From: adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters)
Subject: Re: What is consciousness?
Organization: Program in Evolution, Ecology, and Behavior, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:20:31 GMT

In article <DJXwTB2w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>adpeters@sunflower.bio.indiana.edu (Andy Peters) writes:
>
>> Hmmmm...  I have two requests for Kalki:
>> 
>> (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?

The point, Kalki, was that you went through an entire post talking
about consciousness, about "our" 'intuitive knowledge' (more on that
later) that life is conscious, and you completely failed to even give
us a _diagnostic_ for consciousness.  You can't blather on about how
something should be included in a definition of life when you don't
even have a definition for that "something."

>We eat, plants eat.

Do they?

>We sleep, plants sleep.
>We defend, plants defend.
>We mate, plants mate.

>We seek pleasure and avoid pain, plants seek pleasure and avoid pain.

Please support or retract this bizarre statement.  Give a mechanism
by which a plant feels pleasure or pain, by which a plant might avoid
pleasure or pain, and evidence which shows that plants display this
behavior.

>We die, plants die. We are born, plants are born.

All of these things (except the "pleasure and pain" bit) can be explained
perfectly well within the auspices of standard evolutionary theory; no
special pleading to "consciousness" necessary.  If your definition
of consciousness is merely the above examples, then get yourself a
clue and learn some evolution.

>> >Although there may
>> >be little or no physical difference between a living body and a body
>> >which has recently died, we intuitively know that there is a difference:
>>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >in a living body there is consciousness, or a soul, and in a dead body
>> >there is not.
>> 
>
>> No.  The difference is that in a living body there is metabolic function,
>> and in a dead body there is not.

Kalki:  you ignored this, the main point of my response...

>> 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 responded to this by attempting to call into question my motives.
The point of the minor passage to which you responded was that "intuition"
means nothing in a scientific context, and your use of it as evidence sets
you up as, yes, a crackpot.

>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.

This is utter garbage.  You are, again, relying on intuition to make
your argument.

>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.

Here is the description of consciousness you have given so far:
   oWhat goes away when an organism dies
   oWhat allows an organism to eat, sleep, mate, die, and be born
    (oh yeah, and exhibit/respond to pleasure and pain [again undefined])

Well, by this definition (oh, sorry, description) of "consciousness,"
science has not only not ignored it, but done pretty well in explaining
it.

[deletions]
>> 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.

Aah, but you're eluding the question--+2 points for me (I think...damn, I
lost the t.o scoring guide -can someone email it to me?  Chris?).  What
is the difference between a car breaking down (with no major changes
in structural integrity and/or chemical constitution) and the death of
an organism in the context you have presented?

>> 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.

Sober analysis?  How can you expect to get any of that done if you respond
only to tangential points, ignoring the important ones?

>
>Sincerely,
<I begin to have my doubts>
>Kalki Dasa

-- 
* Andy Peters                     * "Slugs are small and portable    *From
* Program in Evolution,           * Just stuff 'em up your nose      *"Slugs,"
*      Ecology, and Behavior      * They'll fit beneath your armpits *by David
* Indiana University, Bloomington * Or right between your toes"      *Greenberg