Consciousness of plants

[Izzywizzy]

Bernard I discussed this on my thread "what is consciousness?" take a look..subconscious is still conscious as is the unconscious..my challenge and test to those who think plants feel nothing..know nothing..scream at a flower go ahead test this..buy a flower and scream and shout at it at it even after you water it..it will close up in vibrational response and die ..considering what those laughing at trees being conscious..have to say..the physics and science they rely on proves otherwise..test both ways..buy two fresh flowers..scream and shout and curse at one for three days..and kiss and love and send love to the other for three days..and tell us which flower dies first and which one thrives..Vibration is the thing..look into what vibration means

[Bernard]

Can you give the url for the topic you began on consciousness? I can't find it in the search engine.

I couldn't bring myself to subject a flower to all that. Besides, I learnt a sequence of movements that bring one very effectively into the awareness of a tree. The movements are used by practitioners of Tensegrity to slow things down in their lives that need slowing down. Trees 'face the oncoming time'. That is, they face time as it comes toward them, whereas for us the experience of time is retrospective. I love doing this movement with trees. Below is an account of a workshop it was taught in, among other movements and practices.

http://www.oocities.org/impersonalus/anaheim3.html

[chaz wyman]

I would think a single cell organism is conscious, but not in the way we know consciousness to be. For us consciousness is a mental thing. Our sense of self is glued to our reflective nature; being that we take minimial perceptual input from our environment and rebuild it mentally. Other animals don't do that, let alone amoeba.

Consciousness is a result of being aware, even in extremely rudimentary ways. Awareness gives rise to perception and perception promotes consciousness. Nothing can act as an independent unit without consciousness. You can't tell me that the creatures in this video aren't acting as self contained entities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGAm6hMysTA

Since it is not even possible for me to tell if YOU are aware, then I can't see what give you the right to declare an aomeba has consciousness.

Just becasue a thing can be seen to react, it not the same as saying it is aware, or has consciousness.
You might as well say that when you open a bottle of coke that it is aware of you doing so by releasing bubbles.- or that a car is aware of your foot on the accelerator because the car moves forward.

[Bernard]

I don't think I have to provide a right for everything I do or say. But, you are correct, objective thinking cannot prove that life exists at all, so where to for now Horatio?

As per coke being alive; all things may be a result of consciousness, but not all things are conscious themselves. Living cells go to form the trunk of a tree, but the wood itself can be cut out of the tree and be made into a material for building. The tree is dead, the cells are dead. The wood is a result of the tree growing and the cells combining and acting in specific ways; all being purposeful living acts.

[chaz wyman]

I don't think I have to provide a right for everything I do or say. But, you are correct, objective thinking cannot prove that life exists at all, so where to for now Horatio?

As per coke being alive; all things may be a result of consciousness, but not all things are conscious themselves. Living cells go to form the trunk of a tree, but the wood itself can be cut out of the tree and be made into a material for building. The tree is dead, the cells are dead. The wood is a result of the tree growing and the cells combining and acting in specific ways; all being purposeful living acts.

Not only are you abusing the word conscious , but now you are abusing the word purpose.

Aristotle has been dead for 2300 years, and his philosophy has been thoroughly rejected for at least the last 300.
It is no coincidence that the period in history that has marked the most amazing growth and progress in science is due to people like Descartes, Spinoza and Hobbes completely destroying the idea of final causes.

[Bernard]

Simply put Aristotle was unable to emulate the solitary thinking and depth of insight of Plato and Socrates. He thought well and systematically, but what he set in to train was a way of skirting knowledge via reason and science. Presenting reason as knowledge was his great damage. That the men of the enlightenment period picked up this ball and ran with it as hard as they could is testament to the necessity of science to fulfill its latent possibilities for the coming centuries of secular dominance. All well and good. I sincerely applaud. Knowledge though cannot be defined wholly as reason. To accuse me of hijacking terms that were not borne of reason is not only unconsidered but agenda ridden.

[chaz wyman]

Simply put Aristotle was unable to emulate the solitary thinking and depth of insight of Plato and Socrates.

If you think that , then why are you hopelessly mired in his philosophy?

He thought well and systematically, but what he set in to train was a way of skirting knowledge via reason and science.

You will have to unpack this claim. Are you saying he used reason and science to skirt, or are you saying he skirted reason and science.

What he actually did was to present a grand theory of universal ontology based on teleology, which you have absorbed, and sadly was accepted for 1900 years to the detriment of progress.

Presenting reason as knowledge was his great damage.

I don't think this is a reasonable statement. His 'damage" was to use the same explanation for all phenomena. This and its adoption by the draconian and inflexible Catholic Church was what stopped progress until the modern period, when Aristotle was unpacked.


That the men of the enlightenment period picked up this ball and ran with it as hard as they could is testament to the necessity of science to fulfill its latent possibilities for the coming centuries of secular dominance.

This is just a complete reverse of what happened. The men of the Enlightenment (so-called) were enabled not by Aristotle, but by the fact that Aristotle was thoroughly rejected and condemned by men like Hobbes and Spinoza. It was THIS that enabled science and philosophy to grow. Where are you getting this misconception from?



All well and good. I sincerely applaud. Knowledge though cannot be defined wholly as reason.

WHo is saying that? No one - not even Aristotle!!


To accuse me of hijacking terms that were not borne of reason is not only unconsidered but agenda ridden.

I was implying that you had not yet achieved the liberation from primitive teleology that is characteristic of pre-Modern thinking.
I did not accuse you of hijacking - I accused you of misunderstanding "purpose", and "conscious". You thinking is that of primitive animism that is characteristic of Aristotelian teleology and the barbarians he was surrounded with.

[Bernard]

Simply put Aristotle was unable to emulate the solitary thinking and depth of insight of Plato and Socrates.

If you think that , then why are you hopelessly mired in his philosophy?

I don't think I am. He disseminated much of what we didn't hear Plato, and much less Socrates, disseminate of their knowledge: Socrates found it superfluous whilst Plato was too distracted. Socrates explored knowledge itself rather than its items. But Aristotle, I would argue, explored its items; making concrete what is essentially abstract. This concreting takes place through systematizing and taxonomising (however flawed the systems and taxonomies may be).

He thought well and systematically, but what he set in to train was a way of skirting knowledge via reason and science.

You will have to unpack this claim. Are you saying he used reason and science to skirt, or are you saying he skirted reason and science.


I say he used reason and science to skirt knowledge, or shy away from it, even though reason and science was not what he particularly cared for. he was out to impress.

What he actually did was to present a grand theory of universal ontology based on teleology, which you have absorbed, and sadly was accepted for 1900 years to the detriment of progress.


I think that theory was, at least, a justification to himself for his existence, but at best a continuance of the grand thinking of men like Parmenides and other earlier Greek philosophers that were influenced by the ideas of much older cultures, like Egypt and Persia. The bases of ontological ideas belong way back further in time than Aristotle.


Presenting reason as knowledge was his great damage.

I don't think this is a reasonable statement. His 'damage" was to use the same explanation for all phenomena. This and its adoption by the draconian and inflexible Catholic Church was what stopped progress until the modern period, when Aristotle was unpacked.


I think we are saying the same thing here. The fact that he explained everything is the issue. Reason is created and upheld only through a lot of explanation, however bizarre it may be. As I say above, his predecessors kept a lot of their thoughts to themselves in regards to what they knew. For them philosophy was about contemplation, inquiry with others and argument, not explanation.

That the men of the enlightenment period picked up this ball and ran with it as hard as they could is testament to the necessity of science to fulfill its latent possibilities for the coming centuries of secular dominance.

This is just a complete reverse of what happened. The men of the Enlightenment (so-called) were enabled not by Aristotle, but by the fact that Aristotle was thoroughly rejected and condemned by men like Hobbes and Spinoza. It was THIS that enabled science and philosophy to grow. Where are you getting this misconception from?


I think you validate my argument with your closing sentences. If there was no Aristotle to reject would science have rallied to the strength it eventually did? I'm sure it would have, but not with the same gusto that a worthy opponent gives a cause.

All well and good. I sincerely applaud. Knowledge though cannot be defined wholly as reason.

WHo is saying that? No one - not even Aristotle!!

But that is what he unwittingly set the stage for, imo.


To accuse me of hijacking terms that were not borne of reason is not only unconsidered but agenda ridden.

I was implying that you had not yet achieved the liberation from primitive teleology that is characteristic of pre-Modern thinking.
I did not accuse you of hijacking - I accused you of misunderstanding "purpose", and "conscious". You thinking is that of primitive animism that is characteristic of Aristotelian teleology and the barbarians he was surrounded with.


I understand many aspects of ancient man's life and thought to be highly perceptive and sophisticated, and indeed the core of most of what we have found meaning in lies years and years previous to modernity. Okay, so it wasn't so reasonable; that doesn't make it stupid.

[chaz wyman]

Simply put Aristotle was unable to emulate the solitary thinking and depth of insight of Plato and Socrates.

If you think that , then why are you hopelessly mired in his philosophy?

I don't think I am. He disseminated much of what we didn't hear Plato, and much less Socrates, disseminate of their knowledge: Socrates found it superfluous whilst Plato was too distracted. Socrates explored knowledge itself rather than its items. But Aristotle, I would argue, explored its items; making concrete what is essentially abstract. This concreting takes place through systematizing and taxonomising (however flawed the systems and taxonomies may be).

None of this is at issue though. You have absorbed his teleology.

He thought well and systematically, but what he set in to train was a way of skirting knowledge via reason and science.


You will have to unpack this claim. Are you saying he used reason and science to skirt, or are you saying he skirted reason and science.


I say he used reason and science to skirt knowledge, or shy away from it, even though reason and science was not what he particularly cared for. he was out to impress.



This is a contradiction. Science is literally knowledge. Scientia

What he actually did was to present a grand theory of universal ontology based on teleology, which you have absorbed, and sadly was accepted for 1900 years to the detriment of progress.


I think that theory was, at least, a justification to himself for his existence, but at best a continuance of the grand thinking of men like Parmenides and other earlier Greek philosophers that were influenced by the ideas of much older cultures, like Egypt and Persia. The bases of ontological ideas belong way back further in time than Aristotle.

Your point is what exactly?


Presenting reason as knowledge was his great damage.

I don't think this is a reasonable statement. His 'damage" was to use the same explanation for all phenomena. This and its adoption by the draconian and inflexible Catholic Church was what stopped progress until the modern period, when Aristotle was unpacked.


I think we are saying the same thing here. The fact that he explained everything is the issue. Reason is created and upheld only through a lot of explanation, however bizarre it may be. As I say above, his predecessors kept a lot of their thoughts to themselves in regards to what they knew. For them philosophy was about contemplation, inquiry with others and argument, not explanation.

That the men of the enlightenment period picked up this ball and ran with it as hard as they could is testament to the necessity of science to fulfill its latent possibilities for the coming centuries of secular dominance.

This is just a complete reverse of what happened. The men of the Enlightenment (so-called) were enabled not by Aristotle, but by the fact that Aristotle was thoroughly rejected and condemned by men like Hobbes and Spinoza. It was THIS that enabled science and philosophy to grow. Where are you getting this misconception from?


I think you validate my argument with your closing sentences. If there was no Aristotle to reject would science have rallied to the strength it eventually did? I'm sure it would have, but not with the same gusto that a worthy opponent gives a cause.

Nice way to dodge the bullet, but I'm not stupid.

Running with the ball is not the same as throwing th ball back where it came from.



All well and good. I sincerely applaud. Knowledge though cannot be defined wholly as reason.

This is either a strawman, or a persistent misconception. No one ever claimed this.

WHo is saying that? No one - not even Aristotle!!

But that is what he unwittingly set the stage for, imo.


To accuse me of hijacking terms that were not borne of reason is not only unconsidered but agenda ridden.

I was implying that you had not yet achieved the liberation from primitive teleology that is characteristic of pre-Modern thinking.
I did not accuse you of hijacking - I accused you of misunderstanding "purpose", and "conscious". You thinking is that of primitive animism that is characteristic of Aristotelian teleology and the barbarians he was surrounded with.


I understand many aspects of ancient man's life and thought to be highly perceptive and sophisticated, and indeed the core of most of what we have found meaning in lies years and years previous to modernity. Okay, so it wasn't so reasonable; that doesn't make it stupid.


Well in order to support this agenda you will have to reject the enlightenment, and the entire edifice of modern scientific progress.
But then so much is clear!!!

[Bernard]

None of this is at issue though. You have absorbed his teleology.

I may agree with it in whole or part, so what? I came to things my own way.

This is a contradiction. Science is literally knowledge. Scientia

Crap. Knowledge can come without science.

[chaz wyman]

None of this is at issue though. You have absorbed his teleology.

I may agree with it in whole or part, so what? I came to things my own way.

Ho, Ho.

This is a contradiction. Science is literally knowledge. Scientia

Crap. Knowledge can come without science.

Not in the context of Aristotle. Scientia = knowledge

[Bernard]

Knowledge doesn't have the same etymology as science. see Gnosis.




Most come by things their own way, are you being misanthropic or just characterizing me as it pleases?

[Bernard]

Knowledge for me is something that comes when unnecessary thoughts have been stilled and my whole being is receptive. Its mysterious.

[chaz wyman]

Knowledge doesn't have the same etymology as science. see Gnosis.

But the Greek for science is LITERALLY knowledge.
γνῶσις does not mean what knowledge means to us.

I was not making an etymological point but a semantic one.




Most come by things their own way,

... I have no idea what you mean by this.

are you being misanthropic or just characterizing me as it pleases?

[chaz wyman]

Knowledge for me is something that comes when unnecessary thoughts have been stilled and my whole being is receptive. Its mysterious.

Like I said before - enjoy your delusion.