The Simple Explanation of Life

[Sappho de Miranda]

I'm not sure you can say that a blade of grass "experiences sensations".

Yet it explains photosynthesis so well. Although, that is not to say that blade of grass 'perceives' that sensation.

[RG1]

And you have not justified why consciousness is different from or distinct from, 'experiencing.'

So then, let me ask --- How do you know you possess this "consciousness"? Do you 'experience' it?

Take Hume - he said that all experience is divisible into impressions and ideas. Wittgenstein, at one point, said that the world divided into atomic facts. Descartes divided it into corporeal nature and ideas of the mind. Parmenides said that it was all one - end of story. Plato divided it various ways, but at some points, just into appearance and reality.

Well I think 'logic' trumps Hume/Wittgenstein/Descartes/Parmenides/Plato. Logic says that 'experiences' are at the core/root of reality/life. For it is not logically possible to experience ANYTHING that is not itself an 'experience' (...dwell on this sentence a moment to grasp its full meaning). EVERYTHING that we experience in this life, is still …just …an …experience.

So, recognizing the logic above, (I thereby propose) a convenient classification / grouping of these experiences (these that make up our reality) to be internal, external, and memory. The internal are Feelings (emotions, pains, pleasures, urges, compulsions, instincts, etc.). The external is Awareness (sensory experiences). And the memory is Thoughts (memory experiences). All that we experience, and subsequently KNOW in this life, are the result of these experiences.

If we allow logic to be the basis of our reasoning, then we will ultimately come to the realization that there can be no "Me" (a mind) that is directing the show of Life. There can only be a 'me' (the body) that ‘experiences’ the show.

[Ginkgo]

And you have not justified why consciousness is different from or distinct from, 'experiencing.'

So then, let me ask --- How do you know you possess this "consciousness"? Do you 'experience' it?

Take Hume - he said that all experience is divisible into impressions and ideas. Wittgenstein, at one point, said that the world divided into atomic facts. Descartes divided it into corporeal nature and ideas of the mind. Parmenides said that it was all one - end of story. Plato divided it various ways, but at some points, just into appearance and reality.

Well I think 'logic' trumps Hume/Wittgenstein/Descartes/Parmenides/Plato. Logic says that 'experiences' are at the core/root of reality/life. For it is not logically possible to experience ANYTHING that is not itself an 'experience' (...dwell on this sentence a moment to grasp its full meaning). EVERYTHING that we experience in this life, is still …just …an …experience.

So, recognizing the logic above, (I thereby propose) a convenient classification / grouping of these experiences (these that make up our reality) to be internal, external, and memory. The internal are Feelings (emotions, pains, pleasures, urges, compulsions, instincts, etc.). The external is Awareness (sensory experiences). And the memory is Thoughts (memory experiences). All that we experience, and subsequently KNOW in this life, are the result of these experiences.

If we allow logic to be the basis of our reasoning, then we will ultimately come to the realization that there can be no "Me" (a mind) that is directing the show of Life. There can only be a 'me' (the body) that ‘experiences’ the show.

In philosophy of mind it is generally considered that "attention" is sufficient for consciousness to take place. Having said that this claim is still up for debate. Nonetheless, we can experience many things without actually attending to them. This is why I think the term "experience" is not adequate when it comes to simple organisms. Simple organisms negotiating their environment might be better looked at in terms of a measurement problem.

[Wyman]

And you have not justified why consciousness is different from or distinct from, 'experiencing.'

So then, let me ask --- How do you know you possess this "consciousness"? Do you 'experience' it?

Take Hume - he said that all experience is divisible into impressions and ideas. Wittgenstein, at one point, said that the world divided into atomic facts. Descartes divided it into corporeal nature and ideas of the mind. Parmenides said that it was all one - end of story. Plato divided it various ways, but at some points, just into appearance and reality.

Well I think 'logic' trumps Hume/Wittgenstein/Descartes/Parmenides/Plato. Logic says that 'experiences' are at the core/root of reality/life. For it is not logically possible to experience ANYTHING that is not itself an 'experience' (...dwell on this sentence a moment to grasp its full meaning). EVERYTHING that we experience in this life, is still …just …an …experience.

So, recognizing the logic above, (I thereby propose) a convenient classification / grouping of these experiences (these that make up our reality) to be internal, external, and memory. The internal are Feelings (emotions, pains, pleasures, urges, compulsions, instincts, etc.). The external is Awareness (sensory experiences). And the memory is Thoughts (memory experiences). All that we experience, and subsequently KNOW in this life, are the result of these experiences.

If we allow logic to be the basis of our reasoning, then we will ultimately come to the realization that there can be no "Me" (a mind) that is directing the show of Life. There can only be a 'me' (the body) that ‘experiences’ the show.

You missed my point. This concept of:

For it is not logically possible to experience ANYTHING that is not itself an 'experience' (...dwell on this sentence a moment to grasp its full meaning). EVERYTHING that we experience in this life, is still …just …an …experience.

... is a given, although not very helpful. It is step two - the dividing things up, that is tricky and what philosophers engage in - except maybe Parmenides. So, you don't have to justify 'everything is everything' or 'experience is everything.' You have to justify why anyone should adopt your subsequent categorizations.

As to consciousness, I never said anything about it, I just asked you to justify one of your claims.

[Lev Muishkin]

A subjective experience means that I cannot know that even YOU can experience; it means that I can only know that I DO.

Yes, agreed.

But we can also safely assume that if other living things do experience then they would have to have the same physicality as ourselves to experience as we do.

Ummm, I’m not so sure this is a “safe” assumption. Isn’t it possible for other living things to ‘experience’ without possessing ‘human equipment’ (brain, nervous system, etc.)? Don’t other living things feel/sense/detect their environments (and then react accordingly)? If so, then isn’t this also experiencing?
If you read what I say, then it is a necessary assumption, Try again!

In other words, without a brain, nervous system and sensory organs, a mushroom cannot experience the world as we do…

Yes, but you are missing the point. It is not about experiencing as ‘we humans do’, it is about ‘experiencing’. The ability for a living thing to experience (to ‘react’-to-stimuli) does not necessarily require the ‘human equipment’ (brain, nervous system, etc.).
No, I'm not missing the point. "Experience" is a human metric.

It it at all meaningful to apply "experience" to an amoeba at all? They cannot "feel" at all. they might react, but that is not the same as experience.

If they can’t “feel” (sense/detect) then how do they know to react? What is the impetus to react? Why would they react? And why do they react the way that they do? It seems obvious to me that if a living thing is able to ‘react’-to-stimuli, then this living thing ‘experiences’. These may not be human experiences, but nonetheless are still experiences.

You are making a false assumption that a "reaction" to stimuli requires a thing to "know".
The moon does not need to "know" that the earth has gravity to revolve; nor a apple to fall off a tree.
We have every warrant to think that simple living thing react through simple cause and effect..
Now the BIG question is; do humans do exactly the same, and the idea that we consciously respond to stimuli, wilfully. Is our experience nothing more than observation?

[Lev Muishkin]

I'm not sure you can say that a blade of grass "experiences sensations".

Yet it explains photosynthesis so well. Although, that is not to say that blade of grass 'perceives' that sensation.

No it does not. Not even remotely.
The green cells individually store the energy of the sun chemically, and make glucose, and oxygen from water and CO2. From the POV of each of these cells there is no "blade of grass".

You can do the same thing with puree'd chloroplasts in a test tube with a light bulb!

There is NO sensation and NO experience.

[Ginkgo]

... is a given, although not very helpful. It is step two - the dividing things up, that is tricky and what philosophers engage in - except maybe Parmenides. So, you don't have to justify 'everything is everything' or 'experience is everything.' You have to justify why anyone should adopt your subsequent categorizations.

As to consciousness, I never said anything about it, I just asked you to justify one of your claims.

Yes, it's not very helpful because it is a tautology.

[Wyman]

... is a given, although not very helpful. It is step two - the dividing things up, that is tricky and what philosophers engage in - except maybe Parmenides. So, you don't have to justify 'everything is everything' or 'experience is everything.' You have to justify why anyone should adopt your subsequent categorizations.

As to consciousness, I never said anything about it, I just asked you to justify one of your claims.

Yes, it's not very helpful because it is a tautology.

Exactly

[Sappho de Miranda]

There is NO sensation....

OK! OK! Plants have no sensation. Gotcha.

But do me a favor... What ever you do... Never say that to a Bio Geek. It would break their heart.

THE SENSORS

The Wall-Associated Kinase Family
Sensors for extracellular molecules consisting of an extracellular ligand-binding domain, a single trans-plasma membrane domain, and a cytosolic protein kinase domain have been termed receptor-like kinases (RLKs) and, with more than 610 genes in the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) genome, constitute the largest family of receptor-like proteins in plant genomes (Shiu and Bleecker, 2001a, 2001b). The binding of an extracellular ligand induces a conformational alteration leading to the activation of the protein kinase, thereby initiating a cascade of subsequent signal transduction events.

Source

Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways are modules involved in the transduction of extracellular signals to intracellular targets in all eukaryotes. Distinct MAPK pathways are regulated by different extracellular stimuli and are implicated in a wide variety of biological processes. In plants there is evidence for MAPKs playing a role in the signaling of abiotic stresses, pathogens and plant hormones. The large number and divergence of plant MAPKs indicates that this ancient mechanism of bioinformatics is extensively used in plants and may provide a new molecular handle on old questions.

Source

[Lev Muishkin]

There is NO sensation....

OK! OK! Plants have no sensation. Gotcha.

But do me a favor... What ever you do... Never say that to a Bio Geek. It would break their heart.

THE SENSORS

The Wall-Associated Kinase Family
Sensors for extracellular molecules consisting of an extracellular ligand-binding domain, a single trans-plasma membrane domain, and a cytosolic protein kinase domain have been termed receptor-like kinases (RLKs) and, with more than 610 genes in the Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) genome, constitute the largest family of receptor-like proteins in plant genomes (Shiu and Bleecker, 2001a, 2001b). The binding of an extracellular ligand induces a conformational alteration leading to the activation of the protein kinase, thereby initiating a cascade of subsequent signal transduction events.

Source

Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways are modules involved in the transduction of extracellular signals to intracellular targets in all eukaryotes. Distinct MAPK pathways are regulated by different extracellular stimuli and are implicated in a wide variety of biological processes. In plants there is evidence for MAPKs playing a role in the signaling of abiotic stresses, pathogens and plant hormones. The large number and divergence of plant MAPKs indicates that this ancient mechanism of bioinformatics is extensively used in plants and may provide a new molecular handle on old questions.

Source

Thanks, your links confirm exactly what I said. But most of all your links suggest the life is not "Simple" and that no simple explanation will do, and is unworthy of the massive differences and complexities.

[RG1]

...life is not "Simple" and that no simple explanation will do, and is unworthy of the massive differences and complexities.

Lev, before you discount the simplicity of life, let me ask you --- Do you agree that life (as we know it) is comprised of ONLY experiences? Or do you feel that there is something more than ‘experience’?

[RG1]

So, recognizing the logic above, (I thereby propose) a convenient classification / grouping of these experiences (these that make up our reality) to be internal, external, and memory. The internal are Feelings (emotions, pains, pleasures, urges, compulsions, instincts, etc.). The external is Awareness (sensory experiences). And the memory is Thoughts (memory experiences). All that we experience, and subsequently KNOW in this life, are the result of these experiences.

For it is not logically possible to experience ANYTHING that is not itself an 'experience' (...dwell on this sentence a moment to grasp its full meaning). EVERYTHING that we experience in this life, is still …just …an …experience.

... is a given, although not very helpful. …You have to justify why anyone should adopt your subsequent categorizations.

It does NOT matter how one categorizes these experiences. The point is that experiences are ALL there are to life. For clarity sake, I categorize these ‘experiences’ into 3 basic groups; internal, external, and memory. If you like my categorization, then you’ll adopt it. If you don’t, then you won’t. No big deal either way, as it (the categorization) has no effect on the realization that Experiences are ALL there are to Life.

[RG1]

As to consciousness, I never said anything about it, I just asked you to justify one of your claims.

Yes, it's not very helpful because it is a tautology.

So, are you saying that consciousness = experience, that these are the same (i.e. have identical definitions)?

[HexHammer]

OP

So by your logic, any robot is alive, brilliant logic ............NOT!!

[RG1]

So by your logic, any robot is alive, brilliant logic ............NOT!!

Hi HH, you may want to rethink "your logic". --- “All Apples are Fruit” does NOT mean “All Fruit are Apples”.