Any chemical reaction is dependent on its environment. Just so, life, which is one sort of chemistry, can react to changes in its environment.
When proposing terms like "awareness" or "consciousness" or "mind", one should consider carefully the definitions that are used for purposes of discussion. What one person means by using these terms may not be what another understands by hearing them. These terms may be carelessly used even if ill-defined or multiply defined, leading to much confusion or even, (Heaven forebid!) to philosophy.
I would define "consciousness" as neuronal feedback, to distinguish it from simple chemistry. And I would define "awareness" as some minimal model of self.
We know that the genes can be turned on or off when environmental factors cause methylation of the protein coat of the chromosome. It should not be surprising to find this phenomenon, or some other, changing "behavior" even in unicellular life.
You can find life in ice and in boiling water. Most species are probably anaerobic living in the absence of light and air. Trial and error isn't, perhaps, the most intelligent approach, but given time enough, it suffices.
Try telling that to the passenger pigeon and the dodo. Tell it to the horses and camels, native to North America, that went extinct there with the arrival of humans. Tell it to the hundreds of species that are going extinct now, because of anthropogenic global climate change. Nature isn't "one step ahead". It is simply out of our reach in any number of directions. Humans are, I think, somewhere between "too smart for their own good" and "not quite smart enough to survive".
I would not say bacteria are aware, they are just chemistry. They don't seem to be self-aware, and that I would guess would be a prerequisite of intelligence. I am aware, and even, perhaps a bit intelligent, but my fingernails, which are a part of me are neither aware nor intelligent. Just so, the universe is aware, because I part of it, but that doesn't mean that rocks are aware, or that Republicans are intelligent.
Where are the results of some objective test that can lead one to the conclusion that your "nature" is some 'object' which exists independently of the human mind's ongoing investigations of itself?
And so what?Michael said:
As has been mentioned, the definition or usage of 'awareness' is a moveable feast - as one end of the scale it is used for simple responsiveness to environmental stimuli, at the other for alert conscious wakefulness...
This points to the need to clearly define one's terms - and to avoid anthropomorphising. But it's wishful thinking to imagine that the particular wording used by scientists describing their work says anything deep about anything outside that work.
The human mind gave meaning to the terms "intelligence", "awareness", etc.
If its testable by way of using objective definitions and operational processes, then its useful.Michael said:
And how do you know that independently from a human mind?Michael said:
That depends on what we mean by "learning".Michael said:
Not really. All we have here are observations of things that remind us of the meaning we associate with terms like "intelligence" and "learning patterns" .. So, just change the meanings. There's nothing in any of that, which demonstrates that "intelligence" and "learning" are somehow part of something that exists beyond human minds, (as you have stated that you believe to be so).Michael said:
I think its fairly well-known that what we mean by "awareness" is thought to emerge from life's complexity. The human brain is complex .. so are lots of other things, but only human minds can report on observations of cases of "awareness".Michael said:
Well, how did you exclude "brain functions" in order to arrive at that conclusion?Michael said:
It's been known for a long time that a brain or nervous system isn't required for complex responses to the environment - consider the complexities and varieties of plant responses, for example. It's also already known that individual cells can have complex behavioural responses, including short and long-term learning; individual neurons, macrophages in the blood, amoeboid organisms, quorum sensing and swarming motility in bacteria, and so-on. We've known about chemical clocks, timers, and counters of various types in cells - some may have many. Cell chemistry and its coordination by the genome show the results of 3 billion years of selective evolution.
Because, you know, clearly, the LA Times is the "most" reliable source for scientific information and discovery. That was sarcasm.
Those two statements are contradictory.
A single cell is still extraordinarily complex.Michael said:
