Evolution of Mind

[bobhikes]

I have no problem with discussing it.

I just don’t have much to say about it, because I am not a biologist, and I am certainly no botanist. Nor am I psychologist in consciousness.

My earlier relies about talking to my father’s plants, were merely jokes, but you were the one who roped me in to take it more seriously, so that’s what I am doing. This is me, taking you seriously.

If you think plants have their own consciousness, then you may believe it if that’s what you like, but I am telling that if it was me, I would wait until they can verify it, bobhikes.

You have been using words like it “logical possible”. Well that may be, and I must stress the “may be” possible, but if you cannot verify them with evidences, then this “logical possible” may be “improbable”.

You did know I was joking about expecting answer from plants, didn’t you?

And you do know in the last couple of replies I have been serious, only because you want me to treat this thread seriously?

You do want me to be serious, don’t you?

As to the whole theory and hypothesis in my last post. I only wrote that because I don’t think you actually understand the relationship between a scientific theory and fact.

I am simply trying to inform that you don’t understand what a theory is.

If you are going to discuss or debate what is or isn’t science, you should at the very least understand the lingo used by scientists.

I don’t consider myself as scientist. I have two bachelors, one for civil engineering (1980s) and one for computer science (mid- to late 90s). And in both of these courses, I have learned a great deal more about physics and mathematics related to the respective courses, even though I don’t consider myself as a physicist and mathematician.

My point is that I have to understand the lingo for each one of these courses, as well as the separate lingos of physics and mathematics.

So in civil engineering, when my lecturers or tutors talk about “beam”, I know that they are talking about horizontal materials used for construction as support, made out of woods, concrete or steel, and not talking about light beam in electromagnetism or in optics.

Likewise, in computer science, when we talk about “intelligence”, we are often referring to “artificial intelligence”, not the usual everyday use of the word intelligence, and not the kind of intelligence involving the military or espionage.

Using the word with the right context is important. And to me, even if I am not scientist, if you are going to talk about science and use the word “theory”, then you should at the very least, used the right word.

Great, I'm happy for you. Thank for your opinion. I would request that you stop bothering me unless you wish to add actual data to the discussion and not just criticism or jokes.

 

[gnostic]

evidently its probable enough for nobel laureates to discuss it.

Plant intelligence – Our 5 senses + 15 more

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/plants-can-gamble-according-study

Aspects of Plant Intelligence | Annals of Botany | Oxford Academic

MU News Bureau | MU News Bureau

The probability of discussion taking place doesn’t in any way contribute to the probability or improbability of plants being “consciousness”, Fool.

We are not talking about the probability it being discussed, but the probability that the plants having the ability of being able to be self-aware or to communicate.

This is just another false equivocation, subduction zone that talked about you have the tendency to use in your argument.

Just because some talk about it or write about it, doesn’t make what they say to be true, Fool.

 

[gnostic]

Great, I'm happy for you. Thank for your opinion. I would request that you stop bothering me unless you wish to add actual data to the discussion and not just criticism or jokes.

So you don’t like to be informed when you have misunderstanding about something, especially of something that very basic. You simply don’t want to know or to learn.

Thank you for letting me know this, so I will let you get back to wallowing in your ignorance.

 

[Fool]

The probability of discussion taking place doesn’t in any way contribute to the probability or improbability of plants being “consciousness”, Fool.

We are not talking about the probability it being discussed, but the probability that the plants having the ability of being able to be self-aware or to communicate.

This is just another false equivocation, subduction zone that talked about you have the tendency to use in your argument.

Just because some talk about it or write about it, doesn’t make what they say to be true, Fool.

Chemistry News | Plant Communication: Pheromones Emit Chemical Distress Signals

https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/38727/title/Plant-Talk/

Sound Garden: Can Plants Actually Talk and Hear?

 

[Profound Realization]

This is a shifting of the burden of proof. Its not my job to demonstrate that they're not conscious.

I disagree, I never placed a burden on you for proof, evidence, or demonstration. I asked why you believed.

It’s difficult to communicate with one of scientism. I can also say that wherever there is cytoplasm conducting electricity/light/energy, there is also anoetic to autonoetic consciousness ranging in various measures between all “living” organisms. We can agree that the more sophisticated its system is, the more sophisticated its processing capability of consciousness would be.

 

[Profound Realization]

I am expecting the plants to tell me there is sound or there isn’t sound, when a tree falls in a forest.

False equivocation.

While plants may not necessarily “hear” sound, they certainly sense sound vibrations.

There seems to be a lot of confusion and expectation of plants to be able to hear and speak just as humans do to be deemed “conscious.”

 

[Fool]

Nature’s Silent Sentinels Could Help Detect Security Threats

 

[Fool]

Slime Mold Intelligence