Started by MagetheEntertainer, September 01, 2014, 05:25:30 PM
Quote from: Aupmanyav on August 24, 2015, 12:35:33 AMMisleading awareness with very limited senses (they miss everything but the visual spectrum and miss everything but a small portion of hearable sounds). We have been molded by nature just as a grain of sand or on a sea-shore also is molded by nature. Do not let this make you to miss the bigger picture. :D
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 24, 2015, 02:08:34 AM No, she has "life" conflated with "consciousness". Consciousness isn't something which plants have, but they do have life. Life is organized and self-replicating. The rocks are not life, they are formless resources for life.
QuoteIt is the Sphinxâ€™s riddle: What is consciousness? It is something we take for granted and make use of every moment of our lives, without which we are not what we think ourselves to be, and yet when we want to know it more deeply, it eludes us. When we know it, our lifeâ€™s aim is fulfilled, we are free from all anxieties, all troubles.We make use of words like knowledge, consciousness, awareness, intuition, almost as synonyms. Etymology, so far as abstract things are concerned, does not help us much. Usage takes us a long way, but leaves us short of the destination. Philosophical books, with their various arguments and conclusions, confuse us. All this because they try to explain that which is at the root of all explanations, and nothing can explain itself by itself. Any argument or explanation, talk or discussion, from start to finish, is all consciousness. Neither in dreams nor in the waking state are we free of it even for a split moment. Being always in and surrounded by it, how can we say what it is? For a thing to be known, it must be put in front of us. Being everywhere under all conditions, in and around us as well as in and around other things and beings, it cannot be known, except in bits, leaving out an almost infinite part of it, thus giving us the uncomfortable feeling that what little we know does not authorize us to assert we have known it. Still, no one, once they start thinking about it, can ever remain satisfied with a piecemeal knowledge of it.We shall try to approach the problem from the Upanishadic point of view, and see how far the ancient rishis succeeded in their attempts at unravelling the mystery of consciousness. But as we have to put their thoughts and words into English, we have to add notes on the Sanskrit words and phrases the rishis have used, and to their English equivalents as well.
QuoteSomething scientists have come to understand is that slime molds are much smarter than they look. One species in particular, the SpongeBob SquarePantsâ€"yellow Physarum polycephalum, can solve mazes, mimic the layout of man-made transportation networks and choose the healthiest food from a diverse menuâ€"and all this without a brain or nervous system. "Slime molds are redefining what you need to have to qualify as intelligent," Reid says.
QuoteRoot apex of higher plants shows very high sensitivity to environmental stimuli. The root cap acts as the most prominent plant sensory organ; sensing diverse physical parameters such as gravity, light, humidity, oxygen, and critical inorganic nutrients. However, the motoric responses to these stimuli are accomplished in the elongation region. This spatial discrepancy was solved when we have discovered and characterized the transition zone which is interpolated between the apical meristem and the subapical elongation zone. Cells of this zone are very active in the cytoskeletal rearrangements, endocytosis and endocytic vesicle recycling, as well as in electric activities. Here we discuss the oscillatory nature of the transition zone which, together with several other features of this zone, suggest that it acts as some kind of command center. In accordance with the early proposal of Charles and Francis Darwin, cells of this root zone receive sensory information from the root cap and instruct the motoric responses of cells in the elongation zone.
QuoteRecent research has shown that a rat will help members of its own species to escape from a tubelike cage. The helping rat will show such prosocial behavior even if it does not gain any advantage from it. To see whether these rodents will also help when one of their own is about to drown, Satoâ€™s team conducted three sets of experiments involving a pool of water. One rat was made to swim for its life in the pool, with another being in a cage adjacent to it. The soaked rat could only gain access to a dry and safe area in the cage if its cagemate opened a door for it.Satoâ€™s team found that rats quickly learned that to help their distressed and soaked fellow rat, they had to open the door. The rats were, however, only quick to open the door when there was actually a truly distressed cagemate nearby who needed to be saved. The experiments also showed that rats dislike being soaked. Those who had a previous experience of being immersed in water were also much quicker at learning how to save a cagemate than those who had not been immersed.The researchers also watched what happened when rats had to choose between opening the door to help their distressed cagemate or accessing a different door to obtain a chocolate treat for themselves. In most cases, rats chose to help their cagemate before going for the food. According to Sato, this suggests that, for a rat, the relative value of helping others is greater than the benefit of a food reward.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 24, 2015, 12:52:48 AM.. just helping you realize that what you are saying is something that will not inherently make sense to the western mind because we have entirely different belief systems and philosophical heritages.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 24, 2015, 02:08:34 AMConsciousness isn't something which plants have, ..
Quote from: Aupmanyav on August 24, 2015, 02:56:07 AMTake the excellent video put up by Nihil-ist, plants do have awareness, more than that of humans. They smell diseases and predators by pheromones and respond. Probably the first such experiment was done by an Indian polymath, Jagdish Chandra Bose. There is a whole range of varying awarenesses right from bacteria to humans. Only that we have a little more of it in some respects, though dogs are better at hearing (the first indication that a family member is nearing the house is given by our pug even when they park their cars which is at some distance from our apartment).
Quote from: Aupmanyav on August 24, 2015, 09:48:51 AMChemicals, which are also the base of human consciousness. In case of predators, plants give out smells which are unpleasant to the predators. Evolution is very smart, very very smart. See, what it has done with humans with hormones! Enslaved us.
Quote from: Aupmanyav on August 24, 2015, 09:48:51 AMIn case of predators, plants give out smells which are unpleasant to the predators.
Quote from: Aupmanyav on August 24, 2015, 09:48:51 AMEvolution is very smart, very very smart. See, what it has done with humans with hormones! Enslaved us.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 24, 2015, 10:46:06 AM Eeeuuuuwwww - I sure hope you feel better after spraying that wooful diarrhea all over this forum! Some of them do, yet somehow plant-eating animal species abound on this planet. The one thing which evolutionary scientists are in agreement on is that evolution has no consciousness. It's a process, and that's it. To be specific, Natural Selection doesn't even work, it just happens. It's what happens when matter exists in the conditions which are most conducive to energy exchanges, and these physical forces give rise to complex chemistry, from which in turn biological processes can arise. Chain reactions give rise to self-replicating chemical chemical codes, and those which are best at doing the same win by surviving. Now fast-forward to this day, where some plants emit toxins to discourage animals from eating them, because their chemical (genetic) code was accidentally altered during replication in a way which saved those which had that change from extinction while those with unchanged genes perished. It's only one way by which the dumb luck of natural selection helps plants which animals would find tasty to survive - others don't resist being consumed by animals, but encourage them by offering nice, tasty fruits, nuts, and berries to ensure their own reproduction. Nobody designed any of this, nor even thought of it, it all developed as an accumulation of accidents which proved beneficial to the organisms which bear the marks of those accidents. We know this because when scientists examine organs which are as complex or more as a human-designed watch, there is no evidence revealed of the top-down design which is the mark of intelligence, such as that which would design a watch. Instead, it all accumulated from the bottom up, which nobody with less than 4.8 billion years to play with could have "designed intelligently". Then again, why would one begin the human eye "design" with a tiny, photosensitive spot on the skin of a primitive marine microorganism, with almost as many improvements accumulated as errors compensated for between that and eyes on mammals and birds, one mutation at a time?
QuoteFrom the sixteenth century on, mind has been progressively expunged from the phenomenal world. . . . Scientific consciousness is alienated consciousness: there is no ecstatic merger with nature, but rather total separation from it. Subject and object are always seen in opposition to each other. . . . The logical end point of this world view is a feeling of total reification: everything is an object, alien, not-me; and I am ultimately an object too, an alienated â€œthingâ€ in a world of other, equally meaningless things.
QuoteWhile that argument rages on, other researchers have found evidence that plants can go one better, and communicate through the mycelia. In 2010, Ren Sen Zeng of South China Agricultural University in Guangzhou found that when plants are attached by harmful fungi, they release chemical signals into the mycelia that warn their neighbours.Zeng's team grew pairs of tomato plants in pots. Some of the plants were allowed to form mycorrhizae.Once the fungal networks had formed, the leaves of one plant in each pair were sprayed with Alternaria solani, a fungus that causes early blight disease. Air-tight plastic bags were used to prevent any above-ground chemical signalling between the plants.After 65 hours, Zeng tried to infect the second plant in each pair. He found they were much less likely to get blight, and had significantly lower levels of damage when they did, if they had mycelia."We suggest that tomato plants can 'eavesdrop' on defense responses and increase their disease resistance against potential pathogen," Zeng and his colleagues wrote. So not only do the mycorrhizae allow plants to share food, they help them defend themselves.It has taken decades to piece together what the fungal internet can do. Back in 1997, Suzanne Simard of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver found one of the first pieces of evidence. She showed that Douglas fir and paper birch trees can transfer carbon between them via mycelia. Others have since shown that plants can exchange nitrogen and phosphorus as well, by the same route.Simard now believes large trees help out small, younger ones using the fungal internet. Without this help, she thinks many seedlings wouldn't survive. In the 1997 study, seedlings in the shade â€" which are likely to be short of food - got more carbon from donor trees."These plants are not really individuals in the sense that Darwin thought they were individuals competing for survival of the fittest," says Simard in the 2011 documentary Do Trees Communicate? "In fact they are interacting with each other, trying to help each other survive."However, it is controversial how useful these nutrient transfers really are. "We certainly know it happens, but what is less clear is the extent to which it happens," says Lynne Boddy of Cardiff University in the UK.
QuoteWith just a flick of her finger, Warkentin has demonstrated a phenomenon that is transforming biology. After decades of thinking of genes as a â€œblueprintâ€â€"the coded DNA strands dictate to our cells exactly what to do and when to do itâ€"biologists are coming to terms with a confounding reality. Life, even an entity as seemingly simple as a frog egg, is flexible. It has options. At five days or so, red-eyed tree frog eggs, developing right on schedule, can suddenly take a different path if they detect vibrations from an attacking snake: They hatch early and try their luck in the pond below.The eggâ€™s surprising responsiveness epitomizes a revolutionary concept in biology called phenotypic plasticity, which is the flexibility an organism shows in translating its genes into physical features and actions. The phenotype is pretty much everything about an organism other than its genes (which scientists call the genotype). The concept of phenotypic plasticity serves as an antidote to simplistic cause-and-effect thinking about genes; it tries to explain how a gene or set of genes can give rise to multiple outcomes, depending partly on what the organism encounters in its environment. The study of evolution has so long centered on genes themselves that, Warkentin says, scientists have assumed that â€œindividuals are different because theyâ€™re genetically different. But a lot of the variation out there comes from environmental effects.â€When a houseplant makes paler leaves in the sun and a water flea grows spines to protect against hungry fish, theyâ€™re showing phenotypic plasticity. Depending on the environmentâ€"whether there are snakes, hurricanes or food shortages to deal withâ€"organisms can bring out different phenotypes. Nature or nurture? Well, both.The realization has big implications for how scientists think about evolution. Phenotypic plasticity offers a solution to the crucial puzzle of how organisms adapt to environmental challenges, intentionally or not. And there is no more astonishing example of inborn flexibility than these frog eggsâ€"blind masses of goo genetically programmed to develop and hatch like clockwork. Or so it seemed.
Quote from: Nihil-ist on August 24, 2015, 11:32:03 AMI'm sure the "experts" a few thousand years ago would of agreed it was all god. You just listen to the experts? In 100 years we will be looked at as imbeciles just like the people 100 years ago from today. Anything outside your paradigm is woo. The media I posted is by the Smithsonian and other sources which can be checked. The reason plants have so many predators is the same reason you have so much bacteria living on and in you. To finish the cycle. Nature is intelligent in it's self and we're nature. You come out of the world not into it.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on August 24, 2015, 11:50:46 AM I see that you have little interest in the facts, preferring the indulgence of your fantasies over learning the truly fascinating wonders of reality, and that's a shameful waste of a good mind! Then again, who needs the facts when you've got what you use, which is rhetoric?
Quote from: CrucifyCindy on August 24, 2015, 11:41:50 AMSensory perception does not equal consciousness. If it were the case then we already have AI because we have computers that smell.
QuoteBacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies â€" features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
Quote from: Baruch on August 24, 2015, 06:38:47 AM but rocks don't have the self awareness in the human sense, because they aren't human. Like understands like, so I can understand humans, but I will never understand rocks (in spite of study of petrology) ... to understand a rock, I have to be a rock.
QuoteDeath is just a door of continuous "self" transformation ... from finite to infinite.
Quote from: Nihil-ist on August 24, 2015, 12:05:18 PMYou're just ignoring all the evidence I post. I deserve it but your posts are just as egotistic as mine. Response indicates something is there to respond. Read about machine intelligence. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X04001386https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1SQuadczM9oC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=bacterial+intelligence&ots=w4oxVSOIi9&sig=3JFIJKSf3KCIWFYvuWFuB_VKHdg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Quote from: Nihil-ist on August 24, 2015, 12:05:18 PMYou're just ignoring all the evidence I post. I deserve it but your posts are just as egotistic as mine.