Panpsychism Makes a Comeback: denied in plants II (General)

by David Turell , Saturday, July 06, 2019, 15:49 (1965 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The biggest danger to objectivity is the assumption that human consciousness is the only form of consciousness. (I prefer the term “intelligence”, as it avoids confusion with human self-awareness.) If we take consciousness to be a synonym of awareness, and if our criteria for awareness include sentience, communication, decision-making, then it is clearly absurd to assume that plants and bacteria are NOT conscious. […] Human consciousness includes self-awareness.My point is that there are other forms and levels of consciousness/awareness[...] There are massive distinctions, however, between levels of consciousness/awareness.

DAVID: I do not believe in your definitions. Human consciousness would not be the'hard problem' under your approach if applied to humans. Animals are conscious and aware at various levels but there is a vast difference in the two levels.

dhw: You do not believe that consciousness = awareness? Then please give us your own definition. The rest of your comment is a direct repetition of my own (now bolded). Thank you for your agreement.

Awareness is just one aspect of consciousness as experienced by humans. I will only accept that animals are conscious and therefore are aware. Complete consciousness which means the ability to conceptualize, to have abstract thoughts and to be aware that they are aware is only found in human consciousness. You are trying to smudge Adler's point that we are different in kind!

dhw: (re “Liver study”) Communication and self-organization are attributes of intelligence. As always, I propose that these processes are now automatic (until things go wrong), but the cell communities themselves would have used their perhaps God-given intelligence to set up the system in the first place.

DAVID: God gave them intelligent instructions to follow. They do not have their own innate intelligence.

dhw: Stated with absolute authority, but many scientists disagree with you.

DAVID: You have three/four on your side. ID has hundreds.

dhw: ID does not propose that 3.8 billion years ago your God preprogrammed all plants and bacteria to adapt and innovate in response to every single environmental change in the history of life, or that he popped in to dabble each one. Please stop pretending that ID offers anything beyond the argument for Intelligent Design. Many scientists believe that bacteria and plants have their own form of intelligence. This is not an argument against ID. It can be argued that their intelligence was designed by your God.

You are correct that ID declares there is a designer. I have never discussed my extrapolations with any of them, but mine are based on the need for and the existence of a designer.