|
Space Elf



Registered: 07/29/10
Posts: 3,371
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: fiddle] 1
#19197514 - 11/27/13 05:43 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Well of course plants don't "decide" to evolve that way. They don't "decide" anything, because they can't think (at least not the way we do); they just "perceive" and react accordingly.
|
fiddle



Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 1,769
Loc: PNW
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: Hobozen]
#19197525 - 11/27/13 05:46 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
No. Have you?
I have studied the life of a plant. I can say that plants behavior is governed by specific physical laws, the same laws that govern our behavior. I guess where my argument breaks down is the point where we can no longer describe the plants behavior. And so far as I know, there is no plant behavior which we cannot describe.
-------------------- Tickle my bassline.
|
fiddle



Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 1,769
Loc: PNW
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: Space Elf]
#19197535 - 11/27/13 05:48 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Space Elf said: Plants are definitely conscious, living beings, IMO. They also have sensory perception.
Quote:
Space Elf said: Well of course plants don't "decide" to evolve that way. They don't "decide" anything, because they can't think (at least not the way we do); they just "perceive" and react accordingly.
Which is it? Plants certainly perceive and react. I wouldn't call it perception, but the idea is sound.
-------------------- Tickle my bassline.
|
Hobozen


Registered: 11/03/11
Posts: 10,634
Loc:
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: fiddle]
#19197541 - 11/27/13 05:50 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
If we can no longer decribe a plants behavior, how can we be sure it lacks consciousness?
|
fiddle



Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 1,769
Loc: PNW
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: Hobozen]
#19197552 - 11/27/13 05:53 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
blankk said: If we can no longer decribe a plants behavior, how can we be sure it lacks consciousness?
At that point you couldn't be sure.
-------------------- Tickle my bassline.
|
Hobozen


Registered: 11/03/11
Posts: 10,634
Loc:
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: fiddle]
#19197566 - 11/27/13 05:56 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I agree that I can't be sure. It seems possible however that consciousness may exist in ways that humans may not be aware of.
|
fiddle



Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 1,769
Loc: PNW
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: Hobozen]
#19197584 - 11/27/13 06:01 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sure. I happen to think that plants are not conscious because I have seen no evidence suggesting they might be.
-------------------- Tickle my bassline.
|
maddad
Stranger
Registered: 11/20/13
Posts: 242
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: fiddle]
#19197601 - 11/27/13 06:06 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alive is not the same as sentient. Plants have no sensory organs with which to experience the world around them. They would be useless to plants as well, as they're stationary and just grow towards light if there's room. Animals have senses which help them move away from hurty things and move closer to edible/fuckable things, but those senses would not develop in a being that cannot move or react. I'm not sure how animals like oysters and corals fit into this though. If plants have consciousness it's so alien compared to animal consciousness, so abstract that we couldn't really compare it.
Sure they have sensory organs, what about leaves and roots? Just because they don't have what you call sensory organs doesn't mean that what they have doesn't serve them a similar purpose. And certain plants do have reactions, for instance Venus fly traps, and some species of cacti can actually shoot their barbs out. And of course its nothing like our consciousness that was some I stated in my original post. Hence why psychedelic states can happen, we are absorbing their consciousness through ingestion. Or the fact that plants have evolved, these are all pretty good signs that plants are conscious. Otherwise how else would they know to grow towards the sun?
-------------------- I live in an aura of hope because I live in a twilight world of my own self-generated, cannabinated fantasy, and I forget that not everyone is so fortunate. - Terence McKenna
|
Hobozen


Registered: 11/03/11
Posts: 10,634
Loc:
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: fiddle]
#19197605 - 11/27/13 06:07 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Think what you will good sir. I remain indecisive.
|
i like cow poo
Nature Lover


Registered: 10/20/09
Posts: 4,041
Loc: Mother Nature's Vagina
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: maddad]
#19197615 - 11/27/13 06:09 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm pretty sure we aren't experiencing anything close to plant consciousness when we trip if thats what your implying.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 21 hours, 23 minutes
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: fiddle]
#19197630 - 11/27/13 06:13 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What about slime mold?
When a slime mold mass or mound is physically separated, the cells find their way back to re-unite. Studies on Physarum have even shown an ability to learn and predict periodic unfavorable conditions in laboratory experiments. Professor John Tyler Bonner, who has spent a lifetime studying slime molds argues that they are "no more than a bag of amoebae encased in a thin slime sheath, yet they manage to have various behaviours that are equal to those of animals who possess muscles and nerves with ganglia – that is, simple brains."
Slime Molds Show Surprising Degree of Intelligence
Quote:
Single-celled slime molds demonstrate the ability to memorize and anticipate repeated events, a team of Japanese researchers reported in January. The study [pdf] clearly shows “a primitive version of brain function” in an organism with no brain at all. [...]
The scientists point out that catching on to temporal patterns is no mean feat, even for humans. For a single cell to show such a learning ability is impressive, though Nakagaki admits he was not entirely surprised by the results. After working with the slime mold for years, he had a hunch that “Physarum could be cleverer than expected.” The findings of what lone cells are capable of “might be a chance to reconsider what intelligence is,” he says.
How brainless slime molds redefine intelligence
Quote:
Compared with most organisms, slime molds have been on the planet for a very long time—they first evolved at least 600 million years ago and perhaps as long as one billion years ago. At the time, no organisms had yet evolved brains or even simple nervous systems. Yet slime molds do not blindly ooze from one place to another—they carefully explore their environments, seeking the most efficient routes between resources. They do not accept whatever circumstances they find themselves in, but rather choose conditions most amenable to their survival. They remember, anticipate and decide. By doing so much with so little, slime molds represent a successful and admirable alternative to convoluted brain-based intelligence. You might say that they break the mold.
--------------------
|
fiddle



Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 1,769
Loc: PNW
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: maddad]
#19197633 - 11/27/13 06:13 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
maddad said:
Quote:
Alive is not the same as sentient. Plants have no sensory organs with which to experience the world around them. They would be useless to plants as well, as they're stationary and just grow towards light if there's room. Animals have senses which help them move away from hurty things and move closer to edible/fuckable things, but those senses would not develop in a being that cannot move or react. I'm not sure how animals like oysters and corals fit into this though. If plants have consciousness it's so alien compared to animal consciousness, so abstract that we couldn't really compare it.
Sure they have sensory organs, what about leaves and roots? Just because they don't have what you call sensory organs doesn't mean that what they have doesn't serve them a similar purpose. And certain plants do have reactions, for instance Venus fly traps, and some species of cacti can actually shoot their barbs out. And of course its nothing like our consciousness that was some I stated in my original post. Hence why psychedelic states can happen, we are absorbing their consciousness through ingestion. Or the fact that plants have evolved, these are all pretty good signs that plants are conscious. Otherwise how else would they know to grow towards the sun?
Plants sense things in the way that cells sense things. They do respond to stimulus, but to say they do so consciously is a bit presumptuous. You ask how they know to grow towards the sun, and I'd say they don't know anything. They simply respond as their genes have programmed them. It would probably be closer to the truth to call the response a reflex. As far as evolution being a sign of consciousness, that's just wrong. Viruses and bacteria evolve. Evolution is a function of the gene and the gene certainly is not conscious.
-------------------- Tickle my bassline.
|
KremrBigSikter
Spränger Språnger




Registered: 07/23/11
Posts: 3,918
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: maddad]
#19197636 - 11/27/13 06:14 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Hence why psychedelic states can happen, we are absorbing their consciousness through ingestion.
Maybe if we inject some human neurotransmitters into a plant, they would have a very human, everyday Joe trip.
-------------------- I have pneumonia
|
fiddle



Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 1,769
Loc: PNW
|
|
That's really cool and not something I've heard of. There's some kind of intelligence there. I don't know if I'd say they're conscious.
Would you say that a computer program is conscious? Intelligent?
-------------------- Tickle my bassline.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 21 hours, 23 minutes
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: fiddle]
#19197771 - 11/27/13 06:43 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fiddle said: Would you say that a computer program is conscious?
To be honest, I don't believe that the scientific community has even reached a consensus on how to define consciousness, let alone how such a thing arises from the physical human body. Until we can understand how biological systems give rise to consciousness, we aren't really in a position to pass judgement on whether non-biological systems can be conscious as well.
If I had to take a guess though, I believe it is possible for a computer program to be conscious. The physical process a computer goes through mirrors that of a brain, so it only makes sense to believe that a similar process would present a similar quality.
Keep in mind, it was not very long ago that scientific establishment was of the opinion that consciousness was something that separated humans from animals--that no animal species other than humans were conscious--this is no longer accepted fact, though the debate is still undecided--but many now believe that consciousness works on a sliding scale through the animal kingdom, reaching a zenith in humans, with some animal species presenting a consciousness comparable to that of a human infant (african grey parrot, octopus, dogs, etc).
Being aware of this, I think it is premature to pass judgment on what can or cannot be conscious--be it animal, plant, mineral--heck, one day consciousness may be understood to exist as a property of matter/energy.
Or, perhaps Thomas Nagel is right, and consciousness is unique to the organism experiencing the consciousness--unable to be satisfactorily explained by our current concept of physics--a priori knowledge is required.
"An organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism."
--------------------
|
KremrBigSikter
Spränger Språnger




Registered: 07/23/11
Posts: 3,918
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
shivas.wisdom said: Keep in mind, it was not very long ago that scientific establishment was of the opinion that consciousness was something that separated humans from animals--that no animal species other than humans were conscious
This sounds very strange and I'd like to know more about it. It sounds more like some abrahamic idea than a scientific one.
-------------------- I have pneumonia
|
fiddle



Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 1,769
Loc: PNW
|
|
I agree with you on pretty much everything you've said. The definition of consciousness I was basing my arguments on is that consciousness includes awareness of the self/surroundings. As far as defining consciousness goes, I'd have to side with those who say it must be described a priori, as you've said. We really don't have the framework to talk about consciousness in a way that's relatable and consistent. I think that with the progress we've made in artificial intelligence and neuroscience we may be on the verge of being able to describe conscious systems, but until then, you're right, consciousness and what defines it will be as personal as life and its definition.
-------------------- Tickle my bassline.
|
shivas.wisdom
בּ



Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 13,462
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 21 hours, 23 minutes
|
|
It was definitely rooted in Christian concepts, but then most scientific research before the enlightenment was rooted in Christian concepts. Descartes was an original proponent of the theory, and we know where he stood when it came to the big guy above.
But later on, the idea that animals were not conscious (and therefore did not experience pain) was held on to more as a way to rationalize animal experimentation as ethical, rather than from a Christian sense of mans superiority. It was even into the late 1980's that researchers were vastly undecided on whether animals could experience pain, and often taught to ignore animal pain.
Today though, consensus essentially exists that animals, at least vertebrates, do experience pain and have a sense of conscious--though the debate on invertebrates is still unclear.
--------------------
|
maddad
Stranger
Registered: 11/20/13
Posts: 242
Last seen: 8 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Viruses and bacteria evolve. Evolution is a function of the gene and the gene certainly is not conscious.
Of course this is where all life came from, and consciousness cannot arise from no consciousness. It didn't just come out of nowhere. Maybe then consciousness is written in the genes, but it didn't just happen that one day something was the first conscious thing on this planet or in the universe.
-------------------- I live in an aura of hope because I live in a twilight world of my own self-generated, cannabinated fantasy, and I forget that not everyone is so fortunate. - Terence McKenna
|
fiddle



Registered: 04/10/08
Posts: 1,769
Loc: PNW
|
Re: Alive but not living? [Re: maddad]
#19197978 - 11/27/13 07:30 PM (10 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
maddad said: It didn't just come out of nowhere.
You don't know that. But then again, neither do I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
-------------------- Tickle my bassline.
|
|