Evolution of Mind

[Subduction Zone]

Can you please provide this definition and the references thereof?



Again, can you help by actually stating or referring the standard ones?

Once the posters that have abused the terms I will gladly do so. You could just admit that you are trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

[atanu]

Once the posters that have abused the terms I will gladly do so. You could just admit that you are trying to shift the burden of proof.

Ha ha. Is it always about proof?

 

[Fool]

Are you trying to prove how wrong you are? Yo are succeeding.

consciousness | Origin and meaning of consciousness by Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ha ha. Is it always about proof?

"Burden of proof" is a phrase. Personally I would be happy with some valid evidence and proper definitions so that we would know what the argument was about. I am not going to find any links yet but "consciousness" usually implies self awareness and there is no reason at all to make that assumption about either bacteria or plants. In fact anyone that claimed plants or bacteria are self aware would have made an extraordinary claim which would require extraordinary evidence. Instead we see no evidence at all and running away from the burden of proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

consciousness | Origin and meaning of consciousness by Online Etymology Dictionary

Still full of fail.

Try again.

 

[Fool]

Still full of fail.

Try again.

Plant Intelligence: An Overview | BioScience | Oxford Academic


The cognitive cell: bacterial behavior reconsidered

 

[Subduction Zone]

Plant Intelligence: An Overview | BioScience | Oxford Academic


The cognitive cell: bacterial behavior reconsidered

Plant Intelligence: An Overview | BioScience | Oxford Academic


The cognitive cell: bacterial behavior reconsidered

Dumbing down the definition of "intelligence". A plant whose sprout grows up would be "intelligent" by those standards.

 

[serp777]

State your case on why you believe that plants and bacteria are not conscious in even the slightest degree.

This is a shifting of the burden of proof. Its not my job to demonstrate that they're not conscious. I have no reason to believe this is the case. However, despite that, I will say that everything we know that's conscious has a sophisticated brain, and I see no evidence that bacteria or plants have a sophisticated brain. it may be possible to argue that certain plants with large connective networks could have some form of consciousness in theory, but again there's no evidence.

 

[bobhikes]

You are merely cherry picking. The reports of bigfoot tend to be in areas that are almost "urban" compared to Brazil's jungles.

When comparing things make sure that they are similar. Bigfoot tends to be reported in the lower 48, and usually relatively close to civilization.

Instead of defending a failed analogy it would have been much wiser to see if there was actual evidence for your beliefs.

The hamster wheel keeps spinning.

 

[bobhikes]

I will give another perspective.

We assume multiplicity as reality and then try to determine whether this object or that object is conscious. This is fundamentally wrong, since we are superimposing a multiplicity on a non dual unitive reality called consciousness.

Awareness can be of subject or of object. For example, I am aware of my self and I am aware of the tree. In all situations, you will find that all that is known directly or indirectly through report, are permeated by awareness.

So, to talk about aware 'This' or aware 'that' is an error, from Vedantic perspective. This perspective can be better studied through explanation of a sage:

http://www.discovervedanta.com/downloads/articles/definition-of-consciousness.pdf
.................................

Therefore, as per Vedanta, we can better understand evolution of mind, if we grasp the non dual nature of consciousness itself.

Consciousness
Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. Wilkapedia

I think the misunderstanding is the use of Consciousness. In the studies I saw about plants it uses the being aware of an external object and not self awareness.

 

[Fool]

Still full of fail.

Try again.

Dumbing down the definition of "intelligence". A plant whose sprout grows up would be "intelligent" by those standards.

this thread was never about a competition between human consciousness, plant, or microbial.

consciousness is more than human.

not all humans have self-awareness; especially those with limited intelligence. dumb doesn't mean without.

this thread was about mind and its plasticity, or ability to exist in different forms.


and fyi, the enteric system of a human contains neurons not associated directly with brain

 

[Subduction Zone]

this thread was never about a competition between human consciousness, plant, or microbial.

consciousness is more than human.

not all humans have self-awareness; especially those with limited intelligence. dumb doesn't mean without.

this thread was about mind and its plasticity, or ability to exist in different forms.


and fyi, the enteric system of a human contains neurons not associated directly with brain

But there has been no support for the claim of "mind". So far, and even that article was full of it, all you have are equivocation fallacies. Do you know what an equivocation fallacy is?

 

[Fool]

But there has been no support for the claim of "mind". So far, and even that article was full of it, all you have are equivocation fallacies. Do you know what an equivocation fallacy is?

please enlighten us, what is an equivocation fallacy?


mind

mind (n.)


late 12c., from Old English gemynd "memory, remembrance, state of being remembered; thought, purpose; conscious mind, intellect, intention," Proto-Germanic *ga-mundiz (source also of Gothic muns "thought," munan "to think;" Old Norse minni "mind;" German Minne (archaic) "love," originally "memory, loving memory"), from suffixed form of PIE root *men- (1) "to think," with derivatives referring to qualities of mind or states of thought.


Meaning "mental faculty" is mid-14c. "Memory," one of the oldest senses, now is almost obsolete except in old expressions such as bear in mind, call to mind. Mind's eye "remembrance" is early 15c. Phrase time out of mind is attested from early 15c. To pay no mind "disregard" is recorded from 1916, American English dialect. To have half a mind to "to have one's mind half made up to (do something)" is recorded from 1726. Mind-reading is from 1882.

 

[Subduction Zone]

please enlighten us, what is an equivocation fallacy?


mind

mind (n.)


late 12c., from Old English gemynd "memory, remembrance, state of being remembered; thought, purpose; conscious mind, intellect, intention," Proto-Germanic *ga-mundiz (source also of Gothic muns "thought," munan "to think;" Old Norse minni "mind;" German Minne (archaic) "love," originally "memory, loving memory"), from suffixed form of PIE root *men- (1) "to think," with derivatives referring to qualities of mind or states of thought.


Meaning "mental faculty" is mid-14c. "Memory," one of the oldest senses, now is almost obsolete except in old expressions such as bear in mind, call to mind. Mind's eye "remembrance" is early 15c. Phrase time out of mind is attested from early 15c. To pay no mind "disregard" is recorded from 1916, American English dialect. To have half a mind to "to have one's mind half made up to (do something)" is recorded from 1726. Mind-reading is from 1882.

You mean that you could not look up your error? Many words have more than one meaning. An equivocation fallacy is when one uses a word or phrase in two different ways in an attempt to win an argument. If you can't see your errors it is no wonder that you keep repeating them.

By the way, you confirm that claim by continually demonstrating that you do not know how to use dictionaries. Please note that you never said exactly which definition that yo are using. That is why you lose every time that you merely post a definition. You support my claim that you have no clue and do not know how to think logically and rationally.

 

[Fool]

You mean that you could not look up your error?

actually i did. you seem to want attention. i'm ok with that; especially if i learn something in addition.

Many words have more than one meaning. An equivocation fallacy is when one uses a word or phrase in two different ways in an attempt to win an argument. If you can't see your errors it is no wonder that you keep repeating them.

I'm very much aware of words having multiple meanings.

By the way, you confirm that claim by continually demonstrating that you do not know how to use dictionaries. Please note that you never said exactly which definition that yo are using.

actually i did. you obviously ignored them.


Evolution of Mind

Evolution of Mind

Evolution of Mind

That is why you lose every time that you merely post a definition. You support my claim that you have no clue and do not know how to think logically and rationally.

since you're attempting to be specific, why don't you point out the specific instance where you believe i commited an, equivocation fallacy please?


I found great synonyms for "mind" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I found great synonyms for "evolve" on the new Thesaurus.com!


you're committing what is called an ad hominem fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

actually i did. you seem to want attention. i'm ok with that; especially if i learn something in addition.

I'm very much aware of words having multiple meanings.

actually i did. you obviously ignored them.


Evolution of Mind

Evolution of Mind

Evolution of Mind

since you're attempting to be specific, why don't you point out the specific instance where you believe i commited an, equivocation fallacy please?


I found great synonyms for "mind" on the new Thesaurus.com!

I found great synonyms for "evolve" on the new Thesaurus.com!


you're committing what is called an ad hominem fallacy.

Nope, no ad hominem fallacy. People that do not understand fallacies should not try to use them. And you never defined your terms. You posted some word salad at best and referred to some dictionary definitions again. I did not ignore anything.
Try again.

 

[atanu]

I am not going to find any links yet but "consciousness" usually implies self awareness and there is no reason at all to make that assumption about either bacteria or plants. In fact anyone that claimed plants or bacteria are self aware would have made an extraordinary claim which would require extraordinary evidence. Instead we see no evidence at all and running away from the burden of proof.

But consciousness is not only self awareness but is self awareness plus non self awareness. Awareness is awareness of "I" and also of the world.

... Do you know what an equivocation fallacy is?

Very smart.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But consciousness is not only self awareness but is self awareness plus non self awareness. Awareness is awareness of "I" and also of the world.

So plants and bacteria are not conscious. Glad that's settled.

Very smart.

I don't know. They clearly do not understand the concept even after it has been explained to them. It was a simple question and no honest answer was ever given.

 

[Fool]

So plants and bacteria are not conscious. Glad that's settled.



I don't know. They clearly do not understand the concept even after it has been explained to them. It was a simple question and no honest answer was ever given.

Evolution of Mind

again, the conjunction "or" was used and it was reinforced by the definition from etymonline

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution of Mind

again, the conjunction "or" was used and it was reinforced by the definition from etymonline

At best you are merely "dumbing down" the definition. Plants and bacteria show no sign of self awareness. That there is a transfer of information within an organism is not what most people call "awareness" or "consciousness". You appear to be making an equivocation error by comparing that to the awareness of humans and other higher animals.