Does consciousness arise out of having a language?

@hue-man,

hue-man,

As to self-awarness this is another aspect that man likes to delude himself in. I think self awareness is a quality of all life, even plant life. If something can fear for its life, weather it be a man or a bug, that is self awareness. I agree with you the brain is the body, we are so accustomed to reductionism due to traditonal science that we sometimes forget it is not real, and that the whole is indeed greater than its parts. Again I agree, the higher functions of the frontal lobes does give humanity an edge that other species do not have.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

hue-man,

As to self-awarness this is another aspect that man likes to delude himself in. I think self awareness is a quality of all life, even plant life. If something can fear for its life, weather it be a man or a bug, that is self awareness. I agree with you the brain is the body, we are so accustomed to reductionism due to traditonal science that we sometimes forget it is not real, and that the whole is indeed greater than its parts. Again I agree, the higher functions of the frontal lobes does give humanity an edge that other species do not have.

But plants do not have self awareness or any real awareness of environment. There are some things about plants that people confuse for some type of self-awareness. For example: tropisms, plant transmitters, auxins and abscisic acids are released and the plant bends to the environment. Some have even hooked polygraphs up to plants and got readings. The problem was that they didn't know that the cell membranes of plants have varying electrical potentials that relate to cell metabolism. Neurologists call this response 'electroencephalogram'.

Also, just because something is alive doesn't make it conscious. Some people get brain damage that significantly reduces their self-awareness and their awareness of environment, sometimes to the point where they are technically alive but no longer conscious at all.

2 Replies

@hue-man,

Plant Consciousness

Funny article about plant consciousness Laughing

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man,

I would beg to differ both on the level of consciousness and on the level of self-awarness. You have heard perhaps of heilocentric plants, these plants turn their leaves to follow the arc of the suns daily travels, this is a form of consciousness. Ok, someone is going to say, its just a chemical reaction, but the fact is, its all chemistry, its all reaction, this plant knows where the sun is, and response to its travels across the sky. Also there are plants that have co-evolved with other species, how could one adapt to something one is not aware of? I think you'll agree awareness is a necessity for adaptation to another being or the physical world. Also there are many plants that have adapted defense mechanisms against roving herbivours, producing toxins and/or just generally distasteful matter that turns their predators away.

There are to many examples to count of co-evolution of species, and this to is a form of consciousness, the effect and response of this consciousness may be spreadout generationally, as this tends to be how adaptation to the physcial world comes about, for forms to change takes time, and this is an evolutonary consciousness not just of plants but of humanity as well.

Speaking to another aspect, there are organism that appear to have no brain whatsoever, there are some organism that just have ganglia, fibers not yet formed into a brainstem, and indeed a human can live for a time with just a functioning brainstem. The involentary functions that your own body preforms such as digestion, maintaining body temperature, this, this is all consciousness. Well I have babbled long enough, but do not sell short the wide dispersion across all life forms of consciousness, life is consciousness.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

hue-man,

I would beg to differ both on the level of consciousness and on the level of self-awarness. You have heard perhaps of heilocentric plants, these plants turn their leaves to follow the arc of the suns daily travels, this is a form of consciousness. Ok, someone is going to say, its just a chemical reaction, but the fact is, its all chemistry, its all reaction, this plant knows where the sun is, and response to its travels across the sky. Also there are plants that have co-evolved with other species, how could one adapt to something one is not aware of? I think you'll agree awareness is a necessity for adaptation to another being or the physical world. Also there are many plants that have adapted defense mechanisms against roving herbivours, producing toxins and/or just generally distasteful matter that turns their predators away.

There are to many examples to count of co-evolution of species, and this to is a form of consciousness, the effect and response of this consciousness may be spreadout generationally, as this tends to be how adaptation to the physcial world comes about, for forms to change takes time, and this is an evolutonary consciousness not just of plants but of humanity as well.

Speaking to another aspect, there are organism that appear to have no brain whatsoever, there are some organism that just have ganglia, fibers not yet formed into a brainstem, and indeed a human can live for a time with just a functioning brainstem. The involentary functions that your own body preforms such as digestion, maintaining body temperature, this, this is all consciousness. Well I have babbled long enough, but do not sell short the wide dispersion across all life forms of consciousness, life is consciousness.

You are painting with too narrow a brush when defining consciousness. Plants do not feel, they do not taste, they do not perceive, they do not think, they do not know, and they are not conscious. Consciousness is not just chemical reactions, for that is an over-simplification. Consciousness is a mental state, a way of perceiving a relationship between self and other. Consciousness involves thought, perception, emotion, and self awareness. You at least need a primitive brain to even possess some of these abilities. Plants not only do not have a nervous system - they don't have a brain and so they do not have a mind.

I've already told you why it is that some plants follow the sun. It's not because they think 'hey, there's the sun, let's follow it before we die'. In other words, it is not a conscious decision. It is simply a chemical reaction that is necessary for their survival, and so this trait evolved in flowers because it is necessary for their survival. The plants that did not have this biochemical reaction died out, leaving the plants that do have this reaction to reproduce.

The evolution of plants is not evidence for the consciousness of plants. All forms of life evolve to adapt to their environment, and it's all about the genes. Most plant and animal species eventually become extinct because they don't have the necessary mutations or biodiversity in their genes to adapt. That's why 99.9% of the species that have lived on this planet have become extinct.

Consciousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

You ask where this elf resides or its location in the body as though it wa s aphysical organ with a place inside the body cavity, and you assume that if it cannot be physically located than it cannot exist. But can you physically find a thought with a scalpel? Can you physically dissect the love a person feels? Does the lack of phsyical material mean that love does not exist and is not real?

It is emotion and feelings that provide the evidence of the inner self that you seek.

The swelling of pride, the palpitation of anxiety, and the exasperation of love are all realities that take place within the body. Every human has experienced the sensations. Is the very real aching of the heart tangible if dissected? of course not. But we all know the feeling and know that the heart can most definitely ache.

You're really going to have to be more specific here. What does "awareness of the existence of the inner self" mean? You say you're not speaking of any other higher realm or mysticism and then say these words? Again, there's a great possibility it's all in the brain. If you'd like, I'll provide you some sources.

Emotions are induced by chemicals, and there are medical explanations for all of the symptoms you have just cited. There are many neorobiological theories for emotions, and many have conclusive evidence. Emotions are not evidence of this "awareness of the existence of inner self" you speak.

Let me ask if you this: If you don't feel this "inner self" is located in any physical organ, or rather any part of the body, what is it, and where has it come from? Are you speaking of something like a soul (this is mystical)? Basically, I'm asking you to differentiate "awareness of the existence of inner self" from a mystical belief of some sort.

Pathfinder wrote:

We all know how it can easily skip a beat when that special someone walks by. Is that answered as some sort of physical response to external environment? How then can a pretty girl that you might be attracted to actually physically cause your heart to skip a beat when they have not even made physical contact with you?

External stimuli (in this case visualizing something that makes you nervous) can have physical complications. There's nothing about "inner self" here, and this doesn't mean humans are special. There are biological explanations for this.

Boagie wrote:

All life is desire, the desire to survive, built into every organism is the fear of death. The reach of the tree to extened its roots into the soil and its branching and leafing towards the sun is an indication of said desire. The computer may well need electricity to function but it does not know that and it does not desire it, it feels no need, no pain, no pleasure, it is not conscious.

I don't believe that the extension of the roots by the tree is necessarily an expression of desire. We must remember that desire, in and of itself, is a human foible - it is a human feeling. To say plants desire on a molecular level is pushing it. Cells operate systematically, no different than modern computer programs. Each part of the cell is given instruction and abides by that instruction, allowing the organism to survive. For many cells, The biological information contained in an organism is encoded in its DNA or RNA sequence. DNA is similar to a line of code, perhaps C++ or html.

Plants and our bodies could be just the same. The only difference between us and the plant, and why we call ourselves conscious, is the intervention we have with another organ - our brain. Think of it as the command center for all the cells electing this desire you speak. But do know that many of the organisms we consider alive (LIFE) most likely do not have "desire". If amoebas have feelings, can feel "desire", we have a lot to learn.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

hu-man,

We are indeed at two different ends of the pole. I think perhaps they are both a little extreme. You wish to define consciousness by the human measure of it, seems obvious that it has been an evolutionary developement thus differning degrees of consciousness along the way. If you do not believe that digestion is the consciousness of the body then we have no common ground here for further discussion. I have not read your link yet, I will later, have to run right now. I will however, and perhaps comment when I come back. Smile

Zetherin,

Life lives upon life, where there is need there is desire, the killer instinct spoken of in so many nature programs is simply, hunger. Again life lives upon life, the snake which consumes its own tail.-The ouroboros. The computer does not know of its need of electricity, it feels no desire, it feels no pain, it feels no pleasure, it is not conscious, desire, pain and pleasure are part of there being life at all, and life is consciousness, for desire springs from necessity, the needyness for what is out there.

2 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

hu-man,

We are indeed at two different ends of the pole. I think perhaps they are both a little extreme. You wish to define consciousness by the human measure of it, seems obvious that it has been an evolutionary developement thus differning degrees of consciousness along the way. If you do not believe that digestion is the consciousness of the body then we have no common ground here for further discussion. I have not read your link yet, I will later, have to run right now. I will however, and perhaps comment when I come back.

Our digestive system is not conscious - it is a make-up of cells going through systematic processes.

boagie wrote:

Life lives upon life, where there is need there is desire, the killer instinct spoken of in so many nature programs is simply, hunger. Again life lives upon life, the snake which consumes its own tail.-The ouroboros. The computer does not know of its need of electricity, it feels no desire, it feels no pain, it feels no pleasure, it is not conscious, desire, pain and pleasure are part of there being life at all, and life is consciousness, for desire springs from necessity, the needyness for what is out there.

You'd be surprised how a computer program can respond and elicit this same desire you speak. Much like a cell, a computer program can be programmed to need things in order to function. If neediness is life, then computer programs are life. Amoebas also do not feel pain or pleasure as they do not have nervous systems, they are single-cell organisms. The amoeba may not be aware of it's desire for nutrients, just as the computer program may not be aware of it's desire for information, but both are going through a programmed systematic process to fulfill a "desired" end.

Somewhere between an amoeba and us consciousness exists, but it's very hard to draw that line, especially when you consider there is no still universal definition of "Life".

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Our digestive system is not conscious - it is a make-up of cells going through systematic processes.

Zetherin,

:)You then, are in disagreement with a great deal of philosophy on the matter, perhaps too at odds with the medical perspective. If you had to remember the chemistry formulas for digesting your dinner you would undoubtly starve to death, no, consciousness is not the soul property of the mind/brain, the body built itself a brain, that, takes consciousness.

Smile

I think your desire to see the computer as conscious is effecting your evaluation of the subject. Every single celled organism needs food, life lives upon life, there is no escaping that harsh reality. Need, desire, pain and pleasure all play a role in some degree in the formation and function of consciousness.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Zetherin,

You then, are in disagreement with a great deal of philosophy on the matter, perhaps too at odds with the medical perspective. If you had to remember the chemistry formulas for digesting your dinner you would undoubtly starve to death, no consciousness is not the soul property of the mind/brain, the body built itself a brain, that, takes consciousness.

I don't have to remember the formulas for digesting my food as that information is stored in each of the cells within my digestive system. Tiny programs within my body that carry out specific functions. These cells work synergistically with other cells to perform a function: Continue life.

If consciousness is not the sole property of what the brain perceives, then where is this consciousness coming from? It seems you and Path share these same sentiments. Are you both implying that absent of our physical bodies there is an "inner self" of sorts being channeled directly into our thought processes? Please elaborate on where this consciousness spawns from.

boagie wrote:

I think your desire to see the computer as conscious is effecting your evaluation of the subject. Every single celled organism needs food, life lives upon life, there is no escaping that harsh reality. Need, desire, pain and pleasure all play a role in some degree in the formation and function of consciousness.

And I think your desire to want to differentiate cells from computer programs is effecting your evaluation of the subject. I must admit, however, I understand your bias, as you perceive yourself as biological. The information stored in DNA and RNA is, quite literally, the same as a computer program. It is a series of algorithms dedicated to specific functions. There are algorithms for DNA assembly existing at this very moment - scientists can tweak this on a whim. Genetic manipulation illustrates that all of cellular biology is a matter of function. I'm not extrapolating this, you can do the research yourself. Also, again, if pain and pleasure play a role in the formation and function of consciousness, how can you say amoebas are conscious? They are incapable of pain and pleasure, and do not have feelings. Therefore, do not desire. They only need because they're programmed to do so.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

Actually we may not be so divided after all going by the first part of your response, might not what you are trying to describe be in fact consciousness?

While the second part, yes it is true, that there is something about you as an organism that is much more elemental than what you think of as your identity and/or personality, these are very highly functional illusions. You are in fact, as Richard Dawkins pointed out, a construct, a vehicle for the transportation and maintaince of your selfish genes. Consciousness at this level has constructed you. So, it is rather arrogant to claim consciousness the soul property of the brain/mind, it to is the construct of something much more elemental. You are not even of the utmost importance to your elemental genes, your just temporary transportation, it has or will do, direct you to procreate passing on those genes to a new unit, new transportation, and you will be cast aside in death, so, do not identify with the body, identify with the consciousness, consciousness is perhaps immortal, and your immortality is generational.

2 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Zetherin,

Actually we may not be so divided after all going by the first part of your response, might not what you are trying to describe be in fact consciousness?

While the second part, yes it is true, that there is something about you as an organism that is much more elemental than what you think of as your identity and/or personality, these are very highly functional illusions. You are in fact, as Richard Dawkins pointed out, a construct, a vehicle for the transportation and maintaince of your selfish genes. Consciousness at this level has constructed you. So, it is rather arrogant to claim consciousness the soul property of the brain/mind, it to is the construct of something much more elemental. You are not even of the utmost importance to your elemental genes, your just temporary transportation, it has or will do, direct you to procreate passing on those genes to a new unit, new transportation, and you will be cast aside in death, so, do not identify with the body, identify with the consciousness, consciousness is perhaps immortal, and your immortality is generational.

It's funny how you at first believe you're disagreeing with another, only to find that you both share a common idea. Consciousness is not our bodies, that is correct. Because, as I note, our bodies are made up of cells, all synergistically working towards a common goal, as a computer program would - they are not conscious. "We" are conscious. As I've said, somewhere between an amoeba and us consciousness is produced, but that definitive line is hard to draw. Consciousness is a phenomenon that no one has a flawless definition of. However, I, personally, believe it has something to do with the firing of neurons in our brain. This means I do not believe it is immortal.

I think we see eye to eye, and were simply articulating our thoughts a bit differently producing artificial contention. Thanks for your insight.

By the way, I edited my last post for some added clarification.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

Though I found the editing of your former post more enlighting, I do not think it is a practice you should perfect. When one responds to the statements of another, only to have the foundation of that response changed--well it is not a habit to get into, no offense intended, I have done it on occasion myself.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Zetherin,

Though I found the editing of your former post more enlighting, I do not think it is a practice you should perfect. When one responds to the statements of another, only to have the foundation of that response changed--well it is not a habit to get into, no offense intended, I have done it on occasion myself.

You're absolutely right, and I apologize for this. This is definitely a problem, one of which I am working on. The thing is, I always consider a new way to express the thought, and forget certain tidbits of information I was going to include initially. It's much better for me to sit down, relax, and type more slowly - which is what I should do with all my posts.

Thanks again.

0 Replies

@jknilinux,

Zeth,

I don't know about Boagie, but I am definitley suggesting that a human is more than just flesh and blood, and that there is a spiritual aspect to our identity that houses the inner self I speak of.

It is as intangible as these so called computer programs that yopu sepak of and cannot be seen with a microscope, but it is as much a part of our makeup as any single cell or anything that can be probed physically.

These emotional responses that you equate to chemical reactions are far more than mere chemical mixtures. I think you know that but deny yourself the opportunity to explore it.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

hu-man,

We are indeed at two different ends of the pole. I think perhaps they are both a little extreme. You wish to define consciousness by the human measure of it, seems obvious that it has been an evolutionary developement thus differning degrees of consciousness along the way. If you do not believe that digestion is the consciousness of the body then we have no common ground here for further discussion. I have not read your link yet, I will later, have to run right now. I will however, and perhaps comment when I come back.

Zetherin,

Life lives upon life, where there is need there is desire, the killer instinct spoken of in so many nature programs is simply, hunger. Again life lives upon life, the snake which consumes its own tail.-The ouroboros. The computer does not know of its need of electricity, it feels no desire, it feels no pain, it feels no pleasure, it is not conscious, desire, pain and pleasure are part of there being life at all, and life is consciousness, for desire springs from necessity, the needyness for what is out there.

We definitely have no common ground if you think that digestion is consciousness. Because a plant can absorb water or dissolve a bug doesn't make it conscious.

My viewpoint is not extreme, because I do recognize that there are levels of consciousness other than the human level, but plant metabolism is not one of them.

As far as professional philosophy is concerned, the brain is the at the core of understanding the nature of consciousness. That's why the subject is a part of the philosophy of the mind. Once science comes to fully understand the nature of brain, which is getting closer everyday, we will fully understand the nature of consciousness.

2 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man,

What do you then call these other forms of function that you state are not consciousness, if you believe that consciousness is soley of the brain/mind, again I remind you that it was the body that built itself a brain not the other way around.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Zetherin,

Actually we may not be so divided after all going by the first part of your response, might not what you are trying to describe be in fact consciousness?

While the second part, yes it is true, that there is something about you as an organism that is much more elemental than what you think of as your identity and/or personality, these are very highly functional illusions. You are in fact, as Richard Dawkins pointed out, a construct, a vehicle for the transportation and maintaince of your selfish genes. Consciousness at this level has constructed you. So, it is rather arrogant to claim consciousness the soul property of the brain/mind, it to is the construct of something much more elemental. You are not even of the utmost importance to your elemental genes, your just temporary transportation, it has or will do, direct you to procreate passing on those genes to a new unit, new transportation, and you will be cast aside in death, so, do not identify with the body, identify with the consciousness, consciousness is perhaps immortal, and your immortality is generational.

What do you mean when you say that consciousness is perhaps immortal? Do you mean that literally or metaphorically? If what you mean by immortality is the passing of your genes to your offspring then that is not immortality. As much as we like to associate our offspring with our egos, the fact of the matter is that our offspring are separate individuals. When we die and stop perceiving they will still continue to live and perceive until their day comes.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

hue-man,

What do you then call these other forms of function that you state are not consciousness, if you believe that consciousness is soley of the brain/mind, again I remind you that it was the body that built itself a brain not the other way around.

I don't have some type of holistic name for a plant's metabolic responses. You are making way too much of the body 'building' the brain. That really has no consequence to the question - what is consciousness. The brain is a part of the body, just like the heart is a part of the body, but the brain is the most superior organ of the body because all of the neurological signals from other parts of the body are sent to the brain, and the brain sends signals/orders back to the the rest of the body. The neurological signals that are sent to the brain is what gives us the ability to perceive, and perception is perhaps the most important part of what we call consciousness. Every single sense that we have is because of our brain's ability to perceive them - taste, touch, smell, hearing, and sight would mean nothing without the brain's ability to perceive them.

If your brain stopped working you would know just how important it is to consciousness, but then again you wouldn't have the ability to think or perceive.

0 Replies

@hue-man,

hue-man:)

The genes live on, individuals die. If you think of a consciousness as a great chandelier with many many light bulbs when one of the light bulbs burns out the janitor comes around and removes the bulb to replace it with another, but even with the bulb burned out, the chandelier continues to give off light, so, it comes down to, do you identify with the body the blub or do you identify with consciousness the light. It is very possiable that the cosmos is simply bulging with life, with consciousness, it may indeed be infinite and immortal, genes have relative immortality, you were programed to procreate, thus supplying another vehicle for their protection and transportation. "Richard Dawkins and the selfish gene."

As to you protest that I make to much of evolutionary process, how do you think you arrived in the present form you now represent? You are a multicellular organism, a community, not something individual, it is community consciousness that informs you 24/7 you are perhaps an individual community, but you are NOT and individual organism. The head can want what the body does not, and if the head then rules, your health will be sacrificed.

2 Replies

Does consciousness arise out of having a language?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know