Koyaanisqatsi

Well, then we're talking about two entirely different things, Sally, as others have pointed out.

<ol type="1">[*] How we treat our livestock prior to slaughter.[*] How we kill our livestock.[/list=a]

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

SallySmith

I was responding to a statement made about what "no reasonable scientist" would ever do. So I contacted a reasonable scientist. Honest question: is that not an acceptable tactic?

I'll provide the definition, but it may take a while.

Koyaanisqatsi

It is, but you did not provide us with anything to objectively evaluate from that "scientist." You gave us his/her opinion about a definition that he/she did not provide, which is nothing more than an argument from authority.

I don't believe it is possible to determine how humans are conscious, let alone whether or not a plant is conscious and as such posit instead that all matter is conscious to account for consciousness in general. This is what I truly believe is the case.

For you to post the comments of a "scientist" who states only that such a position is incorrect without providing the basis for evaluating his conclusion is to make an argument from authority (i.e., "you're wrong because this expert says you're wrong").

SallySmith

Okay, fair enough. Like I said, I will get the definition.

Mageth

I would agree for the most part with what your scientist friend said. It would be helpful, however, if you'd cite his/her qualifications (e.g. what field of science?)

However, I don't think it fully contradicts my statement. I'll admit I may be wrong in saying "no reputable scientist would claim it as a fact," as I assume this is a reputable scientist who stated it as a fact. So I'll concede that this statement is not correct.

But note the qualifications put on that statement:

"It's hard for me to answer because 'consciousness' is a rather poorly defined beastie."

"Given the appropriate definition of consciousness..."

"I will say, though, that the definition of consciousness used by scientists who study it is narrowly enough defined that you can say it is a fact that plants don't possess it."

I hold that the rest of my post stands. Note my statement "My opinion, based on the evidence I've seen, is that plants aren't conscious in the way we understand consciousness. But consciousness is not very well understood, and there's no universal definition of it, as far as I know. So it may be possible that plants have some form of consciousness, under some definition." To me, this seems like a fair summation of the scientist's statements.

And I still maintain that the statement:

Plants are not conscious beings. They are not capable of emotions, nor are they capable of interests. This is a well-known fact.

is not provable.

[edited to add: you might prove it's a well-known "fact", but I dont't think you can prove that plants are not conscious beings (unless you use a narrow enough definition, but with a narrow enough definition you could prove we aren't conscious beings), not capable of emotions, and not capable of interests. It's difficult if not impossible to prove a negative; your scientist friend may verify this, if you ask him].

[ March 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

SallySmith

I disagree.

This is from another email.

"There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that plants are conscious and loads of evidence to suggest that consciousness requires a nervous system or some approximation thereof. Indeed, the neural correlates of consciousness that have been identified to this point have all displayed firing rates on the order of tens of milliseconds. While not conclusive, these sorts of findings are very suggestive of a requirement for millisecond-order signaling latencies in order to support consciousness. The slow, humoural secretory mechanisms that plants employ are orders of magnitude slower than this. Until there is evidence to suggest that plants MIGHT be conscious, it is reasonable to conclude that they aren't...and that is exactly what the entire scientific field has done at this point."

To say that it is possible that "plants have some form of consciousness, under some definition" seems silly to me. Of course you can create a definition so that something will fit it. You could do that with anything.

And last but not least, since you asked, this guy is a hop, skip, and a jump away from getting his PhD in neurobiology.

Koyaanisqatsi

No, it is not.

I would argue these two quotes negate this individual's opinions on this matter as they demonstrate an appalling lack of both insight and procedure for an alleged scientist.

Also, a neurobioligist will obviously base their observations upon the assumption that consciousness is contained somewhere within neuronal firings, as is indeed the case with this quote.

I would argue that studying the spark plugs will never tell you why a driver turned left.

MadKally

Dear SallySmith,
My scientist friend is smarter than your scientist friend.

SallySmith

nuh-uh

Pomp

Sally Smith:

Koy:

Wouldn't "plants are conscious" be the positive assertion requiring evidence in this case?