BacktoCricaddict Posted January 13, 2021 Author Share Posted January 13, 2021 9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Interesting article but it categorically fails to address the material evidence of plant cognition ( despite citing the sources) such as the mustard plant demonstrating PTSD symptom etc and direct evidence that plants display memory patterns. it delves into the standard animal centric bias of ‘ it cannot be a brain because no nervous system or nerve cells’ yet it misses the objective evidence that ‘ an entity showing signs of PTSD and memory is showing behaviour of an entity with a brain’ The premise is that cognition =/= consciousness. There's a lot more controversy to come in this area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 53 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said: The premise is that cognition =/= consciousness. There's a lot more controversy to come in this area. yes. I know. And i eagerly await. Philosophy of the person matters a lot in this debate. Some are theoretically inclined, some are utilitarians. To a theoretically inclined, no brain == no consciousness, period. To an utilitarian, which i am, its the results that matter not the intent or the theory - if a rock displays the attributes of posessing a brain, it has a de facto brain, even if i cant find it. This is why i lean towards the pro-plant consciousness camp: a mustard plant showing PTSD is showing evidence of memory and an emotional reaction. I dont give a flying fack if its brain doesnt exist in this dimension or its some sort of a series of coincidences from some unique cellular biochemistry reaction etc. For ultilitarians like me, what is in effect, is what matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 @BacktoCricaddict Also, my hunch is, the answer to plant cognition lies in the cell. the author to your article claims that cellular cognition is impossible, since in animals only loss of brain cells affects cognition, not any other type of cells. While that observation is true, it discounts the idea of what if consciousness can be a singular multicellular organ as well as it can be a composite - think of the animal eye vs an insect eye: the animal eye is one single organ that is immensely more complex but works as a single unit - and any significant trauma to the organ results in impairment of function for the organ. Getting punched in the eye makes u see fuzzy for a while after. But look at the insect eye - its a composite eye, with each cell being far more simple and by itself unable to generate an image, but together, with millions of such cells, generates an image - low resolution, but still an image. And unlike the animal eye, you can remove 20% of an insects eye and it loses only 20% of its vision. Its possible that plant consciousness works like that and if it does, my speculation would be, the answer lies in their genes - plants do have like 3-5 times the genetic material as animals do. We currently classify it as junk DNA because we cant tell what it does. But junk DNA gets reclassified as functional DNA all the time once we find a function for it. BacktoCricaddict 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoCricaddict Posted January 13, 2021 Author Share Posted January 13, 2021 Just now, Muloghonto said: To an utilitarian, which i am, its the results that matter not the intent or the theory Boring, then. No point arguing with another utilitarian. I am the same, but I've kept the door open for other ideas. Have you read "The Wizard and the prophet" by Charles Mann? Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 8 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said: Boring, then. No point arguing with another utilitarian. I am the same, but I've kept the door open for other ideas. Have you read "The Wizard and the prophet" by Charles Mann? Good stuff. no i have not - what is it about ??? I am open to other ideas as well, but they have to pass the utilitarian acid test for me to deem it useful or practically viable. I am afterall an engineer and not theoretical physicist. The whole ' looks good on paper but doesnt work in real life' is a big life lesson in my professional experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BacktoCricaddict Posted January 13, 2021 Author Share Posted January 13, 2021 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: no i have not - what is it about ??? I am open to other ideas as well, but they have to pass the utilitarian acid test for me to deem it useful or practically viable. I am afterall an engineer and not theoretical physicist. The whole ' looks good on paper but doesnt work in real life' is a big life lesson in my professional experience. A compare/contrast of 2 different visions for how to best serve humanity and the environment. The Wizard focuses on increased productivity via technology (represented by Dr. Norman Borlaug - a nose to the grindstone, get to work and solve problems kind of guy) and the Prophet focuses on decreasing the human footprint (represented by William Vogt - a charming, articulate influencer). I am firmly in the Wizard corner, but there are some conservation ideas from the prophet side that are useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) 27 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said: A compare/contrast of 2 different visions for how to best serve humanity and the environment. The Wizard focuses on increased productivity via technology (represented by Dr. Norman Borlaug - a nose to the grindstone, get to work and solve problems kind of guy) and the Prophet focuses on decreasing the human footprint (represented by William Vogt - a charming, articulate influencer). I am firmly in the Wizard corner, but there are some conservation ideas from the prophet side that are useful. Well i am a hindu philosophically. And i try to follow the greatest philosophical contribution of the hindus buddhists jains etc - everything in balance, everything in moderation. So i wouldnt pit myself fully in either corner but try to balance both corners. Life is about balance. This is the most obvious and fundamental philosophical fail of all western and islamic schools of thought - they persue a good vs bad, positive vs negative dualist abrahamic view of life. I dont wanna be a total slave to technology, having my thoughts controlled for me, everything done for me by the robot. I also dont wanna be hurka hurka i go hunt now caveman. I seek limitation to technology as well limitation to self inculcated philosophy. To balance both and grant primacy to neither. As for ideas from the conservative side that are useful - as the modern western world is proving, conservatism is the bedrock of society, as family values need to be conservative, else you have social implosion like the west is seeing. Which isnt surprising from an objective darwinian point of view - child raising, in virtually every animal species that raises its children - is virtually THE most socially conservative behaviour in a given species. As i grow older, i realize that conservatism is the primary glue for society's psychological and social well being, while liberalism's positive utility is limited only to technological solutions for a logistical necessity of our species. Edited January 13, 2021 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts