Evolution of Mind

[Subduction Zone]

I wasn’t asking you, but if you wish to communicate in an objective manner, you can state your case as to why you believe that plants and bacteria are not conscious in even the slightest degree including having no anoetic consciousness.

I already told you. Did you not understand?

Also you do not seem to understand the burden of proof. That is fairly common with believers in woo.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Belief requires self awareness and prediction which is found in no animals I am aware of.

I'd say that animals have beliefs, self-awareness, and the ability to predict, but they do it all nonverbally. They don't think in words. But imagine both you and (say) a dog on the edge of a tall building looking down, feeling fear, and drawing back. You might be thinking in words, although not necessarily. But both you and the dog would have an awareness of yourselves, a sense of a future involving the consequences of falling off of the building, and the same belief that you need to step back.

Regarding your burden of proof discussion with Subduction Zone, one element that is frequently left out such discussions is that nobody has a burden of proof if they don't care if they are believed. Without that proof, or more correctly, compelling argument, what is left is a claim, which is an opinion at that stage. If it's a matter that your reader or listener isn't already familiar with, his choices are to ask you for your evidence, pursue it himself, or just ignore the claim according to Hitchen's Razor, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

For whatever your reasons, you don't care to make the argument, and Subduction Zone isn't interested enough to do the research. So, what we have is an unsubstantiated claim that if remembered, will be remembered as bobhikes' opinion. That seems to be good enough for both of you.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps, but I just see it as a conversion. The brain takes certain information and converts it into feelings. A feeling of love, a feeling of existence. A feeling of oneness with the universe.

You are using the term "feeling" to discredit what the brain does. And I find that very sad.

What the brain does is assemble our sensorial perceptions into ideas, and then into complex conceptualizations reflecting our experience of being a part of the whole of "reality". We create a cognitive experience of being. Which is FAR more than just "feeling stuff".

You may think the universe has feelings but that's likely you projecting those feelings out into the universe. Maybe it does but how could you know this? Even if it didn't, you would still feel the same way.

You and I are part of the whole. The "universe" is also US. It is aware of itself, through us. We are it's "consciousness", manifested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd say that animals have beliefs, self-awareness, and the ability to predict, but they do it all nonverbally. They don't think in words. But imagine both you and (say) a dog on the edge of a tall building looking down, feeling fear, and drawing back. You might be thinking in words, although not necessarily. But both you and the dog would have an awareness of yourselves, a sense of a future involving the consequences of falling off of the building, and the same belief that you need to step back.

Regarding your burden of proof discussion with Subduction Zone, one element that is frequently left out such discussions is that nobody has a burden of proof if they don't care if they are believed. Without that proof, or more correctly, compelling argument, what is left is a claim, which is an opinion at that stage. If it's a matter that your reader or listener isn't already familiar with, his choices are to ask you for your evidence, pursue it himself, or just ignore the claim according to Hitchen's Razor, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

For whatever your reasons, you don't care to make the argument, and Subduction Zone isn't interested enough to do the research. So, what we have is an unsubstantiated claim that if remembered, will be remembered as bobhikes' opinion. That seems to be good enough for both of you.

One minor correction. I did do some research, not very much I will grant that. And I have followed links here, but I have yet to see any proper evidence that supports the claims of those claiming plant consciousness. The protagonists won't even properly define their terms. So far the closest that they have come to evidence are equivocation errors.

 

[bobhikes]

I'd say that animals have beliefs, self-awareness, and the ability to predict, but they do it all nonverbally. They don't think in words. But imagine both you and (say) a dog on the edge of a tall building looking down, feeling fear, and drawing back. You might be thinking in words, although not necessarily. But both you and the dog would have an awareness of yourselves, a sense of a future involving the consequences of falling off of the building, and the same belief that you need to step back.

Regarding your burden of proof discussion with Subduction Zone, one element that is frequently left out such discussions is that nobody has a burden of proof if they don't care if they are believed. Without that proof, or more correctly, compelling argument, what is left is a claim, which is an opinion at that stage. If it's a matter that your reader or listener isn't already familiar with, his choices are to ask you for your evidence, pursue it himself, or just ignore the claim according to Hitchen's Razor, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

For whatever your reasons, you don't care to make the argument, and Subduction Zone isn't interested enough to do the research. So, what we have is an unsubstantiated claim that if remembered, will be remembered as bobhikes' opinion. That seems to be good enough for both of you.

Self awareness is not defined for most the way you defined it but as the ability understand yourself as you. The mirror test is the best example a Dog will play or try to fight their image in the mirror animals that are self aware realize they are looking at themselves.

Subduction Zone by his own replies admitted he had not interest he just wanted to in his words "Stop nonsense being spread". I figured this out earlier. I have been working on writing a book on the evolution of the mind/brain for over 6 years, I have consulted with professors of Neurology and Psychology, I have spent 1000 of dollars on Books and papers, you are right my opinion is good enough for me.

 

[Fool]

That doesn't mean you can reinvent words or it makes it very difficult to articulate such a hard subject accurately, that's the issue. Consiousness does not describe plants that's a different meaning to a word. We can't even say for certain a snake is conscious in the sense that we can call humans self aware.
Animal consciousness - Wikipedia

with all due respect it is western science that has its own specific language and this discussion is about consciousness and not brains, or even neurology; but upon mind and philosophical perspective too.


humans are capable of greater abstract thought, i would agree but that doesn't make everything else unconscious. it means humans are more introspective. some humans more than others.

and as a reminder to all,
humans are animals.

dreaming is a form of the abstract

FYI: Do Animals Dream?

 

[idav]

with all due respect it is western science that has its own specific language and this discussion is about consciousness and not brains, or even neurology; but upon mind and philosophical perspective too.


humans are capable of greater abstract thought, i would agree but that doesn't make everything else unconscious. it means humans are more introspective. some humans more than others.

FYI: Do Animals Dream?

I don't doubt that pets dream and have feelings, that is something different as the article I pointed out mentioned. Proponents mistake saying "animals don't have consiousness" with "animals don't have feelings" that's not the same thing.

 

[Fool]

I don't doubt that pets dream and have feelings, that is something different as the article I pointed out mentioned. Proponents mistake saying "animals don't have consiousness" with "animals don't have feelings" that's not the same thing.

i'm not talking about pets alone. all mammalians dream

 

[Nakosis]

Feelings are emergent properties of the three brains interacting as described above. Love for example, is directly observable as a neuro-chemico function of the brain and is significantly altered by drugs, stroke, trauma or disease.

Love is an emotional response caused by a whole bunch of neurotransmitters like oxytocin, dopamine, adrenaline, serotonin and glutamate and their combined effect in certain regions of the brain such as the anterior cingulate and hippocampus, which triggers the complex feelings called love.

Alter the chemicals around a little differently, and you get the same feeling as a drug addiction. Alter them again, and you could have the same feeling as a child predator.

Neutralize those chemicals with a blocker like an SSRI, and you lose the feeling of love for your lover.

Love is a specific type of emotional response to a very specific combination of neurotransmitters in the same parts of the brain that can cause drug addictions or sexual fetishes if the levels of neurotransmitters are disproportioned.

Sure, from what I've understand, this is all true.

I'm thinking in terms of how this feeling of consciousness could be duplicated in AI.

Would it be possible to duplicate feelings in a robot? I think it should be possible, I just can't fathom how.

 

[Fool]

Self awareness is not defined for most the way you defined it but as the ability understand yourself as you. The mirror test is the best example a Dog will play or try to fight their image in the mirror animals that are self aware realize they are looking at themselves.

Subduction Zone by his own replies admitted he had not interest he just wanted to in his words "Stop nonsense being spread". I figured this out earlier. I have been working on writing a book on the evolution of the mind/brain for over 6 years, I have consulted with professors of Neurology and Psychology, I have spent 1000 of dollars on Books and papers, you are right my opinion is good enough for me.

as an interesting aside, its my understanding that people who are socio-paths have fewer mirroring neurons. so you're in a belief forum, any chance you have an focus on neurotheology?

 

[bobhikes]

as an interesting aside, its my understanding that people who are socio-paths have fewer mirroring neurons. so you're in a belief forum, any chance you have an focus on neurotheology?

No to Neurotheology everything would be opinion Based on Psychology of Religion which I have studied and then some basic Neurology of the brain.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Self awareness is not defined for most the way you defined it but as the ability understand yourself as you. The mirror test is the best example a Dog will play or try to fight their image in the mirror animals that are self aware realize they are looking at themselves.

Subduction Zone by his own replies admitted he had not interest he just wanted to in his words "Stop nonsense being spread". I figured this out earlier. I have been working on writing a book on the evolution of the mind/brain for over 6 years, I have consulted with professors of Neurology and Psychology, I have spent 1000 of dollars on Books and papers, you are right my opinion is good enough for me.

The problem is that by your inability to support your claims you demonstrate that you are spreading nonsense. If you had a valid argument I would find this extremely interesting. Instead, as I have noted already, all that your side has provided is a mixture of woo sites, equivocation fallacies, and demands that others prove your claims that continually appear to look more and more bogus.

 

[bobhikes]

The problem is that by your inability to support your claims you demonstrate that you are spreading nonsense. If you had a valid argument I would find this extremely interesting. Instead, as I have noted already, all that your side has provided is a mixture of woo sites, equivocation fallacies, and demands that others prove your claims that continually appear to look more and more bogus.

Except I am not trying to prove anything to you. I am not your teacher, you don't pay me for my knowledge. I am offering, suggestions and opinions to others that are interested and I point to consensus and theory and make sure I don't label it as fact. I expect the others to be interested and research the materials themselves so not to be slanted by me. Nothing I post is going to cause harm. Your demand for what you consider valid proof (which many sources won't qualify) will shut down a less confident individual that could have actually provided useful information down the road. So you are actually causing more harm then me, even if I post false data but still marked it as opinion.

 

[Hawkins]

Soul is basically an advocate that it's possible for human consciousness to be a result of a mixture growing outside the space we are living in. Brain on the other hand fully resides in our space.

For the sake of argument if it's true that our consciousness relies not only on our brain to function but also on something not lying inside our space, then it simply means that we have absolutely no way to speculate what it is! You can speculate the brain of humans, you can speculate the "brain" of plants, but it's never fruitful to reach the truth of what it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except I am not trying to prove anything to you. I am not your teacher, you don't pay me for my knowledge. I am offering, suggestions and opinions to others that are interested and I point to consensus and theory and make sure I don't label it as fact. I expect the others to be interested and research the materials themselves so not to be slanted by me. Nothing I post is going to cause harm. Your demand for what you consider valid proof (which many sources won't qualify) will shut down a less confident individual that could have actually provided useful information down the road. So you are actually causing more harm then me, even if I post false data but still marked it as opinion.

No, you are merely spreading nonsense. That is all that you are doing. Now you will do very little harm with this, but the difference between your posts and the claim of a Flat Earther is merely a matter of degree.

And I did not demand "valid proof". I only demanded valid evidence. That is a much much lower bar to cross and you could not even get over that. You essentially refute your own arguments when you fail to do that.

 

[bobhikes]

No, you are merely spreading nonsense. That is all that you are doing. Now you will do very little harm with this, but the difference between your posts and the claim of a Flat Earther is merely a matter of degree.

And I did not demand "valid proof". I only demanded valid evidence. That is a much much lower bar to cross and you could not even get over that. You essentially refute your own arguments when you fail to do that.

Not at all what do you actually know about the biology of Plants. What facts can you produce? Do you understand how they find water and food, react to environmental changes, reproduce or evolve. Have you studied them to the point that you can eliminate the possibility of intelligence or do you just find the argument wrong.

I was honest in my post. I have read several articles and research paper's concerning plant intelligence and there is no scientific consensus has of yet but it is trending that way. What information do you have that indicates differently?

 

[Fool]

No, you are merely spreading nonsense. That is all that you are doing. Now you will do very little harm with this, but the difference between your posts and the claim of a Flat Earther is merely a matter of degree.

And I did not demand "valid proof". I only demanded valid evidence. That is a much much lower bar to cross and you could not even get over that. You essentially refute your own arguments when you fail to do that.

there are no absolutes in science. things are by degrees/percentages. if we have no evidence to the contrary, then the evidence we have from objective research is the best it's going to get.

 

[idav]

i'm not talking about pets alone. all mammalians dream

Your missing the point, dreaming doesn't change what I stated. Put another way reptiles don't have the capability that mammals have in the same respect that most mammals don't have the capability of great apes(including humans), elephants and dolphins have as they pass self awareness tests with flying colors.

 

[Hawkins]

there are no absolutes in science. things are by degrees/percentages. if we have no evidence to the contrary, then the evidence we have from objective research is the best it's going to get.

That's not even how science works. Humans basically are the creature of the present. We lack capability to examine the past, and we lack capability to examine the future. Science can be accurate because it's about how something can repeat infinitive number of times for us to speculate, to observe and most importantly to predict how it repeats to get to a conclusion.

 

[Fool]

Your missing the point. Put another way reptiles don't have the capability that mammals have in the same respect that most mammals don't have the capability of great apes(including humans), elephants and dolphins have as they pass self awareness tests with flying colors.

so consciousness without self-awareness isn't conscious to you? or are you confusing conscience with conscious?

because my understanding of conscious is aware of something. being self aware could mean more than a visual. blind people couldn't be self aware using the mirror test.