Questions of a weird mind

[Elemental]

It's not so much a sense, but a chemical reaction. But you could say that about animal senses as well.

I should probably rephrase my question and make it more specific...
On another thread, we branched out into the old philosophical question concerning the tree falling in the forest, and someone referenced a book I myself had read in which the trees would be very much aware of that event.
To cut it short...
Plants are known to be capable of detecting heat and light, and to feel things by touch.
I know they cannot see, but are they capable of detecting vibrations, whether through the ground or the air?

[Yora]

In which case I think the question is "do vibrations have an effect on the plant", which would of course be yes. But does this effect set of a chain of reactions that is dramatic enough to say it "detected" the vibration?

Put a pot of water on the stove, and the water will start to boil. But we wouldn't say the water detected the heat.
In a plant there are cells that react to outside influences, like lack of light, which causes the flowers to close. Not an expert on plants here, but I assume it's similar to muscles that some cells either relax or contract to make the flower open or close, and the cells will do that depending on if they are affected by light or not. Light starts a chemical reaction that makes the cells relax, and the flower opens. Is that to say that the chemicals in the cell detected the presence of light?

[Eloel]

In which case I think the question is "do vibrations have an effect on the plant", which would of course be yes. But does this effect set of a chain of reactions that is dramatic enough to say it "detected" the vibration?

Put a pot of water on the stove, and the water will start to boil. But we wouldn't say the water detected the heat.
In a plant there are cells that react to outside influences, like lack of light, which causes the flowers to close. Not an expert on plants here, but I assume it's similar to muscles that some cells either relax or contract to make the flower open or close, and the cells will do that depending on if they are affected by light or not. Light starts a chemical reaction that makes the cells relax, and the flower opens. Is that to say that the chemicals in the cell detected the presence of light?

Given that anything and everything happening in animals (and humans) are also based on chemical reactions, I'd say if humans 'detect' light, so does the water.

[Story Time]

...plants are a complex, self-replicating, food source. They will react to stimulus, but can not selectively react to the stimulus. The plant does not make a choice about what it will or will not do.

In this sense, a plant's growth will be improved by energy of music and vocal song. The plant can absorb the energy of the sound and be influenced, but does not quite possess a consciousness capable of determining the difference between the presence or absence of that sound.

[Scuzzball]

Okay, I phrased last question terribly.

What defines a consciousness?

[Ravens_cry]

A sense of 'I'?
Your body is aggregate of billions of cells, yet we call ourselves "me."
I don't know, that's a big question, bigger than this thread, one upon which much ink has been spilled and many hard drives filled, untold hours burned upon a fire of discussion, and with still no definitive answer.

[RockmanDotEXE]

Is there such a thing as standardized rebellion?

[Yora]

What defines a consciousness?

Getting out the big guns, aren't we?

[Eloel]

The plant does not make a choice about what it will or will not do.

And we do?

(I'd have loved to phrase this better, but yes, this is a thread-wide question)

[Grinner]

And we do?

(I'd have loved to phrase this better, but yes, this is a thread-wide question)

That's the subject of intense existential debate. I remember reading about an experiment conducted a year ago which was supposed to prove or disprove the concept of free will. From a neurological standpoint, I think?

[Eldan]

A few other plant senses I'm aware of with my limited botany knowledge:
Gravity. Plants can tell up or down.
Chemistry. It is basically a sense of smell, in that they are able to perceive chemicals in the air and react to them. Also, something like a sense of taste, in that they can perceive chemicals in the ground water.
Damage. Similar to pain, I'd say, they can react to mechanical damage.

[Story Time]

I'll probably only touch on this subject lightly...

The plant does not make a choice about what it will or will not do.

And we do?

I'll answer this question with a question, "Did the apple decide to fall on Mister Newton?"

What defines a consciousness?

"The Third Principle of Sentient Life is its capacity for self-sacrifice[...]"


A consciousness, from the perspective of itself, is defined by its core component, the conscience. A consciousness is a thing capable of discerning the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, without having to undertake an action which results in a consequence of one of those four conditions.

[Gravitron5000]

I'll answer this question with a question, "Did the apple decide to fall on Mister Newton?"

Trees are such jerks.

[Yora]

* contemplating the possible truth of this statement *

[Elemental]

I'm just going to say it can't happen.
If I remember correctly from Portal... The gun doesn't duplicate matter. Even if it did there would be a limit, as creating an infinite amount of anything requires an input of infinite amounts of matter or energy.

However... If you think about it... If we assume that time will be unending, and that is possible to counteract the forces that would lead to the destruction of all matter in the Universe...
You could create an infinite amount of muffins over time. Just not all at once.
All you'd need would be a self-perpetuating energy source with no expiry date, a production method with a one hundred percent efficiency rating, and a way to recycle the old muffins into ingredients for the new muffins that is also one hundred percent efficient.
Throw in a self-maintaining facility with a way to procure infinite spare parts, possibly by recycling broken parts with the aforementioned degree of efficiency and a method of ensuring that no pieces, even microscopic ones, ever float off into the void of space.

Possible, but not practical.

[Xuc Xac]

The fact that the Earth produces millions of fresh muffins every day shows that you don't need 100 percent efficiency.

[Elemental]

Yes. But in order to produce infinite muffins, you need to do so for untold ages.
The Earth won't last untold ages. Well... on a human time-scale yes... But still not long enough to produce infinite muffins.
Doing so would require the construction of a facility incapable of failure. And in order for it to continue producing muffins after new ingredients are no longer able to be sent, it will need to recycle everything it has without wasting any.

[Riverdance]

Okay, I phrased last question terribly.

What defines a consciousness?

I've actually been researching this, and so far what I've come up with is that the only thing that separates us from computers is that we can set our own goals. When I type into my computer the computer is processing the info, but I'm the one driving it with my goal of typing. The fact that we have goals driving us seems to be what brings us above simple information processing machines to the level of "intelligence." A computer can think for us but it can't think for itself. We have to give it a goal and then it can do the rest (within the limits of its programming, not unlike us). There is a much longer explanation to this but it would take a very long explanation. For further reference check out How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker, particularly the chapter, "thinking machines" about the Computational Theory of Mind.

[Grinner]

I've actually been researching this, and so far what I've come up with is that the only thing that separates us from computers is that we can set our own goals. When I type into my computer the computer is processing the info, but I'm the one driving it with my goal of typing. The fact that we have goals driving us seems to be what brings us above simple information processing machines to the level of "intelligence." A computer can think for us but it can't think for itself. We have to give it a goal and then it can do the rest (within the limits of its programming, not unlike us). There is a much longer explanation to this but it would take a very long explanation. For further reference check out How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker, particularly the chapter, "thinking machines" about the Computational Theory of Mind.

I partially disagree. A conventional computer is limited to data processing, but given the proper program, it can do so much more. So long as the task exists within the limits of its instructions, that task can be performed. More than that, a computer can change the instructions by which it is bound, so long as it is programmed to do so.

Personally, I like René Descartes summary of the matter: "Cogito ergo sum". "I think, therefore I am." By considering its own existence, an entity proves self-awareness. Through self-awareness, it is possible to fully consider itself in relation to its environment, achieving consciousness.

Goal-making and the concept of imagination definitely factor into it. I'm just not quite sure how.

[Matthias2207]

I partially disagree. A conventional computer is limited to data processing, but given the proper program, it can do so much more. So long as the task exists within the limits of its instructions, that task can be performed. More than that, a computer can change the instructions by which it is bound, so long as it is programmed to do so.

Where do you disagree? The computer just follows the instructions and if we gave it instructions to change the instructions, it will do that. The computer doesn't choose to change his instructions.

[Jan Mattys]

Actually, I would say the definition of a chicken egg is something that hatches into a chicken. If we took a chicken and surgically switched it's ovaries with, say, a duck, and somehow got them working, would what be laid be called a chicken egg?
I say no.
So the answer is definitely the egg.

The true question is:
What constitutes a "chicken egg"?

Is a chicken egg a egg laid by a chicken?

Or is a chicken egg something that hatches into a baby chicken?

Due to the theory of evolution, somewhere in time there was a thing that was *almost a chicken, but not really a chicken yet* that laid an egg, and from that egg a *true chicken* was born.

Depending on your definition of a "chicken egg", the answer to the "what came first" is self evident.

[Grinner]

Where do you disagree? The computer just follows the instructions and if we gave it instructions to change the instructions, it will do that. The computer doesn't choose to change his instructions.

I had intended for that to feed into the second part, but I see that I failed to make a logical connection between the two.

Are you familiar with evolutionary computing? That's what I had been trying to discuss in the first part. Given time and the ability to improve itself, a computer can move far beyond data processing. Given more processing power, the possibilities only increase.

AI is two things. It is a tool to create computers better able to assist us, and it is our attempt to create digital sentience. The first is represented by "weak AI", and it is fairly straightforward. In fact, hospitals use weak AIs to assist in the diagnosis of patients. A "strong AI" is an actual, self-aware digital entity, but those remain hypothetical.

It's also important to note that our consciousness is ultimately the product of our environment. We are born knowing very little, and we learn to live within and eventually to shape our environment by interacting with it. Nearly everything we do originally aided us in coping with our environment. Now consider the circumstances by which the typical program exists. It exists in a total vacuum and is of a mechanical nature. Add to that the lack of input except for what it is told to process, and yes, it can be assumed that the program will never rise above its given state.

But Weak AI can be vastly improved by applying evolutionary computing methods to them. In fact, one proposed method of creating a strong AI does this exactly and involves creating a versatile weak AI and allowing it to grow further. If also given a large spectrum of input to experience, an environment, to work within, at what point would this weak AI make the transition into sentience? Would it even really be conscious?

[Yora]

The real question is "Are humans actually free-willed and self-aware?"

[Grinner]

The real question is "Are humans actually free-willed and self-aware?"

Self-aware? Probably. At least in the most basic sense of the term.

Free-willed? The hell if I know. It seems like we're always reacting to prior events in some fashion, but I suppose that goes hand-in-hand with the environmental learning I touched on in my previous post. So, yes, life is very deterministic. But are we also capable of true spontaneity?

[Siosilvar]

Free-willed? The hell if I know. It seems like we're always reacting to prior events in some fashion, but I suppose that goes hand-in-hand with the environmental learning I touched on in my previous post. So, yes, life is very deterministic. But are we also capable of true spontaneity?

Squid.

And by that I mean, I don't think it's possible to know.

[Karoht]

I don't think we would know the difference if we were or were not free willed, so I don't concern myself with it too much. It's just not all that relevant in my life.
If we were not free willed, would we ever discover such? Not unless it was willed by the higher power/controlling party for us to discover it, or even give a darn about it.
I take the fact that we are discussing free will to be a positive sign that we might have free will, but not necessarily as proof of course.
Not to say that I'm unwilling to discuss it or consider it, I'm just not likely to get all that worked up over it.

[sparkyinbozo]

The real question is "Are humans actually free-willed and self-aware?"

There's some evidence that our brains make action-based decisions before our cognitive side figures out why, but the difference between that and our reflexes gets murky.

Speaking of not being free willed: don't picture a grey elephant eating grass on the savannah. (I bet you did, didn't you?)

While can definitely be influenced by things like chemicals and trickery, I think we have to believe that we're free-willed, otherwise society's going to have a lot of issues.

[Karoht]

Purple Monkey Dishtowel.

Indeed, society needs to treat each other as free willed individuals. Assuming everyone to be mindless sheep, while perhaps an apt judgement of certain sample sizes of individuals (not naming any particular groups here, stereotypes are no fun), is on the whole incorrect, and leads to poor judgement in regards to treatment and fairness. But that starts to blend into a socio-political discussion, and since I'd rather not ride the line on that, I'll stop myself there.

[Scuzzball]

The real question is "Are humans actually free-willed and self-aware?"

Nope. We're a bag of chemicals. If you have a decent enough sim, you could make a human just based on the chemistry. Thing is, that would be a really really complex sim. I think IBM got a cat running at 1% speed of a real cat.

But how does it matter at all? You still see you as you, and not as chemicals, so the sense of "you" prevails. So as long as we can't get the exact state of your body and then run the sim, it matters not.

But I think that could be where strong AI comes from, someday.

[Yora]

The problem arises when a machine claims to see itself as itself? How do you tell the difference between a machine that thinks that way and one that has merely been programmed to make that claim?

I am all with the "there is no free will" crowd, but that would be the question that would arise.