3 ms·

Complex exchange of information and response to your environment is fascinating, and should be appreciated. But if we're calling that consciousness, we've water

Complex exchange of information and response to your environment is fascinating, and should be appreciated. But if we're calling that consciousness, we've watered down the term to the point that it's just a loose metaphor for virtually any kind of complex biological mechanisms. This really shouldn't even be a debate. It's the special kind of wrong that ought to be embarrassing, like when people equate consciousness to quantum weirdness.

pygy_ 9y ago
Provided there are single cell organisms with eyes[1], and transcription factors form DNA-based activation/inhibition networks conceptually indistinguishable from neuronal networks, debating whether plants have subjective experience ("a view from the inside" doesn't necessarily implies visual information) is totally on the table. Whether those organisms experience anything we can relate to is another matter though. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocelloid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocelloid
- glenstein 9y ago
  Photoreceptivity isn't consciousness. "View from the inside" wasn't a mere reference to vision. And I would hope that the structural differences between DNA and brains are clear enough that they wouldn't have to be debated in a serious conversation.
  - mikro2nd 9y ago
    I believe that at this point it's worth drawing a distinction between "consciousness" and "self-awareness"/"self-consciousness".
  - pygy_ 9y ago
    Please stop with the "serious convesation" FUD. Structural differences are no barrier to functional equivalence. Transcription factors are proteins that activate or inhibit the transcription rate of other genes, including those of other transcription factors. They do form complex regulation networks that are isomorphic to neural circuitry. Edit: re. ocelloid, I know you didn't literally mean vision. The structure of the retinal body and adjacent organelles suggests that it is more than a focused, single pixel cam that would be used for simple phototropism, which implies that it is tied to a more complex processing apparatus.

pygy_ 9y ago

Provided there are single cell organisms with eyes[1], and transcription factors form DNA-based activation/inhibition networks conceptually indistinguishable from neuronal networks, debating whether plants have subjective experience ("a view from the inside" doesn't necessarily implies visual information) is totally on the table. Whether those organisms experience anything we can relate to is another matter though. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocelloid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocelloid

glenstein 9y ago
Photoreceptivity isn't consciousness. "View from the inside" wasn't a mere reference to vision. And I would hope that the structural differences between DNA and brains are clear enough that they wouldn't have to be debated in a serious conversation.
- mikro2nd 9y ago
  I believe that at this point it's worth drawing a distinction between "consciousness" and "self-awareness"/"self-consciousness".
- pygy_ 9y ago
  Please stop with the "serious convesation" FUD. Structural differences are no barrier to functional equivalence. Transcription factors are proteins that activate or inhibit the transcription rate of other genes, including those of other transcription factors. They do form complex regulation networks that are isomorphic to neural circuitry. Edit: re. ocelloid, I know you didn't literally mean vision. The structure of the retinal body and adjacent organelles suggests that it is more than a focused, single pixel cam that would be used for simple phototropism, which implies that it is tied to a more complex processing apparatus.