Plants have consciousness....

[Gabler]

Consciousness is beyond the reach of science because we don't have an instrument with which to measure it. Science itself is just a conceptual tool that's good for taking a set of quantitative information and producing new quantitative information. It's an extremely powerful tool, but there are questions it can never answer. What is good? What is beautiful? Why are we even here to begin with? Let's not pretend to use science to answer these questions, and let's not be dismissive of other disciplines that can provide answers to questions that science cannot. We don't want clergy doing the job of scientists, and we don't want scientists doing the job of clergy.

 

[Glaucus]

Your first paragraph has no citations — just “it’s a made up word” and “there are books about it.”

That would seem to be contradictory.

What word is *not* made up? And why is this video specifically less worthy of consideration than a book?

Science has much going for it. It certainly is being used to make our planet uninhabitable for many of its residents.

What books on consciousness have you read? I’m reading Mircea Eliade again now. (I read “The Sacred and the Profane” in college and am now reading his deep explication of the history and theory of yoga.

Trees are so much a part of my consciousness. From first memory. Of this I’m keenly aware. I am a part of theirs. Of this I’m more dimly aware. But nevertheless aware.

Why do I need a citation when you agree with what I said? Go to google scholar and put in 'consciousness'. Not hard.

Koch, Christof. "What is consciousness." Nature 557.7704 (2018): S8-S12.
Velmans, Max. Understanding consciousness. Routledge, 2009.

 

[Lorax7]

Why do I need a citation when you agree with what I said?

Because he’s here to troll and push a radical agenda, not to do bonsai

 

[WestHavenMusician]

Consciousness is beyond the reach of science because we don't have an instrument with which to measure it. Science itself is just a conceptual tool that's good for taking a set of quantitative information and producing new quantitative information. It's an extremely powerful tool, but there are questions it can never answer. What is good? What is beautiful? Why are we even here to begin with? Let's not pretend to use science to answer these questions, and let's not be dismissive of other disciplines that can provide answers to questions that science cannot. We don't want clergy doing the job of scientists, and we don't want scientists doing the job of clergy.

Yes — This argument that science makes about instruments presupposes the primacy, and even the absolute effectiveness, of scientific instruments as a means for accessing truth.

Such a dogmatic and grand assumption is not a very scientific stance, in my view.

One instrument with which I contemplate consciousness is, in fact, my garden.

 

[WestHavenMusician]

Because he’s here to troll and push a radical agenda, not to do bonsai

This discussion is bonsai, as I understand it.

 

[WestHavenMusician]

Why do I need a citation when you agree with what I said? Go to google scholar and put in 'consciousness'. Not hard.

Koch, Christof. "What is consciousness." Nature 557.7704 (2018): S8-S12.
Velmans, Max. Understanding consciousness. Routledge, 2009.

Thanks for the link.
Which statement or fact is that citation supporting? Have you read those publications? What do you think of the contents?

 

[WestHavenMusician]

Consciousness is beyond the reach of science because we don't have an instrument with which to measure it. Science itself is just a conceptual tool that's good for taking a set of quantitative information and producing new quantitative information. It's an extremely powerful tool, but there are questions it can never answer. What is good? What is beautiful? Why are we even here to begin with? Let's not pretend to use science to answer these questions, and let's not be dismissive of other disciplines that can provide answers to questions that science cannot. We don't want clergy doing the job of scientists, and we don't want scientists doing the job of clergy.

Science and spiritual traditions — are they setting about to describe the same universe, or different universes? It seems to me that they are interacting with the same one.

 

[Glaucus]

Thanks for the link.
Which statement or fact is that citation supporting? Have you read those publications? What do you think of the contents?

Didn't you read what I said? I said they were words, but with a huge fields of research around them. That I am not familiar with. You can't just throw around the word 'consciousness' 'for the vibes'.
I am not making any special claims. If you are really interested in consciousness or if plants or AI have it, you can read that paper and that book, and follow the foot notes. If somehow you find that those leading in that field do think plants are conscious. Or that ChatGPT is conscious, find me the citation supporting that.

While you are at that, not sure why you are bugging me. Maybe you are in fact ChatGPT? Could it be?
You made an account here and half the posts are challenging what I said. WTF is up with that. This is the scientific consensus. If you don't like it, go to Yale campus and start arguing there. Not here.

If you need something more specific:

Sci-Hub | Plants Neither Possess nor Require Consciousness. Trends in Plant Science | 10.1016/j.tplants.2019.05.008

The idea that you can't have consciousness without brains is not controversial at all. In fact, I'd argue that if we ever find lifeforms that have something similar to consciousness, but without neurons and brains like we understand it, we might want to come up with a different word for it.

 

[Lorax7]

This discussion is bonsai, as I understand it.

That’s because you don’t understand it (and you’re not trying, else you’d be asking questions about horticulture and bonsai aesthetics instead).

 

[WestHavenMusician]

Why do I need a citation when you agree with what I said? Go to google scholar and put in 'consciousness'. Not hard.

Koch, Christof. "What is consciousness." Nature 557.7704 (2018): S8-S12.
Velmans, Max. Understanding consciousness. Routledge, 2009.

Max Velmans Interview Youtube

Thanks again for the links. I’m not going to order the $52 Velmans textbook (there’s a lot of Routledge on my bookshelf already from my grad work.) but I am listening to the above interview.

The first sentence out of Professor Velman is a statement about the movement towards using individual perspectives and experiences as a means for understanding consciousness AND an integration of Eastern and Western approaches and understandings. Literally by 1m40s into the interview.

This is the exact perspective I’ve constructed on my own through study and observation. And the thesis that I’m putting forward here.

So, this is a good example of why citation works.

 

[WestHavenMusician]

That’s because you don’t understand it (and you’re not trying, else you’d be asking questions about horticulture and bonsai aesthetics instead).

What is the evidence for my not understanding bonsai?

It’s not very logical to propose that if I understood it, I’d need to be asking questions. Don’t we ask questions about what we don’t understand?

I think what you may be missing is that I come to this art with a long history of studying its cultural and philosophical origins. I may have much to share with this group about that, for those who may be interested. It’s okay if those things don’t interest some.

Mainly I’m speaking here so that the original poster doesn’t feel unfairly negatively treated.

Just as trees are said (by science) to feel each other’s pain, my own experience of consciousness is such that I too feel the impact of negativity on others.

I’m simply sending them some nutrients through my roots, which run deep.

Lower your axe, my friend.

 

[Glaucus]

Some trees putting out a pheromone when eaten by insects, and their neighbours sensing that pheromone and already reacting as they would if they were being eaten by bugs is not them 'feeling pain'.
It is a simple biological reaction that happens everywhere in biology.
I don't know why, but some spiritually inclined people seem to believe that biology is just dumb clumps of matter, except for our brains. And then when they hear about our gut microbes, or about certain processes in our heart, etc, they suddenly start to claim that our gut is our 'second brain', or silly stuff like that. Same with with trees & fungi and the mycorrhizal network. Avatar was science fiction. It is not a brain. Neither is the 'hive mind' of bees. These are all cool things and more amazing than we initially assumed. And good subjects of study. But they are different things.

 

[WestHavenMusician]

Some trees putting out a pheromone when eaten by insects, and their neighbours sensing that pheromone and already reacting as they would if they were being eaten by bugs is not them 'feeling pain'.
It is a simple biological reaction that happens everywhere in biology.
I don't know why, but some spiritually inclined people seem to believe that biology is just dumb clumps of matter, except for our brains. And then when they hear about our gut microbes, or about certain processes in our heart, etc, they suddenly start to claim that our gut is our 'second brain', or silly stuff like that.

How are the electrochemical impulses with which our own neurological systems work different?

We would seem to agree that the full biological complexity of organisms is inlortant.

What would you say about the impact of gut flora on human consciousness, emotion, and thought, as opposed to dismissing these things without evidence?

 

[Cajunrider]

* Cjr brews a pot of tea and put out a tray of sweet
* Sipping tea. Y’all this getting good.

 

[Glaucus]

How are the electrochemical impulses with which our own neurological systems work different?

Because neurons have up to a thousand connections with other neurons. And we have 86 billion neurons in a human brain. And their only function is to fire to signal to other neurons, to generate these specific emergent properties. And to do that, brains are wired to most of our sensory organs, and control most of our responses.
The plant pheromone thing is just an on-off switch. There are probably some pathways in from and behind it that do involve calculations of some sort. But we didn't describe them.
You are asking how our brain is different from the light switch on your wall?
For us to feel pain, hundreds of thousands of neurons have to fire in a specific way. If just one of them fires, it is not pain. if they fire in a different way, it ia lso not pain. And the fear of pain is even more advanced, an additional layer on top of that.

 

[Lorax7]

What is the evidence for my not understanding bonsai?

It’s not very logical to propose that if I understood it, I’d need to be asking questions. Don’t we ask questions about what we don’t understand?

I think what you may be missing is that I come to this art with a long history of studying its cultural and philosophical origins. I may have much to share with this group about that, for those who may be interested. It’s okay if those things don’t interest some.

Mainly I’m speaking here so that the original poster doesn’t feel unfairly negatively treated.

Just as trees are said (by science) to feel each other’s pain, my own experience of consciousness is such that I too feel the impact of negativity on others.

I’m simply sending them some nutrients through my roots, which run deep.

Lower your axe, my friend.

It takes orders of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than to generate it, effort that I am not willing to waste on you, internet troll. I’m just going to call your bullshit as bullshit and leave it at that. You’re not entitled to waste my time and I’m not inclined to spend any more of it on you. We’re done here. Welcome to the ignore list.

 

[WestHavenMusician]

Because neurons have up to a thousand connections with other neurons. And we have 86 billion neurons in a human brain. And their only function is to fire to signal to other neurons, to generate these specific emergent properties. And to do that, brains are wired to most of our sensory organs, and control most of our responses.
The plant pheromone thing is just an on-off switch. There are probably some pathways in from and behind it that do involve calculations of some sort. But we didn't describe them.
You are asking how our brain is different from the light switch on your wall?
For us to feel pain, hundreds of thousands of neurons have to fire in a specific way. If just one of them fires, it is not pain. if they fire in a different way, it ia lso not pain. And the fear of pain is even more advanced, an additional layer on top of that.

I think a lot of folks think that “I’m dismissive of this thing personally” is an effective argument.

“It’s *just* an on off switch” — adding the word “just” isn’t science, it’s emotion.

Nothing in my lived experience leads me to dismiss things in this way.

Your point could be an interesting one for discussion — if the response of plants to stimuli and their interaction with their environment and with eachother is not sufficient to meet some definition of consciousness (which I’m not sure we have made, though the provided citation matches the integrative definition that I've put forward) — well, if so, when do we “cross the line” as we move through so-called increasing complexity of species?

 

[Glaucus]

You literally said nothing of substance. The plants signalling pheromones to neighbouring plants was MY example. Because you don't have one. You don't know anything. Not about plants. About brains. About biological circuits. About consciousness. Nothing.

You are just here to attack other people. And put them down.

 

[Cajunrider]

It takes orders of magnitude more effort to refute bullshit than to generate it, effort that I am not willing to waste on you, internet troll. I’m just going to call your bullshit as bullshit and leave it at that. You’re not entitled to waste my time and I’m not inclined to spend any more of it on you. We’re done here. Welcome to the ignore list.

And @Lorax7 left the ring in disgust cuz the opponent does not fight fair.

I don’t blame Lorax7. Clean up is always harder than slinging s…. errr.. stuff.

You literally said nothing of substance. The plants signalling pheromones to neighbouring plants was MY example. Because you don't have one. You don't know anything. Not about plants. About brains. About biological circuits. About consciousness. Nothing.

You are just here to attack other people. And put them down.

*Admiring @Glaucus laying down the gauntlet.

What say you @WestHavenMusician?

If there’s no more action, I am going back to maiming and contorting trees.

PS: If I ever decide to do some hard science research on bonsai, Glaucus is at the top of my list of advisors.

 

[Gabler]

The idea that you can't have consciousness without brains is not controversial at all.

What? That's extraordinarily controversial.