Human conciousness and Space Time - Page 2

isidoor rabi · #31 (**permalink**) 30-May-2007, 04:40 PM

clarification

Post #28 was done in respose to BioSci.
Look at the clock logs!

R.A.F. · #32 (**permalink**) 30-May-2007, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by isidoor rabi

I will only enter into dialogue with you if you show willingness to muster a little more exertion.

If you are unwilling to state your ideas, precisely, (so they can be evaluated), then I am unwilling to "exert" myself further in this discussion...

In other words...Buh-bye.

isidoor rabi · #33 (**permalink**) 30-May-2007, 04:54 PM

I think I know you from another board, R.A.F.!

fredquimbo456 · #34 (**permalink**) 30-May-2007, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pranab

I dont think that a tree is concious. The conciousness has been a topic of great interest amongst the philosophers. Impairment of conciousness results Stupor, Drowsiness & lastly Coma or with alteration of conciousness meaning inability to think coherently. Conciousness is related to awereness, perception, appreciation, thinking, expression in language and action and all forms of intellectual that are dependent on continious intregration of mental process. the conciousness requires activity of cerebral hemisphere and a special thalamocortical alternating system termed as Reticular activating system(RAS) Proper functioning of cerebral cortex ascendind projection of RAS to cortex & corticothalamic connections are required to maintain alertness and coherence of thaught and intellegence. A loosly grouped aggregation of numerous nuerons located in the upper brainstem and medial thalamus, the RAS maintain the cerebral cortex in a wakefull state and concious of self and sorroundings. THe RAS are crucial for maintanance of wakefullness particulary the caudal mid brain to lower thalamus.
The synaptic junctions acts here through some chemicals like Serotonin molecules or Through acetylcholine molecules that sends electrical signals for conciousness. The conciousness starts in Uterolife as soon as brain develops
and persists till death unless a person suffe rs from Coma or confusional or in vegetative or Alzhemiare disease . where from the self conciousness comes to foetus? where the self conciousness vanishes in these diseased state? or after death?

A tree has some consciousness, of course. It is aware of seasons, where the sun is, where nutrients in the soil are, and it will try to maximise its existence. Though there is no abstract thought or reasoning. Animals of course do share abstract thought with us.

Anything which is alive is conscious to some degree.

BioSci · #35 (**permalink**) 30-May-2007, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredquimbo456

A tree has some consciousness, of course. It is aware of seasons, where the sun is, where nutrients in the soil are, and it will try to maximise its existence. Though there is no abstract thought or reasoning. Animals of course do share abstract thought with us.

Anything which is alive is conscious to some degree.

Responding to a stimulus is not the same as consciousness.
Consciousness means actually thinking. Plant responses to the environment are of a wholly different nature than conscious actions or thoughts. Plants are not "aware" - but they can be "programmed" by metabolic and genetic mechanisms to respond to day length, temperature, and seasons.
Plants respond to the sun primarily by differential growth (commonly demonstrated in beginning biology classes) - the "movement" to gravity or light is a result of greater (or less) cellular expansion on one side, thereby making the plant change its orientation. Root growth is simply faster where moisture and nutrients are located.
"maximize its existence" is a bit too personified. Plants come with genetic instructions and their environment dictates how well they are executed - no thinking, planning, or consciousness involved.

Peter Wilson · #36 (**permalink**) 30-May-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredquimbo456

Anything which is alive is conscious to some degree.

That is a supposition, but the converse, that no living thing except human beings is conscious is a vastly greatly "stretch" of the imagination. I do not suppose we are anywhere near actually experimentally verifying that trees, e.g. are conscious, but the burden-of-proof is on the nay-sayers, because everything alive acts as if it is conscious.

As far as nerves-and-brains go: consider the first computers, which operated in a gaseous-mode (vacuum tubes) and their modern, solid-state descendents. The first computers filled basements and required their own air conditioners, and pocket-calculators can now run circles around them. But despite the fact that the technology of computers has evolved in leaps-and-bounds, the principle of operation is still the same!!!

The technology is completely different, but "what they are doing" is still the same. Ditto for consciousness.

Just because a computer lacks solid-state devices does not mean, "it is not computing." And just because plants lack brains does not mean, "they are not aware." We do not understand the principle-of-operation of consciousness in human brain, and until we actually understand what gives rise to consicousness in us, you cannot say (with any certainty) that the same thing is not happening in plants.

Well, you can say it, but it don't mean a thing

Van Rijn · #37 (**permalink**) 31-May-2007, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Wilson

I do not suppose we are anywhere near actually experimentally verifying that trees, e.g. are conscious, but the burden-of-proof is on the nay-sayers, because everything alive acts as if it is conscious.

What is your definition of "conscious"?

I say that every living thing acts as if it is zlork! The burden of proof is on the nay sayers to prove life is not zlork!

Until you specifically define "conscious" in an objective way, it means no more or less than the made up word "zlork."

Van Rijn · #38 (**permalink**) 31-May-2007, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BioSci

Responding to a stimulus is not the same as consciousness.
Consciousness means actually thinking. Plant responses to the environment are of a wholly different nature than conscious actions or thoughts. Plants are not "aware" - but they can be "programmed" by metabolic and genetic mechanisms to respond to day length, temperature, and seasons.
Plants respond to the sun primarily by differential growth (commonly demonstrated in beginning biology classes) - the "movement" to gravity or light is a result of greater (or less) cellular expansion on one side, thereby making the plant change its orientation.

In fairness, I'll ask the same of you: What is your specific, objective definition of "consciousness"? Frankly, I think it is a largely useless term in a scientific discussion. What we can say is that species with complex nervous systems can act and function in ways that species without complex nervous systems cannot. All life does not act as if it has a nervous system. All life does not act as if it has a complex nervous system.

BioSci · #39 (**permalink**) 31-May-2007, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Wilson

...And just because plants lack brains does not mean, "they are not aware." We do not understand the principle-of-operation of consciousness in human brain, and until we actually understand what gives rise to consicousness in us, you cannot say (with any certainty) that the same thing is not happening in plants.

Well, you can say it, but it don't mean a thing

Well, I think that we can quite safely say that without a brain and nerves (or any other anatomical structures capable of sensing or processing such information) that organisms like plants are not conscious. Although we do not fully understand all aspects of how brains work, we certainly know enough to be sure that without one, the organism is incapable of thought or consciousness. To be blunt, such a conclusion is "a no-brainer".

BioSci · #40 (**permalink**) 31-May-2007, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Van Rijn

In fairness, I'll ask the same of you: What is your specific, objective definition of "consciousness"? Frankly, I think it is a largely useless term in a scientific discussion. What we can say is that species with complex nervous systems can act and function in ways that species without complex nervous systems cannot. All life does not act as if it has a nervous system. All life does not act as if it has a complex nervous system.

While a rigorous definition of consciousness may be difficult to provide I think that simple dictionary definitions will suffice - especially to differentiate between plants and higher animals.
How about this one::
"Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious "

The philosophical "problem" of consciousness that is not fully understood relates to these qualities of subjectivity, self-awareness, sapience and free will.

The ability of neural tissues to compute and brains to think is not an unsolved problem in physiology. We do have a basic understanding of how neural tissues work and this understanding allows one to conclude that since plants do not have nerves, brains, or any other tissues capable of similar activity that they would have the same mental ability of rocks (which have the same lack of such computational tissues).

Van Rijn · #41 (**permalink**) 31-May-2007, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BioSci

While a rigorous definition of consciousness may be difficult to provide I think that simple dictionary definitions will suffice - especially to differentiate between plants and higher animals.
How about this one::
"Consciousness is a quality of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscious "

Which shifts the problem of definition to "subjectivity," "self-awareness," "sentience," "sapience," and "perception." Personally, I think "consciousness" is a term that is used far too freely and is given far more importance than is warranted.

Quote:

The ability of neural tissues to compute and brains to think is not an unsolved problem in physiology. We do have a basic understanding of how neural tissues work and this understanding allows one to conclude that since plants do not have nerves, brains, or any other tissues capable of similar activity that they would have the same mental ability of rocks (which have the same lack of such computational tissues).

Again, it's clear that humans (and other species with complex nervous systems) have functions and are capable of doing things that plants (or other living and non-living things without nervous systems) are not. I don't see much point in getting into an argument about zlork (or other objectively useless terms). Let someone who claims plants have zlork provide the objective definition and evidence for it.

fredquimbo456 · #42 (**permalink**) 31-May-2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BioSci

Responding to a stimulus is not the same as consciousness.
Consciousness means actually thinking. Plant responses to the environment are of a wholly different nature than conscious actions or thoughts. Plants are not "aware" - but they can be "programmed" by metabolic and genetic mechanisms to respond to day length, temperature, and seasons.
Plants respond to the sun primarily by differential growth (commonly demonstrated in beginning biology classes) - the "movement" to gravity or light is a result of greater (or less) cellular expansion on one side, thereby making the plant change its orientation. Root growth is simply faster where moisture and nutrients are located.
"maximize its existence" is a bit too personified. Plants come with genetic instructions and their environment dictates how well they are executed - no thinking, planning, or consciousness involved.

And yet stmulus-respons accounts for a lot of human behaviour. It is undeniably part of our mental setup. Humans and a lot of animals are of course able of higher processes, which do involve thought. It's all a question of scale, insn't it?

fredquimbo456 · #43 (**permalink**) 31-May-2007, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pranab

Human conciousness can be transported from the human brain to any computer? does a
computer has emotions ? In other sense does a robbot has conciousness?
Dr Pranab Kr Bhattacharya
Mr Rupak Bhattacharya & Ritwik Bhattacharya
www.unipathos.com

To go back to the original topic, we know that some animals are capable of some high tought processes. I always like to think that having a conversation with an intelligent primate is similar to a conversation with a toddler.

By the way, do you know what phrase primates that have been trained use the most? Believe it or not, but I read somewhere it was: "Let me out ..."

R.A.F. · #44 (**permalink**) 31-May-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredquimbo456

...do you know what phrase primates that have been trained use the most? Believe it or not, but I read somewhere it was: "Let me out ..."

Belief is irrelevant...am I expected to take your "word" for it??

Until you can cite a source for that, I'm skeptical of the validity of your statement.

Noclevername · #45 (**permalink**) 31-May-2007, 12:22 PM

He read it on the internet!

Peter Wilson · #46 (**permalink**) 31-May-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BioSci

Well, I think that we can quite safely say that without a brain and nerves (or any other anatomical structures capable of sensing or processing such information) that organisms like plants are not conscious. Although we do not fully understand all aspects of how brains work, we certainly know enough to be sure that without one, the organism is incapable of thought or consciousness. To be blunt, such a conclusion is "a no-brainer".

Then we can quite safely say that without a heart and lungs (or any other anatomical structures capable of exchanging oxygen for CO2) that organisms like plants do not breath. Although we do not fully understand all aspects of how hearts and lungs work, we certainly know enough to be sure that without these, the organism is incapable of respiration. To be blunt, such a conclusion is "a no-brainer"

Hopefully everyone can see the speciousness of such an argument when framed in a biological process that is understood. Plants breath when the sun goes down, same as animals, but at a much slower rate.

On an evolutionary timescale, plants evolved the means to breath before animals did. What animals did with the invention of the heart and lung was to supercharge the respiration process. Supercharging respiration provides for locomotion, etc.

The same argument can be made with regards to awareness: plants probably invented it eons ago, before animals even existed, and animals have super-charged the process with nerves and brains.

As stated above, plant awareness is supposition at this time, but the notion is very likely to be born out by scientific investigation at some point, just as it has been positively shown that plants respire.

Noclevername · #47 (**permalink**) 31-May-2007, 08:21 PM

Until and unless "consciousness" has a clear definition, answering the OP isn't possible. As for plants, some can communicate (in a very limited way) and respond to conditions, but then everything alive (and some robots) do this to some degree as well.

Van Rijn · #48 (**permalink**) 31-May-2007, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Wilson

The same argument can be made with regards to awareness: plants probably invented it eons ago, before animals even existed, and animals have super-charged the process with nerves and brains.

What is your specific, objective definition of "awareness"?

Quote:

As stated above, plant awareness is supposition at this time, but the notion is very likely to be born out by scientific investigation at some point, just as it has been positively shown that plants respire.

Well, I could say:

It's a supposition at this time that plants are run by invisible elves, but I think it will be born out by scientific investigation at some point, just as it has been positively shown that plants respire.

What objective difference is there between this statement and yours?