Neuroscience has nothing to do with the mind. Neuroscience deals with the brain. They are two totally different things.
Some neuroscientists are well aware of that, and have started to break the mold, looking for answers about the mind and consciousness in other terrains.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13401/quantitative-ethics/p1

Where were you when I was talking about definitions in philosophy? :smile:

"at the end of the day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical." — frank

One can always reduce things of non-physical nature to something physical.
For example, morality has to do with survival; and since survival refers to the body, life, our existence as such --some even say that survival is the main, of not the only, moral goal in life-- it can be judged to be physical in nature. But this reduction is a fallacy. Because it assumes that one can exist only as a body; that it suffices to be alive. It does not include existence as a father, as a friend, as a citizen, as a human being, in general. It does not include well-being, conscience, the sense of freedom, the need for recognition and being respected, and all kind of emotional and mental states that are irreducable to matter.
Our reality, our view of the world, what we think about everything, is based on physical things and concrete ideas as well as on non-physical things and abstract ideas.

:chin: I can hardly hear the guitar!
And what I can hear from it, is just scratching a couple of chords ... :grin:

I'm certainly not hiding from anything. Neither do I hide anything. I'm a person who opens all his cards on the table and speak openly and clearly. And I expect that the person I communicate with does about the same.

You are a mysterious and obscure person, Banno.

It would be better that we don't communicate anymore with each other.

I think we both mean the same thing when you talk about a complete message — JuanZu

Yes, maybe we do.

When we talk about exchange we talk about something that passes from one side to the other while being the same. Like money, or a commodity. However, that does not happen with meaning and information. — JuanZu

Certainly.

If I talk to you, no matter how much you respond to me, your words (like sounds, sound waves) do not contain any meaning that travels through the air with them. — JuanZu

Exactly. They acquire a meaning only when they are processed by the mind, i.e. decoded and undestood,

In each moment the meaning is created as something new (that is why there can always be error in interpretation, a "wrong" meaning because it is always new). — JuanZu

This reminds me somehow of the incremental search used by the search engines! :grin:
I know what you mean. You are referring to the parts of a message, while it is transmitted by the sender, and its processing by the receiver. (BTW, note that this process is about the same in both oral and written forms. Not only you can read a message aloud but you can hear it in your mind.)
However, the message, the information is not complete and until the sender completes it. (Indeed, a frustrated "Let me finish, please" may come in if the listener interrupts the speaker.)
Anyway, this applies to live communications and in talking only.

In any case, a message, and the information it contains, is considered complete only when it is fully transmitted.

If you ask me something and I answer you, my answer in terms of exchange is as "empty" as your question. You may reply to me "but then there is no communication." — JuanZu

Can't get this.

normally when I hear your words – whether in the form of a question or in the form of an answer – I imagine that I am thinking the same thing as you but duplicated. — JuanZu

Well, I find all this a little too complicated. And why you keep rescticting communucation in oral form?

Communication in this case is a mutual affectation where multiple meanings are created, but nothing is exchanged. — JuanZu

Can't get this either. Sorry. Affectation implies pretense and/or conspicuousness. How does this enter in a simple, straightforward communication? In commmunication in its general sense, as it is commonly and widely used?

Philosophy is not like football. Although some folk treat it that way. it's not about teams. — Banno

Agree.

I would just like to clarify that a system of signs is not necessarily a living system of signs [this would be demonstrated by computation]. — JuanZu

I have not explored the "theory of signs" yet in order to assimilate this ...

As for "exchanging information" I have always wondered what is being exchanged. That is, continuing with the example of this forum, you see these marks on a screen, they are pixels. Where is the information and meaning of these marks? I can use a magnifying glass or a microscope to examine these pixels and probably won't find anything like meaning. It is because of this problem that I speak of meaning as an effect of an effective and active relationship between signs — JuanZu

Exactly. There's no information anywhere, until someone decodes (translates, interprets) the words or symbols (or signs, in your case) and gets the meaning they convey. Because even just decoding is not enough. These symbols --either by themselves( isolated) or in combination (as a group, structure)-- have to create a meaning in the mind in order that they can be considered information (knowledge).

Now, one could disagree and say, e.g. "But this book contains information." Yes, but only loosely speaking, not literally. If you open this book, and look at it, touch it or smell it, you won't find any information. Not until you start reading it and and what you read has a meaning for you. Because the book make contain nonsense, symbols that are unknown to you, which may well be just "garbage", or belong to some code, e.g. Morse Code, which has to be decoded, etc. One can say that the book contains information (knowledge) only if one reads it and gets a meaning from what one reads.

I can use a magnifying glass or a microscope to examine these pixels and probably won't find anything like meaning. It is because of this problem that I speak of meaning as an effect of an effective and active relationship between signs. — JuanZu

Exactly.

It follows that nothing is exchanged, but is constantly produced as something new. Right now, when you read this, you are creating meaning as an effect of "my" words. But I am certainly not sending you anything, I am simply provoking something in you in a technologically mediated relationship. This is very counterintuitive. — JuanZu

I think you are speaking about different moments in time, two different events. My reading of your message happens in a different period of time and location. Once you have sent the message, your part (encoding) is completed. When I receive your message and start reading it, a decoding process takes place.
However, there will still be no exchange (communication) between us, until I reply you back with a message of mine, in whatever form and content, whenever this happens and from whatever place.

Now, again, one could disagree and say, e.g. "But JuanZu has communated something to you, independently of whether you receive it, read it, reply to it, etc.". And again, yes, but only loosely speaking. No communication (exchange) can take place until the other part replies to the message, in whatever form, time and place. Even with just an "OK" or a symbol, like an emoji. And even without actually reading and obtaining the conveyed information. Well, this would not be of course the best one could expect from a communication, but it would still be a communication. There would be an exchange of information.

When I talk about sign systems I do so in a more or less formal sense. There are written, spoken, thought, machined and many more types of systems in nature. — JuanZu

Yes, I can undestand all this now.

Given Wittgenstein's character, I prefer not to think about what he would answer. It makes me anxious. — JuanZu

:grin:

you need to go beyond common usage. Common usage might have the effect of ingraining false beliefs into our thinking that we don't realize. — Mark Nyquist

I never said to stick to common dictionaries as far as philosophy is concerned. Although, good disctionaties include specialized definitions of terms when terms have special meaning and usage in philosophy. (They use for that indications such as "In philosophy:", (philos.), etc.) Those who are using dictionaries on a regular basis know that well.
But if one wants to explore a term/concept exclusively in a philosophical context, there are a lot of specialized dictionaries and encyclopedias of philosophy that one can refer to. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy suggests some of them (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/s1.html):

• Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1999, ed. Robert Audi
• Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1976, ed. J. B. Sykes
• Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, 1925, ed. James Mark Baldwin
• A Kant Dictionary, 1995, by Howard Caygill
• Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 1996, by Simon Blackburn
• Philosophielexikon, 1997, ed. A. Hügli and P. Lübcke
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1998, entry under ‘Analytical Philosophy’ by Thomas Baldwin
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1998, entry under ‘Conceptual Analysis’ by Robert Hanna

And Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy itself, of course.

That is why I talk about sign systems. — JuanZu

But it is this exact these "sign" systems I'm taking about. Initially I thought you meant "symbols", but as you went on, I saw hat you wer really talking about signs. And, although I am a linguistic person, I can't see how they can play such a basic and important role in language and communication as ypu postulate in this thread with me.

Thus, taking the example of a book (a book-dictionary), the written marks enter into a relationship with our language sedimented in our memory. — JuanZu

Language is not something simply settled in memory like words and other symbols. It is much more than that. It is a system of communication, which in turn is a process of exchanging information, and as such it is live, even if written on paper, displayed on a monitor, etc. in the form of words and other symbols. Because this text when read becomes "live" in our mind and creates thoughts, i.e. the reverse process occurs of how the text is [created in the first place. The whole process is a kind of encoding and decoding.

E.g. the message that you are reading right now has been processed from information (thought with meaning (in my mind) into language (on paper), in the form of words or abbreviations, punctiation marks and other symbols (e.g. emojis, if it is transmitted in electronic form). This is the "encoding". When this reaches a recipient, the process is reversed.

(The sign language you are talking about is a special form of language that uses visual-manual modality to convey meaning, instead of spoken words (and other symbols contained in written language.)

Wittgenstein's theory would ignore the book as an active agent and give primacy to the subject as the producer of meaning as he uses his learned language. — JuanZu

I wonder what mess would have been created if he was taking that alo into consideration! :grin:

there is a reason why there are no emoji-type expressions, casual expressions and so on. The reason is that there is the intention of objectivity, of the concept and of the universal. — JuanZu

Exactly.

I also wanted to point out that according to the theory of the sign that I work on (which refers to the texts of Peirce, Derrida, Saussure among others) it is always, in a certain sense, universalizing — JuanZu

That's much better. At least now I know what you mean by sign systems and I can trurn to these guys and the theory of (the) sign or theory of signs (I just saw that there are some variation of the term.)
Thanks. (Even if you did that unintentionally. :smile:)

Have a great new year!

Thank you Lionino for making my life easier by serving to me Banno's reference on the plate.
Well, besides W's usual fallacious and unexpected ideas --here, courses of action based on rules, etc.-- the reference has nothing to do with consciousness and what is its relation with "action", which is what I asked.

As for my being solicitous, well, I'm always open to and interested in new or different ideas. On the condition of course that are supported by pertinent and valid arguments or definitions/descriptions and/or examples. Which, unfortunately, usually does not happen.

Have a great new year!

↪Banno How is the existence of an outside world a silly question? It is quite the recurrent question in the history of philosophy. — Lionino

Certainly it is. (Only that I would say, "a recurrent question".)

So, a Wittgensteinian, eh?
Thank you, Banno. I'll have to look all that closer ...

Have a great new year!

when we read a definition in a dictionary, we are affected by its system and its specific configuration (word order, spacing, syntax, etc.) — JuanZu

I think that you are talking about how one uses a language in general and not esp. definitions, which is our subject. Because if one does not follow the grammar and syntax rules of one's language, this will be reflected in everything one says or writes, wouldn't it?

Your ideas on the subject of language sound quite original and maybe there's something really interesting and useful here. However, I admit that they are not clear to me.

In a dictionary there are usually no "emojis" or the facial expressions of the writer. — JuanZu

But emotions are not and should not be part of or belong to definitions. I brought up "emojies" in the context of written language in general.

Every time we apply the concept more broadly (in daily life, in practical examples, analogies, metaphors, etc.) we are doing something that is supposed to be its essence: Universality and its application to many cases at different space and time. — JuanZu

Right.

Kastrup is more cult figure than philosopher. Idealism has precious few followers amongst professional philosopher. — Banno

BK Kastrup is one of the main --if not the main-- supporter and defender of idealism, more precisely analytic idealism. What creteria are you using to distingusih "cult figures" from actual philosophers?
And, do you mean that actual philosophers don't care about giving definitions/descriptions of the terms/concepts they are using? Because this was the main purpose I posted this message.

Consciousness is not just perception, but also involves acting on the world. Consciousness is not passive. — Banno

Can you make this a little more clear to me? Do you mean that consciousness contains action?

Therefore there is a way of understanding the meanings of words that is not found in their lexical definitions. — Banno

What is this way?

You open and leave a lot of doors open, Banno ...

@Fooloso4, @Banno, @unenlightened, @NOS4A2, @Lionino, @Judaka, @L'éléphant, @JuanZu

Here's a video that shows the importance that a known philosopher --Bernardo Kastrup-- gives to definitions and how effectively he handles them:


"All is in consciousness, but not necessarily conscious"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCzbnuCVpEs

In the excerpt below, BK describes the phonomenon of consciousness in relation to reality and mind:

"All reality is in consciousness. It unfolds as a phenomenon of consciousness. That reality is not in a world fundamentally outside mind, outside consciousness. So, for instance, if I hold this statue here, then the concreteness, the color, the solidity I feel, everything I perceive, is an excitation of subjective experience, itself an excitation of consciousness. This statue is not fundamentally outside the field of my subjective experience."

I brought this example to show that talking about "definitions" does not necessarily mean giving an explicit, dictionary-like definition, but also any kind of description that explains the meaning of a concept. In this case, the description also focuses on the essential element of the concept,
--"consciousness"-- which is, perception. Furthemore, BK offers a practical example of the concept, to make it more concrete.

From that, one can easily create a concise, dictionary-like definition, if one wants to. This shows that definitions and descriptions are very close and alternatives in providing the meaning of concepts, in philosophy as in any other field.

This is a very good example of what I was talking about in this topic and during the whole discussion.

Simultaneously, BK's description also supports my definition of "consciousness" which I have put forth quite a few times in here, (and more times elsewhere (recently, in the discussion of "Why is the Hard Problem of Consciousness so hard?").

So I hope that this satsifies those who need froma a person to provide reference from an "expert" or "professional", as a kind of "proof" --as silly as this may sound-- otherwise, they cannot even acknowledge a definition coming from a "common" interlocutor or "amateur".

[Re: "digital marks on the internet"]You can say that they are simply pixel-marks. — JuanZu

I see. That is, like the ink on the paper, the electrons fired on a screen, etc. And like the acoustic waves that words produce when they are uttered. Words are material symbols that can be presented in any and all of these forms.
But what we are talking about and interested in here is the meaning of the words, independently of their form and carrier, i.e. what they convey to us, what thoughts are triggered in us when we perceive them, indiviudally and in combination, as groups. Isn't that right?
(Although the medium in which they are transmitted might also play a role. (See McLuan's theory of "The medium is the message").)

When I talk to you in this forum I do not see your body, nor do I hear your words, nor do I see your gestures — JuanZu

Right, you are talking here about the known disadvantage of the written messages. This is the reason why emoticons and later emojis where created, as a substitute for the mood in which a message is transmitted. (In spoken language the problem is lesser, since we can rely on the tone and pitch of voice. But gestures and face expressions are still missing.)

Anyway, all this is unimportant when discussing on philosophical or scientific grounds, isn't it?

This is why the use of dictionaries is so useful in these contexts (such as in a philosophy forum). That is, a definition through marks is more universal and conceptual (and it is no coincidence that the concept and the universal are related, differentiating themselves from particularity and empirical limitation). — JuanZu

Right. But I consider empirical descriptions --i.e. examples of how a concept works in practice, in life, etc.-- quite important, since they make an abstract idea better undestandable --more concrete and more "visible" and tangible-- by giving flesh and bones to it. They also show that the person using that concept has a solid reality of it, not just a bunch of words and thoughts in his head.

I am just saying that my preferred solution is to phrase oneself differently and abandon the term causing confusion. — Judaka

Yes, if you know that the term is causing a confustion. Which usually you don't or don't care about.

Alternatively, if it's appropriate, and for key terms it often is, then make the term's meaning the core of the debate. — Judaka

This is a good idea.

One can't let others define terms however they want. There are many reasons for this, but to focus on the most important one, "truth" only requires a single validation. — Judaka

What do you mean by "can't let others"? Only a school or university teacher can do that. :smile:
This is equivalent to not letting others having an opinion of their own. Which is totally unacceptable, esp. in philosophy.
There are a lot of ways to disagree with someone else definition or description.

You can only dispute that claim by challenging the way capitalism was defined. Then the discussion becomes about "What is capitalism". — Judaka

You are very right about this. This is happening too often in this and other similar places (forums & communities). Evidently, the only solution for this is to realize that this is happening and just stop talking about that irrelevant, "parasitic" subject. :smile:.

Words and terms are public, they're shared, and while they are also used for personal expression, that doesn't mean there's no right or wrong of what words refer to. — Judaka

No, there isn't. But see, because they are shared, they are public, as you say, their definition has to reflect or represent the common opinion and knowledge regarding them, as well as the basic, essential elements which they are based on.

For axample, "perception" is an essential --if not the most essential-- element when one talks about "consciousness". So the definition of consciousness must not only include it but based on it. From this central point, one can expand it or even rephrase it and talk about related terms, like senses, feeling, etc., which are all part of perception. This is the best way to create commonly accepted definitions. Because it is difficult for one to disagree about an essential element, the root of something, the existence of which can be easily proved. (Difficult, but not impossible, of course. :smile:)

An argument or line of logic can be true or false depending on how the terms within those arguments are understood. — Judaka

Certainly.
(I would only replace "true or false" with "well-grounded or ungrounded" (or "solid vs unstable", etc.), since the first case refers to statements, whereas the second refers to a whole argument or line of logic.)

When one looks for the essence of something, its description is always simple.
— Alkis Piskas
I'll just say that I disagree, for me, the generic doesn't trump the specific. — Judaka

I'm not sure if get this right. Do you consider the essence as generic? And if so, what is the "specific"?

Philosophy searches for "the essence" because it's big-picture, so there's no alternative, this is a nasty flaw of philosophy, not something to be celebrated or promoted. — Judaka

It is true that philosophy focuses on the essence of things. I have forgotten that. I'm talking about and practicing it by habit! :grin:
(Otherwise, I respect your opinion that this cay be taken as a flaw and not something to hail about.)

Our communication through digital marks on the internet. How can the use of words appear here, for example, in a digital philosophy forum? — JuanZu

What are "digital marks on the internet"? E.g. emojis, icons, buttons, etc.?
Also, what dou you mean by "a digital philosophy forum"? I can think of two kinds of (any) fora: online and offline.

Here there are no practical examples that indicate the use of words, but, similar to a dictionary, we have to work only with marks referring to each other. — JuanZu

Can't really get that either. Undestanding it depends of course on understanding what you described earlier.

It is very common in this context (that of philosophy) to say "I say this in this sense"), as a non-normal and non-everyday sense. — JuanZu

Yes. This is quite logical. We use it in everyday language as well, as a means to avoid a word being taken literally or in the wrong sense, esp. when it has different meanings. At least, those who care about undestanding and good communcation do it. :smile:

I am not always easy to understand. — Lionino

I agree. You aren't. :grin:

Perhaps you missed the pivotal point. One cannot learn one's first language from a dictionary. Therefore there is a way of understanding the meanings of words that is not found in their lexical definitions. — Banno

I don't think I missed anything. I made this comment referring to your saying "Look up the definition of a word in the dictionary. Then look up the definition of each of the words in that definition ." This is the way one can become a kind of superliterate. And I never talked about such a thing.

Hence there is a sense of "meaning" that is not found in a dictionary. — Banno

Certainly, this can often be the case. A lot of definitions, I believe, are incomplete. But they still offer the essence, the central idea of a term, esp. for concepts, which is most important.
They also offer different uses of a term according to different contexts. Which is also very useful.

It would be an error, then, to think that dictionaries provide the whole of meaning. — Banno

Certainly yes. But again, I never claimed such a thing.

My main point and why I launched this discussion was that too may people in here believe that disctionaries --and encyclopedias, I forgot to mention them too-- are not useful in philosophy, if not totally useless. So, I would like to ask any person who believes that, if they also reject or consider useless standard lexicon sources regarding esp. philosophy, such as the following, suggested by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/s1.html):

• Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1999, ed. Robert Audi
  
• Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1976, ed. J. B. Sykes
• Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, 1925, ed. James Mark Baldwin
• A Kant Dictionary, 1995, by Howard Caygill
• Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 1996, by Simon Blackburn
• Philosophielexikon, 1997, ed. A. Hügli and P. Lübcke
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1998, entry under ‘Analytical Philosophy’ by Thomas Baldwin
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1998, entry under ‘Conceptual Analysis’ by Robert Hanna

And Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy itself, of course.

And once more, there is a huge difference between taking the definitions from such sources for granted and/or in an absolute way, and with rejecting or ignoring them totally.

Also, I'm talking esp. about basic, key terms used in a subject of the discussion. And that a "speaker" who is using them has to make it clear what they mean by them and how they use them, either by giving their definition or description and/or (practical) examples of their use.
Which, in most cases, is not ... the case. :smile:

The word sensation does not come from Latin sensus. It comes from French sensation, as does half of English, we see that in the suffix '-tion', which is particularly French, not Latin or Spanish. — Lionino

The following is from https://www.etymonline.com/word/sensation
sensation (n.)
1610s, "a reaction to external stimulation of the sense organs," from French sensation (14c.) and directly from Medieval Latin sensationem (nominative sensatio) "perception," from Late Latin sensatus "endowed with sense, sensible," from Latin sensus "feeling" (see sense (n.)).

The word applied technically has to come first from common language, as we know sensation is not a scientifically coined term. — Lionino

"Sensation" is mainly a widely used scientific term, as it refers to the senses, a mental condition and physical feeling, all of which are used in the science of biology, physiology, medicine, pshycology..

We have two options: either take the meaning as it is in common language (useless for English as "sensation" can mean anything — semantic vagueness), or define precisely the word — semantic neologism. — Lionino

The words "sensation" and "sense" in English come from the Latin "sensus" (= sensation, feeling, meaning). So, we are travelling back to Latin grounds that you like to talk about. :smile:

Greek words are so well "rooted" that you can understand their meaning by just their etymology. — Alkis Piskas
I would say not only the etymology, but also the relation to other words (analogy, which ultimately comes from etymology), and also the sound the word makes, and perhaps even other factors I have not thought of. — Lionino

Right, this too.

I don't live in my native country and I would rather not have people think I am actually Thatplacestanian. — Lionino

I personally couldn't think you are a ... Thatplace...what? :grin:

Judaka, I think I undestood your concerns. You are referring to a kind of "constant" use of definitions in a discussion, writing or speech. And your points make sense.
However, I have talked about basic, key terms in a duscussion. And that one must know what the person who is using them means with them, when this is obviously not evident. And that this can be done either by directly defining/describing the terns, or explaining them in a broader frame, giving examples, etc. Anything, except letting terms and concepts fly in the air or covered with a veil that prevents them from being seen clearly or even at all.

You can well define "capitalism" as "People selling stuff for money", if this is what capitalism means to you. If you get cricised for it, that would be a mistake.
And. if instead of giving a definition, you explain your views about capitalism by describing it in a broader scope, etc., I consider it even better. But nothing prevents you from doing both, isn't it? :smile:

As for the "simplistic" definitions, I'm responding with a cliche: "truth is always simple". And I definitely believe it. When one looks for the essence of something, its description is always simple.

Thank you for participating in the discussion.

These explanations are why we have something called a lexicon. In any given body of knowledge, population, community, and language in general, there is the lexicon that we abide by, naturally and automatically. — L'éléphant

Right.

Philosophy has its own lexicon that's different from politics, for example. — L'éléphant

Do you refer to a particular lexicon, like a specialized dictionary or encyclopedia --e.g. Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc.-- or a personal vocabulary, based on their own personal meanings of terms?
If it's the first case, what Philosophy lexicon are you using?

Just because this is a public forum that welcomes everyone, it doesn't mean we can just join and start a conversation using an entirely new lexicon that is personalized to our own desires. — L'éléphant

At risk of not having got this right, I fully agree. :smile:

That said, a dictionary is created by the lexicographers, so using it in the philosophical discussion is a reasonable means. — L'éléphant

Right. That including also --or even mostly-- the specialized lexicons (to use your generic term) on Philosophy I mentioned above.

Thank you for responding to the topic.

A definition is a good first step to understanding a word, but that doesn't make it authoritative or necessary to go back to. — Judaka

Of course not. I talked about that (multiple times).

Language precedes dictionaries, one learns by hearing how a word is used. — Judaka

Yes, this is normally the case. When children don't undestand a word, they ask their parents and rely on their answers to get wiser. ... "What does "xxx" mean pa?". They are lucky if "pa" 1) is willing to answer their question, 2) knows well the meaning of the word, 3) can describe it to the child well and in an easily undestandable way etc. On the other hand, there are parents who refer their children (after a certain age) to a dictionary. This is quite clever, for the reasons given above and more.

The majority of philosophical debates are about words, their meaning, and how they should be applied. — Judaka

Although I don't have many examples of this. I have though a lot of examples for the opposite, people assuming that the audience or the other parts of a discussion know what terms --even concepts and key words in a discussion-- mean. I talked about this too, in this thread.
But tell it to the people in here who don't care about

To pull out a dictionary in such a case be harshly criticised. — Judaka

Well, what about givind a definition the meaning of a term --maybe in obe's own words or with some modifications-- without mentioning the dictionary? Would that change anything in essence? Would that be criticised?
Most probably not, I suppose. Therefore, isn't the fact of bringing up a dictionary of secondary importance?

Of course, miscommunication is unavoidable, and because of that, any set of rules will provide us with examples of miscommunication. — Judaka

Good. Fortunately you brought up the hot issue I was talking about.

This OP is a perfect example of having a broad context, the topic is of definitions and the use of dictionaries in philosophy. That's a gigantic topic. — Judaka

Well, you maybe see more to it even than myself, who have created and talked about it! :smile:

The mismatch in how different parties understand the context leads to difficulties, which is the problem, rather than inappropriate word use. That's my take anyway. — Judaka

That's a good take! :smile:

Thanks for your reply to the topic. And welcome to TPF! :cheer:

The issue is that English is a rootless language, a halfbreed of Dutch and French. In any other language I do not see the issue of "But what do you mean by X?" popping up nearly as often as in English. — Lionino

Good point. I will take up this later ...

People in a given country (mostly) went to the same school system, belong to the same culture, so why so much trouble with communication? — Lionino

This is a very plausible question.

A Greek person however will have no issues telling you what micróvio means. — Lionino

Ah! You got ahead of what I have in mind to talk about! :smile:

To address the quoted segment, any Latin person will tell you what sensatione- means, even if it is not easy to explain, just like its root verb sentir(e). — Lionino

Well, OK, we can also look at the Latin root of the word "sensation", but in our case, we are dealing with a technical term or with a word as applied to a specific context. So, if we are talking e.g. about "perception" we have to use definitions that apply to and are commonly used in that subject.

How can you trust this language to do philosophy and rhetoric if it can't even define two of the most basic concepts of human society? — Lionino

Good point, too.
That's where dictionaries and encyclopedias --I forgot to include them in my topic!-- come into play.

***
A note regarding what I promised to talk about at start. And you have "touched" yourself.
Right, it's about the Greek language, esp. ancient Greek. Greek words are so well "rooted" that you can understand their meaning by just their etymology. But this, as I mentioned above, is good for us only in the general sense of the words. When these are applied to a specific context, esp. when this context is technical (scientific, philosophic, etc.)

BTW, you seem to be involved in linguistics, like myself. Are you also Greek or of Greek origin?
(In your profile, you have stated "Atlantis" as your location. It's a great place! I have also lived there, but about 10,000 years ago ... )

Thank you for responding to the topic.

There are too many fallacies of definition to rely on dictionaries. For instance, they sometimes use in the definition itself the word to be defined or a close synonym of it. Definitions are tautological, circular, either too broad or too narrow, the argumentum ad dictionarium, and so on. — NOS4A2

Of course dictionaries sometimes contain ineffective definitions. But it is obvious that one is not bound or supposed to take up such definitions. But this is rarely the case. In the great majority of the cases they do just fine. I know that well because I use them on a regular basis. And I'm not bound to a single dictionary. I consult others two simultaneously for a term. You see they all have something to say. And in most cases they give the basic meaning of a term or word. So, next time you fin a "fallacious" (as you say) definition in a dictionary kust look in another one. Thare dozens of standard and good dictionaries in the Web. And this is a great oppotunity we have these days because we couldn't do it in the pre-Internet times!

We all know that there are a lot of inaccurate and even fake news in the Web. This does not mean that we stop reading news, esp. from standard sources. like NewYork Times, CNN, BBC, etc.

The authors of dictionaries only attempt to record accepted usage of terms at any given time, at least according to them ... — NOS4A2

This is a fortunate fact that they give accepted meanings of words. And they don't to that offhand. If you saw the film "You The Professor and the Madman", which tells the story of how the first Oxford English Dictionary was compiled. It had about 6,500 pages and it took about 10 years to complete.

Can you imagine what would happen if disctionaries were compiled by authors based on what "according to them" were the correct definitions?
I personally shiver to the idea ...

Thanks for your reply to the topic.

even if *unreadable splodge*, the meaning can very often be discerned quite easily. This means that an unfamiliar word can be guessed at from its context, and by triangulation with another occurrence in another context, a fairly clear idea can be obtained as to the meaning. And this method of providing uses in context is very often part of a good dictionary entry. — unenlightened

Whys would I do I have to read a whole page or I don't not how much text in order to get the meaning of the word. Your example was very good because I heve absolutely no idea what "splodge" means!
(I can also give you a dozen of similar cases, of course.)
In the days before Internet, one had to look for words/terms in a dictionary, and maybe there wasn't one near. So, one had to strive and struggle with the text to get the meanings of words in the way you are proposing. And then this could easily lead to misunderstanding of the text and even confusion. But these days, this process is at the tips of the fingers and takes only a few seconds. Moreover, what you are saying underestimates all dictionaries and maybe renders them useless.

So, honestly, I can't see how you can consider this way of undestanding a text better or even just useful.
Otherwise, I accept yout method as an alternative.

Because "meaning is use". [/quote]
Well, I would rather say "understanding is use" ...

Now a dictionary uses words, to define each word, and one has to understand the words in the definition to grasp the meaning of the word in question. So there is always more work to be done if one is sufficiently insistent, until as must happen, one finds that the dictionary itself loops around and the definitions become circular.[/quote]
As I said to @Banno earlier, on does not need to do that. In fact, if that were the case I would be myself one who hates dictionaries! Fortunately, in 99% of the cases, the process stops on the first look up. But this of course requires that one uses dictionaries on a regular basis, which results in a lesser and lesser need to clear words with time.

BTW. this is I believe one of the reasons a lot of people dislike and even hate dictionaries. As a lot of students hate and are bad in Math at school. Because they mised the opportunity to undestand the materials and follow the course since its beginning. And with time, the process of "catching up" with Math gets harder and harder. Obviously.

None of this is to denigrate dictionaries, they are fun and useful in equal measure.[/quote]
It's good at least that you find them fun. (I ignore the word "useful" here, because you have just rejected them earlier, in favor of a method "without the use of dictionaries") . At least, you don't hate them. That;s good. :smile:
But I don't think that people have created hundreds of dictionaries --dating back to the antiquity-- just for fun, as a pastime. Do you?

But in my experience, it is the little common words like "I" and "is" and "thing", and "meaning" that no one defines or bothers to look up, that cause all the big philosophical problems, and here is exactly where a dictionary definition is no help at all.[/quote]
I believe there's some truth in that.

Mind you, if you want to really disappear down a rabbit hole of definitional circularity, I can recommend the classic text, The Meaning of Meaning. by Ogden and Richards,[/quote]
This is a very known circularity. It's like the known pseudo-paradox "I am lying". These are intended cases of cicrularity. :smile:

Thanks for replying to the topic.

Look up the definition of a word in the dictionary. Then look up the definition of each of the words in that definition ... — Banno

This is the perfect, absolute way one would use if one wants to become "superliterate". But this is rarily the case, isn't it? :smile: Also, we have the context in which a term is used, so we can "filter" the definitions based on that. (Which is what we normally do, and the dictionaries helps as in that by giving us the area of appication in parentheses --e.g. in Philosopy or (Phil.)-- or as part of the definition.

Most folk can use the word "tree"; and tell a tree from a shrub, or a bush. But setting that out in words, to the exclusion of shrubs and bushes ... — Banno

What is the image that comes to your mind when I say "tree"? If it's a shrub or a shrub and an actual tree (based on the basic, common definition of theword), then you should look it up. :grin:
(Which I don't believe is the case.)

A babe understands the meaning of "Mom" but cannot provide a definition. — Banno

If it could, I would like to adopt it! I would pay whatever amount of money! :grin:

These two arguments derive from J. L. Austin, who amongst philosophers is more associated with dictionary use than any other. ... — Banno

Quite interesting. Thanks for this ref. I would read more about him and his work. Has a quite intelligent face and a large forfront.
(BTW, as you may have undestood --together with other people-- I am a linguist too.)

There will be amongst us those who hold that there is such a thing as the meaning of a word; and that any worthwhile theory of language must set out, preferably in an algorithmic fashion, how that meaning is to be determined. — Banno

I rose to tha bait with the term "algorithmic" --being a professional programmer-- and it gives me the opportunity to say something quite pertinent to the topic: In most programming languages, in order that you can use a variable, it is required that you first define it. And not only that, sometimes you must also specify its type: integer, string, etc. That is, its context.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to use this parallelism. :smile:

There will be others, amongst whom I count myself, who think "Success in communication is judged by smoothness of conversation, by frequent predictability of verbal and nonverbal reactions, and by coherence and plausibility of native testimony." — Banno

I like that. It's an ideal situation. It certainly offers a ground for solid undestanding. But can you bet on it?

Much of philosophy consists in working through the way words function. Beginning with a definition is in such cases petītiō principiī. — Banno

I don't quite undesstand why. I could only think that it acts as a spoiler, depriving of of the fun and pleasure to discover what it is all about youself! :grin:

Is there a process that can be used to achieve, perhaps asymptotically, the goal of ensuring that you and I agree as to the meaning of some utterance? — Banno

Well, as I already said in this thread, the best way to achieve undestanding is via a definition: from a disctionary or one's own definition. This creates a common undestanding of the term one part uses, indepentent;ly of whether the other part aggrees to it or not. The important thing is for the other part to undestand well what you are talking about. Isn't that right?

I've consistently argued that there is not a single thing that might be called the meaning of an utterance, but instead we should look at what is being done with the utterance. Hence, if there is not a thing that is the meaning of an utterance, there cannot be a method that will help us work towards understanding what that meaning is. Even using a dictionary. — Banno

Well. at this point of reading your message, I should like to note that I expected at least a practical example from you. I should have mentioned about this element in my description of the topic, because I consider it very important, in fact a solvent, a digestive for theory and concepts.
(It's not for nothing that most dictionaries --here they are again!-- give at least one example for each meaning of a word.)
But at least I gave an example, thus demonstrating in practice the importance and need for this element, which arises in a lot of cases, esp. when the talk is too theoretical or conceptual or not very clear or one cares and needs that others do undestand what you are talking about.

But there are ways to achieve agreement, cooperation, or even progress. Chief amongst these we might place the Principle of Charity, which says that you and I and old Fred over there have pretty much the same beliefs. — Banno

This is true. It is a special case in which one know what the other talks about without the other having to explain anything. Yet, don't forget that either there has been a time at start when they have agreed upon some principles, definitions/nmeanings otf terms, thus establishing an agreement on them. Or if I join a group with established principles, beliefs, etc. and have accept them, I have likewise established a similar agreement.

While you may be right about the impracticalities involved, we have little choice but to make charitable assumptions about those with whom we chat. The alternative is to deny any form of agreement, and hence any form of conversation. — Banno

There's certainly no need for that! :smile:

Thanks again for your contribution to the topic.

Thanks for your reply to the topic, Fooloso4.

Philosophers often use terms in idiosyncratic ways and in ways that are no longer standard. — Fooloso4

This might be the case, but in these cases they describe, explain and even give the definition of the meaning of these terms. I mean, if they do care about readers or listeners undestand what they say. I included this case in my description of the topic, and said "nothing bad about it". (I could even stress the point more, by saying "this is perfectly OK".) But from my experience a lot of them don't. Once I was disappointed by Bernardo Kastrup in an interview who started saying "Everything is in consciousness and exists only insofar as it is in consciousness." He never revealed his meaning of "consciousness". Not any example, whatsoever. What then can the listener get from that? How can one undestand this claim, position, thesis or whatever. One could either assume that BK uses the term "consciousness" with its "common", "standard" meaning --which, esp. for this term, there isn't one-- or use one's own definition/meaning of the term --which also could lead to a dead end. Isn't that right?

The main problem in these cases, the reason why this "phenomenon" --unfortunately too frequent-- is that people assume that you know and undestand exactly what you are talking about and what you and know the meaning of the terms as they undestand them. This is also a common mistake school and university teachers do. They assume that you know what they are talking about. And in a lot of cases, they don't even allow questions. This is the main reason people develop a huge amount of misconceptions in their education and vocabulary knowledge, in general.

To explain what a term means (for you) when you first use it, in teaching, lecturing, writing, etc. takes a few seconds and its value is invaluable.

This is not a reason to reject dictionaries but a reason to be cautious about the dictionaries being used. — Fooloso4

I fully agree with that. I myself often mention cases where a definition is incomplete and, even worse, ne."circular", which is a common phenomenon. But even in this case, one can use them as basis for a more complete or modified definition. A problem arises esp. when a definition contains "additives" as I call them. The second definition in the example of the term "sensation" in relation to perception that I brought up, shows exactly that: mind state and feelings are not involved in mere perception. See, such things can make a proposition, thesis, etc. "successful" (plausible, well-grounded, etc.) or failed or even nonsensical.

When reading philosophy a glossary of terms related to particular philosophers and schools will be more helpful than a general dictionary. — Fooloso4

I totally agree within this too. But how many times --if ever-- have you seen such a thing in action?

In addition, a definition may be a good starting point, but one must look at the context in which the term is being used rather than insisting that a philosopher means X because this is how the term is defined somewhere. — Fooloso4

Certainly. But in most cases a term has a basic, main meaning --which is applied to most cases-- and then it can also have secondary meanings. And one should mention or make clear which meaning one uses.

The problem is always the same: lack of definitions.

Thanks again, for your insightful comments!

Do you propose to throw all dictionaries and encyclopedias to the garbage can and with them more than 4,000 years of knowledge? (The first recorded dictionaries date back to Sumerian times around 2300 BCE.)
Then each one start using one's own meaning of words and terms according to one's undestanding, whith no aggreement to be ever established on these words and terms?
And you think that philosophy, science and any other field of knowledge will still survive?

Just rhetorical questions. I'm not interested in talking more about this subject. It's totally useless.

in philosophy, words generally have field-specific meaning — AmadeusD

Certainly.

So, consciousness is actually very well understood to be the basis for sentience — AmadeusD

Maybe the other way around ... In order to be aware of something you must first perceive it, don't you?

I'll just note that I would expect references which would support the points being made, from the person making them — AmadeusD

Does this mean that you just don't believe or trust what a person says or you can't debate what that person says or you don't trust your own reasoning, knowledge and jugment?
And that you can accept what the person says only if it is supported by some authority?
But then, what if that authority is wrong? How can you judge that if you can't judge what the person says in the first place? Or are you going to believe that authority unquestionably because it is a famous personality? Or are you going to start doubting or arguing about what that authority says or even about the authority iself? Wouldn't that end up in a vicious cycle?
It all loses its meaning, doesn't it?

See, from whatever point you are looking at it, the bottom line, the final acceptance or rejection of a proposition will always depend on your own jugment.

I indicated self-awareness is not required for mechanistic reactions to stimuli without analysis. — AmadeusD

I know that. And this is exactly what I objected to! :smile:

You actually replied to my replacement for that theory ... There's no mental image or deliberation. No sentience. — AmadeusD

OK about the 1st, but not the 2nd: I never said that there is no sentience. In fact, I explained that "sentience" and "perception" are very close. I alo talked about what I often like to say: Consciousness is a characteristic of life; of sentient beings.

Recognition is a matter for sentience. — AmadeusD

Well, I said that "sentient" by definition is "Having the power of perception by the senses; conscious."
"Recognition" goes a step further. It involes comparison, classification, identification, etc. That is, thinking.

This seems extremely confused. Cognition is almost correlate of sentience and feeling — AmadeusD

I see that we go in circles. You just reject the definitions, descriptions and examples I'm bringing up.
Why don't you look up for yourself and clear the meaning of all these words/terms in a dictionary? Do you hate dictionaries as a lot of people in here do?

What do you mean by "from the exterior and interior"? Example? — Alkis Piskas
I mean, from the perspective of the sensing organism : interior = self ; exterior = other or environment. :smile: — Gnomon

OK. Just checking ... :smile:

[Re "emothional" thinking] The evolution of conscious thinking seems to be built upon a foundation of sub-conscious feeling. :love: — Gnomon

Well, I find this somewhat twisted, but anyway, it's besides what we are looking for, i.e. the word "feeling" and how it is related to perception (as "touch") and unrelated to it (as "emotion").
Besides, I think I have talked a lot about how thinking is not involved in perception, and hence in consciousness.

Does thinking or emotion come first?
In the primary case, in the standard situation, feelings come first. Thoughts are ways of dealing with feelings — Gnomon

Well, at risk of perpetuating a subject that is besides our main point (perception and consciousness), I have to let you know that it is the other way around: It is thinking (the mind) that produces feelings (emotions). This can be easily understood: You think (consciously) about an accident you had and this produces you fear, disgust or other emotion. Try it if you don't believe me.:smile: (But better think about something pleasant, not unpleasant!)
Now, if this emotion is produced without you thinking about the event, it means that the thought comes from the subconscious (mind). That is, emotion is always producred by thought, whether this is conscious or unconsious.
These things are well-established, Gnomon. They are "textbook" material.
But again, they are besides what we are looking for ...
And I have a share in this, because I have picked these things up from your message and perpetuated them in a way.

The mental images are abstract in the sense of lacking material substance ; not in the sense of lacking material substance — Gnomon

Not true, but whatever they are, they are thoughts, i.e. irrelevant with perception and, by extension, consciousness. Lower organisms can't think and yet they can pereive and are considered conscious. Only this observation explaina and can establish the direct relation of perception to consciousness, and the absence of any kind of thinking, concepts, feelings/emotions etc. in the equation.

OK about the rest. I read it and I thank you for your indeed rich and fruitful information.

I think sentience, as used to enumerate an actual rather than speculative self-awareness (something i really don't think a plant has) solves what would have been a linguistic problem. — AmadeusD

I guess you have a different definition of the term "sentient" than the ones I presented and what is commonly meant by them. Indeed, I don't know what does "self-awareness" have to do with it, even at a speculative way. It something way far from "sentience". It is not even sure even that there are animals that have this ability or can be in that state. And I believe no one can, since we cannot communicate with animals on a concept level to inform us on the subject and what themselves feel. There are even pople, from what I know, even in this place, that do not believe that such a state really exists or cannot identify it in themselves.

[Re: the Plant-Consciousness essay] I can't say much about it. It's not referenced, seems to make some pretty wild leaps — AmadeusD

OK, it was a ref that I found handy. You can chose youserf from among 150 million Google results for < perception of plants > (w/o quotes) or the 2.5 million results on < "perception of plants" > (w/ quotes). :smile:

[ But certainly they must have a certain kind of sense, i.e. they must feel something, othersise they coulnd't perceive
— Alkis Piskas
I don't think this is the case. I think because of your broad use of 'sentient' you're importing a necessity that isn't present. A plant need not be 'aware' for it to mechanistically react to stimuli. — AmadeusD

(BTW, my saying "they must feel something" is very general and the wor "feel" in it has the meaning of "perceive" or "sense", not any emotional state.)
Now, you assert that a plant needs not to be aware of -- i.e. perceive-- anything n order to react to stimuli. How else can this work? Stimuli are always perceived. Even the totally mechanistic brain receives signals as stimuli. Which means that it can identify them, distinguish one from another. You can changes "perceive" with "receive" if you like, but this wouldn't change anything. And the brain reacts to those stimuli, since it works on a stimulus-response mechanism, So it is with the case of a plant. Only that plants do not have a brain. They have som other sensing mechanism, which, as I already said in this thread, is something I don't know. @Gnomon and youself know more about this subject.

If it could, in fact, choose how to react, then we get some infernce of analysis whcih would require some debate around feeling. — AmadeusD

It cannot "choose" how to react. Choosing involves free will or at least the existence of a mind, which are both absent in a plant. Besides, we have already that it reacts mechanically ...

[Re: About the VFT experiment (taken seriously)]that's definitely going to be my schtick until I'm a graduate student — AmadeusD

:grin:

I suppose here, we're leaning toward that cognition isn't involved, so feeling can't follow. Unsure if that was your intention with this though! — AmadeusD

No, it wasn't. I have said quite a few times in this thread :gasp: that cognition has nothing to do with consiousness, and thus with perception. And, I guess that by "feeling" here you refer to an emotional reaction, which is not our subject. Because "feeling" as a sense belongs to perception, which is our subject and can certainly not follow cognition. Right?

I just prefer the definitions i've used as they make a fairly good, albeit imprecise, heuristic for judging the mental faculties or one or other being. — AmadeusD

Be my guest! :smile:

I only would like to say that my definition of consiousness --esp. in its basic form-- has not been disproved by anyone until now.
It has been argued on, but mainly based on the concept of "perception", which I have also described and expleind in detail, and supported with examples. Or, it has been contrasted with other definitions, which however cannot be applied to all cases where the term "consciousness" is used.
The difference why it cannot be "overthrown" is very simple: It is based on an essential element of consciousess: perception. No one can deny this, at least not on sound grounds.

Here's once more my basic definition of consciousness: "The state and ability to perceive".

The challenge is still on! :smile:

Fundamentally. plant "senses" work the same way as human senses : electrical & chemical data are routed to & from the exterior and interior. — Gnomon

What do you mean by "from the exterior and interior"? Example?

even human thinking is basically mechanical & emotional. ... — Gnomon

I have studied and worked a lot and for quite long with mind, and of course thinking as part of it, both in theory and practice.
It can be "mechanical" as you say, but certainly not "basically", except in special mental cases.
It cannot be said to be "emotional". It itself can produce emotion, both "positive" (e.g. joy, pleasure) and "negative" (e.g. anger, grief).

It's the ability to form dispassionate immaterial concepts (images, representations) — Gnomon

Meybe you are contradicting yourself by saying now "dispassionate", whereas previously you said "emotional" ... Anyway, it is true that thinking produces mental images. In fact, thoughts themselves are mental images.
But images are not "concepts". And concepts are always immaterial. (There are no immaterial abtract ideas.)

Mind, and thinking as part of it, is a subject one has to study a lot in order to have a good idea about its nature and functioning. And, if one wants to have a solid reality about it, one has to see how it works in practice, esp. work with it oneself.
(I'm not speaking about the "philosophy of the mind". I'm speaking about the mind itself, it's anatomy.)

The Venus Fly Trap is a brainless living organism, so it seems to "sense" the intrusive fly via a mechanism similar in principle to a Mouse Trap. I'm not aware of any evidence that it forms a mental image of a potential juicy meal prior to springing the trap. It doesn't seem to be able to distinguish a nutritious fly from a dry leaf. — Gnomon

Quite interesting. This contributes a lot to the lack of knowledge I have about the kind of senses plants have and how do they work, which I was talking about to @AmadeusD a little while ago.
I assume, of course, that these "senses" differ a lot among plants.

But a mouse, with a much more complex brain & behavior, does seem to be able to think & plan to some degree, and to learn from experience. — Gnomon

Certainly. As for "thinking", I guess you used the word in a figurative way or you referred to it as a very raw, primitive kind of "thinking". Because at the level of a mouse, even for Pavlov's dog, such a "thinking" is quite a mechanistic and rather physical process.

Yet, where do you draw the line between mechanical Sentience and imaginative Consciousness? My answer is that human-like Consciousness is a late-blooming emergence from 14B years of gradual evolution. It's an upward-trending continuum of information processing. :smile: — Gnomon

Not bad an idea. But I don't think you have to go that far back and examing 14B years to examine how C has been evolved. You can just examine how C evolves in a person, from his birth through to his death.
And if you want to be more precise, consciousness does not emerge or evolve. It doesn't change. It exists. It is just there. Or it is partially there (if one becomes semi-conscious). Or it isn't there (if one becomes unconscious). One's ability to perceive is attenuated. That's all.
So, it is perception and mind that evolve.

The difference between primitive with civilized people, as far as evolution is concerned, has been based mainly on learning as they were interacting with their environment. Very similar to what happens with a baby. Only that the stimuli, the elements that a person could interact with at that period of time were almost nothing compared to those existing today, in number and variety.

We therefore mapped the synaptic-resolution connectome of an entire insect brain (Drosophila larva) with rich behavior, including learning, value computation, and action selection, comprising 3016 neurons and 548,000 synapses — Gnomon

Thanks for the information and the reference.

I doin't think all living things are sentient. All living things could be considered conscious, but i would say sentience is reserved for some benchmark higher up the organisational ladder that I don't know specifically. — AmadeusD

I think that the terms "sentient" and "sentience" is misconceived by many here from what I could gather from this and other discussions (topics).
"Sentient" from Dictionary.com:
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. Characterized by sensation and consciousness.
Similar definitions are found in other dictionaries too.
So, we see C related directly to sentience, which is almost a synonym of "perception", since percetion is based on our senses.
As I have have postulated quite a few times in the past --and explained why-- that every living organism, even bacteria, receives stimuli from the environment and reacts to them. How could viruses travel in the organism and expand, if they didn't have an ability to perceive (be aware of) and respond to their surroundings?

Even plants --since they are our main subject here-- can perceive and thus are aware of their surroundings. Here's a good reference for more details:
"Plants possess a highly developed, conscious root brain that works much as ours does to analyze incoming data and generate sophisticated responses." (Plant Consciousness: The Fascinating Evidence Showing Plants Have Human Level Intelligence, Feelings, Pain and More - http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Plant-Consciousness---The-Fascinating-Evidence-Showing-Plants-Have-Human-Level-Intelligence--Feelings--Pain-and-More.pdf)

[Re VFT's sentience proposed experiment]That's an interesting proposition, you'd have to work out whether the effect was 'mental' or physical. — AmadeusD

Good question. Now, if by "mental" we imply the existence of a mind, we canmot attribute such a thing to plants or even to bacteria. In fact, we have to make a lot of changes to the meaning of the term if we are to apply it even to animals, since the human mind is so complex and so rich in features and faculties, that as such it can't be applied to anything else but humans. Even reactions stemming from human instict can hardly be attributed to the human mind or consciousnes.
(On the other hand, and as a reminder, my basic definition of consiousness --the state and ability to perceive-- needs not to be changed in order to be applied to bacteria or plants, since it does not include or require the existence of a "mind".)

So to your question, my reply is that the effect would be only physical.

I guess you'd need to establish that the perceived the fly in the first place, as opposed to perceiving merely air pressure changes triggering non-choice-drive reactions in the body of the plant that result in the 'snapping out' at the fly (which is actually snapping at a non-consciously-recognised area of statistically significant difference in air pressure vs the 'background' air pressure) — AmadeusD

Good remark. Plants certainly do not have eyes that be used to perceive their surroundings. And I don't know what kind of sense(s) plants have, whether they can feel the water in their roots (when they are watered) or on their leaves (when they are sprayed on), whether the can feel the wind blowing on their leaves, etc. But certainly they must have a certain kind of sense, i.e. they must feel something, othersise they coulnd't perceive, be aware of the flies flying near them or insects landing in their open mouths:

Above: Venus flytrap leaves, with their mouths and teeth!

And here, you can watch them in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7eQKSf0LmY

For the VFT, if their behaviour is adjusted because, for argument sake, there are cilia on their surface which are now depressed by hte drug, and so not sensitive to changes in air pressure, that may change the behaviour of a VFT but does is have any cognitive effect? — AmadeusD

I see that you took the VFT proposed experiment seriously! :grin:
Well, a appreciate a lot a fruitful imagination like yours! :smile:
As for the possibility of a "cognitive effet", please allow me to say --well, it's too late for that!-- that cognition goes beyond perception; it refers to mental processes like memory, judgment, reasoning etc. So, I believe we can safely take this element out of the equation.

I don't think a VFT has any sensation of 'hunting' and 'being unable to hunt' the way a human would, under similar experiment. — AmadeusD

I don't think, either! :smile:

so i apologise in advance for anything points in future this happens between us again. — AmadeusD

No problem, AmadeusD. You don't have to apologize. Esp., not in advance! :smile:

My understanding of sentience is that it is held universally apart from consciousness in that it requires the further fact of 'feeling'. Subjective experience+feeling (hedonic). — AmadeusD

I agree. S and C are two totally diffetent things; of a totally different nature. S is physical, whereas C is non-physical. But C depends on S to exist. C is a state and ability to perceive, which is done through our senses. That's why only sentient things can have C. That is, all living things.
As for "feelings", this word is loaded with so many meanings, that we better leave it out. Let's stick to "senses" and "sensing". They are enough for our purposes, I think.

A VFT would have no sentience, but would have consciousness. — AmadeusD

Well, how can it perceive flies?
If you drug it --I don't know, with an injection and some special substance a botanist woul know-- would it be able to perceive the fily? Wouln't it be become "unconscious" in some way? Isn't this what happens with humans and animals too?