The Supernatural and Superstition

[Gees]

These things do have observable, empirical and rational causes, they are not without observable causes, in fact they rely on completely physical, observable causes to operate... how do they compare to the supernatural?

 

Moontanman;

 

Sometimes I think that you go out of your way to argue with me. Can you see pheromones? I can't. Can you see radio waves? I can't. Can you see the voice that comes into your cell phone? I can't. These things are only observable because of science.

 

Radio waves are produced by humans for communication; cell phone communication is produced by humans for communication; pheromones are produced by nature for communication. What is the difference? Consciousness is communication produced by nature, but as yet it is unknown to science, so people call it supernatural and act all superstitious--that is the point of this thread.

 

If, 500 years ago, I told someone that people die of fever because little bitty tiny life forms invade the body and attack it, I would likely be burned as a witch.

 

If, 400 years ago, I produced a box that could sing and talk without having any people in or around it, I would likely be burned as a witch--and the box smashed.

 

If, 300 years ago, I told people that we could string a wire from New York to San Francisco, and people could talk through it in real time, I would be run out of town--because they stopped burning witches.

 

If, 200 years ago, I told people that we could talk through a little box to anyone in the world, that also had a little box, and that our voices would go into space, bounce off of a satelite, then go into another person's little box so they could hear us, I would probably end up in an asylum.

 

If, 100 years ago, I told people that the plants are talking to each other, but we can't hear it, I would likely get myself some really good drugs and a stay in a padded room.

 

We are just as superstitious as we ever were; we are just a little less violent. What people call the supernatural is just communication. This communication works through consciousness. I think it is time to take a look at it and see how it works.

 

Let us be honest here. People like to pretend that this communication is not real, only imagination; but it exists. People like to pretend that it is God. All of the things that we have so far discovered that used to be considered an aspect of God, are real and work through cause and effect--they are not God.

 

So if this is also something that is real and not God, then it would also work through cause and effect. If I am right, and this communication works through chemistry and hormones, then we could cause an effect, as we are playing with chemicals and hormones. So could we accidentally cause an effect that we don't want? Could we corrupt or change conscious awareness? Like autism? Maybe.

 

If anyone does believe in God, please note that He has never seen the need to save us from our own stupidity.

 

 

G

[Moontanman]

 

Moontanman;

 

Sometimes I think that you go out of your way to argue with me. Can you see pheromones? I can't. Can you see radio waves? I can't. Can you see the voice that comes into your cell phone? I can't. These things are only observable because of science.

 

Radio waves are produced by humans for communication; cell phone communication is produced by humans for communication; pheromones are produced by nature for communication. What is the difference? Consciousness is communication produced by nature, but as yet it is unknown to science, so people call it supernatural and act all superstitious--that is the point of this thread.

 

If, 500 years ago, I told someone that people die of fever because little bitty tiny life forms invade the body and attack it, I would likely be burned as a witch.

 

If, 400 years ago, I produced a box that could sing and talk without having any people in or around it, I would likely be burned as a witch--and the box smashed.

 

If, 300 years ago, I told people that we could string a wire from New York to San Francisco, and people could talk through it in real time, I would be run out of town--because they stopped burning witches.

 

If, 200 years ago, I told people that we could talk through a little box to anyone in the world, that also had a little box, and that our voices would go into space, bounce off of a satelite, then go into another person's little box so they could hear us, I would probably end up in an asylum.

 

If, 100 years ago, I told people that the plants are talking to each other, but we can't hear it, I would likely get myself some really good drugs and a stay in a padded room.

 

We are just as superstitious as we ever were; we are just a little less violent. What people call the supernatural is just communication. This communication works through consciousness. I think it is time to take a look at it and see how it works.

 

Let us be honest here. People like to pretend that this communication is not real, only imagination; but it exists. People like to pretend that it is God. All of the things that we have so far discovered that used to be considered an aspect of God, are real and work through cause and effect--they are not God.

 

So if this is also something that is real and not God, then it would also work through cause and effect. If I am right, and this communication works through chemistry and hormones, then we could cause an effect, as we are playing with chemicals and hormones. So could we accidentally cause an effect that we don't want? Could we corrupt or change conscious awareness? Like autism? Maybe.

 

If anyone does believe in God, please note that He has never seen the need to save us from our own stupidity.

 

 

G

 

 

You render me speechless...

[science4ever]

 

Gees wrote : Consciousness is communication produced by nature, but as yet it is unknown to science, so people call it supernatural and act all superstitious--that is the point of this thread.

 

Consciousness is a term for what the brain does. Nature pruduce nothing intentionally. Nature is not aware and decidet on things.

Evolution works by natural selection but that is not a consciousness on the level of nature.

 

You use the word consciousness with a definition that has no support in reality. Self Consciousness is a process that needs a complex brain for to happen. Nature has no such brain.

[Gees]

Consciousness is a term for what the brain does.

 

Science4ever;

 

Consciousness is a term that is used by science to explain certain aspects of mind produced by the brain.

 

Consciousness is a term used by philosophy that means awareness, and is not exclusive to the brain. Consciousness in philosophy is more closely related to life, as all life is sentient and therefore aware.

 

If you review post # 27 on page 2 of this thread, there is an explanation of consciousness in philosophy and references as to where you can go to learn more. This thread is about the philosophical definition of consciousness, so please read the thread as questions like this have already been answered.

 

Thank you for your interest.

 

G

[science4ever]

Okay, I think I understand what you try to do. I try to leave this thread remind me if I accidently return to it.

the reason is that I have seen no evidence for that philsophy know anything about being conscious unless they learned it from science.

[cladking]

 

Moontanman;

 

Sometimes I think that you go out of your way to argue with me. Can you see pheromones? I can't. Can you see radio waves? I can't. Can you see the voice that comes into your cell phone? I can't. These things are only observable because of science.

 

Radio waves are produced by humans for communication; cell phone communication is produced by humans for communication; pheromones are produced by nature for communication. What is the difference? Consciousness is communication produced by nature, but as yet it is unknown to science, so people call it supernatural and act all superstitious--that is the point of this thread.

 

If, 500 years ago, I told someone that people die of fever because little bitty tiny life forms invade the body and attack it, I would likely be burned as a witch.

 

If, 400 years ago, I produced a box that could sing and talk without having any people in or around it, I would likely be burned as a witch--and the box smashed.

 

If, 300 years ago, I told people that we could string a wire from New York to San Francisco, and people could talk through it in real time, I would be run out of town--because they stopped burning witches.

 

If, 200 years ago, I told people that we could talk through a little box to anyone in the world, that also had a little box, and that our voices would go into space, bounce off of a satelite, then go into another person's little box so they could hear us, I would probably end up in an asylum.

 

If, 100 years ago, I told people that the plants are talking to each other, but we can't hear it, I would likely get myself some really good drugs and a stay in a padded room.

 

We are just as superstitious as we ever were; we are just a little less violent. What people call the supernatural is just communication. This communication works through consciousness. I think it is time to take a look at it and see how it works.

 

Let us be honest here. People like to pretend that this communication is not real, only imagination; but it exists. People like to pretend that it is God. All of the things that we have so far discovered that used to be considered an aspect of God, are real and work through cause and effect--they are not God.

 

So if this is also something that is real and not God, then it would also work through cause and effect. If I am right, and this communication works through chemistry and hormones, then we could cause an effect, as we are playing with chemicals and hormones. So could we accidentally cause an effect that we don't want? Could we corrupt or change conscious awareness? Like autism? Maybe.

 

If anyone does believe in God, please note that He has never seen the need to save us from our own stupidity.

 

 

G

 

 

Moontanman;

 

Sometimes I think that you go out of your way to argue with me. Can you see pheromones? I can't. Can you see radio waves? I can't. Can you see the voice that comes into your cell phone? I can't. These things are only observable because of science.

 

Radio waves are produced by humans for communication; cell phone communication is produced by humans for communication; pheromones are produced by nature for communication. What is the difference? Consciousness is communication produced by nature, but as yet it is unknown to science, so people call it supernatural and act all superstitious--that is the point of this thread.

 

If, 500 years ago, I told someone that people die of fever because little bitty tiny life forms invade the body and attack it, I would likely be burned as a witch.

 

If, 400 years ago, I produced a box that could sing and talk without having any people in or around it, I would likely be burned as a witch--and the box smashed.

 

If, 300 years ago, I told people that we could string a wire from New York to San Francisco, and people could talk through it in real time, I would be run out of town--because they stopped burning witches.

 

If, 200 years ago, I told people that we could talk through a little box to anyone in the world, that also had a little box, and that our voices would go into space, bounce off of a satelite, then go into another person's little box so they could hear us, I would probably end up in an asylum.

 

If, 100 years ago, I told people that the plants are talking to each other, but we can't hear it, I would likely get myself some really good drugs and a stay in a padded room.

 

We are just as superstitious as we ever were; we are just a little less violent. What people call the supernatural is just communication. This communication works through consciousness. I think it is time to take a look at it and see how it works.

 

Let us be honest here. People like to pretend that this communication is not real, only imagination; but it exists. People like to pretend that it is God. All of the things that we have so far discovered that used to be considered an aspect of God, are real and work through cause and effect--they are not God.

 

So if this is also something that is real and not God, then it would also work through cause and effect. If I am right, and this communication works through chemistry and hormones, then we could cause an effect, as we are playing with chemicals and hormones. So could we accidentally cause an effect that we don't want? Could we corrupt or change conscious awareness? Like autism? Maybe.

 

If anyone does believe in God, please note that He has never seen the need to save us from our own stupidity.

 

 

G

 

 

Excellent post.

 

I once watched a yew tree desseminate its pollen. It was a very breezy day with unstable wind direction and speed. What struck me as being so remarkable is that the amount of pollen that blew off was not very well correlated with how violently it was being shaken by the wind. Large gusts could have little effect and tiny breezes might unleash a cloud.

 

There appeared to be some consciouness driving this. Somehow the plant seemed to be communicating with its enviroment to achieve the greatest effect. If you watch nature it seems things such as this are quite commonplace. There is far more inexplicable than anything you can just google up. For instance the reason ants make piles of sand at their entrances probably came to me the other day. My guess is these grains of sand present an insurmountable hurdle to any mites that would come to live on or with them. The actions of chemicals and minerals in the earth is impossibly complex but it is made many orders of magnitude more complex by the actions of life. Life begets life. And life affects everything around it.

[Moontanman]

 

Science4ever;

 

Consciousness is a term that is used by science to explain certain aspects of mind produced by the brain.

 

Consciousness is a term used by philosophy that means awareness, and is not exclusive to the brain. Consciousness in philosophy is more closely related to life, as all life is sentient and therefore aware.

 

If you review post # 27 on page 2 of this thread, there is an explanation of consciousness in philosophy and references as to where you can go to learn more. This thread is about the philosophical definition of consciousness, so please read the thread as questions like this have already been answered.

 

Thank you for your interest.

 

G

 

None of this has anything to do with the supernatural, your inability to explain or understand does not the supernatural make... Show me an example of consciousness separate from a brain, you keep making these claims that you cannot support, the brain is indeed the seat of and the cause of consciousness, no brain, no consciousness, in fact changes in the brain can and do change and or eliminate consciousness in an individual, if you can show evidence of the contrary feel free to do so and no post #27 does not support your assertions about consciousness....

 

Okay, I think I understand what you try to do. I try to leave this thread remind me if I accidently return to it.

the reason is that I have seen no evidence for that philsophy know anything about being conscious unless they learned it from science.

 

Very true, no evidence what so ever...

 

 

 

 

Excellent post.

 

I once watched a yew tree desseminate its pollen. It was a very breezy day with unstable wind direction and speed. What struck me as being so remarkable is that the amount of pollen that blew off was not very well correlated with how violently it was being shaken by the wind. Large gusts could have little effect and tiny breezes might unleash a cloud.

 

There appeared to be some consciouness driving this. Somehow the plant seemed to be communicating with its enviroment to achieve the greatest effect. If you watch nature it seems things such as this are quite commonplace. There is far more inexplicable than anything you can just google up. For instance the reason ants make piles of sand at their entrances probably came to me the other day. My guess is these grains of sand present an insurmountable hurdle to any mites that would come to live on or with them. The actions of chemicals and minerals in the earth is impossibly complex but it is made many orders of magnitude more complex by the actions of life. Life begets life. And life affects everything around it.

 

 

Nonetheless everything you suggest as supernatural does indeed have naturalistic explanations, how does the supernatural figure into any of this?

Moontanman;

 

Sometimes I think that you go out of your way to argue with me. Can you see pheromones? I can't. Can you see radio waves? I can't. Can you see the voice that comes into your cell phone? I can't. These things are only observable because of science.

I agree, but science is not supernatural and just because you can't detect something with your five senses doesn't mean it's supernatural

 

 

Radio waves are produced by humans for communication; cell phone communication is produced by humans for communication; pheromones are produced by nature for communication. What is the difference? Consciousness is communication produced by nature, but as yet it is unknown to science, so people call it supernatural and act all superstitious--that is the point of this thread.

None of those things are supernatural, I think you need to define supernatural, I don't think it means what you think it means...

 

If, 500 years ago, I told someone that people die of fever because little bitty tiny life forms invade the body and attack it, I would likely be burned as a witch.

How is this relevant to the supernatural?

 

If, 400 years ago, I produced a box that could sing and talk without having any people in or around it, I would likely be burned as a witch--and the box smashed.

That would be due to ignorance not the supernatural

 

If, 300 years ago, I told people that we could string a wire from New York to San Francisco, and people could talk through it in real time, I would be run out of town--because they stopped burning witches.

Nonetheless ignorance would be the cause not anything supernatural.

 

If, 200 years ago, I told people that we could talk through a little box to anyone in the world, that also had a little box, and that our voices would go into space, bounce off of a satelite, then go into another person's little box so they could hear us, I would probably end up in an asylum.

 

If, 100 years ago, I told people that the plants are talking to each other, but we can't hear it, I would likely get myself some really good drugs and a stay in a padded room.

All these things are due to lack of knowledge not the supernatural.

 

We are just as superstitious as we ever were; we are just a little less violent. What people call the supernatural is just communication. This communication works through consciousness. I think it is time to take a look at it and see how it works.

So talking and writing is supernatural?

 

Let us be honest here. People like to pretend that this communication is not real, only imagination; but it exists. People like to pretend that it is God. All of the things that we have so far discovered that used to be considered an aspect of God, are real and work through cause and effect--they are not God.

I agree with this but I don't see how god figures into it.

 

So if this is also something that is real and not God, then it would also work through cause and effect. If I am right, and this communication works through chemistry and hormones, then we could cause an effect, as we are playing with chemicals and hormones. So could we accidentally cause an effect that we don't want? Could we corrupt or change conscious awareness? Like autism? Maybe.

Please explain how a lack of understanding means supernatural...

 

If anyone does believe in God, please note that He has never seen the need to save us from our own stupidity.

 

 

G

I agree, as an atheist I contend that everything that has a detectable effect on reality is explainable but you seem to be arguing that the supernatural exists and so far you have given zero evidence of this...

[tar]

Gees,

 

 

I will have to agree with Moontanman. "Supernatural" already has definitions. (From my 1976 American Heritage Dictionary).

 

1. Of or pertaining to existence outside the natural world: especially, not attributable to natural forces. 2. Attributed to the immediate exercise of divine power: miraculous. 3. Of or pertaining to the miraculous.

 

These definitons are contrary to the the hormones and pheremones you are describing. These definitions are contrary to your thought that God is not a supernatural reality, but that nature itself is rather godlike in its capabilities and complexities.

 

Everything you have argued exactly says that Moontanman is right and the supernatural does not exist.

 

You and me and Moontanman all agree that there must be a natural mechanism at work, in all things. (phenomena).

 

There is no mention in your arguments of anything "outside" the natural world, affecting its demeanor. Just a wonderful and awsome reality that we have not yet gotten our minds completely around.

 

That there are reasons for our emotions argue exactly against the supernatural.

 

After all, anything that we would erroneously suspect is the work of something unnatural, unreal and impossible, would be immediately rendered "natural" as soon as the connections, reasons, and complex mechanisms were found out.

 

The possibility of anything to be "outside" of the natural world, is not a possibility. By definition. If it is not contained in nature, there is no where else for it to be. But in our imaginations. And even our imaginations are a "natural" thing, with a physical home, and the interplay of real, natural chemicals, to explain it.

 

Regards, TAR2

[Gees]

Moontanman and Tar;

You are correct in that I have not really defined what I think that the supernatural is, with regard to consciousness. I forget that other people have not been studying this for 40 years, and can not read my mind. My apologies for that oversight.

So I went to Wiki and picked out the relevant things that were listed under the supernatural/paranormal and listed them below. I think that every one of these things can be real and works through consciousness outside of the body.

Please review this list and indicate which of these things you think are real, and which are supernatural.

God

angels and demons

reincarnation

prophesy

premonitions

ESP

ghosts

spirit

souls

spiritual healing

auras

channeling

near death visions

anthropomorphism

 

 

Moontanman, following is the definition of consciousness from Wiki:

 

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.^[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind."

 

You will note that this does not define consciousness as being exclusively related to the brain. All life is sentient, a leaf is conscious of light, but has no brain. I made it clear from the beginning of this thread that I was not talking about the medical scientific definition of a conscious brain, so to reinterpret the word for the purpose of confusing the issue is a strawman argument.

 

G

[science4ever]

 

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.^[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind."

 

You will note that this does not define consciousness as being exclusively related to the brain. All life is sentient, a leaf is conscious of light, but has no brain. I made it clear from the beginning of this thread that I was not talking about the medical scientific definition of a conscious brain, so to reinterpret the word for the purpose of confusing the issue is a strawman argument.

 

G

I have left the thread but if one read what wiki say as it is intended by the authors

then it does not follow what you claim it to do.

 

Moontanman is right.

[Gees]

 

I have left the thread but if one read what wiki say as it is intended by the authors

then it does not follow what you claim it to do.

 

Moontanman is right.

 

 

Science4ever;

 

So it is your position that consciousness can only exist when there is a brain? Then please explain to me how life forms that do not have a brain can be sentient, aware, and have feeling and experience.

 

G

[andrewcellini]

evidence of plant consciousness?

Edited July 17, 2013 by andrewcellini

[Moontanman]

Moontanman and Tar;

 

You are correct in that I have not really defined what I think that the supernatural is, with regard to consciousness. I forget that other people have not been studying this for 40 years, and can not read my mind. My apologies for that oversight.

 

So I went to Wiki and picked out the relevant things that were listed under the supernatural/paranormal and listed them below. I think that every one of these things can be real and works through consciousness outside of the body.

 

Please review this list and indicate which of these things you think are real, and which are supernatural.

 

God

 

angels and demons

 

reincarnation

 

prophesy

 

premonitions

 

ESP

 

ghosts

 

spirit

 

souls

 

spiritual healing

 

auras

 

channeling

 

near death visions

 

anthropomorphism

 

 

Moontanman, following is the definition of consciousness from Wiki:

 

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.^[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind."

 

You will note that this does not define consciousness as being exclusively related to the brain. All life is sentient, a leaf is conscious of light, but has no brain. I made it clear from the beginning of this thread that I was not talking about the medical scientific definition of a conscious brain, so to reinterpret the word for the purpose of confusing the issue is a strawman argument.

 

G

 

 

I would say none of the above mentioned things are real in the sense of having a objective reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism is an effect not a real thing....

[Gees]

evidence of plant consciousness?

 

Andrewcellini;

 

Yes. Like all life forms, plants are conscious of the need to survive and exhibit this in many ways. We have long known that leaves and flowers will turn toward the sun, and that roots will grow toward water, which proves sentience.

 

Wiki's definition of sentience: Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to experience subjectivity.

 

But the recent discovery of pheromones has pretty much put the question of consciousness to rest with regard to plants. Through pheromones, trees will inform other trees to protect themselves chemically from pests in the area, and grasses will inform other grasses to produce more tannin to make themselves less tasty when a herd drops by. The last time I Googled "plant communication", I got an article about tumble weeds that could recognize their own spores over the spores of other plants. I did not check to see how valid that testing was, because I was laughing so hard at the absurdity of it. But there is a lot of new information in this area.

 

This is not even considering that plants are the only species that I know of that regularly exhibit what is essentially mind over matter. It can be argued that I possess mind over matter when I demand that my body do something and it does, but I can not control the growth of my body. Plants can and do. They will even warp their natural form in order to survive. That is pretty impressive.

 

If I can find the site for the unusual trees, I will post it. http://www.hoax-slayer.com/amazing-trees.shtml These trees really worked to survive, and warped their natural shape.

 

 

G

I would say none of the above mentioned things are real in the sense of having a objective reality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism is an effect not a real thing....

 

Moontanman;

 

Do you ever have a position, or do you just argue about everyone else's position? In what sense are these things real? Any sense? Are they just superstitious beliefs about the supernatural? Do you have an opinion, rather than a denial?

 

If you can not name your position, you are certainly not going to earn much respect from me. It is very easy to pick at other people's ideas and never have one of your own, as it takes less courage.

 

Anthropomorphism is an effect of a real thing. I expect that I know a lot more about it than you do.

 

G

Edited July 17, 2013 by Gees

[science4ever]

words are tools for human communication. Humans agree upon how to use words.

the usage change over time and dictionaries try to reflect the current usage

but also to indicate if a usage was archaic or formal and so on.

 

When you use the word conscious the way you do here then seen from my perspective

you go way beyond what the word is used normally. you use some kind of special pleading.

 

As I get it hat is what Moontanman and others point out to you. That plants react chemically

is for science to find good words for and I don't trust the scientist would get approved of

if they say that the plants really are conscious of what it chemically react to.

 

the word conscious is for the level that higher mammals funtion on.

 

When my mother had a stroke and lost all speech then she did not seem to be aware of

that she failed to speak at all. she acted as if her "speech" was totally okay but it had no content.

 

Had she been aware of that her speech was totally non-comprehensible then she whould

have tried to ask for pen and paper using some kind of hand sign scribling in her hand and

pointing to where there where a note block for that purpose and had written somehing on it.

 

When we for some ten years tried to at least get her to be aware of signing yes or no

to show her wants that failed too. Yes and no seemed to abstract for her to grasp.

 

Had she been aware she could have accepted that thumbs up is yes and thumbs down is no.

Or nodding her head is yes and shaking head left right is no. smiling can be yes and looking grumpy

could signal no to a question like Do you need to ... whatever we thought she wanted.

 

She was awake but how aware was she? Consciousness as a word is used in many ways and

to saw that a plant is conscuous that it is in danger seems to stress how to use the word too much

Edited July 17, 2013 by science4ever

[Gees]

words are tools for human communication. Humans agree upon how to use words.

the usage change over time and dictionaries try to reflect the current usage

but also to indicate if a usage was archaic or formal and so on.

 

When you use the word conscious the way you do here then seen from my perspective

you go way beyond what the word is used normally. you use some kind of special pleading.

 

As I get it hat is what Moontanman and others point out to you. That plants react chemically

is for science to find good words for and I don't trust the scientist would get approved of

if they say that the plants really are conscious of what it chemically react to.

 

Science4ever;

 

I am very sorry to hear about your Mother's stroke. It is difficult to see the people we love in pain and confusion. I hope she improves.

 

I understand the problem with definition as I have studied consciousness for most of my life. This is why I specifically stated that it was the philosophical definition that I was using. I don't think that general science actually has a definition, the definition that science uses is the medical, or neurological definition. And you are correct, this a the study of the higher consciousness.

 

Consciousness is not a single thing, it is degrees of many different mental aspects, and that is how I study it. When I use the word consciousness, I am talking about life. All life is aware, but all life is not aware of the same things. I am pretty sure that a slug is not aware of the same things that I am, but it is still aware of the need to eat and reproduce and live.

 

You can argue that plant consciousness is just chemical. OK But so is our consciousness, just chemical.

 

G

[cladking]

evidence of plant consciousness?

 

There's even evidence bacteria are conscious. One will glow when a certain number exist in a given location.

 

We're going to find out that consciousness isn't what we think it is and much of what we think is not real.

 

I tried finding bacterium that glows and came up with this instead. I didn't watch it so I can reccommend it, but it's on subject.

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html

 

There's quite a bit of research along these lines now and a quick google will keep you busy a while.

[andrewcellini]

so you're saying that this reaction to a gradient change makes bacteria conscious?

 

i guess i should ask how are you defining consciousness because i'm confused.

Edited July 17, 2013 by andrewcellini

[Moontanman]

 

There's even evidence bacteria are conscious. One will glow when a certain number exist in a given location.

 

We're going to find out that consciousness isn't what we think it is and much of what we think is not real.

 

I tried finding bacterium that glows and came up with this instead. I didn't watch it so I can reccommend it, but it's on subject.

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie_bassler_on_how_bacteria_communicate.html

 

There's quite a bit of research along these lines now and a quick google will keep you busy a while.

 

 

I still don't see a connection between consciousness and the supernatural, while i disagree on your definition of consciousness even if I give you that it would still be explained by natural processes. So far no one has pointed out anything supernatural and the failure to understand something doesn't make it inexplicable...

[Gees]

Cladking;

 

I loved it and watched the whole thing. Thank you for finding this video. Four and a half minutes into the video the speaker stated that bacteria produce a chemical molecule that works like a "hormone", which is how they communicate. This is very much like the way that other species use pheromones to communicate outside of the body and is very compatible with my understanding. Science is again working hard in support of my ideas.

 

Prior to this, the only evidence that I had that bacteria were conscious was the endospore. Some bacteria can turn themselves into endospore and go into a kind of hibernation for hundreds of thousands of years. In this state, bacteria seem to have little or no metabolism and have a thick coating that is protective and can sustain them through harsh chemicals, freezing cold, and high heat. One source claimed to have found endospore that were 400,000 years old, which is amazing. When the endospore finds itself in an environment that is compatible to life, it simply turns back into bacteria and starts to eat and reproduce.

 

Of course, a lot of people will say that this does not prove consciousness. But my thought is, if the endospore is wrapped in a thick shell, how could it possibly know when it is in a life supporting environment, so that it can turn back into bacteria? It would have to be aware.

 

 

Andrewcellini;

 

It might help if you read this thread. Consider that we are not discussing thought--we are discussing awareness. Generally speaking, when people can not wrap their minds around this concept, it is because they equate consciousness with thinking.

 

We can be aware of thinking, but we can not think ourselves aware. Consciousness is not thought, it is awareness.

 

G

 

 

I still don't see a connection between consciousness and the supernatural, while i disagree on your definition of consciousness even if I give you that it would still be explained by natural processes. So far no one has pointed out anything supernatural and the failure to understand something doesn't make it inexplicable...

 

Moontanman;

 

How could I possibly show you a connection between consciousness and the supernatural if you disagree with my concept of consciousness and won't define what you think is supernatural? It is like asking me to connect something you don't believe with something that you don't know. An answer to this request is impossible. Where is your logic?

 

G

[andrewcellini]

gees, you know full well that i don't give any details on my own views so don't portray my posts as such. I don't equate consciouness with thinking. i'm simply asking questions because it seems like a pretty huge jump to say that bacteria are conscious.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman;

 

How could I possibly show you a connection between consciousness and the supernatural if you disagree with my concept of consciousness and won't define what you think is supernatural? It is like asking me to connect something you don't believe with something that you don't know. An answer to this request is impossible. Where is your logic?

 

G

 

 

 

Gees, by your definition of conscious even non living things are conscious if they react to their environment, your definition is so broad it is meaningless...

 

My definition of the supernatural is quite clear, I answered your question with the list of things to be considered and none of them are real, none of them have any perceptible effect on reality. If you can't show it then you don't know it, anecdotal evidence is not evidence of anything and your personal experiences are nothing but personal experiences if you can't show them to others, they exist only in your imagination.

 

Here is a video that attempts to explain critical thinking, the relevant part starts at 00:40, ignore the religious slant and just try to understand why your personal experiences are not evidence...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8

[Gees]

Andrewcellini;

 

I apologize. It was not my intent to offend. Most people in a science forum equate consciousness with thought. It is reasonable to do so, because we test a person's thoughts to see if they are conscious, comatose, brain dead, etc.

 

I don't find it to be a very large leap to call bacteria conscious because all life is conscious, and bacteria is alive. Consider how we recognize life, we look for something that will eat, reproduce, and maintain it's life in anyway that it can. All life has an internal mandate to continue, and exhibits a survival instinct when it works to continue--so it is aware (conscious) of this need.

 

The question is not if life is conscious, the question is what are different life forms conscious of?

 

G

Gees, by your definition of conscious even non living things are conscious if they react to their environment, your definition is so broad it is meaningless...

 

Please explain. I think that my definition of consciousness is limited to life--but what do I know?

 

My definition of the supernatural is quite clear, I answered your question with the list of things to be considered and none of them are real, none of them have any perceptible effect on reality. If you can't show it then you don't know it, anecdotal evidence is not evidence of anything and your personal experiences are nothing but personal experiences if you can't show them to others, they exist only in your imagination.

 

So none of the things on the list are real, ergo the supernatural does not exist. Correct? This looks hopeless, and I am too tired to try to explain it--again. You want me to explain something mental using only physical things. I can probably do it, but not now. Tomorrow I am going in for my last test, then the good doctors will probably chop off my foot. At some point in the future, when I have no more pain and am not so tired, I will work on this for you.

 

Here is a video that attempts to explain critical thinking, the relevant part starts at 00:40, ignore the religious slant and just try to understand why your personal experiences are not evidence...

 

Well, I don't like TV evangelists either, but the video is not about critical thinking. It does not even make a very logical case as it is mostly assertion.

 

G

[Moontanman]

Andrewcellini;

 

I apologize. It was not my intent to offend. Most people in a science forum equate consciousness with thought. It is reasonable to do so, because we test a person's thoughts to see if they are conscious, comatose, brain dead, etc.

 

I don't find it to be a very large leap to call bacteria conscious because all life is conscious, and bacteria is alive. Consider how we recognize life, we look for something that will eat, reproduce, and maintain it's life in anyway that it can. All life has an internal mandate to continue, and exhibits a survival instinct when it works to continue--so it is aware (conscious) of this need.

 

The question is not if life is conscious, the question is what are different life forms conscious of?

 

G

 

Please explain. I think that my definition of consciousness is limited to life--but what do I know?

 

 

So none of the things on the list are real, ergo the supernatural does not exist. Correct? This looks hopeless, and I am too tired to try to explain it--again. You want me to explain something mental using only physical things. I can probably do it, but not now. Tomorrow I am going in for my last test, then the good doctors will probably chop off my foot. At some point in the future, when I have no more pain and am not so tired, I will work on this for you.

 

 

Well, I don't like TV evangelists either, but the video is not about critical thinking. It does not even make a very logical case as it is mostly assertion.

 

G

 

 

None of the things on your list have empirical evidence for their existence, to be conscious implies awareness of ones self, I am skeptical bacteria are aware, a bacterium is no more aware than a flame is aware, the video was not a televangelist, it did indeed address critical thinking, I suggest you actually watch the video...

[Gees]

None of the things on your list have empirical evidence for their existence,

 

This is an assertion and it is also false. If nothing else, all of the churches, temples, etc., all over the world give empirical evidence of human belief in God. Whether or not the belief exists is already fact, so what I am trying to find out is why the belief exists. What causes the belief to exist? How does it happen? How does it work?

 

to be conscious implies awareness of ones self,

 

This is an assertion and it is also false. It may imply it, but it certainly does not require it. There is aware, and there is self aware--two different things. Did you consider the information that I gave earlier about the "Mirror" test? You can look up Mirror test in Wiki if you do not believe me.

 

I am skeptical bacteria are aware, a bacterium is no more aware than a flame is aware,

 

This is an assertion and it is also false. Let us try to be honest here for one little minute. There is absolutely no evidence that Darwin's theory and idea of advancement is correct. It is correct only from our perspective and religious declarations.

 

The facts state otherwise, as bacteria can survive quite well without humans, but we can not survive without bacteria. So which is the higher life form? Maybe we evolved to give bacteria something to do. (chuckle chuckle)

 

Consider this from another perspective:

 

Bacterium A states: I am starting to feel bad because we are damaging these human forms, and I think that they might be aware.

 

Bacterium B states: Whether or not they are aware is not relevant, the fact is that they would not even survive without us, so they should be damned well grateful for the time we give them. (Life is a chuckle.)

 

the video was not a televangelist,

 

This is a strawman argument as I did not assert any such thing. The whole end of the video was about TV evangelists. Did you watch the video?

 

it did indeed address critical thinking,

 

This is nonsense.

 

I suggest you actually watch the video...

 

This is an insult. I review every link that is offered in my threads--even when I can not see the connection or relevance of it. If you look under Forum Announcements and find the thread Science Forum Etiquette, under section II Replying to Threads, you will find the following rule:

 

"Read Links

If a user provides a link for more information, and you don't believe them, read the link. It may provide better information for you; if you ignore it, you may be missing vital information that supports their point. Purposefully ignoring it is strawmanning, and nobody likes that."

 

Purposefully ignoring information offered is also a promotion of my own ignorance, and I like to learn, so I review anything offered or give an explanation of why I did not review it--as when people provide too many similar links--2 or 3 links make the point.

 

Since you either do not understand, or will not disclose, your position in this matter, I have decided to review this entire thread to see if I can determine your position. After this review, I will post my thoughts here for your review. Maybe we can establish our positions and start to find a way to see some common ground. That is my hope.

 

G