Well you would not say a tree is conscious in the same way a human is conscious, would you?
Does the tree complain all day about God's errors?
It's also unfair to make it appear as if the religious and spiritual are not involved in ecology.
Some of the most ecologically conscious people I know are religious and/or spiritual.
I see so much God-blaming for the things people do themselves.
Line by line replies:
No. I would say that a tree is not conscious at all.
If I go along with the implication of a conscious tree which believes in god and is apt to consider its lot, I could imagine it complaining about woodpeckers. Why on earth would the creator create such things?
It wasn't my intention to do that and I apologise if that's what it sounded like. But I can't help thinking that; those who are convinced a supernatural entity exists, and is in control to the extent that more life (or some kind of conscious existence) is available to us beyond the confines of life on earth - may not be as concerned about the very long term continuation of RLRH (Real Life Right Here) as those of us who don't believe a word of it.
I'm glad to hear it.
Atheists don't blame God. That would be silly as has been said many times already. No. If anything, we blame people who believe in God, sometimes. Religion itself sometimes too.
No. I would say that a tree is not conscious at all.
If I go along with the implication of a conscious tree which believes in god and is apt to consider its lot, I could imagine it complaining about woodpeckers. Why on earth would the creator create such things?
It wasn't my intention to do that and I apologise if that's what it sounded like. But I can't help thinking that; those who are convinced a supernatural entity exists, and is in control to the extent that more life (or some kind of conscious existence) is available beyond the confines of life on earth - may not be as concerned about the very long term continuation of RLRH (Real Life Right Here) as those of us who don't believe a word of it.
I'm glad to hear it.
Atheists don't blame God. That would be silly as has been said many times already. No. We blame people who believe in God, sometimes. Religion itself sometimes too.
Thanks.
I've seen a fair amount of God blaming here, though.
For things which we should take responsibility for, ourselves.
Sometimes the responses I get are so concrete I can't fathom it.
What do you think a tree being conscious means as Bohm would see it?
BIB. Maybe this is why Bohm called all matter "conscious" to a certain degree.
The Gaia hypothesis indicates the earth can fight back, but it depends how much devastation selfish humans can do first.
This is from Lovelock's The Vanishing Face of Gaia:
In his latest book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning, he argues that Earth’s system of self-regulation is being overwhelmed by greenhouse gas pollution and that Earth will soon jump from its current cool, stable state into a dramatically hotter one. All climatologists acknowledge the existence of such climatic jumps—as occurred for example at the end of the last ice age. But chaos theory dictates that the scale and timing of such leaps are inherently unpredictable, which means that they cannot be incorporated into the computer models of Earth’s climate system that such scientists use to project future climate change. Yet this is precisely what Lovelock attempts to do—using his own computer modeling—in The Vanishing Face of Gaia. A new climatic jump, he concludes, will occur within the next few years or decades, and will involve an abrupt increase in average global surface temperature of 9 degrees Celsius—from 15 to 24 degrees Celsius
The Gaia hypthesis doesn't say that the Earth is alive, it simply suggests that the biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere have certain feedbacks that keep the entire system stable, for life to survive. This is true to an extent, but even a cursory examination of the history of life will tell you that the feedbacks aren't that good at stabilising the conditions for life.
Some examples. Anaerobic bacteria flourished on the early Earth but then oxygen levels increased, making the environment toxic for them. During the Precambrian, the Earth suffered snowball conditions several times, where the Earth was entirely covered in snow and ice, which was obviously not favourable for life. There were also several mass extinction events, such as the end-Permian mass extinction which was caused by a changing climate, due to massive, long lasting volcanism.
Extreme hypotheses are necessary for bringing a focus to research, but it is very rare that they tell the whole story.
I've seen a fair amount of God blaming here, though.
For things which we should take responsibility for, ourselves.
Sometimes the responses I get are so concrete I can't fathom it.
What do you think a tree being conscious means as Bohm would see it?
I think of what he saw in electrons in plasma as something like the ocean in Solaris (the Tarkovsky film 1972 version preferably). There, it was the observation of patterns in the ocean which seemed to cause illusions in the minds of the visitors from earth. If he was closely studying chaotic patterns in plasma he may have hypnotised himself in the same sort of way that people use hypnodiscs. Alternatively; if the plasma really was a consciousness trying to communicate with him (which is the theme of the novel the film is based on) - maybe we should also thank the plasma for the work they produced together.
Maybe he would see patterns in a tree's sap circuits or the patterns in their bark, but I've really no idea on that one.
I think of what he saw in electrons in plasma as something like the ocean in Solaris (the Tarkovsky film 1972 version preferably). There, it was the observation of patterns in the ocean which seemed to cause illusions in the minds of the visitors from earth. If he was closely studying chaotic patterns in plasma he may have hypnotised himself in the same sort of way that people use hypnodiscs. Alternatively; if the plasma really was a consciousness trying to communicate with him (which is the theme of the novel the film is based on) - maybe we should also thank the plasma for the work they produced together.
Maybe he would see patterns in a tree's sap circuits or the patterns in their bark, but I've really no idea on that one.
Your version of consciousness is again, concrete and fanciful.
Ha. I was taking the piss.
I actually hold a hyper-reductionist viewpoint. I firmly believe consciousness is created by the brain in its entirety and cannot exist in any form without the brain.
Yes, so I gathered. I, however, do not think the physical matter of the brain is enough.
"In the absence of an observer, time has no tenses; not only does the physical world not have past and future in which events are located but it doesn't have the present. For an event to count as being present, there has to be someone for whom it is present, for whom it is "now" as opposed to "then" or "not yet". The mere fact that something is does not generate a present tense... The complex consciousness of self-aware human beings brings tenses into the world and makes the happenings of the material world the contents of the present tense...[M]atter cannot entertain possibility: that which may exist or turns out not to exist; the contents of the remembered past or anticipated future.
...it is arguable that both explicit change and endurance (persistence) require more than matter as conceived by the physicist. Change requires someone who will connect state A of an item with state B of the same item by making them both present at the same time. Endurance requires linking an earlier phase of state A with a later phase of state A. In neither case can the things that are related in the perception of change or of endurance physically exist at the same time; even less can they exist at the same time and be connected.
...the present tense - which gathers together all those things that are "now" - does not exist in an observer-free material world, and hence must be absent from the brain understood as a material object. Nor does the past or, indeed, the future [which], after all, does not yet exist. Matter can house only actualities. While there are indeed sequences of events in the material world, the relation in virtue of which one event is "past" compared to another, or "future" compared to another, has to be established by an observer.
The Gaia hypthesis doesn't say that the Earth is alive, it simply suggests that the biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere have certain feedbacks that keep the entire system stable, for life to survive. This is true to an extent, but even a cursory examination of the history of life will tell you that the feedbacks aren't that good at stabilising the conditions for life.
Some examples. Anaerobic bacteria flourished on the early Earth but then oxygen levels increased, making the environment toxic for them. During the Precambrian, the Earth suffered snowball conditions several times, where the Earth was entirely covered in snow and ice, which was obviously not favourable for life. There were also several mass extinction events, such as the end-Permian mass extinction which was caused by a changing climate, due to massive, long lasting volcanism.
Extreme hypotheses are necessary for bringing a focus to research, but it is very rare that they tell the whole story.
If it's a scientific hypothesis, then it can be falsified given certain evidence. What evidence could falsify the idea that all matter is conscious?
The evidence used for the Gaia hypothesis can be falsified, as well as his predictions, that are occurring, but not in the timeframe originally proposed.
This is one of his quotes:
"...it is unlikely that chance alone accounts for the fact that temperature, pH and the presence of compounds of nutrient elements have been, for immense periods, just those optimal for surface life. Rather, ... energy is expended by the biota to actively maintain these optima" (Lovelock and Margulis, 1974).
As far as I know, Gaia sees the earth as a living organism.
Ha. I was taking the piss.
I actually hold a hyper-reductionist viewpoint. I firmly believe consciousness is created by the brain in its entirety and cannot exist in any form without the brain.
Plenty of people disagree with me of course. In fact, I'll be debating this with a group of people next Friday and I expect I'll have to defend my position from attacks from all sides.
If you can prove 'energy' can't exist without matter than you are on to a winner. Photons are a bit of a spanner in the works aren't they ?
It was his hypothesis as a scientist based on his observations.
No one said he studied all the matter of the universe and found it conscious.
I don't accept that your opinon and Bohm/ Planck's are of equal weight.
Right it may have been but that is a very long way from your statement;
Bohm said that all matter is conscious.
That is what I take issue with. You present things that scientists happen to believe and that you think confirm your own beliefs as if those scientists had scientifically established them when the truth is very different.
e.g.
He said it as a scientist, after observing plasma.
I don't think I would take quite such exception to this methodology of yours if you where not so clearly anti-science in other contexts
e.g.
And yet many bow down to science, that assisted us in killing off our host planet.
Seems you are happy to use alleged scientific authorities when you think they support your case while holding the actual scientific method in some contempt.
=Richard46;71867761]Right it may have been but that is a very long way from your statement;
A long way from the statement of mine that he based his theory (that I clarified what sense I was using the word theory in ) on OBSERVATION?
That is what I take issue with. You present things that scientists happen to believe and that you think confirm your own beliefs as if those scientists had scientifically established them when the truth is very different.
Never said that he "scientifically confirmed them.
Since when is observation a controlled study?
I don't think I would take quite such exception to this methodology of yours if you where not so clearly anti-science in other contexts
Inadmissible evidence. I take my antibiotics like everyone else and Thank God for them. ;-)
Seems you are happy to use alleged scientific authorities when you think they support your case while holding the actual scientific method in some contempt.
Tell me Dawkins does not do the same.
I never said I hold the scientific method in "some contempt."
What I hold in contempt is people saying that the scientific method has no evidence of something, when it cannot have evidence if it can't study it.
He didn't change his mind about global warming. He said it is occurring but at a slower rate than he expected.
I quoted from the article where he says that.
I'll re-quote it, from your own article:
And if you look, back at the previous page I didn't say he did, and several of the quotes I included say as much. The clip I originally quoted was his hyper-specific doomsday scenario, about which - in his own words - he has changed his mind.
And if you look, back at the previous page I didn't say he did, and several of the quotes I included say as much. The clip I originally quoted was his hyper-specific doomsday scenario, about which - in his own words - he has changed his mind.
No. I would say that a tree is not conscious at all.
If I go along with the implication of a conscious tree which believes in god and is apt to consider its lot, I could imagine it complaining about woodpeckers. Why on earth would the creator create such things?
It wasn't my intention to do that and I apologise if that's what it sounded like. But I can't help thinking that; those who are convinced a supernatural entity exists, and is in control to the extent that more life (or some kind of conscious existence) is available to us beyond the confines of life on earth - may not be as concerned about the very long term continuation of RLRH (Real Life Right Here) as those of us who don't believe a word of it.
I'm glad to hear it.
Atheists don't blame God. That would be silly as has been said many times already. No. If anything, we blame people who believe in God, sometimes. Religion itself sometimes too.
Lovelock was also careful to present a version of the Gaia hypothesis which had no claim that the Earth's biological systems intentionally or consciously maintained the complex balance in the environment that life needed to survive. Instead, it appears that the claim that Earth acts intentionally was a metaphoric statement and was not meant to be taken literally. This restatement of the Gaia hypothesis was more acceptable to the scientific community, although, at this point, pretty much devoid of meaning.
I first stated the Gaia hypothesis in 1972, in the journal Atmospheric Environment. Shortly after this I began a collaboration with the biologist Lynn Margulis that has continued to this day. The first statement of the hypothesis was: "Life regulates the climate and the chemical composition of the atmosphere at an optimum for itself."
I now realise that this statement was wrong. What we should have said is: "The whole system of life and its material environment is self-regulating at a state comfortable for the organisms." This may seem to you to be just a fine point of definition. But it laid us open to the criticism that we had proposed a sentient Gaia able to control the Earth consciously. Nothing was further from our minds. From the start, Gaia has been a top-down systems view of the Earth, the hard science view of a physical chemist with an interest in control theory. This was never some trendy new age pseudo-science.
The evidence used for the Gaia hypothesis can be falsified, as well as his predictions, that are occurring, but not in the timeframe originally proposed.
This is one of his quotes:
"...it is unlikely that chance alone accounts for the fact that temperature, pH and the presence of compounds of nutrient elements have been, for immense periods, just those optimal for surface life. Rather, ... energy is expended by the biota to actively maintain these optima" (Lovelock and Margulis, 1974).
As far as I know, Gaia sees the earth as a living organism.
I asked what evidence could falsify Bohm's idea that all matter is conscious, not the Gaia hypothesis.
I also said that I accept that Gaia is true to an extent, so you don't need to try to persuade me of that.
If you can prove 'energy' can't exist without matter than you are on to a winner. Photons are a bit of a spanner in the works aren't they ?
I don't understand what you are trying to get at at all. Could you elaborate please?
What has this got to do with consciousness? Consciousness is not energy and photons also have little to do with consciousness.
That doesn't show that the earth is not a living organism.
He did say it was not by chance though, I quoted it.
At any rate I doubt that he and Bohm would have meant the same when speaking of "consciously."
I should mention that there is strong Gaia and weak Gaia and strong Gaia would not, as it says above, be acceptable to the scientific community. So weak Gaia got presented.
I don't understand what you are trying to get at at all. Could you elaborate please?
What has this got to do with consciousness? Consciousness is not energy and photons also have little to do with consciousness.
Like you I see consciousness as not existing without a brain. Our brains produce electricity , once it stops doing that, there is no consciousness evident. So is consciousness electricity ?
Electricity is made up of photons and if photons are without mass , isn't it a good notion that photons are ideas ?
Anyway that's my attempt at trying to elaborate from a unscientific persons massless mind.
Comments
No. I would say that a tree is not conscious at all.
If I go along with the implication of a conscious tree which believes in god and is apt to consider its lot, I could imagine it complaining about woodpeckers. Why on earth would the creator create such things?
It wasn't my intention to do that and I apologise if that's what it sounded like. But I can't help thinking that; those who are convinced a supernatural entity exists, and is in control to the extent that more life (or some kind of conscious existence) is available to us beyond the confines of life on earth - may not be as concerned about the very long term continuation of RLRH (Real Life Right Here) as those of us who don't believe a word of it.
I'm glad to hear it.
Atheists don't blame God. That would be silly as has been said many times already. No. If anything, we blame people who believe in God, sometimes. Religion itself sometimes too.
Thanks.
I've seen a fair amount of God blaming here, though.
For things which we should take responsibility for, ourselves.
Sometimes the responses I get are so concrete I can't fathom it.
What do you think a tree being conscious means as Bohm would see it?
The Gaia hypthesis doesn't say that the Earth is alive, it simply suggests that the biosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere have certain feedbacks that keep the entire system stable, for life to survive. This is true to an extent, but even a cursory examination of the history of life will tell you that the feedbacks aren't that good at stabilising the conditions for life.
Some examples. Anaerobic bacteria flourished on the early Earth but then oxygen levels increased, making the environment toxic for them. During the Precambrian, the Earth suffered snowball conditions several times, where the Earth was entirely covered in snow and ice, which was obviously not favourable for life. There were also several mass extinction events, such as the end-Permian mass extinction which was caused by a changing climate, due to massive, long lasting volcanism.
Extreme hypotheses are necessary for bringing a focus to research, but it is very rare that they tell the whole story.
If it's a scientific hypothesis, then it can be falsified given certain evidence. What evidence could falsify the idea that all matter is conscious?
Maybe he would see patterns in a tree's sap circuits or the patterns in their bark, but I've really no idea on that one.
Your version of consciousness is again, concrete and fanciful.
Yes, so I gathered. I, however, do not think the physical matter of the brain is enough.
~ Raymond Tallis Aping Mankind
The evidence used for the Gaia hypothesis can be falsified, as well as his predictions, that are occurring, but not in the timeframe originally proposed.
This is one of his quotes:
"...it is unlikely that chance alone accounts for the fact that temperature, pH and the presence of compounds of nutrient elements have been, for immense periods, just those optimal for surface life. Rather, ... energy is expended by the biota to actively maintain these optima" (Lovelock and Margulis, 1974).
As far as I know, Gaia sees the earth as a living organism.
If you can prove 'energy' can't exist without matter than you are on to a winner. Photons are a bit of a spanner in the works aren't they ?
...and whos to blame for things beyond our control such as devistating natural disasters or childhood illnesses?
He didn't change his mind about global warming. He said it is occurring but at a slower rate than he expected.
I quoted from the article where he says that.
I'll re-quote it, from your own article:
Right it may have been but that is a very long way from your statement;
That is what I take issue with. You present things that scientists happen to believe and that you think confirm your own beliefs as if those scientists had scientifically established them when the truth is very different.
e.g.
I don't think I would take quite such exception to this methodology of yours if you where not so clearly anti-science in other contexts
e.g.
Seems you are happy to use alleged scientific authorities when you think they support your case while holding the actual scientific method in some contempt.
A long way from the statement of mine that he based his theory (that I clarified what sense I was using the word theory in ) on OBSERVATION?
Never said that he "scientifically confirmed them.
Since when is observation a controlled study?
Inadmissible evidence. I take my antibiotics like everyone else and Thank God for them. ;-)
Tell me Dawkins does not do the same.
I never said I hold the scientific method in "some contempt."
What I hold in contempt is people saying that the scientific method has no evidence of something, when it cannot have evidence if it can't study it.
And if you look, back at the previous page I didn't say he did, and several of the quotes I included say as much. The clip I originally quoted was his hyper-specific doomsday scenario, about which - in his own words - he has changed his mind.
Yes exactly, he said he was an alarmist.
Not that global warming is not a threat.
How gracious of you all. ^_^
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/lecture1.html
I asked what evidence could falsify Bohm's idea that all matter is conscious, not the Gaia hypothesis.
I also said that I accept that Gaia is true to an extent, so you don't need to try to persuade me of that.
Perhaps you can tell us?
He didn't pose it as a hypothesis that could be falsified, that I am aware of.
I don't know that any of his other theories like the DeBroglie Bohm theory, that can be falsified, has been disproven.
I don't understand what you are trying to get at at all. Could you elaborate please?
What has this got to do with consciousness? Consciousness is not energy and photons also have little to do with consciousness.
if the universe is just part of a naturally evolving thing, then no one.
if theres a designer, a creator, then they are.
but why would this god do that? he wouldnt, therefore you must conclude that there is no designer or creator behind the world/ universe.
Which of those premises do you believe?
That doesn't show that the earth is not a living organism.
He did say it was not by chance though, I quoted it.
At any rate I doubt that he and Bohm would have meant the same when speaking of "consciously."
I should mention that there is strong Gaia and weak Gaia and strong Gaia would not, as it says above, be acceptable to the scientific community. So weak Gaia got presented.
Like you I see consciousness as not existing without a brain. Our brains produce electricity , once it stops doing that, there is no consciousness evident. So is consciousness electricity ?
Electricity is made up of photons and if photons are without mass , isn't it a good notion that photons are ideas ?
Anyway that's my attempt at trying to elaborate from a unscientific persons massless mind.