Evolution Is Just An Emergent Property Of the Action Of Consciousness

gmilam said:
Ah, another intelligent design variant.

How would one even test the idea of a conscious universe?
Click to expand...
Not Intelligent, but Conscious. There is no master plan that Consciousness is executing. All I'm saying is that Conscious Experiences can motivate Animals to stay away from Painful situations (a predators mouth) which will have the consequence of higher survival rates.
 
Steve Klinko said:
Not Intelligent, but Conscious. There is no master plan that Consciousness is executing. All I'm saying is that Conscious Experiences can motivate Animals to stay away from Painful situations (a predators mouth) which will have the consequence of higher survival rates.
Click to expand...
Are my tomato plants conscious?
 
Steve Klinko said:
All I'm saying is that Conscious Experiences can motivate Animals to stay away from Painful situations (a predators mouth) which will have the consequence of higher survival rates.
Click to expand...
Duh! However, evolution had to already be going on to get to the point of mouths and predators.
 
gmilam said:
Are my tomato plants conscious?
Click to expand...
The OP specifically states the scope of the OP in the first sentence: Animal Evolution, not Plant Evolution. I don't know for sure, but I don't think Plants have Pain. Wouldn't it be cruel if they did have Pain. They seem to have no Volitional or Reflex Movement capability to relieve the Pain. Plants probably (my Speculation) have no Conscious Experience. The interesting realization of this is that without Conscious Experience all you can get is Plant Life from Evolution.

Animal Evolution is not a completely Mindless, Bio Electrical Chemical, DNA Mutating, Environmentally Influenced process. Rather, Animal Evolution is driven by a combination of primitive Conscious Desires (and Experiences), Bio Electrical Chemical processes, Random DNA Mutations, and Environmental Influences.
 
gmilam said:
Duh! However, evolution had to already be going on to get to the point of mouths and predators.
Click to expand...
At some point in Evolution, actual Experienced Pain appeared. That is the point of entry into the discussion of the OP. Nobody can say when this Experienced Pain entered Animal Life, but when it did, it must have been a Watershed moment in Evolution. Don't know if mouths were already around when Pain appeared.
 
Steve Klinko said:
Plants probably (my Speculation) have no Conscious Experience. The interesting realization of this is that without Conscious Experience all you can get is Plant Life from Evolution.
Click to expand...
So, unlike Joseph Campbell, you don't think heliotropism is a sign of consciousness.
 
gmilam said:
Why not? Why do you draw the line at plants?
Click to expand...
I draw the line because of a lifetime of observing Plants. Nobody knows for sure about Plants, but I think it's a pretty good bet that they do not have Conscious Experiences. Of course there is a completely mechanistic cause for the Plant to follow the Sun having to do with faster or slower growth on one side of the plant due to the Sun which causes it to tilt in the direction of the Sun.
 
Steve Klinko said:
I draw the line because of a lifetime of observing Plants. Nobody knows for sure about Plants, but I think it's a pretty good bet that they do not have Conscious Experiences.
Click to expand...
By that logic it would be apparent that evolution is not an emergent property of consciousness. It could even imply the opposite, consciousness is an emergent property of evolution.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Exactly right. Evolution operates quite effectively on things that don't have a central nervous system (plants, amoebae) and are therefore not conscious.
Click to expand...

Actually there is evidence that plants have far more of the aspects that might be defined as "consciousness" than we tend to imagine.

You could also go to near-death .com and do a search for the word "plants" and some intriguing results would pop up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants
 
Dennis Tate said:
Actually there is evidence that plants have far more of the aspects that might be defined as "consciousness" than we tend to imagine.

You could also go to near-death .com and do a search for the word "plants" and some intriguing results would pop up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants
Click to expand...
From your own link: many of the claims in the book are false or unsupported.
Why do you persist in posting nonsense?
 
Dywyddyr said:
From your own link: many of the claims in the book are false or unsupported.
Why do you persist in posting nonsense?
Click to expand...

Because the editors at Wikipedia lie!

They may have reasons for their biases that to them justify their lie.... but it is obvious that even very smart people wish to keep their world view more simple and small.

One logical reason for the evidence for the Secret Life of Plants to be suppressed a little bit... is that we may tend to fear some variation of a "Plants Rights Movement" along the line of PETA??? That is a somewhat scary thought isn't it?
 
Dennis Tate said:
Because the editors at Wikipedia lie!
Click to expand...
That's based on... what?
Have you actually read the work referenced?
Do you contend that Galston and Slayman didn't state that many of the claims are false or unsupported?
Perhaps I should quote the two authors directly: corpus of fallacious or unprovable claims which comprise The Secret Life of Plants. (From the paper cited in Wiki).
They may have reasons for their biases that to them justify their lie.... but it is obvious that even very smart people wish to keep their world view more simple and small.
Click to expand...
In other words - regardless of the facts and what science says you're sticking with your beliefs. Okay.
One logical reason for the evidence for the Secret Life of Plants to be suppressed a little bit
Click to expand...
So you choose to believe a book that relies on "uncontrolled experiments, random observations, and anecdotal reports" [quote from the same paper] rather than controlled studies?
 
Dywyddyr said:
That's based on... what?
Have you actually read the work referenced?
Do you contend that Galston and Slayman didn't state that many of the claims are false or unsupported?
Perhaps I should quote the two authors directly: corpus of fallacious or unprovable claims which comprise The Secret Life of Plants. (From the paper cited in Wiki).

In other words - regardless of the facts and what science says you're sticking with your beliefs. Okay.

So you choose to believe a book that relies on "uncontrolled experiments, random observations, and anecdotal reports" [quote from the same paper] rather than controlled studies?
Click to expand...

It is obvious that if the claims in this book are not somehow shown to have less value.....
then the Richard Dawkins Ph. D. world view might be defeated......
if that happened then the existing ethical foundation of the world economy would begin to crumble......
because our economy and government do have a basis in the ideas of Robert Thomas Malthus.

Summary[edit]
The book includes summaries of the life and work of 20th century scientists Jagadish Chandra Bose and Corentin Louis Kervran as well as 19th century scientist George Washington Carver.

The book includes experiments on plant stimuli using a polygraph, a method which was pioneered by Cleve Backster.[3][4] Parts of the book attempt to disparage science, particularly plant biology, for example by claiming science is not concerned with "what makes plants live", in order to promote its own viewpoint that plants have emotions. The authors further say the authorities are unable to accept that emotional plants "might originate in a supramaterial world of cosmic beings which, as fairies, elves, gnomes, sylphs, and a host of other creatures, were a matter of direct vision and experience to clairvoyants among the Celts and other sensitives."[3]

Criticism[edit]
The book has been criticized by botanists such as Arthur Galston for endorsing pseudoscientific claims.[5] According to Galston and physiologist Clifford L. Slayman many of the claims in the book are false or unsupported by independent verification and replicable studies.[6]

Botanist Leslie Audus noted that the book is filled with nonsensical "outrageous" claims and should be regarded as fiction.
Click to expand...

The type of progress that most of us want is supposed to proceed slowly and according to our world view and we are not ready for something like this.......



https://www.near-death.com/religion/christianity/howard-storm.html#a04

The image of the future that they gave me then, and it was their image, not one that I created, surprised me. My image had previously been sort of like Star Wars, where everything was space age, plastics, and technology.



The future that they showed me was almost no technology at all. What everybody, absolutely everybody, in this euphoric future spent most of their time doing was raising children. The chief concern of people was children, and everybody considered children to be the most precious commodity in the world.



And when a person became an adult, there was no sense of anxiety, nor hatred, nor competition.



There was this enormous sense of trust and mutual respect. If a person, in this view of the future, became disturbed, then the community of people all cared about the disturbed person falling away from the harmony of the group. Spiritually, through prayer and love, the others would elevate the afflicted person.



What people did with the rest of their time was that they gardened, with almost no physical effort. They showed me that plants, with prayer, would produce huge fruits and vegetables.



People, in unison, could control the climate of the planet through prayer. Everybody would work with mutual trust and the people would call the rain, when needed, and the sun to shine.



Animals lived with people, in harmony.



People, in this best of all worlds, weren't interested in knowledge; they were interested in wisdom. This was because they were in a position where anything they needed to know, in the knowledge category, they could receive simply through prayer. Everything, to them, was solvable. They could do anything they wanted to do.
Click to expand...

Personally... I suspect that the future that was shown to former Atheist Howard Storm could well have been full of technology but...... it could be that by the year 2185 we can so miniaturize technology that the tech of that time period will fit into the environment and appear almost invisible to somebody from 1985 who is given a glimpse of it.
 
Like I noted: regardless of the facts and what science says you're sticking with your beliefs.
You're not interested in reality or science, you simply cherry-pick what supports your fixed view.

Oh, and you haven't even bothered to try to support your assertion that "Because the editors at Wikipedia lie!". Is that because you can't, so you'd rather pretend you didn't write it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top