Galileo and Consciousness

[Sebastian Toe]

the scientific community may have to reckon with intelligent organisms independent of the traditional brain and nervous system model. If her interpretation of the data is correct, we may be in the early stages of waking up to a world long-populated by considerably more intelligent, sentient beings than previously acknowledged. It would be a major paradigm shift.

Never mind the scientific community, what about the vegan/vegetarian community?
Would it sit well with some of them in the knowledge that their revulsion at he thought of killing/eating another sentient being would be directed back at themselves?!
 

[Sriram]

Most creatures with a brain have some degree or quality of self awareness.  It is simplistic to imagine this is something you either have, or don't have.  At its basic level this is what proprioception is; all creatures have to know where they end and the rest of the world begins, where their boundaries are and it is boundaries that define a 'self'

When people talk about 'consciousness in plants' you have to remember they are using the word in a non-conventional way.  The generally accepted meaning of the word is (broadly speaking) that mental state which is lost when you fall asleep and regained when you wake up.  Clearly plants do not have mental states, they do not have minds.  However they do react to their environment in which we we might call 'intelligent' if we indulge the expressive power of language.  A phototropic response in a flowering plant for instance would be a deterministic biochemical response to external change; but all the changes that go on in brains are also deterministic biochemical reactions, so there may be some explanatory substrate that is common to both the simple responses of plants and to the neural activity in brains which manifests as what we term 'intelligence' and 'consciousness'.

One obvious example is an infant.  A just born infant or even after a few months....is obviously conscious but is not self aware. He is not even aware that he has hands and legs and a mouth etc. He becomes aware only after about a year or later when he is taught how to use these things.....and when he starts identifying himself in a mirror.

[Outrider]

I am surprised  () you  treat consciousness and self awareness as the same thing!

I'm equally surprised that you seem to think consciousness is broadly synonymous with 'living'.

Very few organisms are self aware. Mainly humans, with maybe a few other higher order animals.

I'm not sure we have a clear idea of how far along the chain of intelligence genuine self-awareness goes, and consciousness goes beyond that. Self-awareness is understanding that there is a self to have the feelings - consciousness is just having the feelings.

Consciousness on the other hand is a basic property of all living organisms.....including insects, microbes and plants. Consciousness in plants.....try this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2018/05/09/a-mind-without-a-brain-the-science-of-plant-intelligence-takes-root/?sh=13db510d76dc

I'm aware of Gagliano's work in passing - I confess, I'd forgotten the name - and am firmly in the camp that whilst her results show exactly what she says, her interpretation stretches further than the evidence allows. She demonstrates physiological reactions, and her major study claim failed at large-scale replication.

O.

[Sriram]

An interesting video interview with Giulio Tononi about Consciousness (about 11 minutes).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK72pPa_gSE

He speaks very well, clear and authoritative.

[torridon]

An interesting video interview with Giulio Tononi about Consciousness (about 11 minutes).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK72pPa_gSE

He speaks very well, clear and authoritative.

Note that he defines consciousness the same way I do - as that which stops when you go to sleep and restarts when you wake up.  No mention of dead people people being able to see and hear perfectly well I'm afraid.

[Sriram]

Note that he defines consciousness the same way I do - as that which stops when you go to sleep and restarts when you wake up.  No mention of dead people people being able to see and hear perfectly well I'm afraid.

Yes...he has a very restricted definition of consciousness. He assumes wakefulness as being the entire consciousness. He has left out the unconscious mind and its subtle influences altogether.  I am not sure if he realizes that animals and even insects and plants are conscious. But he nevertheless seems to realize that consciousness cannot be understood by merely looking into the brain and he seems to advocate a top down approach...beginning with consciousness and then working out the mechanisms required for it.

'After death' consciousness is something still far away from his scope. He is a scientist after all....and is not involved with dead patients unlike Sam Parnia.


 

[ProfessorDavey]

I am not sure if he realizes that animals and even insects ... are conscious.

Insects are animals Sriram. It is difficult to have a serious conversation when you post stuff which implies you don't even realise that insects are animals.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes...he has a very restricted definition of consciousness. He assumes wakefulness as being the entire consciousness.

It may indeed be the case that he uses a definition of consciousness which is too narrow.

However you do the reverse. As far as I can see you use a definition of conscious which covers any entity that is able to detect and respond to external stimuli. In which case pretty well everything is covered - including my fridge (detects temperature and adjusts accordingly) and my new car, which can even park itself using sensors. So your definition is, frankly, not an accepted one, nor one that is useful in any way as it includes all sorts of inanimate and non living entities that no standard or sensible definition of conscious would include.

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes. Attempts to suggest that some universal consciousness is guiding evolution sounds like New Age mysticism to me.

To be fair, the idea probably well predates that. I'd say it was implicit in the ideas of Hegel, Bergson and A.N. Whitehead (which doesn't mean I've got much time for such matters now).

[Sriram]

An interesting new article in BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210831-the-people-who-believe-plants-can-talk

**********

Currently, there is a debate among people who study plants regarding the extent to which flowers and shrubs can communicate with one another, or other living things. And if they can, does that make them intelligent?

Scientific research is constantly yielding new discoveries about the intricacy of plants and their amazing abilities. There is a possibility that plants may be more complex than some have assumed.

recent research by multiple scientific teams has been revealing an assortment of fascinating insights about plants and sound. Take the 2019 study by a group of researchers in Israel, for instance, which found that plants increase the amount of sugar in their nectar when they are exposed to the sound of a bee buzzing by.

He says that, under a broad definition, plants can be considered intelligent because they clearly respond to stimuli in ways that improve their odds of survival. He likens this to a zebra that runs away from a lion.

Trewavas also points to the fact that trees rely on networks of microbes in the soil to help them locate nutrients – this is a form of communication between species.

"All life is intelligent because if it wasn't, it simply wouldn't be here," Trewavas says. It's certainly thought-provoking. Is survival, by definition, proof of intelligence?

***********

[jeremyp]

An interesting new article in BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210831-the-people-who-believe-plants-can-talk

**********

Currently, there is a debate among people who study plants regarding the extent to which flowers and shrubs can communicate with one another, or other living things. And if they can, does that make them intelligent?

Scientific research is constantly yielding new discoveries about the intricacy of plants and their amazing abilities. There is a possibility that plants may be more complex than some have assumed.

recent research by multiple scientific teams has been revealing an assortment of fascinating insights about plants and sound. Take the 2019 study by a group of researchers in Israel, for instance, which found that plants increase the amount of sugar in their nectar when they are exposed to the sound of a bee buzzing by.

He says that, under a broad definition, plants can be considered intelligent because they clearly respond to stimuli in ways that improve their odds of survival. He likens this to a zebra that runs away from a lion.

Trewavas also points to the fact that trees rely on networks of microbes in the soil to help them locate nutrients – this is a form of communication between species.

"All life is intelligent because if it wasn't, it simply wouldn't be here," Trewavas says. It's certainly thought-provoking. Is survival, by definition, proof of intelligence?

***********

As far as I can see, that is merely dumbing down the word "intelligent" to the point where it is meaningless. Living things respond to stimuli: that is IIRC one of the "seven characteristics of living things" that I learned in O level biology, forty years ago. It's not a new revelation.

Intelligence is a little bit more than responding to stimuli. Otherwise we would have to describe the lighting circuit in my living room as intelligent.

[ProfessorDavey]

As far as I can see, that is merely dumbing down the word "intelligent" to the point where it is meaningless. Living things respond to stimuli: that is IIRC one of the "seven characteristics of living things" that I learned in O level biology, forty years ago. It's not a new revelation.

Intelligence is a little bit more than responding to stimuli. Otherwise we would have to describe the lighting circuit in my living room as intelligent.

I agree - defining either 'intelligence' or 'conscious' in such a broad manner isn't useful if we are then engaging in a philosophical argument about its importance. So as Jeremy implies using your 'catch-all' definitions his lighting circuit, my outside lights, my boiler, my central heating system, my car, my phone etc etc are all intelligent and conscious. That isn't helpful to the discussion and I doubt many people would agree that my outside light (controlled by a motion sensor) is either intelligent, nor conscious.

I think the key to any meaningful definitions, certainly of conscious, is that the entity is self-aware rather than merely mechanistic in having sensors and response elements controlled by those sensing systems.

[Sriram]

Humans who designed the light circuits and are using them for a purpose ....are both conscious and intelligent.

[ProfessorDavey]

Humans who designed the light circuits and are using them for a purpose ....are both conscious and intelligent.

Humans are conscious and intelligent (well some are ) but that doesn't mean that anything thy've designed is.

And actually the basic physics and chemistry which allows a light circuit to work exists in all sorts of other entities, which similarly alter in their chemical and physical properties in response to stimuli - so for example the generation of charge in clouds and its dissipation as lightning in response to a potential difference between the cloud and the ground. Lightning is neither living nor 'designed' - is lightning conscious and intelligent Sriram as it is based on exactly the same principles as your light circuit.

[Sriram]

There is a purpose and an objective behind circuits.  They are used on demand and for a purpose. That indicates consciousness.

Any organism that is responsive and performs certain activities for a purpose (survival or reproduction) is conscious or has consciousness working behind it. 

[Outrider]

There is a purpose and an objective behind circuits.  They are used on demand and for a purpose. That indicates consciousness.

Not consciousness within the circuit, though, consciousness within the manufacturer.

Any organism that is responsive and performs certain activities for a purpose (survival or reproduction) is conscious or has consciousness working behind it.

No. Some organisms operate purely on automatic responses. If you're going to categorise that as 'consciousness' you've just rendered the term meaningless.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is a purpose and an objective behind circuits.  They are used on demand and for a purpose. That indicates consciousness.

Nonsense - their use may indicate intelligence and consciousness on the part of the user (or indeed may not), however the circuit per se is not conscious.

[Sriram]

Not consciousness within the circuit, though, consciousness within the manufacturer.

No. Some organisms operate purely on automatic responses. If you're going to categorise that as 'consciousness' you've just rendered the term meaningless.

O.

Yes. There is consciousness behind the design and use of the circuit or machine or whatever.  It has a purpose. It is consciousness & intelligence (human) that has developed the machine or circuit and it works on that basis. The basic principle is about an objective because of which the machine exists and works. It also evolves accordingly.

Similarly with organisms.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes. There is consciousness behind the design and use of the circuit or machine or whatever.  It has a purpose. It is consciousness & intelligence (human) that has developed the machine or circuit and it works on that basis. The basic principle is about an objective because of which the machine exists and works. It also evolves accordingly.

I'm sorry - you are talking nonsense. There may be consciousness behind the design of a circuit but that doesn't mean that the circuit is, in itself, conscious. It isn't.

[Outrider]

Yes. There is consciousness behind the design and use of the circuit or machine or whatever.  It has a purpose. It is consciousness & intelligence (human) that has developed the machine or circuit and it works on that basis. The basic principle is about an objective because of which the machine exists and works. It also evolves accordingly.

Similarly with organisms.

If I put a rock on a sheet of paper to hold it in place there is consciousness behind the 'design', but that doesn't make the rock conscious. Is the rock conscious before I put it on the paper? Is it the paper that adds consciousness to the rock?

O.

[Sriram]

If I put a rock on a sheet of paper to hold it in place there is consciousness behind the 'design', but that doesn't make the rock conscious. Is the rock conscious before I put it on the paper? Is it the paper that adds consciousness to the rock?

O.

Its quite simple. If someone uses a robot to perform a function...there is consciousness behind the robot. There is consciousness using the robot for a purpose...

With biological organisms it is the same thing. Without the consciousness the organism is dead and lifeless like a discarded robot. The difference between a dead organism and a live one is consciousness. Life is consciousness.

Whether you say that the organism is conscious or consciousness is working through the organism....it is the same thing. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Whether you say that the organism is conscious or consciousness is working through the organism....it is the same thing.

No it isn't. And we aren't talking about 'organisms' we are talking about things which aren't organisms, such as lighting circuits ... or rocks.

[ProfessorDavey]

With biological organisms it is the same thing. Without the consciousness the organism is dead and lifeless like a discarded robot. The difference between a dead organism and a live one is consciousness. Life is consciousness.

That is far too broad a definition - there are plenty of living organisms which any sensible definition of consciousness would reject as being conscious. A good example would be bacteria.

If you are simple equating 'living' and 'conscious' then there is no need to have both terms as they would be synonymous.

[ProfessorDavey]

Its quite simple. If someone uses a robot to perform a function...there is consciousness behind the robot. There is consciousness using the robot for a purpose...

Nice swerve Sriram - Outrider wasn't talking about robots, but rocks.

Let's try another example:

I, as a conscious human, am walking along a beach. I decide to skim a stone on the sea and select a good one. I throw it and it skips across the water three times then sinks. I am using that stone for a purpose and by your (bonkers) definition that must make the stone conscious. But at what point did it become conscious? Was it when I picked it up, perhaps when I threw it, maybe when I saw it and intended to pick it up to throw. Perhaps when I decided I wanted to skim a stone, but before I'd selected that stone. And what about all the other similar stones on the beach that I didn't pick up. Are they also conscious as I could have selected any of them. And what of the stone I skimmed - does it remain conscious once it has sunk to the bottom of the sea, or does it lose consciousness and if so at what point.

Of course this discussion is complete nonsense as the stone was never conscious and never develops consciousness. I is an object that lacks consciousness that I have used for a purpose.

[jeremyp]

There is a purpose and an objective behind circuits.  They are used on demand and for a purpose. That indicates consciousness.

But it does not indicate that they are conscious.

Any organism that is responsive and performs certain activities for a purpose (survival or reproduction) is conscious or has consciousness working behind it.

This is clearly not the case. Things can be responsive without being conscious. My thermostat responds to changes in temperature by turning the heating on or off. It is not conscious.

A lot of plants respond to stimuli. For example, their stems mostly grow upwards in response to the direction of gravity. Many of them respond to changes in light by growing so that their leaves face it. A Venus Flytrap responds to insects alighting on its leaves by snapping them shut and trapping the insect. They have no consciousness not were they designed by a conscious entity.