Does consciousness mean reaction to stimulii.Arioch: Can you visualize (try!) consciousness originating from quantum interactions with orgainc material? . . . I know . . . . the idea is pretty far outside-the-box . . .!
Very detailled study http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=Post&CODE=06&f=27&t=39057&p=513895@wlminex --
Take careful note of what I said. I said that it's impossible for a bacteria to possess anything like human consciousness because it lacks the necessary physical features for said consciousness to emerge. If bacteria do possess some type of "quantum consciousness"(and that's assuming, for the sake of the argument, that such a thing is a possibility in the first place), then it would quite clearly be vastly different from any consciousness that humans experience.
What a crazy spin to put on the word anthropomorphic. Let me get this straight: if I say a creature can't have a trait that I know I can't possess (as when unconscious), then this qualifies as anthropomorphic?
Note: I do not deny the presence of awareness in bacteria, because one can only deny what is established or believed true. Bacterial awareness is not believed true (other than by you). The correct word is reject, but the only thing I reject is your claim, because it's nothing more than a fantasy that exists in your mind. It has no bearing on the real world.
@wlminex --
Take careful note of what I said. I said that it's impossible for a bacteria to possess anything like human consciousness because it lacks the necessary physical features for said consciousness to emerge. If bacteria do possess some type of "quantum consciousness"(and that's assuming, for the sake of the argument, that such a thing is a possibility in the first place), then it would quite clearly be vastly different from any consciousness that humans experience.
OK. Do you agree that certain plants like Mimosa are aware of their surroundings because they show rapid movements to touch? Do you contest the view that carnivorous plants such as Nepenthes are aware of their surroundings and even posses mechanisms to attract their prey?
Now, do you agree with the following statement that only such of the above plants are "providentially" aware of their surroundings (because they have to meet the demands for deficient minerals), and the rest of their poor cousins (ordinary plants) are no more aware of their surrroundings than the rocks and the soil they live in?
Prof Stanislav Reinis (Dept of Psychology, Univ of Waterloo) and others (2005) found that....
sentience arises in a brain (and not just a brain stem, but a cortex and a whole lot more).
Machines do similar tasks. Would you attribute an awareness to the electric door opener that senses your presence and sends the "Open" command to an actuator? (I sure hope not.) So yes, they are as inert as rocks to awareness and responsive as machines to the stimulus they receive.
The content of the document is utterly unscientific. It's mostly speculation, arm waving and hot air, with invented names for things they wish were true. Anybody can invent explanations for things they imagine - it happens here all the time, and this thread is an example. But that's not science. I guess you're OK with that, even though you yourself are training in a professional career in the life sciences. Go figure.
It is hard enough to try to associate virtual aspects of the mind with the underlying neuronal phenomena without having to dress it up with fiction. This might be good material for a sci-fi movie, but come on, science? Not in a million years.
Without a cortex (and the rest of the package) there can be no sentience.So let us put it this way: A man is ‘sentient’, so also is his pet cat and perhaps a mouse round the corner, because one is aware of the other, meaning that only animals with cortical function are aware of their surroundings, the rest of the living world is as inert as rocks (to awareness and responsive as machines…). What a wonderful idea!
My point was that sensation (or sense input from an sensor device) does not define sentience.One would not attribute awareness to machines, you are right, how could anybody (except possibly me! as you suspect). I would say an ‘electric door opener’ is sentient when it allows a stranger Mr X and does not allow a stranger MrY, especially when it ‘thinks’ that stranger X is beneficial to it somehow, and especially when it ‘fights’ for its ‘life’ when somebody tries to shut it off at the end of the day. I would say that such a door is certainly full of life if, in its power-off mode, it struggles to ‘steel’ power (its food) from the nearby AC unit. Why not? your sentient pet dog does this all the way.
People don't only think because they have to (as in conflict resolution) but because they can. There are more non-scientists than scientists, and they would generally agree that pond scum are not sentient.On the other hand, I would not say (in your view) a plant (a creeper for eg) to be aware of its surroundings even if it ‘tries’ to get light by bending and twisting all over to the source of light – it is not aware because it has no cortex, it has no medulla, it has no spine, and it has only some ‘rudimentary life (or no life at all!). well? you say that is the way a scientist has to think? Right?
A camera with auto focus/auto iris meets this yet it is not sentient either. Algae are in this class.The characteristic feature of life is its “adaptive irritability” (irritability = 1st definition at Merriam Webster’s online). Your door lacked this adaptive nature.
By this definition, a spring has memory and is therefore sentient.You may refer to the following journals 1) Plant J. 2003 Oct;36(2):240-55, “stress memory in plants – Arabidopsis has memory functions … ABA entrained plants produced a long-term sensitization”. 2) Nature 442, 1046-1049 doi: 10.1038/nature05022 “Transgeneration memory in plants”. 3) Ann Bot (2003) doi: 10.1093/aob/mcg101 Aspects of Plant Intelligence – Anthony Trewavas (though the last mentioned appears a little far fetched to me even, but science can gain from such extrapolations).
Inert as rocks to awareness, I said, meaning unaware, just as rocks are. You become inert when you sleep, and yet the neurons are all still intact. Remove the neurons, and you never wake up. It would be better to model the rest of the living world as "asleep" than as sentient, even though that sounds like the ideation of someone who's insane.The statement "the rest of the living world is as inert as rocks" appears a little preposterous.
Science got benefited with ‘crazy ideas’ (as was our experience from medieval period) , but it cannot go hand-in-hand with dogmas. Pseudoscience (as you put it) may, at some time, transform into real science; but a dogma never will.
OK. Do you agree that certain plants like Mimosa are aware of their surroundings because they show rapid movements to touch? Do you contest the view that carnivorous plants such as Nepenthes are aware of their surroundings and even posses mechanisms to attract their prey?
Now, do you agree with the following statement that only such of the above plants are "providentially" aware of their surroundings (because they have to meet the demands for deficient minerals), and the rest of their poor cousins (ordinary plants) are no more aware of their surrroundings than the rocks and the soil they live in?
You left out evolution. All living things evolve.