On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 9:16 AM Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 6:00 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, May 23, 2023, 4:14 PM Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 2:27 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 1:15 PM Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 11:08 AM Dylan Distasio <interz...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And yes, I'm arguing that a true simulation (let's say for the sake >>>>>> of a thought experiment we were able to replicate every neural connection >>>>>> of a human being in code, including the connectomes, and >>>>>> neurotransmitters, >>>>>> along with a simulated nerve that was connected to a button on the desk >>>>>> we >>>>>> could press which would simulate the signal sent when a biological pain >>>>>> receptor is triggered) would feel pain that is just as real as the pain >>>>>> you >>>>>> and I feel as biological organisms. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This follows from the physicalist no-zombies-possible stance. But it >>>>> still runs into the hard problem, basically. How does stuff give rise to >>>>> experience. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I would say stuff doesn't give rise to conscious experience. Conscious >>>> experience is the logically necessary and required state of knowledge that >>>> is present in any consciousness-necessitating behaviors. If you design a >>>> simple robot with a camera and robot arm that is able to reliably catch a >>>> ball thrown in its general direction, then something in that system *must* >>>> contain knowledge of the ball's relative position and trajectory. It simply >>>> isn't logically possible to have a system that behaves in all situations as >>>> if it knows where the ball is, without knowing where the ball is. >>>> Consciousness is simply the state of being with knowledge. >>>> >>>> Con- "Latin for with" >>>> -Scious- "Latin for knowledge" >>>> -ness "English suffix meaning the state of being X" >>>> >>>> Consciousness -> The state of being with knowledge. >>>> >>>> There is an infinite variety of potential states and levels of >>>> knowledge, and this contributes to much of the confusion, but boiled down >>>> to the simplest essence of what is or isn't conscious, it is all about >>>> knowledge states. Knowledge states require activity/reactivity to the >>>> presence of information, and counterfactual behaviors (if/then, greater >>>> than less than, discriminations and comparisons that lead to different >>>> downstream consequences in a system's behavior). At least, this is my >>>> theory of consciousness. >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>> >>> This still runs into the valence problem though. Why does some >>> "knowledge" correspond with a positive *feeling* and other knowledge >>> with a negative feeling? >>> >> >> That is a great question. Though I'm not sure it's fundamentally >> insoluble within model where every conscious state is a particular state of >> knowledge. >> >> I would propose that having positive and negative experiences, i.e. pain >> or pleasure, requires knowledge states with a certain minium degree of >> sophistication. For example, knowing: >> >> Pain being associated with knowledge states such as: "I don't like this, >> this is bad, I'm in pain, I want to change my situation." >> >> Pleasure being associated with knowledge states such as: "This is good >> for me, I could use more of this, I don't want this to end.' >> >> Such knowledge states require a degree of reflexive awareness, to have a >> notion of a self where some outcomes may be either positive or negative to >> that self, and perhaps some notion of time or a sufficient agency to be >> able to change one's situation. >> >> Sone have argued that plants can't feel pain because there's little they >> can do to change their situation (though I'm agnostic on this). >> >> I'm not talking about the functional accounts of positive and negative >>> experiences. I'm talking about phenomenology. The functional aspect of it >>> is not irrelevant, but to focus *only* on that is to sweep the feeling >>> under the rug. So many dialogs on this topic basically terminate here, >>> where it's just a clash of belief about the relative importance of >>> consciousness and phenomenology as the mediator of all experience and >>> knowledge. >>> >> >> You raise important questions which no complete theory of consciousness >> should ignore. I think one reason things break down here is because there's >> such incredible complexity behind and underlying the states of >> consciousness we humans perceive and no easy way to communicate all the >> salient properties of those experiences. >> >> Jason >> > > Thanks for that. These kinds of questions are rarely acknowledged in the > mainstream. The problem is how much we take valence as a given, or how much > it's conflated with its function, that most people aren't aware of how > strange it is if you're coming from a physicalist metaphysics. "Evolution > did it" is the common refrain, but it begs the question. > > With your proposal would bacterium potentially possess the knowledge > states required? > > Yes, I have recently argued that the first single-celled organism with a photosensitive pigment could represent the emergence of consciousness on Earth. Once you have something that is reactive/responsive to stimuli, with the ability to differentiate or distinguish one state from another, and respond appropriately and uniquely to either situation, this is, if not consciousness, then at least the atom of consciousness from which all states of consciousness are composed. > And the idea that plants cannot influence their environments is patently > false. There's an emerging recognition of just how much plants do respond > to environmental stimuli. There's a symbiotic relationship between plants > and fungal networks in the soil, and these networks have been shown to > mediate communication, where trees will signal threats and direct resources > to other trees who need it. I can try to dig up some references on that. > I am aware of plants' fascinating abilities to learn, communicate, adapt, etc. I strongly lean towards the possibility of them being conscious. Some quotes: “When a plant is wounded, its body immediately kicks into protection mode. It releases a bouquet of volatile chemicals, which in some cases have been shown to induce neighboring plants to pre-emptively step up their own chemical defenses and in other cases to lure in predators of the beasts that may be causing the damage to the plants. Inside the plant, repair systems are engaged and defenses are mounted, the molecular details of which scientists are still working out, but which involve signaling molecules coursing through the body to rally the cellular troops, even the enlisting of the genome itself, which begins churning out defense-related proteins ... If you think about it, though, why would we expect any organism to lie down and die for our dinner? Organisms have evolved to do everything in their power to avoid being extinguished. How long would any lineage be likely to last if its members effectively didn't care if you killed them?” https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/science/15food.html “The research of Ariel Novoplansky, from the Ben-Gurion University of the Begev, has demonstrated that plants can communicate with each other in sophisticated ways. Novoplansy’s experiment involved putting plants in a series of adjacent pots, with each plant having one root in its neighbor's pot. He then subjected one of the plants to drought. What he discovered was that this information was passed down the series of plant pots through the roots, as revealed by the fact that all of the plants closed their pores to reduce water loss. Closing of pores is generally the action of thirsty plants, but in this case it was the action of perfectly well-watered plants responding to the danger signals of a neighbor several pots along. The plants were even able to retain the information, which prevented them from dying in the drought that Novoplansky subjected the plants to in a later stage of the experiment.” “By infecting trees with isotope traces, Simard has shown that there is beneath our feet a complex web of communication between trees, which she has dubbed the “Wood-Wide Web.” Communication happens via mycorrhiza structures, which connect trees to other trees via fungi. /the trees and the fungi enjoy a quid pro quo relationship: the trees deliver carbon to the fungi and the fungi reciprocate by delivering nutrients to the trees. A dense web of connections is formed in this way, with the busiest trees at the center connected to hundreds of other trees.” “Many vegans and vegetarians feel that it is wrong to kill or exploit sentient creatures. But if plants also have sentience, what is there left to eat? These are very hard ethical questions; it may turn out that some killing of sentient life is inevitable if we want to survive ourselves. But accepting the consciousness of plant life means at the very least accepting that plants have genuine interests, interests that deserve our respect and consideration.” -- Phillip Goff in "Galileo’s Error" (2019) “He speaks with plant scientists from around the world whose research has led them to conclude that plants can communicate, learn, and even remember. Some even go as far as to say plants are intelligent.” “But in principle, there is no doubt that plants are processing and sharing information, potentially in an incredibly complex way.” – James Wong https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3xgQcFfKw6741rYn5LzQhJb/six-reasons-plants-are-cleverer-than-you-think Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUheVWSWfw_f%3Dys%2B-VLv-WUFd8GrEOG8-3tKfaasGB5tVw%40mail.gmail.com.
