Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-_- 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.
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.
If you want to test the consistency of responses in microorganisms, I'm currently taking a microbiology class. I could do an experiment for you. Although, what we are mostly working with are prokaryotes. Just post an experimental procedure, and I'll see what I can do.Point 1: I stand corrected.
The crab example was great, thanks
I'm glad you see my point; perhaps it'll help you rethink your approach...Well put and often the case, thanks....
You may find that even single-cell organisms can change their responses to repeated stimuli, through habituation, dishabituation, and rehabituation. This is generally just a matter of the response reducing over time then returning after an interval or some other stimulus, but in combination with other habituating responses, it can result in unexpected behavioural complexity over time.If you want to test the consistency of responses in microorganisms, I'm currently taking a microbiology class. I could do an experiment for you. Although, what we are mostly working with are prokaryotes. Just post an experimental procedure, and I'll see what I can do.
If you want to test the consistency of responses in microorganisms, I'm currently taking a microbiology class. I could do an experiment for you. Although, what we are mostly working with are prokaryotes. Just post an experimental procedure, and I'll see what I can do.
I'm glad you see my point; perhaps it'll help you rethink your approach...
You may find that even single-cell organisms can change their responses to repeated stimuli, through habituation, dishabituation, and rehabituation. This is generally just a matter of the response reducing over time then returning after an interval or some other stimulus, but in combination with other habituating responses, it can result in unexpected behavioural complexity over time.
I'm extrapolating here from the behaviour of certain cells in multicellular organisms, so consider it speculative.
Equivocation and teleological handwaving.What approach is that?
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.
Equivocation and teleological handwaving.
It's (arguably) OK to use Dennett's 'intentional stance' and 'free-floating rationales' when describing the behaviour of agents that are unable to form explicit intent, because it's a convenient and familiar way to think and talk about them, but that pre-supposes that the people using them are fully aware that they are just conveniences.
This thread and others here show that there is confusion about this; when you say that, for example, bacteria "recognize the difference between what they can and cannot eat, know when encountering others that they are not", their 'recognition' and 'knowledge' are teleological or anthropomorphic labels for base level mechanical (biochemical) interactions; i.e. you are using the intentional stance to describe these behaviours. To suggest that consciousness may be involved is to take the intentional stance literally, and to equivocate 'recognition' and 'knowledge' in this usage to imply sentience and understanding.
My door lock 'recognises' or 'knows' the difference between a valid and an invalid key, and if it hasn't been oiled for a while, I might say that it refuses to let me in, but I wouldn't wonder whether it's conscious; I know it's just a mechanical device, and that description is just a convenient way of talking about it (and expresses something of my feelings about my interaction with it).
I just think it's worth pointing out how certain ways of talking about things can lead to misunderstandings through equivocation - although I do think it's sometimes deliberate.
A bacteria that can't digest fructose but can digest glucose that is in a solution with both sugars present isn't going to prevent itself from taking in fructose because it "knows" that it can't digest it. It's not going to take it in because, chances are, it doesn't have transport proteins in its membrane that can bring that sugar in to begin with. Substances that bacteria cannot process and can't keep out of their cells are generally toxic to them.While I cannot think of a particular procedure, I can say that bacteria recognize the difference between what they can and cannot eat, know when encountering others that they are not.
-_- that wouldn't mean that individual cells are sentient. For example, individual brain cells don't do much by themselves, but together in high enough numbers result in measurable consciousness.We know of what we have called quorum sensing and demonstrate interesting functions when their numbers reach an adequate numerical state (one type glows). The formation of biofilms help them distinguish self from others and more recently some are defining certain behaviors as communicating within the group.
Since consciousness is physically measurable, experimentation could aid in the conclusion.So though I am more inclined to agree “consciousness” may only be rightly said to exist in higher order creatures, I believe awareness is present (though probably not conscious awareness which is more akin to awareness of their awareness), but who knows for real.
To find evidence for, you mean. Difficult doesn't mean impossible, but even though I am being very generous and offering to perform an experiment on your behalf, it's still up to you to come up with an experimental procedure to test your hypothesis.If they do have some level of consciousness, it so very different than what we could conceive of it would be difficult at best to prove.
I submit that if you can identify the cascade of biochemical reactions that result in these tropisms, you do know they are base level mechanical (biochemical) processes - just as we know how the patellar reflex works (you know, the one that makes your leg jerk when your patellar tendon is tapped).As far as "teleological or anthropomorphic labels for base level mechanical (biochemical) interactions" I realize that as your opinion of a fact you simply cannot know.
Yeah, that was the point...And your door lock is not a living thing. It is not alive.
A bacteria that can't digest fructose but can digest glucose that is in a solution with both sugars present isn't going to prevent itself from taking in fructose because it "knows" that it can't digest it. It's not going to take it in because, chances are, it doesn't have transport proteins in its membrane that can bring that sugar in to begin with. Substances that bacteria cannot process and can't keep out of their cells are generally toxic to them.
Also, the cell to cell recognition is due to surface proteins. It's not like a bacteria can choose between rejecting or accepting a cell of the same species.
-_- that wouldn't mean that individual cells are sentient. For example, individual brain cells don't do much by themselves, but together in high enough numbers result in measurable consciousness.
Since consciousness is physically measurable, experimentation could aid in the conclusion.
To find evidence for, you mean. Difficult doesn't mean impossible, but even though I am being very generous and offering to perform an experiment on your behalf, it's still up to you to come up with an experimental procedure to test your hypothesis.
I submit that if you can identify the cascade of biochemical reactions that result in these tropisms, you do know they are base level mechanical (biochemical) processes - just as we know how the patellar reflex works (you know, the one that makes your leg jerk when your patellar tendon is tapped).
Yeah, that was the point...
See the patellar reflex above - it makes no difference whether it's alive or not, if you know how it works, you know how it works.
[Of course, philosophically speaking, we can never know anything for certain (or know whether we know it); and knowledge is subject to the basic assumption (of natural philosophy) that the universe isn't out to deceive us. Given that, we can know things beyond reasonable doubt.]
You seem to have missed the point entirely (that living things can and do have reflexive responses as simple as mechanical linkages and we know how they work), but never mind (although one can't help wondering whether missing by such a distance is deliberate).Oh but it does matter (another bad analogy), dead bodies do not respond to this test. Also there have been cases of people alive that do not demonstrate this reflex (rare as they are).
You seem to have missed the point entirely (that living things can and do have reflexive responses as simple as mechanical linkages), but never mind (although one can't help wondering whether missing by such a distance is deliberate).
Since when are Shapiro and Margulis creationists? Both are (was, in Margulis' case) highly critical of creationism and ID. I think you are maligning them.How dare those wacko quacking creationists like James Shapiro and Lynn Margulis consider such possibilities. I fall for quakers like them far too often. My apologies!
Since when are Shapiro and Margulis creationists? Both are (was, in Margulis' case) highly critical of creationism and ID. I think you are maligning them.
The point was very simple - contrary to your initial assertion that I 'simply cannot know' that simple tropisms are 'base level mechanical (biochemical) processes', I say that I can know this if the sequence of reactions by which such a tropism works has been traced, just as by knowing the sequence of interactions of the mechanism in my door lock means I know how it works; likewise the patellar tendon reflex (or any other simple reflex).Not at all distant or deliberate (as with suspicious or malicious intent)! I made a valid point you denied by analogy. You used two analogies to represent your opposition and both were absurd. Yes some reflexes are purely mechanical responses...I can also take a freshly cut chicken foot and pull a tendon making a claw move...so what! Not even close to the same thing showing obviously it was you who missed the point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?