Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
From: skroger@zeus.calpoly.edu (Seth L. Kroger)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:51:56 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>> (1) Define "consciousness."
>> (2) Explain how any reasonable definition of "consciousness" can be applied
>> to plants, viruses, bacteria, protozoa, sponges, cnidarians...
>
>Is this not what we asked?
>
>We eat, plants eat.
>We sleep, plants sleep.
>We defend, plants defend.
>We mate, plants mate.
>We seek pleasure and avoid pain, plants seek pleasure and avoid pain.
>We die, plants die. We are born, plants are born.

NOT!  Some of those are just plain wrong.  Plants don't sleep.  Plants dont
feel pleasure or pain either.  Those presuppose a fairly well developed
nervous system, which plants don't have.

And the rest don't lead to the conclusion that plants are conscious, unless
you already presume life == consciousness.  Since that is what you're trying
to prove, it's just a garbage circular argument.

>> No.  The difference is that in a living body there is metabolic function,
>> and in a dead body there is not.
>
>> You will find that your intuition
>> fails to impress us, or even to begin to convince us of anything.
>
>Why this unnecessary remark? If you think we are insincere, or that we
>are simply trying to inflate our false ego by "impressing" you, then why
>do you respond to our posts?

And let stuff like this go by and let people think there's actually
something to it?  Get real.

Andy's remark was necessary and relavant.  Your intuitution does not convince
us.  You'll need evidence and a logical argument to do that.  And from what
you've posted so far, the chances of your doing so is very thin.

>You will be convinced when you consider your own consciousness
>seriously. We ask the question "what is consciousness" because although
>it is obvious to everyone that consciousness exists, there is no
>universally accepted definition of consciousness within modern science.
>Since science is seeking to identify and quantify all known phenomena,
>the lack of an acceptable definition of consciousness is a serious
>defect. Consciousness is not something that can be ignored by science.

While I THINK I'm conscious, I don't know about anything else, particularly
someone like you.

>> The instant of death is determined by the instant at which metabolic
>> activity ceases.  When my car breaks down as I'm driving it, the
>> structural integrity and chemical constitution of the engine do not
>> necessarily change.  Would you say that my car loses its consciousness
>> at that point?
>
>No, but if you want to reach your destination, you will have to leave
>the car and find some other vehicle. In the same way, when the body of
>the living entity ceases to work properly, the living entity must leave
>that body and occupy another.

Do you have a shread of evidence that this has actually occured?

btw, he was talking about the car, not the person inside it.

>> Gee, Kalki titled his post "What is Consciousness," but failed to ever
>> define the term.  Odd.
>
>Why do you say this, as if your pride was offended? What can sarcasm
>possibly contribute to this discussion, or any discussion whose purpose
>is to arrive at the truth by sober analysis. This is our purpose.

Because when you don't define something, you can change it to whatever you
please, even in the same post.  It also helps other people to understand
just what it is you're blabbering about.

>Kalki Dasa


|======================================================================|
| Seth Kroger                       "If God made us in His image we    |
| skroger@pan.calpoly.edu               have certianly returned the    |
| Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo             compliment."  -Voltaire        |