Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
... by what definition of "consciousness"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Cargo Cults
- Thread starter Fool
- Start date
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Pah-lease. I did read on it in the past. The most interesting articles are about Cleve Backster and the lie-detector test. But the results were never able to be reproduced.
So I was asking you, honestly. But if you want to do the brush-off-thing... I can take a hint.
you're not stupid. google plant intelligence, bacteria intelligence.
you didn't need me to tell you the obvious
A Mind Without A Brain: The Science Of Plant Intelligence Takes Root
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
True, but I am gullible. And I have my own bias to offset. I'm being completely honest; someone told me the story of Cleve Backster and I believed it and repeated it. When I found out that the research could not be reproduced, I was quite embarrassed. So, I'm a little hesitant on researching this specific topic without guidance. Because, I'm not stupid; but, I want Plants to have consciousness. It confirms my own beliefs. And that makes me easy to fool ( pun intended
)
True, but I am gullible. And I have my own bias to offset. I'm being completely honest; someone told me the story of Cleve Backster and I believed it and repeated it. When I found out that the research could not be reproduced, I was quite embarrassed. So, I'm a little hesitant on researching this specific topic without guidance. Because, I'm not stupid; but, I want Plants to have consciousness. It confirms my own beliefs. And that makes me easy to fool ( pun intended
it's okay to make a mistake and look stupid. better to take a chance and fall but you can get back up. you never needed me. you always had the power. you were born with it.
it would even be advantageous at times to appear stupid. observe how they respond to your inanity. are they still respectful? or are they demeaning?
see their nature, and use that information. they will either draw you in or cast you out.
i say to you WATCH, be on GUARD, because it will come like a thief in the night
cast your heart upon the waters and after many days it will return to you. love is a fools game.
Last edited:
I'm skeptical. How is it irrefutable? One doesn't need consciousness to react to stimuli.
How did you come to this conclusion?
But the plant's and microbes aren't "intelligent" in the usual sense. They aren't weighing options and making conscious choices, their behaviors are not intentional.
My car can analyze it's environment, its exhaust gasses, sense obstacles, adjust fuel-air ratios and valve timing to temperature, altitude and foot pressure, adjust wheel torque to slip, &c.
My car is not conscious. It's functions aren't intentional.
How is this not an oxymoron?
This doesn't further your claim. All this is common knowledge. Of course plants communicate and react. But there's no indication of consciousness. It's all automatic.
In forests it goes even further, with plants monitoring each other through the mycelial internet, sharing resources according to need, helping each other, protecting each other, exhibiting altruism. So what? Machines can do this.
the definition of consciousness doesn't require the thing to be conscious of things beyond it's limits, its sensory perception. it isn't required to meet all definitions of consciousness.
it meets the criteria.
siti
Well-Known Member
Surely not if consciousness is fundamental? - Or, rather, wouldn't everything be subjective in that case?