Okay, I give up; I have failed miserably, apparently, to make my point. Before I go, and hopefully leave this interesting thread to those who share your position, I need to make a couple more clarifications:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
amateur
Okay, thank you for your fast, and very thorough, response, Sageous! It's much clearer to me what your beliefs are.
It's funny to me that you keep using the word "beliefs" when talking about me. These things I'm discussing here are not my beliefs, but things that I'm pretty sure would exist whether I knew about them or not, much less believe in their existence. I guess I'm one of a dying breed of folks from a different age who understood that we all move through a reality that exists as it is, period, no matter how we choose to interpret it, define it or, perhaps, attempt to recreate it.
In other words, there is a basic Truth in all things, even if we refuse to "believe" in that truth... and that truth exists and continues on regardless of whether we humans (or any other sentient beings) choose to redefine it, ignore it, or refuse to accept that it exists. I know this doesn't hold up well in this "if you believe it, then it is true" world we seem to live in these days, but I'll stick with it anyway.
So, in the context of this thread: reality, in the form of biological functions, defines the human brain (and a few others, BTW, I'm not singling out humans here) as the vehicle for intelligence, sentience, and, of course, dreams; its very complexity is what makes consciousness work, and this is true whether you subscribe to the brain producing consciousness or whether consciousness resides in the brain.... which makes me think of one question you don't need to answer but might consider:
Quote:
I don't actually have a hope that plants might dream. I just think that it's possible, and figured it was an interesting subject to explore. I don't think it's been proven that a complicated brain is necessary for consciousness, for awareness (even self awareness), or for dreaming, so I'm just taking a wait and see approach.
If the human/sentient brain is not instrumental in the processes of intelligence, then what exactly is its purpose? Nature isn't really a big fan of creating things as complex as a brain if they are not needed.
Quote:
While your posts are peppered with phrases like, "I have a sneaking suspicion", "I would guess", "I would imagine", as are mine; you seem to have adopted a more rigid belief system regarding this subject than I have is all. But if you're unable support your position, then I think it's nice of you to share how you feel, but it's no more convincing to me, than a flying spaghetti monster would be to you. To me, your answers ask me to take a leap of faith . . . that you are just right. Since I still have no evidence that a brain, or a nervous system, a medium, or even a body, is needed for consciousness, intelligent self awareness, or dreaming, I want to keep an open mind, and stay impartial!
This bit sort of left me floored. I reread what I wrote, and what I see is a fairly thorough (given the format we're working in) set of arguments for what I had to say. Your consistent refusal to consider what I'm saying as anything more than a "belief system" instead of a relaying of what we have established, over many decades (even centuries, or uncounted millennia in terms of our coexistence with plants) of experience, study, and empirical discovery is confusing to me. These are not my beliefs; what I'm discussing here is essentially based in proven knowledge. That you don't see these things as proven is, frankly, baffling. Has our culture of magical thinking reached a point where something is only proven if it is in agreement with someone else's belief system, and I just missed the boat?
My beliefs, and I do have them, of course, are generally unrelated to these things, though I do include them when I assemble a worldview based on my beliefs (including reality in your belief system only strengthens the system, I think)... indeed, I've written a few books, centered on dreaming but deeply couched in magical realism (aka, a sort of mysticism), that reflect my actual belief that there is much more to reality, and our own potentials, than we can possibly imagine, and it is waiting for our discovery (and dreams may well be a tool for such discovery)... but the fact that I believe that there is "more" doesn't mean I can leave whatever is already known behind as irrelevant or meaningless; could you?
Quote:
I'm not at all familiar with this consciousness-outside-a-brain stance, but I was thinking . . . who is to say that "we", all of "us" (eternal, spiritual beings), are occupying human bodies? Seems like, if a person (I know this isn't your position) was open minded enough to accept that an eternal consciousness can and does exist outside of a human body enough to choose what body to inhabit, then they would be open minded enough to consider that maybe some of "us" would choose to inhabit the physical "body" of an ephemeral plant, just to see what it's like to bloom in the desert for less than a season. Or maybe some would choose to inhabit the "body" of a bald cypress, in order to live for 1,500 years, watching the swamp. Sounds kind of nice, if you're eternal anyways. lol.
Perhaps a being could indeed exist within a tree, but, given the physical structure of a tree, it would be an extremely dull existence, with minimal sensations, glacially slow reactions to, well, anything (because a neural net doesn't exist in plants), and a complete inability to communicate with other physical beings, or to be communicated to by them. Now, I suppose that a powerful being could perhaps infuse the ability to physically think, communicate, and dream into a tree it chooses to occupy, but would it then still be a tree? I'm not sure.
Also, your position doesn't seem to reflect this position anyway:
Quote:
I can see that you're uncomfortable with spiritual, or non-physical, type of discussions of consciousness and dreaming, so you don't have to address it.
I reread what I wrote once more, and am again baffled. I literally live to discuss "spiritual, or non-physical, type of discussions of consciousness and dreaming," and I am completely comfortable with discussing them; I do it all the time, and, again, have written books about it.
That said, your OP and subsequent posts were actually not about anything spiritual or nonphysical: you have been saying that plants, in their physical form and without outside influence, might be able to dream, and I was responding to that... ironically, the spiritual stuff came from my comments, and not yours. That you have completely misunderstood me and have chosen to judge (incorrectly) my personal comfort levels is troubling, and I blame myself for failing to communicate my thoughts.
Quote:
And I just want to clear up something I don't think I explained clearly. I didn't post the link to the article by the man with the letters after his name because I thought he was "right", or impressive. I only posted it because it possibly provides evidence that someone somewhere is studying whether there might be sentience or (proto?) consciousness within single cells. And that maybe one cell is enough "machinery" to accomplish the achievement of consciousness of some sort; and if there is consciousness, then possibly dreaming is not out of the question, even if it's rudimentary. (I've still not read much more than the abstract, and I won't tonight! It's very late!)
You seem to have missed it the last several times I said it, so I'll try one last time, in bold so you won't miss it this time: I am fully confident that consciousness exists in some form in all living things, even single cells. What I am talking about, and what your OP demands, is a consciousness with the capacity to produce the higher-level thoughts, memories, and perceptions necessary to generate dreams (even the simple dreams that, say, a dog or mouse might have). I've said that at least three times now, and cannot understand how you have managed to read right over it; should I have written it in all caps?
Quote:
As far as I know, consciousness and dreaming both remain far less defined than a flying spaghetti monster. And since no one can yet carry on an illuminating conversation with any living thing other than human beings, I'm not so settled on which living thing might possess self awareness, and which one doesn't, as you are. I'm sure that you have valid reasons for adopting your beliefs on this subject, because I can see that you are strong minded!
The whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster metaphor, I think, is to remind us that some things are defined, and we really are unwise to choose to ignore those definitions -- even if those definitions are subject to change as we learn more, or build upon what we already know -- and fly away in the grasp of "truths" of our own invention, based on nothing but personal fantasy.
Consciousness and dreaming, though certainly barely tapped by science thanks to their nebulous nature, have certainly been studied substantially, and on many levels by scientists, psychologists, and philosophers. We certainly don't know everything yet about either of these things, and the mystic in me sort of hopes we never do, but the part we do know quite well is about the physiological processes that cause (or support, if you will) consciousness and dreams (and this knowledge has been proven and documented; just do searches for the physiology of dreaming or the neurobiology of consciousness, and I'm sure you'll find lots of information on the subject that might fit your requirements for proof). We know and have proven quite a bit about the brain's participation in the production of dreams and conscious thoughts and memories. To deny this knowledge, or to assume/decide that it isn't known at all, is to deny yourself very important tools for better understanding the dreaming process at the very least.
Quote:
But without evidence that dreaming must take place within a complicated medium (a brain, as you say in your last sentence), and only within a complicated medium (brain), I remain unswayed!
I'm sorry; I had assumed that the brain's importance in consciousness and dreaming is common knowledge, and pretty much a given in any school of thought on the subject. I didn't know I had to provide proof that its functions include thinking and dreaming. I suppose I should have provided links?
All right, I've said far more than I wished to (or should have, I suppose) and I feel like I'm getting rude here and don't want to do that. I have tried, and failed, to state the obvious in an environment where the obvious, and reality itself, no longer matters. So, bottom line here is this: Never mind, and enjoy your search!