organization seems to be a driving factor, an engine, of evolution. But where consciousness (or better still -- self consciousness) enters in, continues to be a mystery.

To me, what tips the scales even with regard to self consciousness, is the want to survive!

This appears to be far more than a chemical reaction. In it, is also contained the want ...

From the article:

“Two cells which are biochemically identical can have very different behaviors, depending upon their spatial organization. With new technologies such as PALM, we are able to see exactly how cells are organized and relate spatial organization with biological function.”

Deep, ain't it? I find stem cells fascinating too. Self organization seems to be a driving factor, an engine, of evolution. But where consciousness (or better still -- self consciousness) enters in, continues to be a mystery.

To me, what tips the scales even with regard to self consciousness, is the want to survive!

This appears to be far more than a chemical reaction. In it, is also contained the want to reproduce. And then there's lust, and jealousy. Jealousy! WTF?

How does a bag of chemicals develop jealousy?

There is clearly a distinct awareness of being separate from the rest of the world "within" the sum of our self organization. To me, this suggests "being".

And "being" seems apparent to that which is alive.

And so if a plant is alive, I somehow automatically want to give it the benefit of the doubt. It's not that I'm a tree huger, but a life huger. I consider it so damn precious, because we only have one. (Except for black widows ... if I see one around the house, its gotta go!)

I think I've said all I can. And I don't really disagree with you, I just want to make sure I challenge my beliefs and conclusions to the extent of my ability.

I'm not after being right, I'm after the truth. And on this, I don't really know.

I'm not after being right, I'm after the truth. And on this, I don't really know.

And that's the beauty of living in reality. It's that region of not knowing that's the driving force that propels us into the future. The dominance of religion and superstition, otherwise known as the Dark Ages, was a period of certitude in solutions to difficult problems but very little progress towards actually finding out the answers.

As far as quantifying mental constructs such as love, jealousy, hate, etc, the problem is complex only because the organ of thought is immensely complex. But we've only begun to seriously investigate this. It was just yesterday that we adhered to the concept of...

I'm not after being right, I'm after the truth. And on this, I don't really know.

And that's the beauty of living in reality. It's that region of not knowing that's the driving force that propels us into the future. The dominance of religion and superstition, otherwise known as the Dark Ages, was a period of certitude in solutions to difficult problems but very little progress towards actually finding out the answers.

As far as quantifying mental constructs such as love, jealousy, hate, etc, the problem is complex only because the organ of thought is immensely complex. But we've only begun to seriously investigate this. It was just yesterday that we adhered to the concept of an homunculus seated within the skull operating us like huge robots. Considering the immensity of complexity within the brainm we need to give them some time to sort out the details. I hope that we're developed enough at that time to not screw things up too much.

BTW, this has been one of the more interesting and stimulating conversations I've had on Clipmarks. Thanks for the chat.

It's my understanding that Aces was exploring the possibility that a "form" of consciousness was involved in plants that we simply had not discovered yet. But that's just my perspective. Perhaps Aces will amplify on that.

That's exactly it. Here's my dilemma, and let's use Oorts example, as follows: He said..

"The trap and folding are reactions to stimuli when the plants are touched. There is no conscious thought, only a reactive response."

To which I would agree, it's only a reactive response. Now let's put the hot tip of a lit cigarette on your hand. As soon as you felt pain you'd jerk your hand back, right? Only a reactive response! (No different than the pl...

It's my understanding that Aces was exploring the possibility that a "form" of consciousness was involved in plants that we simply had not discovered yet. But that's just my perspective. Perhaps Aces will amplify on that.

That's exactly it. Here's my dilemma, and let's use Oorts example, as follows: He said..

"The trap and folding are reactions to stimuli when the plants are touched. There is no conscious thought, only a reactive response."

To which I would agree, it's only a reactive response. Now let's put the hot tip of a lit cigarette on your hand. As soon as you felt pain you'd jerk your hand back, right? Only a reactive response! (No different than the plant.)

Now suppose you were deeply under with a general anesthetic (completely unconscious) and the same hot tip of a lit cigarette were placed on your hand.

No reaction. Surgeons count on it. You only get the reaction ... when you are ... conscious!

Ergo I cannot rule out that the plant is not conscious.