Some scientists believe the universe is conscious

[ChristineM]

What that implies is they all were hooked up when things were closer.

No it doesn't, what that implies is that they were considerably smaller with smaller but proportional space between.

Gravity is able to reach to infinity, at the speed of light,

Gravity is infinite but follows the inverse square rule so although it never reached zero, after not much distance the effect is miniscule.

As for the test of your tome.. TLDR

 

[Bear Wild]

Separated space and time can explain the quantum world.

How can you actually separate time and space other than in imagination?

 

[shunyadragon]

I like the term mental constructs it is a wonderful phenomenal term when the mean neuro connection patterns activated at once. The problem is that this is the structural pattern to generate consciousness experienced in humans but it is not a definition of consciousness and I was wondering what yours was. This as an indirect definition does at least remove the human only ignorance since any organism with integrated patterns would then be conscious. It does not explain consciousness in trees for instance who have memory, directly interact dynamically with their environment and are aware of things around them as the new studies on plant behavior show. What is your definition of consciousness?

I will respond more after some thought, but I would like to comment on the above bold. No not any organism would be considered conscious, I believe the definition provided and mine would limit consciousness to animals with a complex nervous system. I do not believe the above broad definition works, just being a living organism that simply responds by mechanical biological response qualifies it as having a memory or will whether free or not.by definition,

 

[wellwisher]

The way the brain works, in general, is when neurons fire, anywhere, all the currents from firing eventually go to the center of the brain or thalamus region. The same is true for sensory signals, even those from the body and all the individual cells of the body near sensory nerve endings. The thalamus is the central switching station. It receives global signals and then feeds back to all parts of the brain and body, depending on the needs and circumstances. The thalamus is most wired part of the brain; most complex or zone of highest entropy. The software aspect of the thalamus is called the inner self, while the thalamus proper is this very complex hardware.

The ego; software, appears to be more centered in the hardware called the cerebellum. The cerebellum account for about 10% of the brain's mass, but has 80% of the neurons of the brain; most neuron dense area. The cerebellum is responsible for smoothing movement and timing, as well as the processing of memory, language and speech, among other tasks. This utility is perfect for the needs of the ego software; speech, mannerism, body language, movement and memory recall. It is also wired well with the thalamus, which is nearby.

All natural animals benefit so much by their cerebellum, in terms of their precise animal movements, associated with each species; cat (thalamus/cerebellum wiring and coding). The early human ego would worship the animal spirits connected to each species cerebellum coding; animal movement, coordination and fighting. Learn to mimic the animals; thalamus suggestion to the ego. This also suggested the cerebellum as the place for ego central. Controlling motion was key to building civilizations; jobs, crafts, skills, dance and war.

Cerebral cortex neurons are different in that the branches have sheathing, which take up more space. This sheathing acts as insulation to allow cerebral neuron signals to stay more distinct; clean signals, such as for distinct memory. The cerebellum neurons do not have this sheathing and take up less space. This allows more neutron density as well as the lateral bleeding of signals, which contribute to the averaging and smoothing of motion. This lateral bleeding is also how the ego can impact movement by thinking command lines. We may use the frontal lobe to visualize. These current then go to the thalamus which then feedback, to the cerebellum, and body, since the desired need is motion; inner self and ego.

One can also sit quietly and not use the cerebellum for any action, just thinking to fire cerebral neurons. These cerebral currents go to the thalamus, which then feedback to the cerebral and cerebellum for body sensations; gut feeling for the ego, and cerebral processing; new ideas. Consciousness can tweak these loops to gain feedback and map out the inner self software via feedback inductions within the frontal lobe.

The logic behind consciousness is connected to entropy. Entropy is not hardware but tweaks hardware; adds complexity. Entropy is like a natural form of generic software, that can tweak the pliable organic hardware matrix, to greater complexity. The 2nd law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This is odd, in the sense that energy wants to decrease; go from highest to lowest energy, but entropy wants to increase and naturally goes from lower to higher. This is very useful and needed for consciousness.

The neurons are designed to pump and exchange cations, with this action lowering cationic entropy; goes the opposite of the 2nd law. This is very energy intensive and uses 90% of the neurons energy budget. When neurons fire, the entropy is allowed to increase again, with this increase amplifying, via hardware, all the way to the thalamus. As a very loose visual analogy the neuron compress an entropy ball. When the neurons fire, the ball starts to expand, flowing in the best direction to achieve maximum expansion; thalamus; most complex means highest entropy state.

If these currents were due to energy, it would start off high and fizzle to nothing; big to small. But entropy does the opposite, going from small to larger as it propagates, with the maximum complexity of the thalamus, its final expansion; bursting at the seams feedback. This increasing entropy current impacts the hardware as it passes, since it needs the hardware to express itself. This is getting closer to consciousness, which is more about the thalamus feedback; overflow, which can altered things in real time; exceed the hardware program.

 

[wellwisher]

There are three main states of matter; solid, liquid and gas. An ideal gas, by definition, is under pressure but not tension. The individual atoms or molecules are separated and there is no sticky between them, allowing for any tension. Instead we measure gases by the partial pressure they exert, pushing against the walls of the container, as their mole percent of all the different gases present.

A solid can experience both pressure and tension, but not both at the same time and achieve steady state. We can push and pull a stalled car, but this will cause motion or rotation; lack of steady state.

The liquid state is an odd duck in that it can experience both pressure and tension at the same time and reach steady state. A glass of water on the counter, open to the atmosphere, will feel the atmospheric pressure, but it will also exhibit surface tension with the air, at steady state. This paradox of the liquid state, is why water is so important to life. The water; solvent, adds another paradoxical dimension to the organics of life.

The organic macromolecules of life, are closer to solids. The DNA deprived of water; dehydrated, is a crystalline solid, but will become more liquefied by water; liquid solvent. This allows for paradoxes on the DNA semi-solid, such as what is needed for life. Water is part of the software package, than can exceed the organic hardware, while pulling the hardware, to where it becomes more like firmware.

Water and hydrogen bonding is ideal for this purpose. Hydrogen bonds are mainly polar but also show some covalent nature. Polar is more electrostatic, while covalent is more magnetic in nature; oppose spin orbital electrons attract magnetically more than repel electrostatically. Hydrogen bonds can form, and switch between these two states, without the hydrogen bond being broken. It simply tweaks between the electrostatic and magnetic aspect of the electromagnetic force and its properties are altered; binary switch with muscle. With each water molecule able to form four hydrogen bonds, it can have half polar and half covalent and live the paradox.

The water and oil effect is part of this liquid paradox. The surface tension between water and oil, will not only create tension on the surfaces, but the tension/curvature of the bubble, also causes pressure to develop inside the bubble. For example, a 0.3 micron bubble of air in water develops an internal pressure 9.5 times atmospheric pressure; LaPlace Pressure.

As the curvature lowers; bigger bubble, the surface tension and internal pressure also decrease. At 1000 microns the internal pressure reduces to 0.00284 atmospheres of pressure. When water and oil are blended, energy is applying tension and pressure, which will then relieves itself by merging bubbles until two phases; layers, appear.. This minimized pressure and tension. Water becomes more polar.

In the case of cells, single packed protein are placed under the paradox of pressure and tension on purpose. This helps with movement between active and inactive conformations; internal pressure wants to bloat, with water holding it in. Condensed Chromosomes get neatly packed increasing curvature and internal pressure. These also want to expand, but the oily packing protein needs to remain buried to avoid the water's surface tension from increasing. So conditions need to be met, to meet both objectives, to unpack the DNA for a new daughter cell. This is a type off software than can tweak matter to allow for the needs of life.

Neuron branches are a function of osmotic pressure in the water from the liquid pressure and tension paradox. Osmotic pressure is connected to entropic potential. The water and ions want to blend to lower free energy by increasing ionic entropy; more complex. But the membrane is semi-permeable and only water can move freely with the ions stuck on one side. Water does the work for both. This generates pressure in the direction of the immobile ions. A synapse can form to release these ions; fire the neuron.

Laplace pressure - Wikipedia

Osmotic pressure - Wikipedia

 

[Bear Wild]

I will respond more after some thought, but I would like to comment on the above bold. No not any organism would be considered conscious, I believe the definition provided and mine would limit consciousness to animals with a complex nervous system. I do not believe the above broad definition works, just being a living organism that simply responds by mechanical biological response qualifies it as having a memory or will whether free or not.by definition,

I linked Wikipedia but I can look up specific studies that shows new research into the behavior in plants showing how much more complex it is then we have accepted. The problem is that one must think on a plant timescale instead of human. One must understand how their consciousness would differ that human because their lives and needs are different. They even have extremely complex connections underground and can recognize others of the same species at a distance. They communicate and nurture each other. They have the same electrons, protons and neutrons that we have that generate our consciousness.
Plant memory - Wikipedia.

 

[shunyadragon]

I linked Wikipedia but I can look up specific studies that shows new research into the behavior in plants showing how much more complex it is then we have accepted. The problem is that one must think on a plant timescale instead of human. One must understand how their consciousness would differ that human because their lives and needs are different. They even have extremely complex connections underground and can recognize others of the same species at a distance. They communicate and nurture each other. They have the same electrons, protons and neutrons that we have that generate our consciousness.
Plant memory - Wikipedia.

I will stand by my previous post as how consciousness as defined in the previous reference, I o not consider hat is described here a consciousness as described, It remains a terribly severe stretch to extend your view of plant consciousness to the universe,

Debunking a myth: plant consciousness - PMC

Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Introduction​

The idea that plants are conscious is increasingly promoted by a vocal handful of botanists (A. Nagel 1997; Calvo 2017; Calvo et al. 2017; Gagliano 2017, 2018; Calvo and Trewavas 2020; Trewavas et al. 2020). This continues despite rebuttals of the claim by mainstream plant biologists (Alpi et al. 2007; Robinson et al. 2018; Taiz et al. 2019, 2020), and the idea has received widespread coverage in the popular press and media (The Intelligent Plant; Are Trees Sentient Beings? Certainly, Says German Forester;

; Smarty Plants). Proponents of plant consciousness also champion the concepts of “plant neurobiology” and “plant intelligence” (Brenner et al. 2006). Plants do not have neurons, but plant-neurobiology proponents claim they have analogous structures. In many cases, these proponents treat plant intelligence and plant consciousness with little distinction, using the same arguments for both attributes (Trewavas and Baluska 2011; Leopold 2014; Trewavas 2016; Reber and Baluška 2020; Trewavas et al. 2020).

Here, we disentangle the “intelligence” concept (Chamovitz 2018) from the “consciousness” concept to focus on the claims that are explicitly concerned with plant consciousness. We list 12 such claims (Table (Table1)1) and analyze them individually. We then present an alternate hypothesis of which organisms have consciousness, a hypothesis that fits the widespread scientific view that consciousness is an emergent property arising from complex networks of neurons (Feinberg and Mallatt 2020). We provide many new arguments against plant consciousness, plus new angles on past arguments.

 

[Bear Wild]

I will stand by my previous post as how consciousness as defined in the previous reference, I o not consider hat is described here a consciousness as described, It remains a terribly severe stretch to extend your view of plant consciousness to the universe,

Debunking a myth: plant consciousness - PMC

Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Introduction​

The idea that plants are conscious is increasingly promoted by a vocal handful of botanists (A. Nagel 1997; Calvo 2017; Calvo et al. 2017; Gagliano 2017, 2018; Calvo and Trewavas 2020; Trewavas et al. 2020). This continues despite rebuttals of the claim by mainstream plant biologists (Alpi et al. 2007; Robinson et al. 2018; Taiz et al. 2019, 2020), and the idea has received widespread coverage in the popular press and media (The Intelligent Plant; Are Trees Sentient Beings? Certainly, Says German Forester;

; Smarty Plants). Proponents of plant consciousness also champion the concepts of “plant neurobiology” and “plant intelligence” (Brenner et al. 2006). Plants do not have neurons, but plant-neurobiology proponents claim they have analogous structures. In many cases, these proponents treat plant intelligence and plant consciousness with little distinction, using the same arguments for both attributes (Trewavas and Baluska 2011; Leopold 2014; Trewavas 2016; Reber and Baluška 2020; Trewavas et al. 2020).

Here, we disentangle the “intelligence” concept (Chamovitz 2018) from the “consciousness” concept to focus on the claims that are explicitly concerned with plant consciousness. We list 12 such claims (Table (Table1)1) and analyze them individually. We then present an alternate hypothesis of which organisms have consciousness, a hypothesis that fits the widespread scientific view that consciousness is an emergent property arising from complex networks of neurons (Feinberg and Mallatt 2020). We provide many new arguments against plant consciousness, plus new angles on past arguments.

I read the article and it is fundamentally incorrect. We do not know if consciousness requires a nervous system because it is a phenomenal experience and we cannot communicate to other animals even to know if they have that phenomenal experience.

• A.
  Plants do not show proactive behavior. - **** error, plants have been shown to change their position to the previous source of light. during the night in anticipation of maximizing their photosynthesis.
• B.
  Classical learning does not indicate consciousness, so reports of such learning in plants are irrelevant. - ****Classical learning has nothing to do with whether consciousness exists in a plant but it does represent behavioral responses.
• C.
  The considerable differences between the electrical signals in plants and the animal nervous system speak against a functional equivalence. Unlike in animals, the action potentials of plants have many physiological roles that involve Ca2+ signaling and osmotic control; and plants’ variable potentials have properties that preclude any conscious perception of wounding as pain. -**** Error - this is the worst answer yet. This implies that consciousness something we really cannot physically measure is only connected with what we think it should be connected with.
• 
  
• D.
  In plants, no evidence exists of reciprocal (recurrent) electrical signaling for integrating information, which is a prerequisite for consciousness. **** His is an assumption without proof. Bad science.
• E.
  Most proponents of plant consciousness also say that all cells are conscious, a speculative theory plagued with counterevidence. **** worse science. plagued? Really what arrogance.

This is a scientism article. This is the thinking that only humans used tools. Remember that idea? It was believed and advocated by scientists. The fundamental problem with this article is the assumptions made on what can create consciousness as known fact and that is the end of the argument. No one can challenge this or they are anti-science. Trees are just things and cannot communicate with other forms life. The mycelial network is all a lie from people who are thinking outside of a proper scientific mind. Oh wait we may need to include the mycelial network as something happening but that it. Nothing else. We know all and see all.

 

[shunyadragon]

I read the article and it is fundamentally incorrect. We do not know if consciousness requires a nervous system because it is a phenomenal experience and we cannot communicate to other animals even to know if they have that phenomenal experience.

• A.
  Plants do not show proactive behavior. - **** error, plants have been shown to change their position to the previous source of light. during the night in anticipation of maximizing their photosynthesis.
• B.
  Classical learning does not indicate consciousness, so reports of such learning in plants are irrelevant. - ****Classical learning has nothing to do with whether consciousness exists in a plant but it does represent behavioral responses.
• C.
  The considerable differences between the electrical signals in plants and the animal nervous system speak against a functional equivalence. Unlike in animals, the action potentials of plants have many physiological roles that involve Ca2+ signaling and osmotic control; and plants’ variable potentials have properties that preclude any conscious perception of wounding as pain. -**** Error - this is the worst answer yet. This implies that consciousness something we really cannot physically measure is only connected with what we think it should be connected with.
• 
  
• D.
  In plants, no evidence exists of reciprocal (recurrent) electrical signaling for integrating information, which is a prerequisite for consciousness. **** His is an assumption without proof. Bad science.
• E.
  Most proponents of plant consciousness also say that all cells are conscious, a speculative theory plagued with counterevidence. **** worse science. plagued? Really what arrogance.

This is a scientism article. This is the thinking that only humans used tools

Well . . . according to accepted science many animals use tools. Plants do not use tools. Why state tis foolishness?

Your accusation of "scientism' is from a pseudoscience perspective. We may disagree, but the use of terms like "scientism" labels you in a bad light, I mean darkness.

. Remember that idea? It was believed and advocated by scientists.

So what?!?!!? Originally geocentric universe was promoted by "some" scientists a few still believe it today.

The fundamental problem with this article is the assumptions made on what can create consciousness as known fact and that is the end of the argument. No one can challenge this or they are anti-science. Trees are just things and cannot communicate with other forms life. The mycelial network is all a lie from people who are thinking outside of a proper scientific mind. Oh wait we may need to include the mycelial network as something happening but that it. Nothing else. We know all and see all.

Any one can, of course, challenge the conclusions of the article, but not with subjective pseudoscience., with anti-science accusations of scientism.

This actually an odd side argument and offers absolutely no remote objective evidence for a conscious universe. It is a philosophical/theological subjective evidence.

There are a basic survival mechanism chemical and genetic responses in plants that resemble vaguely consciousness, but not consciousness as defined in science.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well . . . according to accepted science many animals use tools. Plants do not use tools. Why state tis foolishness?

Because this article represents the same potential foolishness as animals do not use tools. I used that as an obvious error that was considered absolute in the past.

So what?!?!!? Originally geocentric universe was promoted by "some" scientists a few still believe it today

So what. It is their intention to stop the "silly" research into plant consciousness considering it to be flawed thinking. How many times to we have to live through this kind of arrogance before we see just how "silly" their attitude is.

This actually an odd side argument and offers absolutely no remote objective evidence for a conscious universe. It is a philosophical/theological subjective evidence.

There are a basic survival mechanism chemical and genetic responses in plants that resemble vaguely consciousness, but not consciousness as defined in science.

Consciousness is a subjective experience and we do not know how prevalent it is in our world but the number of beings that are considered conscious is expanding with time. I have recently read articles from neuroscientists that would say their acceptance of arthropods and cephalopods in the realm of consciousness as absolutely wrong. They are using the same logic to discredit scientist exploring the concept in plants without sufficient knowledge of consciousness or even a full understanding of it to make their claims.

They proclaim the knowledge needed to stamp out anyone foolish enough to challenge the current scientific status quo. This is scientist arrogance which has nothing nothing to do with science.

What is the definition of consciousness? They did not define it adequately. You have not given your definition of conciseness.

 

[shunyadragon]

Because this article represents the same potential foolishness as animals do not use tools. I used that as an obvious error that was considered absolute in the past.

The article made no such claim

So what. It is their intention to stop the "silly" research into plant consciousness considering it to be flawed thinking. How many times to we have to live through this kind of arrogance before we see just how "silly" their attitude is.

Nothing in the article indicated the intent to stop research into plant consciousness.

Consciousness is a subjective experience and we do not know how prevalent it is in our world but the number of beings that are considered conscious is expanding with time. I have recently read articles from neuroscientists that would say their acceptance of arthropods and cephalopods in the realm of consciousness as absolutely wrong. They are using the same logic to discredit scientist exploring the concept in plants without sufficient knowledge of consciousness or even a full understanding of it to make their claims.

They proclaim the knowledge needed to stamp out anyone foolish enough to challenge the current scientific status quo. This is scientist arrogance which has nothing nothing to do with science.

False paranoid pseudo science accusation. Consciousness is not a subjective experience. It can be directly and specifically relted to neurological activity of the central nervous systems of animals.

From source . . .

This paper presents new arguments against plant consciousness, the most important of which are:

• A. Classical learning does not indicate consciousness, so reports of such learning in plants are irrelevant.
  
  
• B. Classical learning does not indicate consciousness, so reports of such learning in plants are irrelevant.
  Plants do not show proactive behavior.
• C. The considerable differences between the electrical signals in plants and the animal nervous system speak against a functional equivalence. Unlike in animals, the action potentials of plants have many physiological roles that involve Ca2+ signaling and osmotic control; and plants’ variable potentials have properties that preclude any conscious perception of wounding as pain.
• D .In plants, no evidence exists of reciprocal (recurrent) electrical signaling for integrating information, which is a prerequisite for consciousness.
• E. Most proponents of plant consciousness also say that all cells are conscious, a speculative theory plagued with counterevidence.

What is the definition of consciousness? They did not define it adequately. You have not given your definition of conciseness.

It was defined accurately and you chose to ignore it.

Again . . .

This actually an odd side argument and offers absolutely no remote objective evidence for a conscious universe. It is a philosophical/theological subjective evidence.

Where is the objective evidence for the subjective belief in a conscious universe. It is only a philosophical/theological claim.

 

[Bear Wild]

The article made no such claim

Nothing in the article indicated the intent to stop research into plant consciousness.

False paranoid pseudo science accusation. Consciousness is not a subjective experience. It can be directly and specifically relted to neurological activity of the central nervous systems of animals.

From source . . .

This paper presents new arguments against plant consciousness, the most important of which are:

• A. Classical learning does not indicate consciousness, so reports of such learning in plants are irrelevant.
  
  
• B. Classical learning does not indicate consciousness, so reports of such learning in plants are irrelevant.
  Plants do not show proactive behavior.
• C. The considerable differences between the electrical signals in plants and the animal nervous system speak against a functional equivalence. Unlike in animals, the action potentials of plants have many physiological roles that involve Ca2+ signaling and osmotic control; and plants’ variable potentials have properties that preclude any conscious perception of wounding as pain.
• D .In plants, no evidence exists of reciprocal (recurrent) electrical signaling for integrating information, which is a prerequisite for consciousness.
• E. Most proponents of plant consciousness also say that all cells are conscious, a speculative theory plagued with counterevidence.

It was defined accurately and you chose to ignore it.

Again . . .

This actually an odd side argument and offers absolutely no remote objective evidence for a conscious universe. It is a philosophical/theological subjective evidence.

Where is the objective evidence for the subjective belief in a conscious universe. It is only a philosophical/theological claim.

From the article!!!!
These are not idle concerns. Articles that promote plant neurobiology thinking are increasingly finding their way into respectable scientific journals—even top-tier journals (Calvo and Friston 2017; Tang and Marshall 2018; Baluška and Manusco 2020; Calvo et al. 2020). This is most regrettable, and hopefully our article, by putting the record straight, will reverse this trend. In conclusion, we feel we must speak forcefully: plant neurobiologists have become serial speculationists.

This is scientist arrogance.

I know you ignored to give your definition. I was just asking to see it again since it gets lost sometimes in previous posts.

I have worked and used science for 45 years. During this time I have seen the same arrogance played over and over. I believe science is important and helps to explain aspects of our world. It is when scientists step out of the field of science and give their statement that they only hold the truth is when I get angry at the attitude.

 

[shunyadragon]

From the article!!!!
These are not idle concerns. Articles that promote plant neurobiology thinking are increasingly finding their way into respectable scientific journals—even top-tier journals (Calvo and Friston 2017; Tang and Marshall 2018; Baluška and Manusco 2020; Calvo et al. 2020). This is most regrettable, and hopefully our article, by putting the record straight, will reverse this trend. In conclusion, we feel we must speak forcefully: plant neurobiologists have become serial speculationists.

This is scientist arrogance.

You are advocating pseudoscience arrogance with justifying your agenda on limited subjective references.

I know you ignored to give your definition. I was just asking to see it again since it gets lost sometimes in previous posts.

I gave the definition that fit my scientific definition and you ignored it.

I have worked and used science for 45 years.

It has not helped you are still advocating pseudoscience.

During this time I have seen the same arrogance played over and over. I believe science is important and helps to explain aspects of our world. It is when scientists step out of the field of science and give their statement that they only hold the truth is when I get angry at the attitude.

You have not demonstrated you are remotely aware of the limits of science since you moved beyond the limits of science advocating subjective beliefs that plants and the universe as having consciousness as defined,

Again, again and again . . .

This actually an odd side argument and offers absolutely no remote objective evidence for a conscious universe. It is a philosophical/theological subjective evidence.

Where is the objective evidence for the subjective belief in a conscious universe. It is only a philosophical/theological claim.

References?

 

[Bear Wild]

You are advocating pseudoscience arrogance with justifying your agenda on limited subjective references.


I gave the definition that fit my scientific definition and you ignored it.

It has not helped you are still advocating pseudoscience.

You have not demonstrated you are remotely aware of the limits of science since you moved beyond the limits of science advocating subjective beliefs that plants and the universe as having consciousness as defined,

Again, again and again . . .

This actually an odd side argument and offers absolutely no remote objective evidence for a conscious universe. It is a philosophical/theological subjective evidence.

Where is the objective evidence for the subjective belief in a conscious universe. It is only a philosophical/theological claim.

References?

I have never advocated pseudoscience. Ever!!@!@!!

 

[shunyadragon]

I have never advocated pseudoscience. Ever!!@!@!!

You have advocated the subjective belief in plants and the universe having consciousness, and resorted the accusation of scientism, which is pseudoscience,

 

[Bear Wild]

You have advocated the subjective belief in plants and the universe having consciousness, and resorted the accusation of scientism, which is pseudoscience,

Is this your definition of consciousness?
It is not difficult to define consciousness. It is the interaction of the brain and the body, between others and the surrounding environment.
That is the resources in humans that interact to form consciousness but not a definition of what it is.
I have never said the universe having consciousness but rather the basic material for consciousness is present in the universe. We know about humans because we experience it. Plants have memory, plants support each other through complex relationships beneath the ground. The people doing the science in this area are not pseudo scientists. Scientism which is not science is present in this article.

But science needs to control what can be studied and keep the evil people trying to think differently from ever being able to publish in a scientific journal because we scientist do not want to consider it. That is what they implied in your article. My experience in science has seen scientist make absolutism claims later proved wrong. The problem is not in science but in the arrogance that comes when someone feels superior than others which is evident in any group of people including scientist. Science has problems in studying complex interaction because it handles them in reductionist techniques.

 

[Balthazzar]

I am always skeptical of such "Yellow Journalism" making an appeal of validity as support from "Some scientists" without any objectively verifiable evidence. The evidence we presently have describes a universe and physical existence formed naturally based on Natural Laws and processes.

The conjecture of 'Consciousness' is similar to the conjecture that our physical existence is a computer program. It describes an unknown beyond what is known possibly relying on 'unanswered questions' to offer improbably answers of the unknown. The man behind the curtain in the Wizard of OZ.

Popular Mechanics is an unreliable source unless you are trying to build a space ship in your backyard.

I can acknowledge that consciousness exists and likewise acknowledge that for me it always has. It is presumed it hasn't always existed by us as conscious beings who have always been conscious. Weird way of viewing this in my opinion. The planets and starts may act like the protons, electrons, and the neutrons within a nucleus, or like neural connections of a brain, acting much like our synapses and spinal columns connecting the entire body to everything else. Or, we may be the only conscious type entities as opposed to the universe being conscious itself.

 

[Audie]

I can acknowledge that consciousness exists and likewise acknowledge that for me it always has. It is presumed it hasn't always existed by us as conscious beings who have always been conscious. Weird way of viewing this in my opinion. The planets and starts may act like the protons, electrons, and the neutrons within a nucleus, or like neural connections of a brain, acting much like our synapses and spinal columns connecting the entire body to everything else. Or, we may be the only conscious type entities as opposed to the universe being conscious itself.

We have always been conscious?
Think that thru a bit.
You were not conscious early In your life.

Your early ancestors were not.

Totally mistaken on point one,
and your point two is idle fantasy.

 

[shunyadragon]

I can acknowledge that consciousness exists and likewise acknowledge that for me it always has. It is presumed it hasn't always existed by us as conscious beings who have always been conscious. Weird way of viewing this in my opinion. The planets and starts may act like the protons, electrons, and the neutrons within a nucleus, or like neural connections of a brain, acting much like our synapses and spinal columns connecting the entire body to everything else. Or, we may be the only conscious type entities as opposed to the universe being conscious itself.

I object to the conclusion in the bold above. All these things are similar in they can be explained in terms of the Laws of Nature, but they do not behave in a similar ay as you propose, The planets and the stars behave as they do based more on the Laws of Gravity, The protons, electrons and neurons behave based Quantum Mechanics and Electromagnetic principles not gravity. The neural connections of the brain behave more on the biological neurology principles.. All fundamentally based the Laws of Nature and natural processes.

 

[Balthazzar]

We have always been conscious?
Think that thru a bit.
You were not conscious early In your life.

Your early ancestors were not.

Totally mistaken on point one,
and your point two is idle fantasy.

As long as can remember, yes. I stated this much, specifically. I'm pretty sure, I was conscious early in my life. I'm pretty sure my early ansestors were also. They made tools. Birds are conscious also, and dogs, and cats, etc. Point two as idle fantasy...consciousness is evident. It may have developed over time, but it exists and likely long before we became consciously aware as humans. Dolphins are conscious, I think and whales, etc. The universe is conscious. I have no idea how this can be denied. Whether or not it operates similar to our human brains is conjecture, but I have absolutely no reason not to think it extremely possible if not probable.