Watch and consider VII Do cells have consciousness

[tas8831]

As sad cop out as I have ever seen.

Really? Was it as sad as, when being confronted with the fact that your doctoring of the Blum quote had been exposed, you simply pretended not to know what i was writing about?

Or as sad as when I demonstrated the plagiarism in the SAME GENES! rant and you simply did a Trump (doubled-down)?

THAT was a sad cop out.

He is published in many Journals. It matters not what he believes or does not believe about spiritual matters. Yes later in life he became a Zen Buddhist so what. He is a fine researcher as well and has done great work in Stem Cell research.

Yes, he WAS a fine researcher, but NOW he is just a Chopra-pal hack. Times change, people change.

Look at Jeff Tomkins - he once ran the genetics core facility at Clemson, now, after joining the ICR, he has been reduced to, essentially, lying about actual research to try to prop up his creationist beliefs. Is he also a "fine researcher"?

But will you get stuck on just this one opinion based point and hound it to death as usual?

So you ask for people's thoughts, then insult them when their thoughts do not conform to your own.

It is not my 'opinion' that you doctored a quote and plagiarized and misrepresented published science. I demonstrated those things.

That is the creationist way - when caught, cry foul! (or run away)

Most likely....and then you insult the ENCODE consortium though it is comprised of 450 well published scientists from many fields...Oh Ma,n you think more highly of yourself than you ought....

Actually, that, too is a field-wide consensus, but what would you know?

Even actual ENCODE researchers admitted that Birney's original claim was unsupported:

After I took part in an AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) on reddit, there has been some discussion elsewhere (such as by Ryan Gregory and in the comments of Ewan Birney’s blog) of what I and the other ENCODE scientists meant. In response, I’d like to echo what many others have said regarding the significance of ENCODE on the fraction of the genome that is “junk” (or nonfunctional, or unimportant to phenotype, or evolutionarily unconserved).
In its press releases, ENCODE reported finding 80% of the genome with “specific biochemical activity”, which turned into (through some combination of poor presentation on the part of ENCODE and poor interpretation on the part of the media) reports that 80% of the genome is functional. This claim is unlikely given what we know about the genome (here is a good explanation of why), so this created some amount of controversy.

I think very few members of ENCODE believe that the consortium proved that 80% of the genome is functional; no one claimed as much on the reddit AMA, and Ewan Birney has made it clear on his blog that he would not make this claim either. In fact, I think importance of ENCODE’s results on the question of what fraction of DNA is functional is very small, and that question is much better answered with other analysis, like that of evolutionary conservation. Lacking proof either way from ENCODE, there was some disagreement on the AMA regarding what the most likely true fraction is, but I think this stemmed from disagreements about definitions and willingness to hypothesize about undiscovered function, not misinterpretation of the significance of ENCODE’s results.

I think many members of the consortium (including Ewan Birney) regret the choice of terminology that led to the misinterpretations of the 80% number. Unfortunately, such misinterpretations are always a danger in scientific communication (both among the scientific community and to the public). Whether the consortium could have done a better job explaining the results, and whether we should expect the media to more accurately represent scientific results, is hard to say.

I think the contribution of ENCODE lies not in determining what DNA is functional but rather in determining what the functional DNA actually does. This was the focus of the integration paper and the companion papers, and I would have preferred for this to be the focus of the media coverage.​

- Max Libbrecht, ENCODE researcher.



But I am just talking out of turn, above my station, because what do I know about this stuff - especially when I contradict creationist mantras and slogans.

Creationists don't want to know the facts, they just like the spin.

By the way, what about the others I mentioned? Are they also quacks and wackos? And why does your camp always rely on opinionated name calling and ad hominem attacks as if they prove your point or indicate you are a superior scientist to all of them? They merely present an alternative explanation of what is observed (like Gaglianlo).

Why does your camp so often rely on doctored quotes and blatant plagiarism and mis-characterizing everything as "ad hominem attacks"? Is your camp really that desperate to prop up your beliefs that integrity and honesty and competence goes out the window?

Why does your camp immediately accept any and all "alternative interpretations" so readily?[/url]

 

[pshun2404]

-_- a flat worm is multicellular, not single celled. However, a decent measure of consciousness is variety in response and capacity to learn. It wouldn't matter how many times you cut a flatworm in half to cause it to become two flatworms (nature is neat), those flatworms would never react to your presence any differently than the first time.

Okay thanks Sarah....so YOUR first criteria for having consciousness is that they must be multicellular...cool thanks! YOU feel that below that level we cannot define their action reaction behavior as demonstrating consciousness.

 

[pshun2404]

-_- as if I would have to be omniscient to reason that an organism that literally cannot store any information from experiences isn't conscious.

Consciousness is a byproduct of brains, so it stands to reason that any organism that doesn't have one (or an analogous structure) isn't conscious.

Apparently some indicators exist that demonstrate that on at least the non-brain levels in multicellular organisms do demonstrate some information storage (not enough data at this time to confirm it) as some of these scientists have inferred.

Ahh! So your second criteria for consciousness is your belief that consciousness requires a brain or some analogous structure. Thanks (not all people would agree, but this is fine).

 

[pshun2404]

Lets not confuse these terms:

Consciousness - which includes both awareness of an environment and deliberate responses to it and awareness of self as separate from the environment.
Sentience - which is the ability to subjectively feel and experience sensation
Sapience - which is the ability to think and apply knowledge

All of these require self-awareness. So, unless you can demonstrate self-awareness, then you can't demonstrate consciousness, sentience or sapience.

All you have is a stimulus-response organism. Complex, yes, but still without self-referential ability. There's some interesting information here, but Dr Theise is mostly playing with language to generate interest.

Thanks Gene you might be right. However apparently demonstrating self-awareness is a matter of interpretation of the evidence observed (behaviorism's stimulus response model can be somewhat reductionist) and not all agree. But the criteria for demonstrating that it IS or IS NOT goes both ways.

And I agree in as much as nothing has demonstrated TO ME (so far) that sentience or sapience is present at a cellular level (though it may well be present).

 

[pshun2404]

Np. I think it's an interesting subject.

Instinctive/automatic behaviour is "programmed" into organisms as well, through DNA.
Only there, the "programmer" is the natural process of evolution.

As such, indeed, I see no essential, functional, difference.

Careful Dogma...I have caught a lot of flack from in your camp for expressing DNA as a system of information storage OR a program that is followed, despite much agreement from the scientific community.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

His opening gambit starts with "where sentience happens" (whatever that's supposed to mean!) without ever defining what sentience actually is. He then jumps to "what defines life." In a nutshell, life involves sensing your environment, processing that information and then reacting. Final blind assertion that "wherever you find life you find mind", again without defining what he means by mind. Urgh, if that's how he starts his argument I'm not convinced it's going to be coherent.

He follows through with a discussion of ants, particularly how you need at least 25 of them to ensure they behave as ants are supposed to. Apparently 3 ants don't follow the rules. He uses "self" verbs where they are not needed - self is an emotive word used to imply conscience and awareness. He also uses bad analogies (the human body is like an ant colony? Is he serious?), and voilà - cells, apparently, are sentient. But it gets even better. If that's true (which he has failed to demonstrate) can't we say that atoms are sentient? And if they are sentient so are sub-atomic particles. Why? Back to his definition of life - they all sense their environment, process the information and then react. But wait..... at no point did he demonstrate processing of information in cells, let alone atoms or sub-atomic particles. That doesn't stop him asserting that "wherever you find life you find mind", again without explaining what mind is. In his own words "It's a kind of self-sentience"

Finally he circles back to the beginning and asserts "wherever you find existence you find sentience." But you've guessed it - we still have no definition of sentience, nor has he demonstrated it. He just asserts that any 2 things interacting demonstrates sentience. What could possibly be wrong with that argument?

Quack quack.

 

[pshun2404]

Really? Was it as sad as, when being confronted with the fact that your doctoring of the Blum quote had been exposed, you simply pretended not to know what i was writing about?

Or as sad as when I demonstrated the plagiarism in the SAME GENES! rant and you simply did a Trump (doubled-down)?

THAT was a sad cop out.

Yes, he WAS a fine researcher, but NOW he is just a Chopra-pal hack. Times change, people change.

Look at Jeff Tomkins - he once ran the genetics core facility at Clemson, now, after joining the ICR, he has been reduced to, essentially, lying about actual research to try to prop up his creationist beliefs. Is he also a "fine researcher"?

So you ask for people's thoughts, then insult them when their thoughts do not conform to your own.

It is not my 'opinion' that you doctored a quote and plagiarized and misrepresented published science. I demonstrated those things.

That is the creationist way - when caught, cry foul! (or run away)

Actually, that, too is a field-wide consensus, but what would you know?

Even actual ENCODE researchers admitted that Birney's original claim was unsupported:

After I took part in an AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) on reddit, there has been some discussion elsewhere (such as by Ryan Gregory and in the comments of Ewan Birney’s blog) of what I and the other ENCODE scientists meant. In response, I’d like to echo what many others have said regarding the significance of ENCODE on the fraction of the genome that is “junk” (or nonfunctional, or unimportant to phenotype, or evolutionarily unconserved).
In its press releases, ENCODE reported finding 80% of the genome with “specific biochemical activity”, which turned into (through some combination of poor presentation on the part of ENCODE and poor interpretation on the part of the media) reports that 80% of the genome is functional. This claim is unlikely given what we know about the genome (here is a good explanation of why), so this created some amount of controversy.

I think very few members of ENCODE believe that the consortium proved that 80% of the genome is functional; no one claimed as much on the reddit AMA, and Ewan Birney has made it clear on his blog that he would not make this claim either. In fact, I think importance of ENCODE’s results on the question of what fraction of DNA is functional is very small, and that question is much better answered with other analysis, like that of evolutionary conservation. Lacking proof either way from ENCODE, there was some disagreement on the AMA regarding what the most likely true fraction is, but I think this stemmed from disagreements about definitions and willingness to hypothesize about undiscovered function, not misinterpretation of the significance of ENCODE’s results.

I think many members of the consortium (including Ewan Birney) regret the choice of terminology that led to the misinterpretations of the 80% number. Unfortunately, such misinterpretations are always a danger in scientific communication (both among the scientific community and to the public). Whether the consortium could have done a better job explaining the results, and whether we should expect the media to more accurately represent scientific results, is hard to say.

I think the contribution of ENCODE lies not in determining what DNA is functional but rather in determining what the functional DNA actually does. This was the focus of the integration paper and the companion papers, and I would have preferred for this to be the focus of the media coverage.​

- Max Libbrecht, ENCODE researcher.

But I am just talking out of turn, above my station, because what do I know about this stuff - especially when I contradict creationist mantras and slogans.

Creationists don't want to know the facts, they just like the spin.

Why does your camp so often rely on doctored quotes and blatant plagiarism and mis-characterizing everything as "ad hominem attacks"? Is your camp really that desperate to prop up your beliefs that integrity and honesty and competence goes out the window?

Why does your camp immediately accept any and all "alternative interpretations" so readily?[/url]

No I didn't criticize your comment because you and I may disagree nor did I automatically default to calling you names or making judgments about your intent or motives. Now you are attempting here to DERAIL again by making this about me and about creationists (which are all automatically in your mind either liars or delusional or against real science, which is simply not true). You think their real qualifications as scientists disappear with gaining an alternative perspective. So if I present a whole slew of opinion about my assessment of some opinion, and offer a number of people that include a perspective that questions your's, you find what you consider one flaw, jump all over it, make the entire discussion about that.

For example, you take my assessment of what Blum's point implied (which as a whole was not against evolution nor was a quotation of his work) and presented Schutzenberger and others that came to a similar opinion that such probabilities should be considered, and you knit pick a single item and make it ALL about that...then repeat this over and over...then make it about YEC opinion and so on....

This thread is not about winning...it was about perspective and YES different views not right or wrong views. Your opinion that yet another well published Ph.D. in his field in now an idiot or has motive or is 'against real science' because he speculated reasons for why he believes something is noted.

Can you stay on topic? Can you in your superior enlightenment show a few scientists (as I have done in support though even I am not convinced)? In your case, scientists whose work demonstrates cells are NOT conscious or even just aware of the difference between their self and environment?

 

[pshun2404]

His opening gambit starts with "where sentience happens" (whatever that's supposed to mean!) without ever defining what sentience actually is. He then jumps to "what defines life." In a nutshell, life involves sensing your environment, processing that information and then reacting. Final blind assertion that "wherever you find life you find mind", again without defining what he means by mind. Urgh, if that's how he starts his argument I'm not convinced it's going to be coherent.

He follows through with a discussion of ants, particularly how you need at least 25 of them to ensure they behave as ants are supposed to. Apparently 3 ants don't follow the rules. He uses "self" verbs where they are not needed - self is an emotive word used to imply conscience and awareness. He also uses bad analogies (the human body is like an ant colony? Is he serious?), and voilà - cells, apparently, are sentient. But it gets even better. If that's true (which he has failed to demonstrate) can't we say that atoms are sentient? And if they are sentient so are sub-atomic particles. Why? Back to his definition of life - they all sense their environment, process the information and then react. But wait..... at no point did he demonstrate processing of information in cells, let alone atoms or sub-atomic particles. That doesn't stop him asserting that "wherever you find life you find mind", again without explaining what mind is. In his own words "It's a kind of self-sentience"

Finally he circles back to the beginning and asserts "wherever you find existence you find sentience." But you've guessed it - we still have no definition of sentience, nor has he demonstrated it. He just asserts that any 2 things interacting demonstrates sentience. What could possibly be wrong with that argument?

Quack quack.

Great assessment (of a persons 'point of view' presentation) all the way up to the final name calling opinion.

A quack is "an untrained person who pretends to be a physician and dispenses medical advice and treatment." But we also call a scientist a Quack who proposes their unique unconfirmed treatment or one who does bizarre weird science (like using the Orgone Box to heal cancer which obviously never worked).

So can you confirm by example that he actually IS a "quack" and show where he practiced weird science or used bizarre unsuccessful medical treatments as a doctor, or at least admit this is simply your OPINION (an unfounded one at that)? If it is your OPINION that is fine. You have a right to disagree and to hold your opinion. So can you show us your conclusion is true (which it very well might be)?

Can you perhaps show some studies and reference some scientists whose work demonstrates cells are NOT conscious? Thanks....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Can you perhaps show some studies and reference some scientists whose work demonstrates cells are NOT conscious? Thanks....

I don't need to. Burden of proof - it's his claim that they are conscious. And I just showed how he failed to demonstrate that his claim is correct. If he wants to try again I'm open to hearing what he has to say.

 

[pshun2404]

I don't need to. Burden of proof - it's his claim that they are conscious. And I just showed how he failed to demonstrate that his claim is correct. If he wants to try again I'm open to hearing what he has to say.

Very True Bungle...if he was presenting his video as "scientific evidence" (which he was not) then he failed...

So where do you draw the line? Sarah draws it as multicellular (for her individuals cells do not demonstrate what could be called consciousness)..some include plants and others probably lower order animals.

How about you? Where does being conscious begin in your opinion (and maybe why)?

 

[tas8831]

His opening gambit starts with "where sentience happens" (whatever that's supposed to mean!) without ever defining what sentience actually is. He then jumps to "what defines life." In a nutshell, life involves sensing your environment, processing that information and then reacting. Final blind assertion that "wherever you find life you find mind", again without defining what he means by mind. Urgh, if that's how he starts his argument I'm not convinced it's going to be coherent.

He follows through with a discussion of ants, particularly how you need at least 25 of them to ensure they behave as ants are supposed to. Apparently 3 ants don't follow the rules. He uses "self" verbs where they are not needed - self is an emotive word used to imply conscience and awareness. He also uses bad analogies (the human body is like an ant colony? Is he serious?), and voilà - cells, apparently, are sentient. But it gets even better. If that's true (which he has failed to demonstrate) can't we say that atoms are sentient? And if they are sentient so are sub-atomic particles. Why? Back to his definition of life - they all sense their environment, process the information and then react. But wait..... at no point did he demonstrate processing of information in cells, let alone atoms or sub-atomic particles. That doesn't stop him asserting that "wherever you find life you find mind", again without explaining what mind is. In his own words "It's a kind of self-sentience"

Finally he circles back to the beginning and asserts "wherever you find existence you find sentience." But you've guessed it - we still have no definition of sentience, nor has he demonstrated it. He just asserts that any 2 things interacting demonstrates sentience. What could possibly be wrong with that argument?

Quack quack.

Bless you sir - you have far more patience than I.

 

[tas8831]

No I didn't criticize your comment because you and I may disagree nor did I automatically default to calling you names or making judgments about your intent or motives.

So it was not automatic, Ok.

Now you are attempting here to DERAIL again by making this about me and about creationists

You asked for thoughts on the video. I gave mine, You attacked me, using a standard creationist appeal to false authority. Now you are accusing me of trying to derail, again, as is your norm.

(which are all automatically in your mind either liars or delusional or against real science, which is simply not true).

To a large extent, yes, and I reached that conclusion after more than 20 years of reading their books, websites, internet activity, watching their videos, talks, etc.

You think their real qualifications as scientists disappear with gaining an alternative perspective.

No, their qualifications remain, but the legitimacy of their new proclamations and tactics is seriously in doubt.
I like how frequently you misrepresent me.

So if I present a whole slew of opinion about my assessment of some opinion, and offer a number of people that include a perspective that questions your's, you find what you consider one flaw, jump all over it, make the entire discussion about that.

Well, when I have checked your examples of 'slews' of people that agree with your opinion, I have found that your claim of their support for your opinion was unwarranted (like with the G quadruplex paper you claimed indicated support for cells choosing which mutations stay).

For example, you take my assessment of what Blum's point implied (which as a whole was not against evolution nor was a quotation of his work)

You mean when you took part of Blum's quote, lopped off the end, put in your opinion, then put closing quotation marks around it? Yes, I remember.

and presented Schutzenberger and others that came to a similar opinion that such probabilities should be considered, and you knit pick a single item and make it ALL about that...then repeat this over and over...then make it about YEC opinion and so on....

I am sorry that you get upset when your unwarranted extraplations and reliance upon creationist website spin is exposed, but that is how it works sometimes. A 'single item' in which their very grasp of the subject matter was called into question, and that is a "knit pick"?
OK...

This thread is not about winning...it was about perspective and YES different views not right or wrong views. Your opinion that yet another well published Ph.D. in his field in now an idiot or has motive or is 'against real science' because he speculated reasons for why he believes something is noted.

Your video hero is not a PhD. Stop with the credential embellishment, He is an M.D.

Can you stay on topic? Can you in your superior enlightenment show a few scientists (as I have done in support though even I am not convinced)?

Oh my goodness an AD HOMINEM!!!* Show a few scientists what? That don't think cells and atoms are sentient? What scientist in their right mind would take the time to write about such things?

In your case, scientists whose work demonstrates cells are NOT conscious or even just aware of the difference between their self and environment?

Why would someone with 30 years experience reading science and doing lab work ask someone else to prove a negative, when the positive has not even been supported?



*I know it is not an ad hom, but then again, most people that hurl such accusations do not seem to know what an ad hom is.....

 

[pshun2404]

Yes sorry, M.D. (is that education and his research in stem cells now less worthy?)...gonna get stuck here now? What about Daniel Chamovitz, Ph.D. (Genetics) belief “A plant... can see, smell and feel. It can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way. A plant can even be said to have a memory.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/
That idiot whako quack....how dare he have a different interpretation of the evidence...he obviously has been reading too many creationist websites...and that Gagliano duck...quack quack....

Moving on!

 

[tas8831]

Yes sorry, M.D. (is that education and his research in stem cells now less worthy?)...gonna get stuck here now?

No - I already stated otherwise ("No, their qualifications remain, but the legitimacy of their new proclamations and tactics is seriously in doubt."). Please stop misrepresenting me.

What about Daniel Chamovitz, Ph.D. (Genetics) belief “A plant... can see, smell and feel. It can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way. A plant can even be said to have a memory.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/

That idiot whako quack....how dare he have a different interpretation of the evidence...he obviously has been reading too many creationist websites...and that Gagliano duck...quack quack....

Moving on!

Wow - such indignation meant to cover things up. In addition to your misrepresentation of my positions, I also like how you most often omit large amounts of posts that you reply to. I know why, of course.

But I like the article you linked to about plants (which are multicellular organisms, not cells or atoms).

Like where he says:

"When we reported our findings, it appeared these genes were unique to the plant kingdom, which fit well with my desire to avoid any thing touching on human biology. But much to my surprise and against all of my plans, I later discovered that this same group of genes is also part of the human DNA."

WHAAAAAAAT???? The SAME GENES? But are they the exact same number of nucleotides in length?

Are you now going to reject his claims and lambaste him as a propagandist that relies on mere rhetoric?

Did Daniel Chamovitz engage in "repetition over and over" to convince the masses that plants have the SAME GENES as humans? Or is it "appeal to authority"? Or maybe "argumentum ad populum"?

Of the many problems with your type of argumentation ('look at my quotes!' i am right!') is that you fail to consider the other claims made by your sources - and you seem to think that nobody else will read them.

Now what about your accusation against me regarding ENCODE? Just going to ignore how I fact-bombed your accusation to smithereens?

....and then you insult the ENCODE consortium though it is comprised of 450 well published scientists from many fields...Oh Ma,n you think more highly of yourself than you ought....

Nice appeal to authority there, but it was very wrong-headed:


Actually, that, too is a field-wide consensus, but what would you know?

Even actual ENCODE researchers admitted that Birney's original claim was unsupported:

After I took part in an AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) on reddit, there has been some discussion elsewhere (such as by Ryan Gregory and in the comments of Ewan Birney’s blog) of what I and the other ENCODE scientists meant. In response, I’d like to echo what many others have said regarding the significance of ENCODE on the fraction of the genome that is “junk” (or nonfunctional, or unimportant to phenotype, or evolutionarily unconserved).
In its press releases, ENCODE reported finding 80% of the genome with “specific biochemical activity”, which turned into (through some combination of poor presentation on the part of ENCODE and poor interpretation on the part of the media) reports that 80% of the genome is functional. This claim is unlikely given what we know about the genome (here is a good explanation of why), so this created some amount of controversy.

I think very few members of ENCODE believe that the consortium proved that 80% of the genome is functional; no one claimed as much on the reddit AMA, and Ewan Birney has made it clear on his blog that he would not make this claim either. In fact, I think importance of ENCODE’s results on the question of what fraction of DNA is functional is very small, and that question is much better answered with other analysis, like that of evolutionary conservation. Lacking proof either way from ENCODE, there was some disagreement on the AMA regarding what the most likely true fraction is, but I think this stemmed from disagreements about definitions and willingness to hypothesize about undiscovered function, not misinterpretation of the significance of ENCODE’s results.

I think many members of the consortium (including Ewan Birney) regret the choice of terminology that led to the misinterpretations of the 80% number. Unfortunately, such misinterpretations are always a danger in scientific communication (both among the scientific community and to the public). Whether the consortium could have done a better job explaining the results, and whether we should expect the media to more accurately represent scientific results, is hard to say.

I think the contribution of ENCODE lies not in determining what DNA is functional but rather in determining what the functional DNA actually does. This was the focus of the integration paper and the companion papers, and I would have preferred for this to be the focus of the media coverage.​

- Max Libbrecht, ENCODE researcher.



But I am just talking out of turn, above my station, because what do I know about this stuff - especially when I contradict creationist mantras and slogans.

Creationists don't want to know the facts, they just like the spin.

NEXT.


"

 

[Wakalix]

We did an experiment once with flat worms. We added drops of saline to one side. Naturally they swam away from the saline. But was this simply biochemical? I do not think so. We shined a light on one area of the pool and they swam to where there was more light and swam away from the dark. Was this simply a biochemical response or was this evidence of preference? Is that why we avoid the darkness and prefer the light? Perhaps! I think all living things have some level of awareness and thus consciousness but I am fine that you do not agree. This was after all looking for peoples opinion.

"Preference" is just a word that describes the goal of a decision-making process. Flatworms have very simple biochemical decision-making processes. They have "preferences" in that sense, but this does not mean that they are conscious.

 

[pshun2404]

No - I already stated otherwise ("No, their qualifications remain, but the legitimacy of their new proclamations and tactics is seriously in doubt."). Please stop misrepresenting me.

Wow - such indignation meant to cover things up. In addition to your misrepresentation of my positions, I also like how you most often omit large amounts of posts that you reply to. I know why, of course.

But I like the article you linked to about plants (which are multicellular organisms, not cells or atoms).

Like where he says:

"When we reported our findings, it appeared these genes were unique to the plant kingdom, which fit well with my desire to avoid any thing touching on human biology. But much to my surprise and against all of my plans, I later discovered that this same group of genes is also part of the human DNA."

WHAAAAAAAT???? The SAME GENES? But are they the exact same number of nucleotides in length?

Are you now going to reject his claims and lambaste him as a propagandist that relies on mere rhetoric?

Did Daniel Chamovitz engage in "repetition over and over" to convince the masses that plants have the SAME GENES as humans? Or is it "appeal to authority"? Or maybe "argumentum ad populum"?

Of the many problems with your type of argumentation ('look at my quotes!' i am right!') is that you fail to consider the other claims made by your sources - and you seem to think that nobody else will read them.

Now what about your accusation against me regarding ENCODE? Just going to ignore how I fact-bombed your accusation to smithereens?

Nice appeal to authority there, but it was very wrong-headed:

Actually, that, too is a field-wide consensus, but what would you know?

Even actual ENCODE researchers admitted that Birney's original claim was unsupported:

After I took part in an AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) on reddit, there has been some discussion elsewhere (such as by Ryan Gregory and in the comments of Ewan Birney’s blog) of what I and the other ENCODE scientists meant. In response, I’d like to echo what many others have said regarding the significance of ENCODE on the fraction of the genome that is “junk” (or nonfunctional, or unimportant to phenotype, or evolutionarily unconserved).
In its press releases, ENCODE reported finding 80% of the genome with “specific biochemical activity”, which turned into (through some combination of poor presentation on the part of ENCODE and poor interpretation on the part of the media) reports that 80% of the genome is functional. This claim is unlikely given what we know about the genome (here is a good explanation of why), so this created some amount of controversy.

I think very few members of ENCODE believe that the consortium proved that 80% of the genome is functional; no one claimed as much on the reddit AMA, and Ewan Birney has made it clear on his blog that he would not make this claim either. In fact, I think importance of ENCODE’s results on the question of what fraction of DNA is functional is very small, and that question is much better answered with other analysis, like that of evolutionary conservation. Lacking proof either way from ENCODE, there was some disagreement on the AMA regarding what the most likely true fraction is, but I think this stemmed from disagreements about definitions and willingness to hypothesize about undiscovered function, not misinterpretation of the significance of ENCODE’s results.

I think many members of the consortium (including Ewan Birney) regret the choice of terminology that led to the misinterpretations of the 80% number. Unfortunately, such misinterpretations are always a danger in scientific communication (both among the scientific community and to the public). Whether the consortium could have done a better job explaining the results, and whether we should expect the media to more accurately represent scientific results, is hard to say.

I think the contribution of ENCODE lies not in determining what DNA is functional but rather in determining what the functional DNA actually does. This was the focus of the integration paper and the companion papers, and I would have preferred for this to be the focus of the media coverage.​

- Max Libbrecht, ENCODE researcher.

But I am just talking out of turn, above my station, because what do I know about this stuff - especially when I contradict creationist mantras and slogans.

Creationists don't want to know the facts, they just like the spin.

NEXT.

"

I do not believe everything this man proclaims? I do not state that what he says is a Fact or even TRUE. I offered it because it was an interesting perspective and expected many different responses (most of which are good ones). I do not believe ALL of what anyone says. For what I believe I try to separate what we can observe or experience from what people SAY these things mean.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Lets not confuse these terms:

Consciousness - which includes both awareness of an environment and deliberate responses to it and awareness of self as separate from the environment.
Sentience - which is the ability to subjectively feel and experience sensation
Sapience - which is the ability to think and apply knowledge

All of these require self-awareness. So, unless you can demonstrate self-awareness, then you can't demonstrate consciousness, sentience or sapience.

All you have is a stimulus-response organism. Complex, yes, but still without self-referential ability. There's some interesting information here, but Dr Theise is mostly playing with language to generate interest.

Yes; people often equivocate 'awareness', which can mean simple responsiveness to the environment (a characteristic of all life), or conscious awareness. Dictionaries generally describe consciousness in terms of awareness, but in reference to people, i.e. being consciously aware.

The idea that simple awareness, i.e. trophic responsiveness, implies consciousness, is mistaken - it makes 'consciousness' effectively redundant - and we lose a word to distinguish reflective behaviour from reflexive behaviour.

Worse, this leads to a second equivocation, this time of 'consciousness', where organisms with simple awareness (mislabeled 'consciousness') are attributed with sentient consciousness; i.e. 'Single cells are aware; awareness implies consciousness; consciousness implies sentience; therefore single cells are sentient', or some such fatuousness.

These semantic games of redefinition by equivocation in false syllogisms, with their claims to ontological validity, seem to be popular among both creationists and the 'prophets' of new-age pseudoscience (Chopra and his ilk). We've had plenty of them in these forums - e.g. 'DNA is analogous to a code or language; codes or languages are intelligently designed; therefore DNA is intelligently designed', or 'Robots are intelligently designed; animals can be described as robots; therefore animals are intelligently designed', and so-on.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Okay thanks Sarah....so YOUR first criteria for having consciousness is that they must be multicellular...cool thanks!

-_- I never said that. You brought up a multicellular organism in a debate about whether or not individual cells have consciousness, so I felt the need to point that out. I even went out of my way to heavily imply that I don't view all multicellular organisms as conscious. As much as I love my plants, I don't think they have any thoughts.

YOU feel that below that level we cannot define their action reaction behavior as demonstrating consciousness.

Well, if you use a very broad definition of consciousness such as "aware of and responding to one's surroundings", that could be stretched to apply to all living things, since one of the qualifications of being alive is responding to changes in the environment. -_- however, making it that general would also cover non-living objects, like paint that changes color with heat.

I don't view merely reacting to the environment as the same as being conscious of it. I view that, at a minimum, active choice by an organism is necessary to display consciousness, and the most basic and reliable way I can think of to measure that is by variety in responses. If an organism responds to stimuli predictably, regardless of the detriment or benefit of this behavior, I view that as sufficient evidence that an organism is highly unlikely to be sentient. Take, for example, jellyfish reacting to violet light. They consistently freak out if exposed to light this color. Doesn't matter how many times you expose them to violet light and they are unharmed, they will always freak out. In contrast, consider a pet hermit crab. When you first get that pet, it hides away in its shell when you appear to fill its food dish. Yet, over time, as the crab realizes that no harm or even disturbance comes to it when you are filling the food dish, it will begin to hide away less and less and go for the food faster. It changes its response to a stimulus in the light of its experiences. Yet, a more shy hermit crab may never cease this behavior. That all organisms of this species won't react to the same stimulus in the exact same way, and that individuals can change their responses to a familiar stimulus is a sign of consciousness, as far as I am concerned.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes; people often equivocate 'awareness', which can mean simple responsiveness to the environment (a characteristic of all life), or conscious awareness. Dictionaries generally describe consciousness in terms of awareness, but in reference to people, i.e. being consciously aware.

The idea that simple awareness, i.e. trophic responsiveness, implies consciousness, is mistaken - it makes 'consciousness' effectively redundant - and we lose a word to distinguish reflective behaviour from reflexive behaviour.

Worse, this leads to a second equivocation, this time of 'consciousness', where organisms with simple awareness (mislabeled 'consciousness') are attributed with sentient consciousness; i.e. 'Single cells are aware; awareness implies consciousness; consciousness implies sentience; therefore single cells are sentient', or some such fatuousness.

These semantic games of redefinition by equivocation in false syllogisms, with their claims to ontological validity, seem to be popular among both creationists and the 'prophets' of new-age pseudoscience (Chopra and his ilk). We've had plenty of them in these forums - e.g. 'DNA is analogous to a code or language; codes or languages are intelligently designed; therefore DNA is intelligently designed', or 'Robots are intelligently designed; animals can be described as robots; therefore animals are intelligently designed', and so-on.

Well put and often the case, thanks....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Apparently some indicators exist that demonstrate that on at least the non-brain levels in multicellular organisms do demonstrate some information storage (not enough data at this time to confirm it) as some of these scientists have inferred.

Sources?

Ahh! So your second criteria for consciousness is your belief that consciousness requires a brain or some analogous structure. Thanks (not all people would agree, but this is fine).

Since consciousness is, for all intents and purposes, connected to the state of the physical body in all organisms we indisputably consider to be capable of consciousness, it stands to reason that any conscious organism would have a physical structure relating to said consciousness. The only structure in nature that I am aware of that can fulfill this function is the brain, but it is entirely possible that a different organ structure, or even possibly an organelle in a cell, could do it. However, we already know what organelles cells typically have, so if there is such an organelle in nature, it's not present in all cells.