Evolution of Mind

[Nakosis]

I just grabbed the first article I found, I have read several research papers on the matter and the consensus is growing but not complete.

How do you detect consciousness? We don't seem to be capable of this in our own species.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't really understand the question.

I agree that the brain is physical, while the mind that inhabits it, transcends the physical, into the realm of the metaphysical. Just as man is an animal, and yet the being that inhabits the animal also transcends it, to become something more: to become human. And yet we have not fully transcended the physical, to the metaphysical. We are still suspended in between; existentially connected to both, but fully rooted in neither.

The mind is just the central nervous system. It generates, transfers and stores information. The brain is just a part of this system.

 

[bobhikes]

How do you detect consciousness? We don't seem to be capable of this in our own species.

I can detect my own but when it comes to research I evaluate the way they determine it for the study. I don't always agree but there is no consensus on consciousness just theory. Think of it this way without large masses there is no gravity does that mean gravity is not a real thing.

 

[leibowde84]

Some see it as being attached to a brain but that isn't necessarily so for plants and bacteria that have consciousness.

How are you defining consciousness so that some plants and bacteria would be seen as having it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've done my research you could do the same if you are interested. Any research papers I have to pay to view on-line. I have in the past gotten free copies at the library they exist but I not going to the library for you.

Someone that had done their research should have no problem in supporting their claims. They would have no problem defining their terms.

Have you done either of these?

Once again when someone makes a claim, as in the OP, then that puts the burden of proof upon that person.

 

[bobhikes]

Someone that had done their research should have no problem in supporting their claims. They would have no problem defining their terms.

Have you done either of these?

Once again when someone makes a claim, as in the OP, then that puts the burden of proof upon that person.

Oh well, and someone who was really interested could do the work themselves and learn some new things. It is not a burden if you are actually interested.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The mind is a dynamic thing. In fact it's an idea, that doesn't have a static form per se. Some see it as being attached to a brain but that isn't necessarily so for plants and bacteria that have consciousness.

As a species wouldn't a mind have to adapt its belief system to represent it's current state because of a change in the environment?

And if it did change, how would it be changed?

In my way of thinking, plants and bacteria having a (perhaps rudimentary) form of consciousness only further blurs the lines between alive and not alive... between "dead/static matter" and "life", and only further solidifies the idea that life is just matter with a superimposed "awareness." In other words, it only further ties the idea of the evolved/less-rudimentary "consciousness" to the matter it most certainly appears to rely upon. The fact that purpose and striving can exist without a brain means that the brain is simply a more complex container for the ultimate awareness/consciousness/purpose of an organism - displaying that matter can act as substrate for these abstract "entities" in either case - in any case.

I feel that the lower one goes down in complexity and can still witness some form of self-awareness, the more one must admit that it appears as though matter becoming aware is an imminent outcome of matter left to its own devices.

 

[PureX]

The mind is just the central nervous system. It generates, transfers and stores information. The brain is just a part of this system.

The universe experiences, and knows itself, through our cognititive capabilities. It experiences love, and beauty, and morality, through our conscious awareness. I hardly think of that as "just another system", like the weather.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh well, and someone who was really interested could do the work themselves and learn some new things. It is not a burden if you are actually interested.

Why would I be interested? Whenever one investigates claims like this they turn out to be just woo. Look at how you are totally unable to substantiate your beliefs in this nonsense.

 

[Fool]

Conscious is not exclusive, Belief is exclusive to humans. I have only found a few papers linking belief to certain apes and none of them have scientific consensus.

no belief isn't exclusive to humans either. all sentient beings operate from the known vs unknown. knowledge in one area is often used in another area of inexperience as belief; which doesn't necessarily mean it works. areas of inexperience are trial and error based on knowledge that may work.

case in point: plants can sense sunlight, and changes in weather. if they sense change in the weather due to barometric pressure they know either rain is coming or not. if they were put in a controlled environment they would react the same based on barometric pressure change and prior experience. in fact, there would be no ensuing rainfall although there was prior experience associated with barometric change. they feel something that isn't necessarily true.

 

[bobhikes]

Why would I be interested? Whenever one investigates claims like this they turn out to be just woo. Look at how you are totally unable to substantiate your beliefs in this nonsense.

If your not interested why bother the people that are. Whether I agree or disagree with the OP, I only post because I am interested and then research any new information I find whether it be for or against my view. What is your purpose for posting?

 

[Fool]

There is no western vs Eastern version of a definition for consciousness. At best it's a mistranslation at worst it's a hijacking of a term to their own ends. When really the eastern philosophy is describing something like "rudimentary awareness". When the definition of consciousness is able to include the sensing a thermostat does then the term has been hijacked to mean something else.

western science is too often considered a hard science. unfortunately there are no absolutes in science; especially in the softer sciences. neuroscience is a fledgling science. western science has been slow about studying consciousness because of its inability to control and measure. thats not an eastern issue. its just an issue

 

[bobhikes]

no belief isn't exclusive to humans either. all sentient beings operate from the known vs unknown. knowledge in one area is often used in another area of inexperience as belief; which doesn't necessarily mean it works. areas of inexperience are trial and error based on knowledge that may work.

I have never found proof of belief in any study for any animal but humans. Animals work through as you said trial and error. They don't believe what they see is food they bite everything to find out what is food. Belief requires self awareness and prediction which is found in no animals I am aware of.

 

[Fool]

How are you defining consciousness so that some plants and bacteria would be seen as having it?

For example, many see the brain as a computer, with consciousness emerging from complex computation among brain neurons, or from as-yet-unknown circuits or features of biological matter and energy. This approach motivates ‘brain mapping’, artificial intelligence (‘AI’) and efforts to ‘upload’ human minds into conscious machines. On the other hand, some see consciousness as a fundamental property of the universe, akin to mass, spin or charge, rather than emerging from them. These approaches include panpsychism, dualism, idealism, Eastern philosophy, Whitehead, quantum physics and cosmology.

 

[Fool]

I have never found proof of belief in any study for any animal but humans. Animals work through as you said trial and error. They don't believe what they see is food they bite everything to find out what is food. Belief requires self awareness and prediction which is found in no animals I am aware of.

https://listverse.com/2012/02/24/10-human-attributes-found-in-animals/

10 Animals with Self-Awareness

 

[Fool]

In my way of thinking, plants and bacteria having a (perhaps rudimentary) form of consciousness only further blurs the lines between alive and not alive... between "dead/static matter" and "life", and only further solidifies the idea that life is just matter with a superimposed "awareness." In other words, it only further ties the idea of the evolved/less-rudimentary "consciousness" to the matter it most certainly appears to rely upon. The fact that purpose and striving can exist without a brain means that the brain is simply a more complex container for the ultimate awareness/consciousness/purpose of an organism - displaying that matter can act as substrate for these abstract "entities" in either case - in any case.

I feel that the lower one goes down in complexity and can still witness some form of self-awareness, the more one must admit that it appears as though matter becoming aware is an imminent outcome of matter left to its own devices.

that is called panpsychism, and hylozoism.

penrose would agree with you.

\

 

[bobhikes]

https://listverse.com/2012/02/24/10-human-attributes-found-in-animals/

10 Animals with Self-Awareness

And prediction, I am aware there are animals with self-awareness. These animals could possibly have a belief system but no study has shown such. The problem I have is that you are taking belief and applying it to all consciousness and other then your opinion there are no facts. Humans can create things that no other animals have been able to do and that is do to a limitation of there minds. Creation comes from belief, you need to believe something can exist before you can make it exist. Consciousness does not have to have belief, we have emotional consciousness and logical consciousness and to some extent animals have them as well. I would argue plants have a different type of consciousness that is neither logical or emotional.

Point being unless there is scientific research pointing to belief in all things it is an opinion and your opinion is different than mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If your not interested why bother the people that are. Whether I agree or disagree with the OP, I only post because I am interested and then research any new information I find whether it be for or against my view. What is your purpose for posting?

This is an open forum. When people spread nonsense that they cannot support I feel a duty to try to help them.

 

[Fool]

And prediction, I am aware there are animals with self-awareness. These animals could possibly have a belief system but no study has shown such. The problem I have is that you are taking belief and applying it to all consciousness and other then your opinion there are no facts. Humans can create things that no other animals have been able to do and that is do to a limitation of there minds. Creation comes from belief, you need to believe something can exist before you can make it exist. Consciousness does not have to have belief, we have emotional consciousness and logical consciousness and to some extent animals have them as well. I would argue plants have a different type of consciousness that is neither logical or emotional.

Point being unless there is scientific research pointing to belief in all things it is an opinion and your opinion is different than mine.

ideas/beliefs/logoi aren't anthropomorphic; unless humans believe them to be so.

 

[Fool]

This is an open forum. When people spread nonsense that they cannot support I feel a duty to try to help them.

it definitely is an open forum.

the articles provided to you don't necessarily come from peer reviewed sources but they do come from reputable interviews with peer reviewed scientists and their studies.


About us

The roots of plant intelligence