RE: Quantum consciousness...
August 28, 2017 at 9:47 am
(This post was last modified: August 28, 2017 at 10:23 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Plants appear to "get their smarts" via a sophisticated sensory apparatus, networks of cells with action potential, distributed chemical computing, swarm behavior, and an unfathomably large amount of direct mechanical stimulus and response structures. Many mindless things both within the organisms and in colonies of the organisms amount to what we call, in animals with nervous systems and brains, behavior.
Sure, it's "in their genes", at least insomuch as their genes determine that they are organisms bestowed with all of the structures necessary to support the above.
The contention of reductivists is that our brains are no different in that regard, yes. The interaction of many mindless things both within ourselves and between ourselves that are expressed as behaviors. We call these behaviors (and their underlying mechanisms) consciousness in our case..but rarely extend the designation far beyond our own closest genetic relatives or organisms that seem to be "like us" in ways taken to be meaningful. It's easy to see why we do this, even from a reductivists POV, in that the report of how something feels is inherently authoritative to the subject. The mistake, they contend...is interpreting that as equivalent to an authoritative report about how something -is-. In their view, "consciousness" doesn't arise at all. It's a non-entity. A mistaken description of something else or of alot of something else's. From that POV, questions about it's evolutionary origin or advantage are incoherent. They're questions about something else, at best...and nothing, at worst.
Sure, it's "in their genes", at least insomuch as their genes determine that they are organisms bestowed with all of the structures necessary to support the above.
The contention of reductivists is that our brains are no different in that regard, yes. The interaction of many mindless things both within ourselves and between ourselves that are expressed as behaviors. We call these behaviors (and their underlying mechanisms) consciousness in our case..but rarely extend the designation far beyond our own closest genetic relatives or organisms that seem to be "like us" in ways taken to be meaningful. It's easy to see why we do this, even from a reductivists POV, in that the report of how something feels is inherently authoritative to the subject. The mistake, they contend...is interpreting that as equivalent to an authoritative report about how something -is-. In their view, "consciousness" doesn't arise at all. It's a non-entity. A mistaken description of something else or of alot of something else's. From that POV, questions about it's evolutionary origin or advantage are incoherent. They're questions about something else, at best...and nothing, at worst.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
