The most interesting aspect of this piece is when you discuss types of animal consciousness and the purpose of the nervous system. And I had no idea about sessile and vagil states being connected to the evolution of nervous systems. But does this mean that you don't believe Venus Fly Trap is conscious? (like you said in our podcast). I got the feeling in this article that you think consciousness is dependent on a nervous system? Is that accurate?
Venus fly trap is murky waters. Here's what I can say about my opinion of consciousness. A yeast cell is not conscious. A spider is. Where the transition lay is a mystery. There are a few exceptions to the vagile/sessile rule. For example, an anemone and a hydra can inch around their habitats, but at such a pace as to almost be negligible. And it is unclear that they aren't just moving along a chemical gradient of some sort. To be conscious requires some agency. I don't think moving along a chemical gradient counts as agency. Now, as to the Venus fly trap, its difficult to tell if it has agency or not, but it does appear to 'choose' when to close its trap. That is, it doesn't slam shut when the insect touches one specific organ, so far as I know, but rather it lures the creature in then closes on it when it is comfortably gathering nectar or whatever. Frankly, my judgement may be clouded, because I want the Venus fly trap to be conscious. I want this, because if we can say that it is conscious then that implies automatically that consciousness has arisen more than once here on Earth, that consciousness is a property of life, in some respects and not just an accident of nature. Obviously, its not good to let your hopes cloud your reasoning, but at least I'm aware of it.
Well, then in that sense individual cells of your body would be conscious, too, as there are myriad examples of migrating cells that move along a chemical gradient within you. I would vehemently disagree with that, as I have just written 5000 words about how only organisms can be considered to be conscious. Agency, while not this simple, at least requires something of the structure: [input]-->[decision]-->[output]
That's what I'd argue. I believe our cells have a form of consciouness that is much more simple than the organism they are a part of. Doesn't [decision] imply some dualism? :) IMO trying to define what constitutes a decision just moves the ball.Well, then in that sense individual cells of your body would be conscious, too, as there are myriad examples of migrating cells that move along a chemical gradient within you.
Not if you view it as a black box. I'm not making a judgment as to how it happens, just that it does. Dualism only happens when one uses hand waving to force the facts to support one's beliefs.Doesn't [decision] imply some dualism? :) IMO trying to define what constitutes a decision just moves the ball.
Hm. But what if that's the nature of a decision itself? That it is only exists when viewed as a black box? For a cell, I can see it migrate in one direction, then another. However, through investigation I might find that it was due to a chemogradient that potentiated actin polymerization on one side of the cell, etc. Human decisions might be more complex, but are of the same stuff. In that sense, an organism is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm not sure about b_b, but I do think a venus flytrap is conscious to a degree, as a nervous system is one way to respond to and act upon the environment, but not the only way. Even a tree growing towards the sun is a type of consciouness, although an extremely simple and slow one.Venus Fly Trap is conscious?
What would you say to b_b's statement in the article: EDIT I"m just curious because I have just started to research consciousness over the past few months and I'm only starting to get a grasp on my own understanding of it.In fact, consciousness of the world is the entire point of a nervous system. One need only look at who possesses a nervous system to understand this. Almost without exception, animals that have nervous systems are those that move about their environment.
I'd agree that it seems nerves by-and-large function to enable a response to the environment, and that this is the foundation of what we call consciouness. IMHO it's so much easier to talk about complexity of consciouness rather than to try to draw a line at where it 'begins'. It's like life itself. Are viruses living? etc. A complete definition is impossible to construct, whereby the physical reality is completely comprehendable. From this point of view, artificial intelligence is less mystical. Artificial intelligence already exists. The real question we are asking is whether or not we will be able to construct an intelligence that is similar to ours, and thus, one that has a similar type of consciousness.