Dec 11, 2022 02:16 AM
'Sans brains' a kind of given regardless, if there were highly exotic, intelligent ETs in the universe whose "life" substrate wasn't based on cells and organs -- and machines eventually become conscious in a full-fledged manner.
- - - - - - -
Consciousness may not require a brain
https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-ma..._auid=2020
INTRO: Our default intuition when it comes to consciousness is that humans and some other animals have it, whereas plants and trees don’t. But how sure can we be that plants aren’t conscious? And what if what we take to be behavior indicating consciousness can be replicated with no conscious agent involved? Annaka Harris invites us to consider the real possibility that our intuitions about consciousness might be mere illusions.
EXCERPTS: . . . (1) In a system that we know has conscious experiences — the human brain — what evidence of consciousness can we detect from the outside? ... (2) Is consciousness essential to our behavior?
[...] Here is a simple assumption most of us make, in line with our intuitions, which we can use as a starting point: People are conscious; plants are not conscious. Most of us feel strongly that this statement is correct, and there are good scientific reasons for believing that it is.
We assume that consciousness does not exist in the absence of a brain or a central nervous system. But what evidence or behavior can we observe to support this claim about the relative experience of human beings and plants?
Consider the types of behavior we usually attribute to conscious life, such as reacting to physical harm or caring for others. Research reveals that plants do both in complex ways — though, of course, we conclude that they do so without feeling pain or love (i.e. without consciousness). But some behaviors of people and plants are so alike that it in fact poses a challenge to our using certain behavior as evidence of conscious experience.
In his book What a Plant Knows: A Field Guide to the Senses, biologist Daniel Chamovitz describes in fascinating detail how stimulation of a plant (by touch, light, heat, etc.) can cause reactions similar to those in animals under analogous conditions. Plants can sense their environments through touch and can detect many aspects of their surroundings, including temperature, by other modes.
It’s actually quite common for plants to react to touch: a vine will increase its rate and direction of growth when it senses an object nearby that it can wrap itself around; and the infamous Venus flytrap can distinguish between heavy rain or strong gusts of wind, which do not cause its blades to close, and the tentative incursions of a nutritious beetle or frog, which will make them snap shut in one-tenth of a second.
Chamovitz explains how the stimulation of a plant cell causes cellular changes that result in an electrical signal — similar to the reaction caused by the stimulation of nerve cells in animals — and “just like in animals, this signal can propagate from cell to cell, and it involves the coordinated function of ion channels including potassium, calcium, calmodulin, and other plant components...”
[...] The ecologist Suzanne Simard conducts research in forest ecology, and her work has produced breakthroughs in our understanding of inter-tree communication ... Equally surprising were the results of further research led by Simard in the Canadian National Forest, showing that the Douglas fir “mother trees” were able to distinguish between their own kin and a neighboring stranger’s seedlings...
[...] Still, we can easily imagine plants exhibiting the behaviors described above without there being something it is like to be a plant, so complex behavior doesn’t necessarily shed light on whether a system is conscious or not ... The problem is that both conscious and non-conscious states seem to be compatible with any behavior, even those associated with emotion, so the behavior itself doesn’t necessarily signal the presence of consciousness...
[...] Suddenly, our reflexive answers to question #1 — What constitutes evidence for consciousness? — are beginning to dissolve. And this leads us to question #2, regarding whether consciousness performs an essential function in — or has any effect at all on — the physical system that’s conscious. In theory, I could act in all the ways I do and say all the things I say without having a conscious experience of it, much as an advanced robot might (though, admittedly, it’s hard to imagine). This is the gist of a thought experiment referred to as the “philosophical zombie,” which was made popular by David Chalmers...
[...] Let’s say your “zombie friend” witnesses a car accident, looks appropriately concerned, and takes out his phone to call for an ambulance. Could he possibly be going through these motions without an experience of anxiety and concern, or a conscious thought process that leads him to make a call and describe what happened? Or could this all take place even if he were a robot, without a felt experience prompting the behavior at all. Again, ask yourself what, if anything, would constitute conclusive evidence of consciousness in another person?
I have discovered that the zombie thought experiment is also capable of influencing our thinking beyond its intended function in the following way: Once we imagine human behavior around us existing without consciousness, that behavior begins to look more like many behaviors we see in the natural world which we’ve always assumed were non-conscious, such as the obstacle-avoiding behavior of a starfish, which has no central nervous system... (MORE - missing details)
RELATED (scivillage): Can plants see? In the wake of a controversial study, the answer is still unclear
- - - - - - -
Consciousness may not require a brain
https://iai.tv/articles/consciousness-ma..._auid=2020
INTRO: Our default intuition when it comes to consciousness is that humans and some other animals have it, whereas plants and trees don’t. But how sure can we be that plants aren’t conscious? And what if what we take to be behavior indicating consciousness can be replicated with no conscious agent involved? Annaka Harris invites us to consider the real possibility that our intuitions about consciousness might be mere illusions.
EXCERPTS: . . . (1) In a system that we know has conscious experiences — the human brain — what evidence of consciousness can we detect from the outside? ... (2) Is consciousness essential to our behavior?
[...] Here is a simple assumption most of us make, in line with our intuitions, which we can use as a starting point: People are conscious; plants are not conscious. Most of us feel strongly that this statement is correct, and there are good scientific reasons for believing that it is.
We assume that consciousness does not exist in the absence of a brain or a central nervous system. But what evidence or behavior can we observe to support this claim about the relative experience of human beings and plants?
Consider the types of behavior we usually attribute to conscious life, such as reacting to physical harm or caring for others. Research reveals that plants do both in complex ways — though, of course, we conclude that they do so without feeling pain or love (i.e. without consciousness). But some behaviors of people and plants are so alike that it in fact poses a challenge to our using certain behavior as evidence of conscious experience.
In his book What a Plant Knows: A Field Guide to the Senses, biologist Daniel Chamovitz describes in fascinating detail how stimulation of a plant (by touch, light, heat, etc.) can cause reactions similar to those in animals under analogous conditions. Plants can sense their environments through touch and can detect many aspects of their surroundings, including temperature, by other modes.
It’s actually quite common for plants to react to touch: a vine will increase its rate and direction of growth when it senses an object nearby that it can wrap itself around; and the infamous Venus flytrap can distinguish between heavy rain or strong gusts of wind, which do not cause its blades to close, and the tentative incursions of a nutritious beetle or frog, which will make them snap shut in one-tenth of a second.
Chamovitz explains how the stimulation of a plant cell causes cellular changes that result in an electrical signal — similar to the reaction caused by the stimulation of nerve cells in animals — and “just like in animals, this signal can propagate from cell to cell, and it involves the coordinated function of ion channels including potassium, calcium, calmodulin, and other plant components...”
[...] The ecologist Suzanne Simard conducts research in forest ecology, and her work has produced breakthroughs in our understanding of inter-tree communication ... Equally surprising were the results of further research led by Simard in the Canadian National Forest, showing that the Douglas fir “mother trees” were able to distinguish between their own kin and a neighboring stranger’s seedlings...
[...] Still, we can easily imagine plants exhibiting the behaviors described above without there being something it is like to be a plant, so complex behavior doesn’t necessarily shed light on whether a system is conscious or not ... The problem is that both conscious and non-conscious states seem to be compatible with any behavior, even those associated with emotion, so the behavior itself doesn’t necessarily signal the presence of consciousness...
[...] Suddenly, our reflexive answers to question #1 — What constitutes evidence for consciousness? — are beginning to dissolve. And this leads us to question #2, regarding whether consciousness performs an essential function in — or has any effect at all on — the physical system that’s conscious. In theory, I could act in all the ways I do and say all the things I say without having a conscious experience of it, much as an advanced robot might (though, admittedly, it’s hard to imagine). This is the gist of a thought experiment referred to as the “philosophical zombie,” which was made popular by David Chalmers...
[...] Let’s say your “zombie friend” witnesses a car accident, looks appropriately concerned, and takes out his phone to call for an ambulance. Could he possibly be going through these motions without an experience of anxiety and concern, or a conscious thought process that leads him to make a call and describe what happened? Or could this all take place even if he were a robot, without a felt experience prompting the behavior at all. Again, ask yourself what, if anything, would constitute conclusive evidence of consciousness in another person?
I have discovered that the zombie thought experiment is also capable of influencing our thinking beyond its intended function in the following way: Once we imagine human behavior around us existing without consciousness, that behavior begins to look more like many behaviors we see in the natural world which we’ve always assumed were non-conscious, such as the obstacle-avoiding behavior of a starfish, which has no central nervous system... (MORE - missing details)
RELATED (scivillage): Can plants see? In the wake of a controversial study, the answer is still unclear