Are plants conscious?

[Musika]

Are you comparing life to consciousness?

It seems consciousness is the symptom of life. Since talking about consciousness arising outside of life (ai) requires semblance of the activities of life to breach the category of consciousness, it appears there is no escaping it.

Overall this "black and white" approach is pretty limiting in my experience.

By transfering your outward appearance of choice selection in a given scenario (aka dissemblance) you are not introducing a shade of grey.

No dissembling required.
Consciousness is a scale, as are most other biological parameters.

The very word "biology" suggests a specific subject of investigation. Breaking something down from that subject and overlaying it on another subject to give it a semblance of the biological requires quite a lot of expenditure in the field of dissemblance.

Nope. He is acting against his self interest. Intentionally killing oneself is the very definition of acting against ones self interest.

The fact that he does it exclusively for his family, friends and countrymen (and not, say, the family, friends and countrymen of his enemy .... in fact, at their expense) suggests otherwise.

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.

Its not even that. He is choosing the lives of a specific community (namely his) above and beyond that of another (namely his enemy). To ignore the issues of extended identity involved in warfare is absurd (and also personally dangerous, should you speak to a veteran in such a manner in a bar).

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.

Your anecdotes provide nothing to explain why the aircraft industry managed to roll out technology 70 years ago that the automotive industry is still struggling to do so in the current age.

If you had ever flown the Manhattan VFR corridor, for example, you would not think that was the case.

Tilting windmills.
There are also good reasons uber are not doing their trials in downtown Kolkata.

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.

Not sure why you felt "ordinary" was warranted in regards to biosynthesis ....
As for discussing reproduction out of its necessarily "bio" subcategory, that has never been my agenda.

 

[Musika]

Do you think that this irreducibility is temporary or a permanent fixture?
If the latter, do you have proof of the impossibility, per chance?

As far as science goes, the only proof required is the current state of affairs of knowledge.

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.

In the meantime, we are left with a more pluralistic approach to knowledge.

I.e. there seems a significant whiff of affirming the consequent about your position here.

On the contrary, there is more than a "significant whiff" brewing on the meteorological charts when a special (unproven) narrative has to be constantly broadcasted to deal with the apparent fact of a dualistic approach.

 

[Musika]

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

Can I have my $20 now?

 

[iceaura]

Can I have my $20 now?

You are about to lose in principle the bet you avoided in fact, unless I miss my guess.

Synthesis is being called motherhood, parenthood, etc, pretty much routinely in the world at large. It's not that big a step to synthesis by a person acquiring the same label.

 

[Musika]

You are about to lose in principle the bet you avoided in fact, unless I miss my guess.

Synthesis is being called motherhood, parenthood, etc, pretty much routinely in the world at large. It's not that big a step to synthesis by a person acquiring the same label.

Well, family court lawyers will have a field day in your new world order.

 

[Baldeee]

As far as science goes, the only proof required is the current state of affairs of knowledge.

Given that that is no proof at all, I'll take your answer as you admitting that you cant prove it impossible

In the meantime, we are left with a more pluralistic approach to knowledge.

Which in itself is no evidence for reality being ultimately dualistic, only evidence that, in the absence of significant chunks of knowledge, a dualistic approach can be of benefit.

On the contrary, there is more than a "significant whiff" brewing on the meteorological charts when a special (unproven) narrative has to be constantly broadcasted to deal with the apparent fact of a dualistic approach.

Which "special (unproven) narrative" of mine are you referring to, exactly?
But needless to say, in your own inimitable style you haven‘t actually addressed the issue, rather just deflect.
Hey ho.
And is this "apparent fact" yet another of your "self evident" truths?
Or perhaps, just once, you'd care to put some substance behind your comments?

 

[Musika]

Given that that is no proof at all, I'll take your answer as you admitting that you cant prove it impossible

On the contrary, it would be impossible to prove otherwise.
If you want to talk about a monist take via an empirical method, by necessity, you will have to move outside empiricism to philosophically bridge the gaps. Given that strapping a philosophy to science for the sake of driving home a favoured narrative is not science (or at least, not the best form of it), I think its perfectly clear why it is better to just let current working models speak for themselves rather than venture down the slippery slope of vague hand waving.

Which "special (unproven) narrative" of mine are you referring to, exactly?

Proving a monist take on reality of course. The only way to logically prove it would be to discover "everything", or start bringing in philosophical tools outside of empiricism (which, funnily enough, will start to bring an eerie resemblance to scholasticism, along with all the glory it brought to christian philosophy).

I guess its a question of whether you are comfortable resorting to dogma for the sake of protecting empiricism against imagined enemies.

 

[billvon]

It seems consciousness is the symptom of life.

So bacteria are conscious? Viruses are conscious? I don't think that flies.

By transfering your outward appearance of choice selection in a given scenario (aka dissemblance) you are not introducing a shade of grey.

Word salad.

There are degrees of consciousness. Shades of gray, in other words, rather than black (no consciousness) and white (100% conscious.) This is pretty elementary.

The very word "biology" suggests a specific subject of investigation. Breaking something down from that subject and overlaying it on another subject to give it a semblance of the biological requires quite a lot of expenditure in the field of dissemblance.

OK. So why are you doing it?

The fact that he does it exclusively for his family, friends and countrymen (and not, say, the family, friends and countrymen of his enemy .... in fact, at their expense) suggests otherwise.

Correct. He has abandoned self-interest for a higher purpose (family, patriotism, freedom etc.) Per your definition that means he is not conscious. I disagree.

Its not even that. He is choosing the lives of a specific community (namely his) above and beyond that of another (namely his enemy). To ignore the issues of extended identity involved in warfare is absurd (and also personally dangerous, should you speak to a veteran in such a manner in a bar).

I agree. You might lose some of your teeth if you claimed that such a person was not conscious (or if they were pursing self interest.)

 

[Musika]

So bacteria are conscious? Viruses are conscious? I don't think that flies.

Why not?

Word salad.

There are degrees of consciousness. Shades of gray, in other words, rather than black (no consciousness) and white (100% conscious.) This is pretty elementary.

If being either alive or dead spells an ultimate dichotomy, it appears that whatever you are pigeon holing with shades of grey is lodged in a grander dualistic context.

OK. So why are you doing it?

Its not my expenditure. Its yours.

Correct. He has abandoned self-interest for a higher purpose (family, patriotism, freedom etc.)

Which, funnily enough, all pertain to a higher notion of their identity and interest.

Per your definition that means he is not conscious. I disagree.

The fact that he does it exclusively for HIS family, etc suggests otherwise.

I agree. You might lose some of your teeth if you claimed that such a person was not conscious (or if they were pursing self interest.)

Yeah, vetetans are really sweet on people who take a dump on their acts of valour.

 

[Baldeee]

On the contrary, it would be impossible to prove otherwise.

That is not on the contrary at all, rather simply a non sequitur on your part.
Your answer is akin to "well, you can't prove its not, therefore it is".
Is this all you have, your insistence and confidence?

If you want to talk about a monist take via an empirical method, by necessity, you will have to move outside empiricism to philosophically bridge the gaps. Given that strapping a philosophy to science for the sake of driving home a favoured narrative is not science (or at least, not the best form of it), I think its perfectly clear why it is better to just let current working models speak for themselves rather than venture down the slippery slope of vague hand waving.

I am merely not dismissing the idea, unlike you seem to be, and trying to understand the dualistic a approach for what it is: an approach that offers benefits, rather than categorical proof that the universe is dualistic.

Proving a monist take on reality of course.

Where have I tried to do such, or even said that such is possible?

The only way to logically prove it would be to discover "everything", or start bringing in philosophical tools outside of empiricism

Burden of proof is not on me, though, to prove that dualism is false.
After all, it is not even what I am suggesting, even if your knees have jerked in that direction.
Are you, for some reason, under the notion that I am claiming the universe to be monistic?

I guess its a question of whether you are comfortable resorting to dogma for the sake of protecting empiricism against imagined enemies.

And what dogma do you think I am resorting to?

 

[iceaura]

Well, family court lawyers will have a field day in your new world order.

They take an interest in the metaphorical labeling of synthesized bacteria?

If being either alive or dead spells an ultimate dichotomy

It doesn't.

 

[Musika]

They take an interest in the metaphorical labeling of synthesized bacteria?

They have extended their business interests to not only microbiology but also plumbing and circuitry, with discrimination suits involving male and female sockets

It doesn't.

Well, I guess we are not hearing any overwhelming protests from the dead, so perhaps you have a leg og sorts to stand on.

 

[Musika]

That is not on the contrary at all,

Then feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

I am merely not dismissing the idea, unlike you seem to be, and trying to understand the dualistic a approach for what it is: an approach that offers benefits, rather than categorical proof that the universe is dualistic.

In the meantime we have functioning dualistic approaches. So if you want to extinguish dualism as an approach for the sake of propping up a monist idea, you have a bit of leg work ahead of you.

Where have I tried to do such, or even said that such is possible?

Fine.
If you don't want to talk about dualism actually being a special subset of monism on the basis of an idea that you cannot even prove or begin to explain how you would go about proving, you certainly won't hear any complaint from me.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Why couldn't that happen in a place where there are daily rains but no tides?

because in rain you cant get the same living animal circulating back to its own dna.
an organism .. yes, not many .. maybe cold & flu viruses may survive being turned into rain.. but certainly not dolphins or whales, or dinosaurs.
frogs.. yes.. fish... yes but not many and probably not enough to seed a species that can survive past 1 or 2 years.

can we assertain a life form that does not require water to evolve into an animal and/or something with a brain ?

the tidal wash is required for a breeding cycle to enable evolution of the dna/species.
yes it CAN happen with rain, BUT only on a virus level as above(generally postulating)

 

[Baldeee]

Then feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

Demonstrate that your non sequitur was not "on the contrary" to what I had said?
What a peculiar request.

In the meantime we have functioning dualistic approaches. So if you want to extinguish dualism as an approach for the sake of propping up a monist idea, you have a bit of leg work ahead of you.

Again, who is suggesting extinguishing dualism as an approach?
Ever tried actually stopping your knees from jerking?

Fine.
If you don't want to talk about dualism actually being a special subset of monism on the basis of an idea that you cannot even prove or begin to explain how you would go about proving, you certainly won't hear any complaint from me.

Breaking News: Musika won't complain that someone won't be arguing what they weren't arguing.

 

[Write4U]

can we assertain a life form that does not require water to evolve into an animal and/or something with a brain ?

There is no living organisms known not to require H2O. It is fundamental to living things as we know them.

Water covers 71% of the Earth's surface.[1] It is vital for all known forms of life. On Earth, 96.5% of the planet's crust water is found in seas and oceans, 1.7% in groundwater, 1.7% in glaciers and the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland, a small fraction in other large water bodies, 0.001% in the air as vapor, clouds (formed of ice and liquid water suspended in air), and precipitation.[2][3] Only 2.5% of this water is freshwater, and 98.8% of that water is in ice (excepting ice in clouds) and groundwater. Less than 0.3% of all freshwater is in rivers, lakes, and the atmosphere, and an even smaller amount of the Earth's freshwater (0.003%) is contained within biological bodies and manufactured products.[2] A greater quantity of water is found in the earth's interior.

Water on Earth moves continually through the water cycle of evaporation and transpiration (evapotranspiration), condensation, precipitation, and runoff, usually reaching the sea. Evaporation and transpiration contribute to the precipitation over land. Large amounts of water are also chemically combined or adsorbed in hydrated minerals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water

Remember Hazen's demonstration of the surface properties of clay ?

 

[spidergoat]

Your views are antiquated by at least a century.

Spiritualism is antiquated.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

There is no living organisms known not to require H2O. It is fundamental to living things as we know them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water

Remember Hazen's demonstration of the surface properties of clay ?

trying to find the hazen thing to read

in the mean time...
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/bacteria-international-space-station-germy-humans-spd/

The International Space Station floats above planet Earth.
Photograph by NASA
By Elaina Zachos
PUBLISHED November 28, 2017
Living bacteria have been found on the outside of the International Space Station, a Russian cosmonaut told the state news agency TASS this week.

 

[Musika]

Spiritualism is antiquated.

Psychology is not spiritualism

 

[spidergoat]

Psychology is not spiritualism

Dualism is spiritualism. No reference to the non-physical is part of psychology.