No problem, AmadeusD. You don't have to apologize. Esp., not in advance! :smile:so i apologise in advance for anything points in future this happens between us again. — 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.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
Well, how can it perceive flies?A VFT would have no sentience, but would have consciousness. — AmadeusD
Yes, my thesis accepts that our world appears to be Dualistic in that Mind & Matter are polar opposites : like something & nothing. Yet, we only know about Matter by use of the Mind. Hence, the thesis is ultimately Monistic, in the sense of Spinoza's "Single Substance". :smile: — Gnomon
If someone comes across a set of marks in the most fortuitous way and intuits that these marks contain a message or information, they cannot validate that intuition a priori. — JuanZu
If the information is born from the a posteriori relationship, it must always be assumed a priori that there is a moment of uninformed reality (in the sense that there is no message hidden or stored somewhere). — JuanZu
Do you not agree that signal transmission involves the process of reduction of the improbability of the reiteration of the same signal again and again, and that the information conveyed by the signal is not only the intended communication conveyed by the signs, but also what's conveyed by the aforementioned reduction of improbability. This reduced improbability of randomization of a signal transmission (noise) creates an absence (of infinite other possible transmission content) that constrains signal transmission to a specific set of signs that therefore possesses meaning. — ucarr
can you argue that the first-born sentient did not dream itself into an organized reality of signal transmission via absential constraint with attached meaning? — ucarr
As I read your above quote, I'm thinking maybe you're positing a rather pure form of idealism of the George Berkeley variety. My rationale for this interpretation: if reality has no inherent meaning apart from a perceiving sentient, then said reality, necessarily fabulist, must be dreamed into existence by said sentient. — ucarr
Sorry to butt-in here. But, the term "proto-consciousness" caught my eye. I assume you are defending Panpsychism from a Materialistic challenge. And I happen to agree with the general trend of what you're saying. Except that I express the concept of "proto-consciousness" in terms of Information theory, which I trace back to Plato's Theory of Forms*1. And I update the ancient notion of Panpsychism in terms of modern Quantum & Information theories. Both of which have added new terminology into the old controversies about the nature of Consciousness.The idea is that the proto-consciousness of all the particles of an entity in which enough different things are happening, particularly (according to my hypothesis) processes involving information, actual consciousness comes about. The potential of what I might call the "raw material" is realized. — Patterner
Of course. This is basically an opinion-sharing forum. But it's different from a gossip forum like Twitter (X) in that opinionated people are expected to support their personal beliefs with public facts or plausible reasons. So, I provide both : a> my own ideas on a topic ; plus b> supporting information that you can read at your leisure. I typically provide a brief excerpt so you can decide if you want to waste time on that particular link. :smile:I only need to hear and discuss about another member'sown opinion and views. See, I don't care about nor do I have the time to read what other persons think about the subject, even if these persons are considered "experts". (Notice the quotation marks, they mean something.) I can read about them, in my own time, if needed. — Alkis Piskas
If you had looked at my thesis, you would know that it is intended to be "comprehensive", and inclusive of a variety of philosophical views. For example, Holism is an essential element of my worldview, and Taoism is very similar to my own Weltanschauung. But those non-reductive notions are often dismissed on this forum as New Age nonsense, or Eastern mysticism. I'm not a hippie or a mystic, but I give props to the ancient philosophies of the East, and non-Western societies. :nerd:I know. But if you want to build a comprehensive worldview, don't you think it's a good idea to leave for a while the "West" space within which your philosophical quest is usually confined, as large as that space may be, and look also to the "East"? — Alkis Piskas
Yes. I am a retired Architect. So I am familiar with imagining things that are not yet real. I use geometry to translate my idea of the future thing into the graphic language of a "blueprint". If you will suggest a specific topic-of-interest (a possibility), I will attempt to construct a mental model to represent the "something-nothing interweave". Perhaps, what Terrence Deacon calls an "Interface". However, I think Deacon has already done a better job --- than I could ever do --- of modeling the something-nothing tapestry, in his Incomplete Nature book. :smile:Can you visualize for us a model of the structure of the something_nothing interweave; It might be in the mode of a blueprint drawn by an architect who visualizes a plan for construction of a building. For example, if you were to say "The something_nothing interweave is like a möbius strip, then elaborate the structural mathematics of the something_nothing interweave. If it's not a known configuration, your blueprint would be something for mathematicians to chew on. Of course, the lotus in the garden would be a geometric for "appears to be Dualistic." — ucarr
Yes. Since the universe itself is still evolving, it and everything-in-it is an open-ended continuum. So, I doubt that Consciousness has reached its final form. The early stages of universal evolution were full of Potential, but little Actual. Protoconsciousness is simply another name for the Potential to evolve future states of Information Computation with enhanced Awareness. Besides, Consciousness is a process, not a thing ; emergent, not static. :smile:↪Gnomon
I think the basic problem is that people want to define consiciousness as a clear division between the sentient and the non-sentient. Proto-consciousness just shows clearly this problem. I think there's simply a) an accurate model for the way consciousness emerges THAT WE DON'T YET KNOW and b) no direct division just what is conscious and what isn't as sentient can be more or less conscious. — ssu
No problem, AmadeusD. You don't have to apologize. Esp., not in advance! :smile: — Alkis Piskas
That's why only sentient things can have C. That is, all living things — Alkis Piskas
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? — Alkis Piskas
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.A VFT would have no sentience, but would have consciousness. — AmadeusD
Well, how can it perceive flies? — Alkis Piskas
I think that the terms "sentient" and "sentience" is misconceived by many here from what I could gather from this and other discussions (topics).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
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.[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 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: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
I see that you took the VFT proposed experiment seriously! :grin: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 don't think, either! :smile: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
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.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
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.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
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.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
Thanks for the information and the reference.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
my thesis accepts that our world appears to be Dualistic in that Mind & Matter are polar opposites : like something & nothing. Yet, we only know about Matter by use of the Mind. Hence, the thesis is ultimately Monistic, in the sense of Spinoza's "Single Substance". :smile: — Gnomon
Yes. I am a retired Architect. So I am familiar with imagining things that are not yet real. I use geometry to translate my idea of the future thing into the graphic language of a "blueprint". If you will suggest a specific topic-of-interest (a possibility), I will attempt to construct a mental model to represent the "something-nothing interweave". Perhaps, what Terrence Deacon calls an "Interface". — Gnomon
...the lotus in the garden would be a geometric for "appears to be Dualistic." — ucarr
...my thesis accepts that our world appears to be Dualistic in that Mind & Matter are polar opposites : like something & nothing. Yet, ...we only know about Matter by use of the Mind. Hence, the thesis is ultimately Monistic, in the sense of Spinoza's "Single Substance". :smile: — Gnomon
I never said that the physical elements, whether ordered or not, that precede the generation of information, can be something generated by the human imagination. — JuanZu
What I am claiming is that a signal like that has no information, no matter how organized that signal is. I consider that Information and order are not the same thing. The information would arise when that signal is received and enters into relation with any environment that is constituted by a system of signs. — JuanZu
Since order has no intersection (common ground) with information, there's the question whether organized nature, prior to the signing of sentient humans, entails dynamical processes that support signing before the advent of the human species. In short, the question asks whether organized nature sans humanity is a potentially language-bearing environment. Does pre-human nature possess language-bearing properties, albeit in latent form? — ucarr
If pre-human, organized nature contains no information_language-bearing dynamical processes, then human, holding possession of such within itself — ucarr
This is a process of daydreaming reality into existence as an information_language-bearing dynamical reality. This is an instance as mind as the ground of matter. This is Plato's transcendent realm of ideal things. This is Berkeley's Idealism. — ucarr
I have a blog post that presents a sort of Mind/Matter evolution "flow chart" in the form of an emergent phase ladder*1. But it was not specifically based on Deacon's terminology. However, my multiple phases could conceivably be translated into Deacon's three powers : Thermodynamics (Causation), Morphodynamics (Change), and Teleodynamics (Control)*2. Each step in the ladder is associated with a few "emergent properties" or systems.I suggest we try to illustrate a kind of flow chart of the interweave of matter_mind through use of Deacon's triumvirate: thermodynamics, morphodynamics, teleodynamics. Each of the transition phases needs to show an emergent property dependent yet functionally autonomous from its antecedant. Visualizing connection coupled with autonomy is what I expect to be the hard part. — ucarr
I'm not sure what you mean by "ground" in this context. Something like "ground of being" (G*D)? Or maybe fundamental cause (Prime Mover). Or perhaps, essential Substance, such as Spinoza's deus sive natura. One way to express the Mind/Matter relationship is to say that "Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter", along with everything else. That is to say that the Potential-for-Mind must have existed prior to the Big Bang that sparked physical, biological, and mental evolution.From you I get the suggestion mind is the ground of matter. — ucarr
Fundamentally. plant "senses" work the same way as human senses : electrical & chemical data are routed to & from the exterior and interior. Each "message" stimulates some functional response. However, human neurology is far more complex, so the "meaning" of those messages is more subtle & personal, yet generalizable to other contexts. :cool: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. — Alkis Piskas
Yes, but even human thinking is basically mechanical & emotional. It's the ability to form dispassionate immaterial concepts (images, representations) and self-reference that makes human thought more meaningful, with more leverage over self and environment. And it's the ability to compare & contrast unreal abstract ideas, that makes Rational thought possible. :nerd: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. — Alkis Piskas
I think that the terms "sentient" and "sentience" is misconceived by many here from what I could gather from this and other discussions (topics) — Alkis Piskas
But certainly they must have a certain kind of sense, i.e. they must feel something, othersise they coulnd't perceive — Alkis Piskas
I see that you took the VFT proposed experiment seriously! :grin:
Well, a appreciate a lot a fruitful imagination like yours! — Alkis Piskas
So, I believe we can safely take this element out of the equation. — Alkis Piskas
I don't think, either! :smile: — Alkis Piskas
For those of you who are proposing your own models of consciouness and information I have a stress test for you. Does your model account for energy and mass specific to the problem. To me it seems you disregard the physical realities. — Mark Nyquist
What do you mean by "from the exterior and interior"? Example?Fundamentally. plant "senses" work the same way as human senses : electrical & chemical data are routed to & from the exterior and interior. — 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.even human thinking is basically mechanical & emotional. ... — 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.It's the ability to form dispassionate immaterial concepts (images, representations) — Gnomon
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.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
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:[Re: the Plant-Consciousness essay] I can't say much about it. It's not referenced, seems to make some pretty wild leaps — 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.)[ 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
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 ...If it could, in fact, choose how to react, then we get some infernce of analysis whcih would require some debate around feeling. — AmadeusD
:grin:[Re: About the VFT experiment (taken seriously)]that's definitely going to be my schtick until I'm a graduate student — 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 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
Be my guest! :smile: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
If you want to make a generalization of the idea of language to apply it to physical processes [beyond human existence] I have no problem. In fact I'm doing the same thing, kinda
... The difference is that we both have different ideas of how something called "information" takes place for a language, or for a sign system. — JuanZu
I claim that information takes place... between at least two sign systems. — JuanZu
So, for example, a footprint on the beach (a sign). In itself it does not have information; The information takes place once the human enters the scene. — JuanZu
The information is then not an internal property of the foot print, nor internal to the human-sign-field. Information is produced, therefore, in the relation. — JuanZu
One way to express the Mind/Matter relationship is to say that "Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter", along with everything else. That is to say that the Potential-for-Mind must have existed prior to the Big Bang that sparked physical, biological, and mental evolution. — Gnomon
From a cosmological perspective, Matter emerged near the beginning of the universe's expansion, then eventually, Mind emerged from a "ground" of animated matter (Life) only after eons of matter/energy cycles*1. In my thesis though, the ultimate "ground" (fundamental substance) is what I call EnFormAction, which is conceptually an amalgam of Energy+Matter+Mind : causation + instantiation + control. All of which are programmed into the algorithm of Creative Evolution
Therefore, my most general term for all phases of Mind emergence is "Information" (EnFormAction). However, one phase of the evolutionary process could be called "Protoconsciousness", as discussed in a previous post. :nerd: — Gnomon
I mean, from the perspective of the sensing organism : interior = self ; exterior = other or environment. :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? — Alkis Piskas
The evolution of conscious thinking seems to be built upon a foundation of sub-conscious feeling. :love: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). — Alkis Piskas
Human thought seems to be an evolutionary extension of animal "passions", but in it's ultimate form as Reason, is able to rise above base passions. As the ancient Stoics taught, the ability to think dispassionately is the primary advantage of humans over animals. We are simply animals who have "learned" to control & focus our inner motivations.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.) — Alkis Piskas
Yes. I used the term metaphorically to indicate what Plato called Logos. I'm not referring to the Bible-god. It's an abstract concept, that we rationally infer from the teleonomy of evolution, but have no way of verifying empirically. :smile:Fragment 1: Cosmic Mind is an uncreated eternal? — ucarr
In my personal amateur thesis, the "bridge" is Generic Information (EnFormAction) : the power to create novel configurations of actualized Potential. Quantum physicist John A. Wheeler expressed the notion as "It from Bit", where It = material object, and Bit = immaterial Information (EFA). This is similar to Einstein's E=MC^2, where C (cosmic constant) is an irrational number that is now identified with Dark Energy : the expansive "force" inflating the universe. :nerd:Fragment 2: If matter emerged from Cosmic Mind, what is the bridge linking the non-physical with the physical? — ucarr
Ha! The way you expressed that tripartite definition of EFA, sounds like the Christian Trinity : three different roles of eternal unitary deity, working in the multiform space-time world . But my notion of EFA is more like a computer program with three sub-routines that work together toward a final solution to the Programmer's question. Unfortunately, I don't know what that question was, but it seems to require the emergence of Intelligence and Self-Consciousness. Yet I suppose you could say that EFA (cosmic mind in action) is the "Ground" of Being, including both Mind & Matter.Fragment 3: If EnFormAction makes three posits: energy = causation; form = instantiation; action = control, then these three phenomena appear to be coequal, uncreated eternals. If that's the case, how is it that Cosmic Mind is the ground of Matter, since matter_energy is coequal with Mind, per EnFormAction? — ucarr
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.