Quote:

---

Amber_Glow said:

Quote:

---

Poid said:
Thought and contemplation are produced by consciousness...

---

That's interesting.  Care to expand on what you mean here, and why you might think such a thing?

---

How could one think or contemplate if they aren't conscious?

Quote:

---

Amber_Glow said:
You probably have to be conscious to contemplate, or at least to be aware of the contemplation.

---

Quote:

---

Consciousness is subjective experience or awareness or wakefulness or the executive control system of the mind.

---

Quote:

---

Amber_Glow said:
But why would you think consciousness produces the contemplation?

---

Quote:

---

Amber_Glow said:
From your posts I would have thought you felt the brain produced both of them. 

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
But the plant isn't perceiving. It's just a cascade of chemical reactions that do the same thing every time, just like my iPod always plays when I press the button and my bike tire goes around every time I push the pedal.

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
Although their (cats' and humans') behavior follows predictable patterns, they are ultimately unpredictable entities. This is a result of their consciousness contemplating their situation. Contemplation, by definition, has varying results.

This is unlike the plant that can't contemplate the light and decide to turn away today just because if feels like it. The plant is a row of dominoes without consciousness or volition. It will turn to the light and slowly burn to death if something doesn't interfere. It's unable to contemplate and make a conscious decision to do something different.

---

Quote:

---

The stilt palm (Allen, 1977) is constructed from a stem raised on prop roots. When competitive neighbours approach, avoidance action is taken by moving the whole plant back into full sunlight. Such obvious ‘walking’ is accomplished by growing new prop roots in the direction of movement while those behind die off. That this is intentional behaviour is very clear. Other equally dramatic light-foraging mechanisms are to be found in tropical climbers, particularly Syngonium. On reaching the top of a tree, the growing point descends, progressively changing its morphology and leaf structure, and eventually assuming a very thin filiform shape with only scale leaves on the soil. Using skototropism (movement towards darkness), the filiform stem explores, locates and recognizes a new trunk and reverses the growth pattern. As it climbs, the internode becomes progressively thicker and leaves progressively redevelop to full size (Strong and Ray, 1975; Ray, 1987, 1992). This behaviour is analogous to animals that climb trees to forage, intelligently descend when food is exhausted or competition severe, and then climb the next tree.

---

Quote:

---

skullhuman said:

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
But the plant isn't perceiving. It's just a cascade of chemical reactions that do the same thing every time, just like my iPod always plays when I press the button and my bike tire goes around every time I push the pedal.

---

Why does this thread keep going backwards? test this.  Go pick up a Venus Fly Trap and see if this holds true.  Sometimes they respond, sometimes they don't.  If this weren't the case I wouldn't have now twice posted a video of it being demonstrated.  Grow out some identical clones in the exact same conditions.  See if they turn out the same way.

The problem that likely leads to (or is caused by?) this kind of thinking is probably statistical averaging of whole plant populations that overlook individual behaviour.  Thus, it's really just assumption that physiological responses are identical right across the board.  The reality is, they're far from it, and they happen to vary right down to the level of individual cells (read this: http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/92/1/1#SEC6), implying exactly what you're arguing against:

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
Although their (cats' and humans') behavior follows predictable patterns, they are ultimately unpredictable entities. This is a result of their consciousness contemplating their situation. Contemplation, by definition, has varying results.

This is unlike the plant that can't contemplate the light and decide to turn away today just because if feels like it. The plant is a row of dominoes without consciousness or volition. It will turn to the light and slowly burn to death if something doesn't interfere. It's unable to contemplate and make a conscious decision to do something different.

---

No it won't.  There are many examples of plants responding to light changes.  In some situations a plant may obviously be disadvantaged by not having any available shade towards which it can grow, but hey - circumstances can be rough on all of us.  Just because something in a particular situation doesn't have the means to overcome a challenge isn't proof it's unconscious.  If that were the criteria for determining consciousness, nothing would have it.  Fact is, they WILL give it their best shot to compensate for conditions.  Check it out:

Quote:

---

The stilt palm (Allen, 1977) is constructed from a stem raised on prop roots. When competitive neighbours approach, avoidance action is taken by moving the whole plant back into full sunlight. Such obvious ‘walking’ is accomplished by growing new prop roots in the direction of movement while those behind die off. That this is intentional behaviour is very clear. Other equally dramatic light-foraging mechanisms are to be found in tropical climbers, particularly Syngonium. On reaching the top of a tree, the growing point descends, progressively changing its morphology and leaf structure, and eventually assuming a very thin filiform shape with only scale leaves on the soil. Using skototropism (movement towards darkness), the filiform stem explores, locates and recognizes a new trunk and reverses the growth pattern. As it climbs, the internode becomes progressively thicker and leaves progressively redevelop to full size (Strong and Ray, 1975; Ray, 1987, 1992). This behaviour is analogous to animals that climb trees to forage, intelligently descend when food is exhausted or competition severe, and then climb the next tree.

---

There are many, many more examples like this in the paper I took this from, which is linked above.  Let's all have a good look at it if we're serious about this.

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
However, point a lamp at a million venus flytraps, and every single one will turn toward the light. A billion, a trillion, a gazillion and every single one will point toward the light. It will never be the case that one will decide not to because it just doesn't feel like it.

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
That's not the same thing. A venus flytrap closes via a set of chemical-mechanical linkages. A failure in any part of the chain will prevent the trap from springing. A broken wire in my iPod causing it not to respond to its play button is not evidence that the iPod made a conscious decision not to play.

---

Quote:

---

This is my last post to those who would rather argue

---

Quote:

---

Diploid said:
Go pick up a Venus Fly Trap and see if this holds true.

That's not the same thing. A venus flytrap closes via a set of chemical-mechanical linkages. A failure in any part of the chain will prevent the trap from springing. A broken wire in my iPod causing it not to respond to its play button is not evidence that the iPod made a conscious decision not to play.

However, point a lamp at a million venus flytraps, and every single one will turn toward the light. A billion, a trillion, a gazillion and every single one will point toward the light. It will never be the case that one will decide not to because it just doesn't feel like it.

If the plant is making a conscious decision to turn toward the light, at least some of them will decide not to, but this is never observed.

I know of no case where a plant has been observed to do something other than it's biomechanical imperatives. It goes toward the light because that what the arrangement of its atoms do.

Show me a plant that does otherwise, and then you'll have an argument that it's conscious.

---

Humans are the same, to say otherwise is to not know enough about their 'biological imperatives'.