GrahamH wrote:
Brainless yes, depending on the definition of brain.
I'm inclined to agree with mindless/consciousnessless, but how would you know?
Consciousness is brain-dependent. The belief that it's not lacks any scientific support.
Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
GrahamH wrote:
Brainless yes, depending on the definition of brain.
I'm inclined to agree with mindless/consciousnessless, but how would you know?
GrahamH wrote:...
It's not very scientific to exclude the possibility of consciousness in anything that isn't an animal brain.
GrahamH wrote:I'm not arguing that plants are conscious. but if such ideas are on the right track then consciousness should be multiply realisable, and could have a form that isn't obviously brain-like.
It's not very scientific to exclude the possibility of consciousness in anything that isn't an animal brain.
Teuton wrote:GrahamH wrote:I'm not arguing that plants are conscious. but if such ideas are on the right track then consciousness should be multiply realisable, and could have a form that isn't obviously brain-like.
It's not very scientific to exclude the possibility of consciousness in anything that isn't an animal brain.
I'm not saying that the existence of artificial brains or nervous systems is impossible in principle. But an artificial brain or nervous system capable of generating consciousness would have to be structurally and functionally equivalent to a natural animal brain or nervous system. There will never be conscious toasters.
My contention is that all conscient natural beings in the universe, be they terrestrial or extraterrestrial ones, are properly classifiable as animals with some type of central nervous system.
DavidMcC wrote:GrahamH wrote:...
It's not very scientific to exclude the possibility of consciousness in anything that isn't an animal brain.
It isn't a question of how scientific it is, but of whether C is the appropriate word for how any plants "behave".
If you define C as mere sensing and acting on the basis of that sensing, in a simple way, then, maybe, but not otherwise.
GrahamH wrote:Maybe, but what is it you think is specific about brain structure?
GrahamH wrote:Unless you have a pretty clear idea of how brains might realise consciousness you are on very shaky ground assuming this or that feature of brains is necessary.
GrahamH wrote:I take it you are ruling out the possibility of any computer simulation of brain structure and function being conscious.
GrahamH wrote:What if brain structure and function can be reproduced with a different chemistry?
GrahamH wrote:.....
It's not very scientific to exclude the possibility of consciousness in anything that isn't an animal brain.
Teuton wrote:.....
I'm not saying that the existence of artificial brains or nervous systems is impossible in principle. But an artificial brain or nervous system capable of generating consciousness would have to be structurally and functionally equivalent to a natural animal brain or nervous system. ......
Teuton wrote:DavidMcC wrote:GrahamH wrote:...
It's not very scientific to exclude the possibility of consciousness in anything that isn't an animal brain.
It isn't a question of how scientific it is, but of whether C is the appropriate word for how any plants "behave".
If you define C as mere sensing and acting on the basis of that sensing, in a simple way, then, maybe, but not otherwise.
Sensation in the psychological/phenomenological sense is a sufficient condition for consciousness—with sentient beings being conscient beings—, and physiological sensitivity is a necessary but no sufficient condition for psychological/phenomenological sensation; so physiological sensitivity doesn't entail psychological/phenomenalogical sensation.
Plants may be said to be capable of perception, but their perceptions aren't accompanied by any subjective sensations; so plant perception is unconscious perception, i.e. perception which isn't perceptual experience = sensation.
(I use these concepts in such a way that "unconscious sensation" is a contradiction in terms, while "unconscious perception" is not.)
kennyc wrote:Teuton wrote:
Plants may be said to be capable of perception, but their perceptions aren't accompanied by any subjective sensations; so plant perception is unconscious perception, i.e. perception which isn't perceptual experience = sensation.
(I use these concepts in such a way that "unconscious sensation" is a contradiction in terms, while "unconscious perception" is not.)
You don't know that.
kennyc wrote:You seem to be very biased towards a particular kind of consciousness.
kennyc wrote:Do you believe in souls as well?
kennyc wrote:computers for example and certainly nothing to say that plant physiology/biology couldn't evolve something more similar to human/animal intelligence/consciousness.....not to say plants don't have a different form of consciousness. Certainly they are aware of their environment and in a manner of speaking conscious in their own right......like a thermostat.
Teuton wrote:
No, because consciousness is a biological phenomenon. So, if you plan to construct a conscious robot, you have to construct a physical equivalent of an animal organism, and especially of an animal nervous system.
Teuton wrote:If plants could evolve into conscient organisms, they would be animals—but they aren't and cannot become ones.
Teuton wrote:The so-called awareness of plants has nothing to do with consciousness. To say that plants are (functionally, nonphenomenally) aware of their environment is only to say that they contain a signal-detecting, -processing and reactively, adaptively behavior-regulating physiological mechanism. The physico-chemical processes involved therein are wholly objective, lacking any subjective, experiential content whatsoever. There's nothing psychophysical or psychochemical about them.
Teuton wrote:...GrahamH wrote:I take it you are ruling out the possibility of any computer simulation of brain structure and function being conscious.
Yes, I do—unless the material object in question is an artificial duplicate of a conscious biological organism.GrahamH wrote:What if brain structure and function can be reproduced with a different chemistry?
There might be non-carbon-based forms of life, but such natural organisms would have to have a CNS (brain) as well in order to be capable of consciousness.
SpeedOfSound wrote:
An interesting Searle-y perspective and the right one in one respect. Most people are actually restricting there talk of C to a particular human brand of it. There are infinite possible brands and they are structure dependent.
GrahamH wrote:...
The only examples we know of are biological, but that in not sufficient to determine that the only poissibl form is biological.
The same is true of life. It's reasonable to look for life where biological life as we know it could exist, it's not absolute that only carbon chemistry around 200 - 300K is the only possibility.
...
SpeedOfSound wrote:....
Most people are actually restricting there talk of C to a particular human brand of it. There are infinite possible brands and they are structure dependent.
Return to Psychology & Neuroscience
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest