Cargo Cults

[Valjean]

no it is being aware of something. can be self and/or otherness.


had you read any of the myriad number of articles the scientists use the word conscious or intelligence..

Plant intelligence, awareness.
New research on plant intelligence may forever change how you think about plants

Not to mention crown shyness
Crown shyness: trees that don’t touch – All you need is Biology

And plants know when they are being eaten and can chemically defensively respond.
Plants Can Tell When They're Being Eaten

I'm assuming you're using "intelligence" to mean intricacy. OK, plants are intricate, they sense and react to their environment. Machines, then, can be intelligent.
Self-awareness, on the other hand, is a whole different thing.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I, for one, will not be participating in this ridiculous "let me redefine well understood words to enable moronic affected sagicity" game. I recommend every one else stop, too.

Pretend to be deep on your own time.

 

[Fool]

Certainly not personal to me - not even 'person' as in 'human' - I am asking you to explain how consciousness works in the absence of a 'person' - if a plant is indeed conscious - as a plant - then the plant is a 'person' - isn't it? You are arguing that consciousness is fundamental. How can fundamental consciousness work? What is it that is displaying or experiencing consciousness?

it works in plants, microbes, bacteria, spooky action at a distance

 

[Fool]

How do you come to this conclusion? Plants and microbes lack the neural hardware associated with awareness.
How are you defining "awareness?"

It can react to, or interact with its surroundings, but I see no indication that this rises to the level of awareness; certainly not self-awareness. Self awareness is iffy even in small children.

Plants do not have brains or neuronal networks like animals do, at least in the traditional sense; however, reactions within signalling pathways may provide a biochemical basis for learning and memory in addition to computation and basic problem solving.[43] Controversially, the brain is used as a metaphor in plant intelligence to provide an integrated view of signalling.[44]

 

[Valjean]

Plants do not have brains or neuronal networks like animals do, at least in the traditional sense; however, reactions within signalling pathways may provide a biochemical basis for learning and memory in addition to computation and basic problem solving.[43] Controversially, the brain is used as a metaphor in plant intelligence to provide an integrated view of signalling.[44]

Yes, plant reactions and signalling is useful in understanding the mechanisms of learning, memory and problem solving. No claim to consciousness or awareness is made here.
As this points out, plant "intelligence" is a metaphor, not strictly true.

 

[Fool]

Yes, plant reactions and signalling is useful in understanding the mechanisms of learning, memory and problem solving. No claim to consciousness or awareness is made here.
As this points out, plant "intelligence" is a metaphor, not strictly true.

no true consciousness(scotsman) fallacy

 

[Valjean]

no true consciousness(scotsman) fallacy

Huh?

 

[We Never Know]

I'm assuming you're using "intelligence" to mean intricacy. OK, plants are intricate, they sense and react to their environment. Machines, then, can be intelligent.
Self-awareness, on the other hand, is a whole different thing.

Don't assume anything. Read the articles linked. Plants are aware of several things.

Also read...

Insects Are Conscious And Egocentric, Study Finds

 

[siti]

it works in plants, microbes, bacteria, spooky action at a distance

But if that is how consciousness works then none of these are 'persons' and neither are humans - so like I said earlier, under that scenario, nothing is subjective because there are no subjects - only objects being acted upon 'at a distance' by spooky consciousness. And I can't disprove that - but it seems to me far less likely than the idea that a cockroach is, in some sense, a 'person' and sees the world from a personal 'cockroach' point of view.

 

[Valjean]

Don't assume anything. Read the articles linked. Plants are aware of several things.

Also read...

Insects Are Conscious And Egocentric, Study Finds

Define "aware."
They sense things, sure. They react. But are they aware that they're aware? Are they conscious of themselves as discrete entities? Are they conscious of self and non-self?

 

[We Never Know]

Define "aware."
They sense things, sure. They react. But are they aware that they're aware? Are they conscious of themselves as discrete entities? Are they conscious of self and non-self?

Tell you what. Read the provided links, which by the way I didn't write. Define the words as they are presented, used, or you want them and come to your own conclusion. Then we will go from there.

 

[Fool]

Define "aware."
They sense things, sure. They react. But are they aware that they're aware? Are they conscious of themselves as discrete entities? Are they conscious of self and non-self?

aware doesn't require that the thing has to be self-aware. you have modified the idea of aware.


aware's only requirement is to be aware of something, anything, not necessarily self, or everything

 

[siti]

...you have modified the idea of aware.

Surely you can't blame him for that...it was spooky consciousness working at a distance that did that!

 

[ameyAtmA]

Hello Siti

You are getting close to understanding VedAnta! This is exactly how the ancient Rshi (Seers) and their disciples conversed - the way you and fool are conversing, and this is the recommended route to understand the truth by questioning everything. Then the disciple is at a mature stage and goes of to contemplate on their own.

But if that is how consciousness works then none of these are 'persons' and neither are humans - so like I said earlier, under that scenario, nothing is subjective because there are no subjects

1. It is correct that none of these visible beings (plants, bees, animals, humans) are persons in the absolute sense / at the absolute level. However, by calling the plant a person for a moment, you were right from the perspective of the individual plant. This is the illusory relative "i" that the plant thinks it is.
*Dr. Subhash Chandra Bose showed that plants have feelings, and the feelings are behind at least a few of the reactions if not all of them. This is why plants flourish when you nurture them with love, and SC Bose talked to his plants to prove they grew healthier, greener, bloomed more..

- only objects being acted upon 'at a distance' by spooky consciousness.

2. This "spooky consciousness at a distance" is the real Fundamental Universal Consciousness - [param]AtmA, [para]Brahma[n'], which is the real upper-case "I" , the real One who is aware of Itself , and the projections dancing on its original fabric of existence are appearances, illusions, derived, transient, and not fundamental, hence have no absolute existence.

And I can't disprove that - but it seems to me far less likely than the idea that a cockroach is, in some sense, a 'person' and sees the world from a personal 'cockroach' point of view.

3. And this is the illusory small , lower-case i which is the local-ego which erroneously things it is the DOER. It thinks it is driving the actions and all. Takes credit and blames the objective puppets including itself.
Vedanta says that the upper-case spooky I is real, and the lower-case local-ego-i is the meddling [illusory] entity that causes all problems and illusions. Shri Shri Ravi Shankar compared the individual ego-i to credit card or money. Just keep it in the pocket, don't spend it, but don't try too hard to erase its existence or it will raise its head again. The local-individual-ego does not know there is a much bigger I behind the scenes.

REF: VedAnta: Major Upanishads [IshavAsya, Kena, KaTha, Mundak, MAnDukya, Taitareya, Aitareya, Shwetashwatara, ChhAndogya, BRhadAraNyaka] ; Bhagavad Geeta.

 

[siti]

You are getting close to understanding VedAnta!

I think that's highly unlikely...but in any case, understanding a concept is not the same as accepting the concept as true - I quite well understand a lot of incorrect ideas. I am struggling to understand the concept of 'fundamental consciousness' - it seems to me (with my physicalist inclinations) like putting the cart before the horse (although I can quite see that argument could be made just as forcefully the other way round of one holds the view that the most fundamental levels are non-physical or a-physical).

So what IS the undifferentiated "oneness" when there is nothing else? What is it (the 'oneness' "conscious" of if there is no differentiation? To me, the undifferentiated cannot itself relate to anything because there is nothing to relate to. To me, consciousness is all about relatedness...it is all about differentiating...and assimilating...and reintegrating... consciousness is (like everything else) a process...it is a happening...a series of events...and none of that can happen in an undifferentiated 'oneness' - can it? Or how?

So you might think that this is my small "i", local, space-time delimited ego throwing an imaginary spanner in the works...but as far as I (or i) can tell, that is exactly how the universe ('oneness') actually works...now this...now that. Always aiming at 'oneness' but never quite getting there before the next differentiating 'i' throws another very real spanner in the works by becoming 'now' what it was not 'before'. "The many become one and are increased by one" (Alfred North Whitehead).

Consciousness might very well be what "stitches" the otherwise differentiated events together into a momentary "oneness" - but don't we each have our own consciousnesses and our own "onenesses"?

 

[ameyAtmA]

So what IS the undifferentiated "oneness" when there is nothing else?

Existential Truth, Being (as opposed to Becoming), I AM. You answered half of it by saying "when there is nothing else" implying non-duality, not-two, a-dvaita. (except that this "when" is not inside conventional Time. Here when refers to the highest dimensional framework)

What is it (the 'oneness' "conscious" of if there is no differentiation? To me, the undifferentiated cannot itself relate to anything because there is nothing to relate to.

Itself. The fact that it IS. Exists. Sat (eternal).

To me, consciousness is all about relatedness...it is all about differentiating...and assimilating...and reintegrating... consciousness is (like everything else) a process...it is a happening...a series of events...and none of that can happen in an undifferentiated 'oneness' - can it? Or how?

It is true that the only direct observation is facilitated by the relatedness. Therefore, VedAnta insists on the reverse-process of understanding Truth by elimination. Not this, not this , not this either.
All events, process, temporal phenomena, relativity (I?) point to hierarchies of cause-effect chains. Therefore they trace back to a base, foundation of unchanging Truth, Being, 'Sat', outside the space-time framework (eternal, everywhere).

So you might think that this is my small "i", local, space-time delimited ego throwing an imaginary spanner in the works...but as far as I (or i) can tell, that is exactly how the universe ('oneness') actually works...now this...now that. Always aiming at 'oneness' but never quite getting there before the next differentiating 'i' throws another very real spanner in the works by becoming 'now' what it was not 'before'. "The many become one and are increased by one" (Alfred North Whitehead).

This is MAyA at work. In presence of the unchanging eternal consciousness, MAyA dances. She is here one moment, and there the next. Today this appears to hold, tomorrow it no longer does. Continents moved, wind blows, stars turn into black holes or supernova. Earth revolves. People get old.

Consciousness might very well be what "stitches" the otherwise differentiated events together into a momentary "oneness" - but don't we each have our own consciousnesses and our own "onenesses"?

You are right. We do each experience our own oneness. That is the only way to experience it as long as we are the individuals. This is why a few experience it and others don't. That is possible only if the experience is local to each mind. As long as we are in a living body, the being in the body (called purusha in sanskrit), can at most experience the innermost innermost fundamental non-dual existence in samAdhi. One day the purusha realizes the truth by experience, and reflects on it : "What I discovered was amazing. All of this is nothing but me. It was I all along that used my own MAyA to facilitate this dance, all these appearances. Flitting from here to there. I am THAT ! That which became all this!"

It is up to us to eat the pudding, mango, or mango-pudding.

 

[Valjean]

aware doesn't require that the thing has to be self-aware. you have modified the idea of aware.


aware's only requirement is to be aware of something, anything, not necessarily self, or everything

So when a car self-brakes when it rolls too close to an object, that car is "aware?"

 

[ameyAtmA]

So when a car self-brakes when it rolls too close to an object, that car is "aware?"

No. Unless it is an AI car programmed with machine-learning of feelings and emotions.
However, that is not the point. Main distinction here is -- we know that humans created the car and robot, so they are obvious puppets, whereas not everyone accepts that someOne caused the plant. So plant is not an obvious puppet (to all).

When someone says the plant is aware, it is looked at as a person with feelings - may they be at a very crude, basic or low level (dim light).

 

[Valjean]

No. Unless it is an AI car programmed with machine-learning of feelings and emotions.
However, that is not the point. Main distinction here is -- we know that humans created the car and robot, so they are obvious puppets, whereas not everyone accepts that someOne caused the plant. So plant is not an obvious puppet (to all).

If the car were a puppet its reaction would be controlled by a person -- which it is not. The driver is not the puppeteer, the car senses an obstacle, makes a decision and executes an action all on its own.

When someone says the plant is aware, it is looked at as a person with feelings - may they be at a very crude, basic or low level (dim light). Subhash Chandra Bose said plants have feelings, and he talked to them. The ones he talked to and interacted with love, grew better, faster.

No -- awareness has nothing to do with feelings. One can have one without the other.

 

[Fool]

I think that's highly unlikely...but in any case, understanding a concept is not the same as accepting the concept as true - I quite well understand a lot of incorrect ideas. I am struggling to understand the concept of 'fundamental consciousness' - it seems to me (with my physicalist inclinations) like putting the cart before the horse (although I can quite see that argument could be made just as forcefully the other way round of one holds the view that the most fundamental levels are non-physical or a-physical).

So what IS the undifferentiated "oneness" when there is nothing else? What is it (the 'oneness' "conscious" of if there is no differentiation? To me, the undifferentiated cannot itself relate to anything because there is nothing to relate to. To me, consciousness is all about relatedness...it is all about differentiating...and assimilating...and reintegrating... consciousness is (like everything else) a process...it is a happening...a series of events...and none of that can happen in an undifferentiated 'oneness' - can it? Or how?

So you might think that this is my small "i", local, space-time delimited ego throwing an imaginary spanner in the works...but as far as I (or i) can tell, that is exactly how the universe ('oneness') actually works...now this...now that. Always aiming at 'oneness' but never quite getting there before the next differentiating 'i' throws another very real spanner in the works by becoming 'now' what it was not 'before'. "The many become one and are increased by one" (Alfred North Whitehead).

Consciousness might very well be what "stitches" the otherwise differentiated events together into a momentary "oneness" - but don't we each have our own consciousnesses and our own "onenesses"?

consciousness is physical and matter is conscious.

the problem is that idealists and realists both want to believe one creates the other. they don't. they are the same thing being manifested in varying forms at the 3rd dimension and in lower dimensions