The Plant Consciousness Wars

I'm not sure what you mean by "calculation couldn't be separated from consciousness". You seem to be trying to avoid epiphenominalism and its implications, so then you must be arguing for some sort of identity theory? That in some sense calculation "is" consciousness, and vice versa? Or... what?


Well, if you're going for some sort of identity theory, then consciousness influencing random processes amounts to calculations influencing random processes, which is hard to understand. You'd seem to then be arguing something like: a series of instructions on a CPU (which are indissolubly bound with, and perhaps in some sense identical with, consciousness) influence the hardware true random generator on that same CPU (or on some other connected hardware device)?

Yes, my instinct is that consciousness would be at least so closely associated with the calculations that were going on that it wouldn't make sense to separate the consciousness off from the calculations and say that the latter could affect the physical world and the former couldn't. I don't know the term "identity theory."

The thought about consciousness influencing random (or even deterministic) events was a separate one, which I suppose could apply even if consciousness arose out of calculation in a way that would allow it to be neatly separated from it.

[Laird]

Do plants have souls as well as bodies?

I don't know. My guess? Yes. How about you?

[Laird]

Yes, my instinct is that consciousness would be at least so closely associated with the calculations that were going on that it wouldn't make sense to separate the consciousness off from the calculations and say that the latter could affect the physical world and the former couldn't.

I don't think that that - for deterministic calculations - escapes the conclusion (that the artificial brain could not be conscious), but I don't have the patience right now to try to carefully explain why. I think your best bet for escaping the conclusion is the dualistic "consciousness emerging out of partially random processes yet simultaneously influencing those random processes out of which it is emerging" sort of idea that you had.

I don't know. My guess? Yes. How about you?

Not sure either, but I suspect there is something of the spiritual that is tied to plant bodies but I am not sure if it's a soul in the sense of a "transphysical person".

Individual plant bodies may share a single soul, for example...

I don't think that that - for deterministic calculations - escapes the conclusion (that the artificial brain could not be conscious), but I don't have the patience right now to try to carefully explain why. I think your best bet for escaping the conclusion is the dualistic "consciousness emerging out of partially random processes yet simultaneously influencing those random processes out of which it is emerging" sort of idea that you had.

Out of curiosity - do you mean artificial brain as in physical entity or a mere program run on a Turing Machine?

What feels wrong to me is the separation of consciousness from computation. If the computation is producing the consciousness, I don't think it makes sense that the computation could be identical in two cases - one with and one without consciousness. I think if the computation were the same, the consciousness would necessarily also be the same.

What are the basic properties of neurons, nerve fibers, ganglia and synapses? These would seem to be the same old physical 3D size and location measurements of the structures, mass, charge, EM field parameter values, velocities, etc. of physics plus the derived chemical and electrical properties of the cellular structures. The properties of the actions  and interactions of these biological structures can be derived from their physics and chemical properties. They are all measureable. What are the properties of calculation? These would seem to basically be the properties of numbers. Their physical instantiation can be counted and measured.


What are the basic properties of consciousness? These would seem to start with the various properties of conscious awareness such as taste, color, sensations like touch, pain and pleasure, etc. There is also thought itself including abstract thought where the object is completely immaterial. These properties would seem to be in a different existential realm altogether from mass, charge, velocity, number, etc. None of these properties of conscious awareness and thought can be measured, since they are inner experiential properties of a conscious entity.


How are you proposing the latter can somehow emerge from the former? The properties of conscious awareness (to say nothing of abstract thought for instance) can't be derived from the physics and chemical properties of the nerve structures, or from the properties of their actions in processing information.

[Laird]

Out of curiosity - do you mean artificial brain as in physical entity or a mere program run on a Turing Machine?

The line between the two seems blurry: a(n implementation of a) Turing Machine is a physical entity. I guess I had in mind more the latter though. We should probably ask Chris the same question as he brought up artificial brains in the first place.

The line between the two seems blurry: a(n implementation of a) Turing Machine is a physical entity. I guess I had in mind more the latter though. We should probably ask Chris the same question as he brought up artificial brains in the first place.

Gotcha - I think under the usual rules of what counts as conscious the latter would be ruled out though I could see a version of Idealism (or Neutral Monism) that grants some consciousness to programs. This however would be different than the idea that some "Holy Grail" program can just achieve consciousness b/c it crosses some complexity threshold.

Artificial recreations of the as-yet-unknown sufficient/necessary structures of our brains, IMO, should be ruled as conscious+sentient barring some strong reason for saying otherwise.

For very similar reasons I would say plants should be regarded as conscious, since from our own experience consciousness has a for-ness - qualia are reported to selves + plants have enough structural similarity and environmental response.

Whether plants are sentient is trickier...

Group of biologists tries to bury the idea that plants are conscious

It's funny how they're willing to ignore an entire worldview, simply because it contradicts their belief system ~ that is, consciousness requires an animal brain, and the supposed "higher functioning" aspects found in human and primate brains.

This also requires ignoring the high intelligence of ants, even though they have very little in the way of a nervous system. And no, it's not because of a "sum of parts", either, where a bunch of simpler entities work together to do something amazingly complex. Rather, it's because the nature of the ant-mind is focused towards a certain kind of behaviour, and so, the ant-body is well-designed for where it excels.

I feel this deserves referencing again, regarding the intelligence of plants as known via the deeply spiritual worldview of the Amazonian Shamans:

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-p...-worldview

The line between the two seems blurry: a(n implementation of a) Turing Machine is a physical entity. I guess I had in mind more the latter though. We should probably ask Chris the same question as he brought up artificial brains in the first place.

I'm sorry I did raise it, as it's only resulted in another fruitless (and off-topic) dance around the mulberry bush. Really, I doubt these questions can be settled by theoretical argument any more than the existence of psi can be proven or disproven by theoretical argument.