Are plants conscious?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Musika, Mar 26, 2018.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,143
    Are you comparing life to consciousness? They seem like two completely different things.

    Overall this "black and white" approach is pretty limiting in my experience.
    No dissembling required. Consciousness is a scale, as are most other biological parameters.
    Nope. He is acting against his self interest. Intentionally killing oneself is the very definition of acting against ones self interest.

    He may, of course, be acting in support of a higher moral cause (like choosing the lives of many over his own) but that is a decision absolutely made against his self interest.
    Sounds like you've painted yourself into a corner with your definition of consciousness and are now trying to redefine words to "win."

    I will let you play such games by yourself; they are ultimately not very interesting. I think you now realize that your requirement that anything conscious must exhibit self interest is invalid.
    It offers a better perspective on why you think that an aircraft's working environment is many times less complex than a car's when it comes to avoiding collisions. If you had ever flown the Manhattan VFR corridor, for example, you would not think that was the case.
    There is certainly a difference between abiogenesis (beginning of life from lifelessness) and 'ordinary' biosynthesis. However, reproduction ('synthesis of life') _is_ biosynthesis, just writ large.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,596
    And the causal chemical functions whch result in life.
    At least it is a narrative, regardless of the semantics. That old ploy doesn't work on me.
    What is your narrative? And feel free to use as many superlatives as you like.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,879
    And synthesizing the chemicals involved. So humans - being alive - can synthesize a bacterium, just as a bacterium - being alive - can. Different techniques, is all.
    That's not how bacteria do it. They synthesize the chemicals of a new bacterium, chemical by chemical, and then split it off. They don't "give rise to".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,303
    It may not be required, but it might help others frame your response, and might avoid confusion in future.
    As said, some people immediately see "dualism" as referring to substance dualism and from there, rightly or wrongly, to a religious agenda.
    I just felt that clarifying one's position might avoid such.
    If you don't think so, or simply don't want to clarify, that is your prerogative.
    I'm sure you think this has relevance.
    Do you think that this irreducibility is temporary or a permanent fixture?
    If the latter, do you have proof of the impossibility, per chance?
    Equally it is what we might expect if the universe is actually monistic but we simply lack understanding of the complexity of systems such as those being discussed, and where in the interim we find dualistic approaches to be of benefit.
    I.e. there seems a significant whiff of affirming the consequent about your position here.
    As said, my aim in asking you to which you refer was simply to help understand your overall viewpoint, and possibly to avoid confusion later on.
    Seeking initial clarification between propert and substance dualism seemed a good starting point.
    If you wish to clarify beyond that, please feel free.
    If you don't wish to clarify at all, again that is your call.
    I don't disagree with any of that.

    You seem to have misunderstood my purpose for asking for clarity, so I will drop it.
     
  8. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Then you are introducing two requirements ... namely living scientists (since dead one's aren't anywhere near as productive in laboratories) and living bacteria (since dead bacteria don't appear to respond well to genome transplants).

    Oh, you mean like "parent cells"?
     
  9. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Yes, the hockey mask fracas of abiogenetic theory.

    I don't know about you, but when I discuss science, I prefer not to rely on narratives.
     
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,596
    Then make a formal scientific presentation for peer review. Make you famous!!!!.......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    I agree, it would.
    In the meantime however you are left with a view on consciousness that cannot isolate causal forces and amid the fervour of the beginning ice hockey season.
     
  12. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,148
    You mean... empiricism?
    Doesn't matter. The scientific community supports evidence, and there is no evidence for dualism.
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,879
    I didn't introduce them. They appeared automatically in the word "synthesis". https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/synthesis
    Yep. Metaphor is metaphor.
    The word will be used to describe some scientist who synthesizes a bacterial cell, also - bet?
     
  14. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Since you are rejecting what is observable, no.

    It does. Scientists don't knock on your front door to check if their latest advancements disturb the status quo of your 19th century conceptions of science.
     
  15. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Given that a bacteria without reproductive capacities (such as a dead one) spells the end of synthesis via genome transplants, there seems to be an obvious detail you are overlooking

    If this is humour, you are good.
    If it's not humour, it is still quite funny.
     
  16. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,148
    You observed a mind?
     
  17. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Have you observed science, post 1950?
     
  18. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,148
    What's that supposed to mean? ...Of course I'm up on all the latest in scientifical endeavours:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,596
    And what do you think is causal to the fervour of the beginning ice hockey season? Dopamine!
    This season we're going to be champion!!!. Hip, hip, hooray!!!!
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,596
    And what detail would that be? Lack of consciousness and cognition?
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,879
    Taking the bet, or not?

    btw: "father" means "parent". So does "mother" - which is used for bacteria synthesizers, on occasion:
    That particular synthesis is not called "reproduction", btw.
    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-spore-formation-in-bacteria-not-considered-a-form-of-reproduction
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2018
  22. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    Your views are antiquated by at least a century.
     
  23. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,906
    A brilliant example of life imitating art.
     

Share This Page