Are plants conscious?

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

  1. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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).

    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.

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

    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.
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

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

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

    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.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    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.
  8. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Well, family court lawyers will have a field day in your new world order.
  9. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Given that that is no proof at all, I'll take your answer as you admitting that you cant prove it impossible
    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.
    Which "special (unproven) narrative" of mine are you referring to, exactly?
    But needless to say, in your own inimitable style you havenā€˜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?
  10. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    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.

    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.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    So bacteria are conscious? Viruses are conscious? I don't think that flies.
    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.
    OK. So why are you doing it?
    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.
    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.)
  12. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Why not?

    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.

    Its not my expenditure. Its yours.

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

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

    Yeah, vetetans are really sweet on people who take a dump on their acts of valour.
  13. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    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?
    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.
    Where have I tried to do such, or even said that such is possible?
    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?
    And what dogma do you think I am resorting to?
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They take an interest in the metaphorical labeling of synthesized bacteria?
    It doesn't.
  15. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

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

    Well, I guess we are not hearing any overwhelming protests from the dead, so perhaps you have a leg og sorts to stand on.
  16. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Then feel free to demonstrate otherwise.

    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.

    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.
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    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)
  18. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    Demonstrate that your non sequitur was not "on the contrary" to what I had said?
    What a peculiar request.
    Again, who is suggesting extinguishing dualism as an approach?
    Ever tried actually stopping your knees from jerking?
    Breaking News: Musika won't complain that someone won't be arguing what they weren't arguing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

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

    Remember Hazen's demonstration of the surface properties of clay ?
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  20. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Spiritualism is antiquated.
  21. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    trying to find the hazen thing to read

    in the mean time...
  22. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Psychology is not spiritualism
  23. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

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

Share This Page