Plants have consciousness....

[Glaucus]

@WestHavenMusician
Look, you can come here and be welcome to talk about bonsai. It was just a bit strange that you said that, quote, "Science has no comprehensive understanding of consciousness." But we do. We made up that word. And we wrote a ton about what we think it is, and is not. Sorry for saying you don't know anything about all these things. You probably do. Just your posts don't show it. And I got annoyed and I apologize for that. You just kept quoting me, questioning what I said, without saying what your meant, or what your counter-example was.

If you were going to say that despite advances in cell biology, neurology, psychology, cognitive sciences, we can't explain how what we call 'consciousness' emerges from neurons, then yes. That's true. But that's not what you said.
And when you say strange things like that and then accuse me of not providing citations, then I get annoyed. I am here to do some forum postings. Not to write scientific papers. If I say something that's wrong, point it out, and I can provide citations, or try finding one and learn I was wrong.

And to @Gabler as well, the entire premise of the paper I linked on plants not possessing consciousness is that plants do not have anything like a brain, and therefore cannot have consciousness.
If you have examples from the scientific literature about examples of consciousness without brains then provide them and we can discuss. But right now, I am having to pre-empt what I think others here are trying to say. The interesting examples of communication in biology that people may confuse for consciousness have all been brought up by me.

To me, a lot of things in nature are really cool exactly because they are not like us humans. Exactly because they don't have consciousness, don't have thoughts, don't have an inner dialogue. Instead, they have many things that we humans don't have. I don't like the idea that we need to convince people that nature is more like us than we think, to get people to care more about nature. Though I might be wrong here and it may be the only way.

 

[Gabler]

And to @Gabler as well, the entire premise of the paper I linked on plants not possessing consciousness is that plants do not have anything like a brain, and therefore cannot have consciousness.
If you have examples from the scientific literature about examples of consciousness without brains then provide them and we can discuss. But right now, I am having to pre-empt what I think others here are trying to say. The interesting examples of communication in biology that people may confuse for consciousness have all been brought up by me.

To me, a lot of things in nature are really cool exactly because they are not like us humans. Exactly because they don't have consciousness, don't have thoughts, don't have an inner dialogue. Instead, they have many things that we humans don't have. I don't like the idea that we need to convince people that nature is more like us than we think, to get people to care more about nature. Though I might be wrong here and it may be the only way.

I don't have any examples from science of consciousness without brains because science is the wrong framework in which to discuss consciousness. Science is a method of gathering empirical information. It involves controlling for variables to isolate the phenomenon that the researchers are trying to measure, and it involves replication of experimental results (or failure to replicate results). There is no way to objectively measure a consciousness. I've never heard of anyone experiencing another consciousness without having some sort of out-of-body experience. That's why we have fun concepts like philosophical zombies.

 

[Glaucus]

How do you know if a belief is based on reality, rather than faith, if you don't apply some form of the scientific method?

Plenty of methods have been proposed to measure consciousness. Are you familiar with them? Or are you just saying this?

 

[Gabler]

How do you know if a belief is based on reality, rather than faith, if you don't apply some form of the scientific method?

Plenty of methods have been proposed to measure consciousness. Are you familiar with them? Or are you just saying this?

I love science. It's the single greatest human invention after language itself. That doesn't mean it's all powerful. You can't scientifically test the validity of beauty or love.

It is clear that there is some relationship between brain states and consciousness, and by measuring brain states we can infer whether a person is conscious. That's where we get concepts like "brain dead," where a person is legally dead, and we can harvest his (or her) organs, even though that person's heart is still beating.

That doesn't mean it's possible to observe whether consciousness is reducible to brain states.

 

[Glaucus]

Beauty and love aren't biological machines. The brain is. It can be studied. You don't need to be dead to be unconscious. If you are asleep, you are temporarily losing consciousness.
Again, I go back to the brain producing the consciousness. In humans and other animals. Which is something you disagreed with. We don't need a mathematical model for love. No one ever claimed there has to be such a thing. How neurons fire follows the laws of physics. Love or beauty do not. These are different things. We can rule that some organisms can definitely not be conscious, because they have no brain. Like starfish. And that some animals, like pigs, are conscious. And then there are animals for which it is hard to be sure, like insects. Because they have a brain and because we can do both behavioural experiments and do experiments like brain scans on them, to meet a certain criteria for a certain definition of consciousness. Including self-consciousness. We can ask meaningful answers and get actual answers to these things. Without the need to explain exactly how a brain gives rise to all elements of the human mind. We may be able to in the future do an MRI scan on a live spider, and judge if it meets a certain level of consciousness that we defined. Based on how many neurons it has, how they are connected, and in what kinds of patterns they fire, that do a certain thing we call 'consciousness'. Or we may try to link 'brain states' to consciousness, and fail. Who knows. We first need to try. And get higher resolution MRIs. And maybe some brains meet that requirement, some don't, and others are in a transition zone. We can answer that. What we will never be able to answer is how it feels to be a spider. And we don't need to.

I am not ruling out that no computer can ever be conscious. But things like rocks are not. Neither are plants. And sure there are spiritual and religious people that want to push back against materialism that also publish papers on this subject. But they have nothing meaningful to add to the discussion of how the natural world operates. They didn't have 2000 years ago. They still don't have today. Also doesn't mean spiritualism has to be completely replaced by naturalistic beliefs. You can be both spiritual, and believe in the natural world, without a supernatural. You just replace false beliefs with true ones, the more discoveries we make about the natural world around us.

Yes, there are people that believe that the universe itself is conscious. And that the universe projects it's consciousness onto our brains. And that our brains are not the source of consciousness, but merely a biological vessel through which it is channeled. And they may, when challenged, just invoke the limitations of materialism or the scientific method, so they don't have to justify their beliefs. Fine. We still have this thing called religion. And I am going to defend everyone's right of religion. But I don't really see any reasons to have some of these beliefs.

 

[Gabler]

Beauty and love aren't biological machines. The brain is. It can be studied. You don't need to be dead to be unconscious. If you are asleep, you are temporarily losing consciousness.
Again, I go back to the brain producing the consciousness. In humans and other animals. Which is something you disagreed with. We don't need a mathematical model for love. No one ever claimed there has to be such a thing. How neurons fire follows the laws of physics. Love or beauty do not. These are different things. We can rule that some organisms can definitely not be conscious, because they have no brain. Like starfish. And that some animals, like pigs, are conscious. And then there are animals for which it is hard to be sure, like insects. Because they have a brain and because we can do both behavioural experiments and do experiments like brain scans on them, to meet a certain criteria for a certain definition of consciousness. Including self-consciousness. We can ask meaningful answers and get actual answers to these things. Without the need to explain exactly how a brain gives rise to all elements of the human mind. We may be able to in the future do an MRI scan on a live spider, and judge if it meets a certain level of consciousness that we defined. Based on how many neurons it has, how they are connected, and in what kinds of patterns they fire, that do a certain thing we call 'consciousness'. Or we may try to link 'brain states' to consciousness, and fail. Who knows. We first need to try. And get higher resolution MRIs. And maybe some brains meet that requirement, some don't, and others are in a transition zone. We can answer that. What we will never be able to answer is how it feels to be a spider. And we don't need to.

I am not ruling out that no computer can ever be conscious. But things like rocks are not. Neither are plants. And sure there are spiritual and religious people that want to push back against materialism that also publish papers on this subject. But they have nothing meaningful to add to the discussion of how the natural world operates. They didn't have 2000 years ago. They still don't have today. Also doesn't mean spiritualism has to be completely replaced by naturalistic beliefs. You can be both spiritual, and believe in the natural world, without a supernatural. You just replace false beliefs with true ones, the more discoveries we make about the natural world around us.

Yes, there are people that believe that the universe itself is conscious. And that the universe projects it's consciousness onto our brains. And that our brains are not the source of consciousness, but merely a biological vessel through which it is channeled. And they may, when challenged, just invoke the limitations of materialism or the scientific method, so they don't have to justify their beliefs. Fine. We still have this thing called religion. And I am going to defend everyone's right of religion. But I don't really see any reasons to have some of these beliefs.

Not everyone is a materialist. Ergo, it is controversial to say that you can reduce consciousness to brain states.

You can't prove materialism any more than you can prove dualism.

 

[Glaucus]

There is no such thing as 'to prove materialism'. We don't need to. We can communicate these ideas right now because of a naturalist understanding of the universe. Through the internet. Because of 'materialism'.
This gave rise to medicine, modern agriculture, technology, and many other things.
Using experiments, empirical data and mathematics, we build models of reality. Models that can be predictive. And then we use those to answer meaningful questions. Which then allows so to push humanity forward, given that we make the right moral decisions. Or, they can be used to be bad things as well. There is no need to logically prove every other alternative thought anyone ever had, wrong.

Again, you just say that what I say is controversial. And beyond that you said some vague things about the limitations of science. Or making statements that in the next post you seem to be walking back from. I don't think this conversation is constructive. I also don't think you have anything to worry about. You want there to be some spiritual component to consciousness. Since we aren't anywhere close to completely figuring out the human brain, consciousness, and all states of being human, you have nothing to worry about. There is plenty of room without having to display a disinterest in what science can answer when it comes to this subject.

 

[Kodama]

Good thread.. I appreciate the discussion. 2 questions. Do you all think Science, Mathmatics, Quantum Theory etc. was invented or discovered? What about NDE that some have had consciousness outside the body?

 

[penumbra]

Those of you who know me are probably surprised I haven't chimed in. I am so far down this rabbit hole that much of my beliefs about this subject would be incomprehensible to most people here. I will just say that plants are responsible for our existence and they have been performing feats for millions of years that we still cannot do. I have not seen these videos and think they are probably so basic to my understanding, that I have already had the exposure through decades of reading and from teachers like Stephen Buhner, a friend and pioneer no longer with us.

 

[WestHavenMusician]

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.

I mean… possibly.
But what’s your evidence for those libels?

 

[WestHavenMusician]

Those of you who know me are probably surprised I haven't chimed in. I am so far down this rabbit hole that much of my beliefs about this subject would be incomprehensible to most people here. I will just say that plants are responsible for our existence and they have been performing feats for millions of years that we still cannot do. I have not seen these videos and think they are probably so basic to my understanding, that I have already had the exposure through decades of reading and from teachers like Stephen Buhner, a friend and pioneer no longer with us.

I’ll look up Stephen Buhner. Thanks.

My wife and I just had our first nice outdoor dinner together since her return from the two month ordeal of her mother’s illness and passing — we ate next to our new gift bonsai given in memory of her mother, and hopefully the first of a number of outdoor bonsai. So, after cleaning and weeding that part of our garden, we reconnected with the plants in the garden and breezes from the water, and with eachother.

This for us is a spiritual experience, not just a loving one as husband and wife.

And I have the sense that this is part of our care for the tree, and its place in caring for our health.

 

[Carol 83]

How about a nice game of chess?

 

[WestHavenMusician]

Good thread.. I appreciate the discussion. 2 questions. Do you all think Science, Mathmatics, Quantum Theory etc. was invented or discovered? What about NDE that some have had consciousness outside the body?

Discovery and invention have such variable meanings.

It’s interesting to note that the “vent” root of “invention” has a meaning that is related to “spirit” and “inspiration.” These words relate to breath, wind, and breathing.

I think that the root of the word “genius” and “genie” shares a similar meaning.

Since I first read about quantum entanglement, I sort of mused about this phenomenon being part of the true nature of consciousness.

My own first philosophical theories of consciousness began when I was a teenager studying nondeterministic fractals. Their attributes (self-similar patterns) seem to me a very good parallel to complex systems of all kinds, especially consciousness and identity.

“The truth is out there”

But it’s also within

 

[WestHavenMusician]

How about a nice game of chess?

I wonder if WOPR would be able to figure out that online bickering is as pointless as global thermonuclear war and tic tac toe.

I should change my screen name to “Dr. Falken.”

 

[Gabler]

For what it's worth, I asked my brother-in-law for his take on the issue. He has a PhD in neuroscience and works as a full-time researcher in a lab. Here's the exact wording of my question:

Hey, you're a neuroscientist, so I'd love to hear your take on this one: Is consciousness reducible to brain states?

Here's his response:

Haha an excellent question. It sort of depends on what you mean by consciousness, which is of course more of a philosophical question.

You can, for example, use brain states to recreate an image a person is viewing but that’s a pretty limited view of consciousness (perception only)

I think it is likely that consciousness is reducible to brain states (or the state of several networks in the brain) but we don’t have good evidence for it yet. There is a region of the brain called the claustrum that people think is responsible for consciousness but there’s not a lot of good evidence for technical/experimental reasons

A lot of my thoughts are informed by this figure which I referenced a lot because I studied social behavior. Basically someone hypothesized that social behavior is an emergent property of the interactions of six brain regions and how they interact determines the behavior expressed.



So I’d consider these interactions to be a brain state

 

[WestHavenMusician]

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.


*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.

I guess I’m having a hard time seeing someone saying “everything you said was dumb” as much of a gauntlet.

I’d be interested to hear any quotes of anything I’ve said that’s not “fighting fair…”

I’d be likely to apologize or moderate my wording if so.

 

[WestHavenMusician]

For what it's worth, I asked my brother-in-law for his take on the issue. He has a PhD in neuroscience and works as a full-time researcher in a lab. Here's the exact wording of my question:



Here's his response:

My doctorate isn’t in neuroscience — but it is in a field that depends heavily on neuroscience.

I’m more of a polymath and likely to synthesize across fields of study rather than stay siloed in one.

So I’m more likely to question a neurologist’s definition as too anthropocentric. And also likely to critique it as a little “tool biased” — that is, seeing science as the set of all things we have tools to measure. That seems extremely limited to me, and far too limited to effectively tackle a question like consciousness.

Even black holes retain an “image” of everything that has crossed the event horizon. Much like these brain state scans. So by this definition, a singularity is conscious.

It may be, but I don’t think the insight about brain scans and images etc takes us very far down the road to understanding or even just defining consciousness.

 

[Glaucus]

Instead of actual research, we can all just troll on the internet. That can also get us quite far. I guess I shouldn't have apologized.

 

[Gabler]

My doctorate isn’t in neuroscience — but it is in a field that depends heavily on neuroscience.

I’m more of a polymath and likely to synthesize across fields of study rather than stay siloed in one.

So I’m more likely to question a neurologist’s definition as too anthropocentric. And also likely to critique it as a little “tool biased” — that is, seeing science as the set of all things we have tools to measure. That seems extremely limited to me, and far too limited to effectively tackle a question like consciousness.

Even black holes retain an “image” of everything that has crossed the event horizon. Much like these brain state scans. So by this definition, a singularity is conscious.

It may be, but I don’t think the insight about brain scans and images etc takes us very far down the road to understanding or even just defining consciousness.

To paraphrase his answer, "It depends on how you define consciousness. Here's a possible way to define it."

 

[WestHavenMusician]

To paraphrase his answer, "It depends on how you define consciousness. Here's a possible way to define it."

Yes. It seems (to me) that he has defined it as “things we can image with 2020’s tech” when men are shown photos or some similar experiment.

That seems like worthy research and yes maybe a part of the answer, but for me it’s inadequate and doesn’t do more than scratch the surface of what I experience as consciousness.