arjand wrote: ↑May 20th, 2021, 3:12 pm
Both in a sense.
-That is a nonsensical statement. The current scientific paradigm doesn't include magical invisible entities/substances in its descriptive frameworks
So "consciousness" as a label refers to the characteristic of a phenomenon...NOT to an ontological claim.
The certainty that one assumes by means of conscious experience (e.g. the idea that 'objective reality' is nessesarily 'real') originates from perceived value (a pattern), which is a retro-perspective and cannot provide evidence of existence
.
-You are confusing Conscious experience and reality. You need to distinguish those two concepts in order to have a meaningful conversation.
One has merely the begin of a pattern to ground the assumption that existence is a certainty, which is empirical (a retro-perspective) and not evidence of anything 'real'.
-Again this makes no sense. You as a human being need to obey to the empirical regularities of existence and reality. i.e. you need to use a device in order to send your fuzzy understanding on the topic to me. If you communicate with me by ignoring those limitations set by reality(i.e. send me a message without typing on a physical device) then you might have something to talk about. Your ideology should match your way of life. (practice what you preach).
You avoid speeding cars on streets and you don't question their existence for a good reason.
I do not believe that it is valid to consider that what humans can 'see' as a pain expression in plants, is merely a 'mechanism'. It would be similar to René Descartes's argument that pain expression in animals is merely a 'mechanism'.
-So you admit that your claim then is unfounded.
René Descartes: "animals have no mind, torture them all you want"
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =3&t=16997
-Yes Descartes had some disastrous ideas that mad a huge damage to western philosophy ...what is your point?
How is it possible that a profound philosopher (the father of 'modern philosophy') perceived pain expression in animals as a 'mechanism'? It may be evidence that an empirical perspective is not likely to be able to provide a valid ground for the determination of actual significance of pain expression.
-You are making an argument from false authority fallacy. Descartes was not the father of modern philosophy but the...uncle of a failed pseudo philosophical worldview(idealism). There is a really good reason why you will never find a simple input in our scientific epistemology based on idealistic principles.
From such a perspective, it may be invalid by definition to assume that pain expression in plants in meaningless, since emperical evidence is unlikely to be capable of providing an answer whether plants are sentient.
-All this is hot air. Pls demonstrate why we should accept the claim "plants experience suffering". Present the facts that make mind properties necessary and sufficient to explain plants' behavior.
Quantum physics cannot be termed 'new age/magical camp' in my opinion. The idea that mind precedes reality is essentially idealism, a centuries old philosophy, which may be valid.
-You didn't get my point. I didn't say that QM are termed 'new age/magical camp'. The new age/magical camp uses interpretations of QM as facts about reality. There are more than 10 different interpretations of QM. Choosing just one because it fits an ideology is cherry picking.
"idealism"]Within modern philosophy there are sometimes taken to be two fundamental conceptions of idealism:
- something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality, and
- although the existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative, formative, or constructive activities of the mind (of some kind or other) that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.
-Why should be care for an epistemically failed supernatural worldview? Idealism is recognized as pseudo philosophy in the Academia. It is based on unfounded assumptions and has zero epistemic contributions to our understanding of the world.
I do not believe that your argument that existence must be primary BY DEFINITION is logical.
I know that you don't but it is BY DEFINITION.
i.e. you are aware of my position because it objectively exist and you can read all about it on your screen. If this text didn't exist, you wouldn't be aware of my position. i.e. what is my position on cell phones? As you can see you won't be able to know my position until it exists on a physical medium and it is made available to you.
(The primacy of consciousness theory asserts that consciousness somehow creates reality. Sometimes it takes the form of a divine consciousness that creates reality, and sometimes it takes the form of each individual consciousness creating their own personal reality.
In either case, there is a contradiction. To be conscious is to be aware (of something.) One can not be aware without something to be aware of. In other words, a consciousness without anything to be conscious of is not a consciousness. Nor can a consciousness be aware of itself and claim to be independent of existence, because if a consciousness is aware of itself, then it must itself exist and be an existent.
The truth is that Existence is primary. )
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/M ... sness.html
Is it not 'magical' to assume that an 'existent', which is to be considered of possessing a certain quality that justifies the idea 'objective reality', either always existed or "came from nothing"?
-I don't know what that means or how you can argue against existence by using that statement. I don't know what the concept of nothing or always existing has to do with the fact that in order to be aware of anything something must first exist.
What exactly is the legitimization for the assumption that an existent is 'real' if it is not a belief or 'magical thinking'?
-Again you make no sense. Something exists when it can interact with other things in existence. When we can verify its existence we then can say that "it is real".
My argument is that the error is made to exclude the observer (mind) from the consideration. The idea that an 'existent' has a certain quality that requires a cause, is questionable.
-That is a fallacious argument. You first need to provide verification to the premises of your argument BEFORE we can allow any consideration.
-Again the second sentence is irrelevant to our discussion. Pls stay on topic and try not to grow this conversation in an unmanageable size.
One has merely the begin of a pattern as ground for the assumption that an 'existent' is real (a certainty), which is empirical (a retro-perspective).
-You are using those words as if you don't really care about their common usages. WHEN we EMPIRICALLY VERIFY something we accept its existence and identify it as real. YOu can not escape from the empirical standard, logic can't escape from it. Its like you decided to close your eyes and ears and claim that nothing exists because we can not force you to look and hear......
A pattern (value) cannot be the origin of itself.
-What does that even means???
The begin that is introduced by pattern recognition (the observing mind) is necessarily the begin of the world itself.
-What?.....What are you talking about. Lets pretend that what you said make sense...how can you ever demonstrate those vague deepities?
Any inference within the scope of a pattern cannot be evidence of anything 'real'.
-A brick wall displays a pattern, test how real it is by running head first in its geometry and then we can debate the evidence that make it real lol...lets be serious, shall we?
The error is perhaps to be found in the idea that causality ultimately applies to any attempt to explain the fundamental nature of reality. Many major philosophers have used causality to conclude that the Universe must have had a begin or "First Cause
".
_causality is nothing more than our ability to directly observe the different stages and relations in the evolution of an unrolling physical process. I don't care about useless pseudo philosophical ideas. I only care on how other members of my society identify what is real and what is not. I care for rational peers.
Simple logic shows that 'a pattern cannot be the origin of itself', thus, that the quality 'pattern-ness' (value) cannot be applicable to the origin of what can be named an existent. The nature of a pattern makes it obvious that the origin is conscious mind.
-Again you are confused. Pattern is not a thing....Pattern is an emergent quality with specific characteristics cause by interactions in a process by things.
BUt again all those are known pseudo philosophical deepities have nothing to do with our inability to verify suffering in plants. Can you stick on the subject? Are you able to do Philosophy or are we going to be all over the place by using "mysteries" as excuses to believe in bigger mysteries?
Well, when plants show responses to stress, such as screaming in ultrasound and neurochemical responses, then one can merely argue that such is not evidence for sentience by declaring those processes meaningless. That declaration must precede the idea that those processes are not evidence for sentience. It does not naturally follow from discovering those processes.
- You see agency in nature. You are back in bed with Aristotle and Descartes without any evidence. Plants have sensors (mechanical and chemical) which trigger chemical and mechanical functions.Those stimuli received by their sensory system are not processed by a central processing unit (like animals do).
You are the one that introduces additional properties in a system that doesn't have the biological capacity to produce.
In short: one would need to apply a (opiniated) condition before one can argue that those processes are not evidence for sentience. It is not a natural assumption.
-You are making an extra claim on top of a system. Parsimony, Demarcation, The burden of proof and the Null Hypothesis demand from you to provide evidence for your claim. i.e just because a rock rolls downs a hill that doesn't mean that rocks have a hidden sensory system that sensed gravity and chose to act according to that stimuli. Lets be reasonable and serious in our claims and acknowledge our burden.
Its like me saying that the electromagnetic cohesion of molecules of a cup is necessary and sufficient to force the liquid inside that cup in a specific shape while you are claiming that a mind is needed for a liquid to take the shape of the cup.....
What about calling the enemy of an enemy when a plant is attacked? Plants also seem to be crying in ultrasound in the face of stress, perhaps to ask for help from friendly animals.
-Yes plants produces many cues that other plants pick up. That doesn't mean that they are actually "crying" or "communicating" or "intelligently processing". We as observers use those words to describe how this appear to our eyes. Again this is human language describing a phenomenon on observer relative terms. This doesn't mean that it is an intrinsic feature of the system!!!!
Plants Attract Enemy's Enemies To Survive
How do you overcome a strong enemy? Find an even stronger one of his. At least that's what some plants do when attacked by insects, according to a new study published in today's Science.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nemys-ene/
-Why do you keep posting articles that use similes and metaphors to describe a phenomenon? They do not prove your point sir! YOu need studies that demonstrate the mental abilities of plants and describe how it it achieved.
If a plant does not know what is good and bad beyond what it could potentially know already, then, how would it know how to attract a certain animal to protect against another type of animal?
-Do you know anything about evolution ????
It seems logical that the plant would need to be capable of experiencing something similar to the concept pain.
-No, random chemical responses that turned out to be beneficial for the specific plant, survive in its dna and its offsprings display the same chemically blind behavior. Again have you ever had a course on evolution?
What exactly do you consider to be applicable to be termed 'Bad Language Mode'? When plants signal stress, i.e. respond to stress using neurochemicals, then, one would need to make a special argument to indicate why such a process is meaningless BEFORE one can argue that it is not evidence for sentience. It does not naturally follow from such a discovery. (the opposite neither, but you are stating that sentience is non-existent, while I have merely argued that that there are indications for its possibility).
-When you say that the plants seem to "know" what is beneficial to them..that is bad language mode. Again if you had studied evolution you would know that plants don't need to "know" anything in order to behave the way they do. A beneficial behavior increases the chances of survival allowing the survived organism to spread that specific beneficial behavior along with its genes!
So once more we found the same errors in the arguments of people that ignore basic Evolutionary Biology and the Main Philosophical Principles of science.