Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

"But according to the decades-long research of Dr. Peter Fenwick"--what research?

All I had to do was search the interweb for "Dr. Peter Fenwick", and I found lots of links. It seems Dr Fenwick's research into near-death experiences is well-documented....

[Terrapin Station]

Looking through Fenwick's publication history, it looks like his "research" into this has mostly been NDE crap. NDEs can't be taken as evidence of anything other than mental phenomena experienced while the person's brain is still or is once again active.

[Terrapin Station]

Just posted the above after seeing your post.

Again, it's crap. NDE "research" is crap aside from anecdotally telling us mental phenomena experienced in particular medical states.

Most of research has nothing to do with this, by the way. His actual area of specialty has been epilepsy.

[Consul]

While the general status quo may be (or has been for the past +50 years) that consciousness originates in the animal brain, it appears that increasingly the status quo of science is moving away from that idea with more serious mainstream consideration of Panpsychism as an example.

Well, no, it doesn't appear so.

The following research may be an example of an available clue that consciousness per se may not require a complex animal brain.

QUOTE>
Consciousness is a property of the universe that is filtered by the brain

According to the decades-long research of Dr. Peter Fenwick (Cambridge, UK), a highly regarded neuropsychologist who has been studying the human brain, consciousness, and the phenomenon of near death experience (NDE) for 50 years consciousness cannot be an emergent property of the brain and its metabolism. Fenwick believes that consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity.

In Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it. As odd as this idea might seem at first, there are some analogies that bring the concept into sharper focus. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -the-brain
<QUOTE

If Dr. Peter Fenwick's idea is correct, plants may simply have developed a different mechanism to filter the consciousness property of the Universe.

The problem is that there are no good reasons to believe that Fenwick's idea is correct.
Anyway, consciousness isn't a kind of stuff that can be "filtered" like coffee. Consciousness isn't a kind of matter, energy, or force. And what does it even mean to say that consciousness is "an inherent property of the universe itself"? That space or spacetime, or "prime matter" as a whole is one subject of consciousness? Does this make any sense?

QUOTE>
"[D]espite his impressive body of research into this subject, there is no current way to empirically establish the validity of Fenwick’s cosmic consciousness hypothesis. Ultimately, it aligns more with faith than science. Thus it seems the answer to the question in this post’s title is “No.” There is no empirically established explanatory framework for understanding how consciousness can exist independently and outside of the brain."

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -the-brain
<QUOTE

When it concerns morality in general, it would be about determining the need and applicability of a base level of respect. If plants are conscious creatures that are capable of fulfilling a vital role in animal life, not just for what has been but for what may come, then perhaps it is important to provide plants with a certain attention/respect that will enable them to perform well/better. If the concept of a shared dream between a plant and an animal is essential, it may be important to shape culture so that such potential can exist and advance. The concept of the discovery of a "shared purpose" may be essential for nature to prosper.

QUOTE>
"Why is anthropomorphism resurgent in biology today? In the most extreme case, all forms of life, even prokaryotes, are said to possess consciousness. This new wave of Romantic biology appears to have been inspired by a justifiable concern about humanity’s continuing ecological degradation of the biosphere: the loss of habitats and biodiversity, the over-exploitation of natural resources, and the crisis of climate change (see Outstanding Question). PN [Plant Neurobiology] has its roots in plant ecology and its philosophical offshoot, the Gaia hypothesis, rather than plant physiology, and an ethical perspective permeates its intellectual foundation. Monica Gagliano makes this clear in the concluding paragraph of one of her articles:
—
And lastly, questions about the cognitive capacities of animals and specifically, animal consciousness often play a role in discussions about animal welfare and moral status. This debate has been recently extended to include plants and as experimental evidence for the cognitive capacities of plants accrues, the controversial (or even taboo) topic regarding their welfare and moral standing and our ethical responsibility toward them can no longer be ignored.
—
While we agree entirely that biodiversity needs to be protected, we strongly object to the implication that plant consciousness, intentionality, and cognition are moral or ethical questions. A scientific understanding of nature requires only that we seek the truth."
———
"Outstanding Questions

*Can plant behavioral responses be habituated? Thus far, there is only one positive report, in Mimosa pudica, but additional controls are needed. These experiments with mimosa need to be repeated by other labs, and the findings extended to other plant responses and other organisms to establish their generality.

* Do plant behavioral responses show classical conditioning? Thus far, there is only one affirmative report based on phototropic bending, but this study did not control for the contributions of circumnutation and gravitropism. These studies need to be repeated with additional controls by other laboratories.

* Is attributing consciousness to plants necessary as a psychological tactic to convince the general public of the urgent need to preserve the biosphere, whether or not it is true? If the answer is yes, we are put in the intolerable position of having to choose between asserting a falsehood to promote ecological awareness, and maintaining objectivity as an uninformed populace pursues ecological catastrophe."

(Lincoln Taiz et al.: "Plants Neither Possess nor Require Consciousness", Trends in Plant Science, 2019)
<QUOTE

[Consul]

Consul was arguing because arjand repeatedly reported views that were clearly NOT science, but were presented as science. And you backed up these false statements.

Backed up? I remember saying that I thought the ideas being expressed were more spiritual than scientific.

That is to say, they are based on or derived from spiritualist/mentalist metaphysics.

[Terrapin Station]

There is apparently a desire to believe that consciousness is something other than the functioning of brains, to believe that consciousness is something mystical, spiritual, transcendent.

Those cases require psychological analysis of the willingness to believe such things; they do not deserve serious philosophical consideration.

[Consul]

There is apparently a desire to believe that consciousness is something other than the functioning of brains, to believe that consciousness is something mystical, spiritual, transcendent.
Those cases require psychological analysis of the willingness to believe such things; they do not deserve serious philosophical consideration.

Well, most people seem to feel better with a "romantic" spiritualist view of themselves and the world they live in. They're afraid of the (alleged) "coldness" and "hopelessness" spread by the materialist worldview.

QUOTE>
"I shall be concerned to argue that there is nothing in the world over and above the entities of physics, and that everything operates according to the laws of physics. According to this view, living organisms (including human beings) are very complicated physical mechanisms and nothing more."

(Smart, J. J. C. Our Place in the Universe: A Metaphysical Discussion. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. p. 79)
<QUOTE

[psyreporter]

While the general status quo may be (or has been for the past +50 years) that consciousness originates in the animal brain, it appears that increasingly the status quo of science is moving away from that idea with more serious mainstream consideration of Panpsychism as an example.

Well, no, it doesn't appear so.

The media is reporting about it in their titles.

(2019) Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
http://theconversation.com/science-as-w ... ing-126143

The problem is that there are no good reasons to believe that Fenwick's idea is correct.
Anyway, consciousness isn't a kind of stuff that can be "filtered" like coffee. Consciousness isn't a kind of matter, energy, or force. And what does it even mean to say that consciousness is "an inherent property of the universe itself"? That space or spacetime, or "prime matter" as a whole is one subject of consciousness? Does this make any sense?

You may be correct but Fenwick's theory appears to be an option to consider (merely by looking at the publication on psychologytoday.com). There are more indications that a similar theory could be valid, Panpsychism theory being one of them. Neutrinos (Ghost Particles) could potentially be the 'property' that is filtered by the brain, considering its ability to morph its mass at its own terms and the fact that it is estimated that 100 trillion Neutrinos fly through the human body every second.

What does consciousness truly entail? Is it's quality merely definitive by what humans can observe empirically? Or could it be that by the nature of the unexplainability of the origin of consciousness its true quality is likely not empirically observable, thereby opening the door to different manifestations with nonetheless fulfillment of its purpose of which it cannot be said that it is of a lesser value than that of a human because it precedes the human?

As mentioned earlier: humanity is of highest value to humanity. Humans will value their environment, animals and plants in relation to itself. It is ethics and it concerns the declaration of "good" from the perspective of the human. Morality is involved in ethics, but ethics itself is something else. Morality spans beyond the human because it originates from something that precedes the human. The "good" that it intends to serve is real which is evident by the realness of emotions such as pain. Morality involves a universal element, similar the universal element involved in beauty.

"Outstanding Questions

*Can plant behavioral responses be habituated? Thus far, there is only one positive report, in Mimosa pudica, but additional controls are needed. These experiments with mimosa need to be repeated by other labs, and the findings extended to other plant responses and other organisms to establish their generality.

* Do plant behavioral responses show classical conditioning? Thus far, there is only one affirmative report based on phototropic bending, but this study did not control for the contributions of circumnutation and gravitropism. These studies need to be repeated with additional controls by other laboratories.

If plants signal stress it is evidence of a certain awareness and thereby the presence of a 'self'.

Plants signal stress like animals do: with neurotransmitters
https://www.zmescience.com/science/biol ... r-0425634/

* Is attributing consciousness to plants necessary as a psychological tactic to convince the general public of the urgent need to preserve the biosphere, whether or not it is true? If the answer is yes, we are put in the intolerable position of having to choose between asserting a falsehood to promote ecological awareness, and maintaining objectivity as an uninformed populace pursues ecological catastrophe."

(Lincoln Taiz et al.: "Plants Neither Possess nor Require Consciousness", Trends in Plant Science, 2019)
<QUOTE

The true inspiration and motivation to consider plant morality is not a white lie on behalf of a justifiable concern about humanity’s continuing ecological degradation of the biosphere. It is clearly the argument that purpose may be vital for nature to prosper.

The idea that plants are a meaningless hump of matter does not seem plausible.

Vitality of nature - the fundament of human life - is the motive. A purposeful food source may be a stronger foundation for humanity.

[Gee]

I actually tried to, but found that there was not enough discipline in the thought processes that produced the ideas along with too many invalid premises.

Some of the ideas that I questioned are as follows:

Meaningful relationships between plants and us: My home has a meaningful relationship between the walls and the roof. If one removes the walls, the roof will fall and probably break. This "meaningful relationship" does not mean that the walls and roof communicate or talk.

The meaning that you indicate would merely apply to the human that lives in the house. Without the human, the roof in relation to the house would be a technical statement.

So when you say "meaningful relationships", what you are talking about is conscious relationships? Are you saying that a relationship that does not involve life has no meaning? If it has no meaning are you saying that it is not causal? Is this some form of solipsism or idealism?

The indicated meaningful relationship in the OP is different in that the meaning is not derived from the human by itself, or from the plant by itself, but from an interaction between a plant and a human (from something in between of both that spans into the future).

Again it looks like you are talking about some kind of idealism, consciousness.

Plants "talk" to us: Plants do communicate, science has proven this, but plants do not talk.

On what basis could one pose such a statement to be conclusive?

What are you talking about here? That plants talk???

Plants signal stress like animals do: with neurotransmitters
https://www.zmescience.com/science/biol ... r-0425634/

All life signals other life; there is no reason to call this "talking".

Plants are conscious: Yes they are conscious in that they are aware of the need to survive and continue, as is evidenced by survival instincts. This does not mean that they think. It does not mean that they have a "will". It does not mean that they have ideas that they try to transmit to other species. They do not have human consciousness.

The concept "idea" as it is perceived by humans is not likely to be transferred by plants out of themselves, however, when a plant touches the reality of a human and becomes part of its actuality perhaps something is possible by which ideas that are formed by the human are sensible in relation to its interaction with a plant.

Exactly what does the underlined above mean?

By this (a shared dream) symbiosis would be explainable. The plant serves the dream of the animal by becoming a vital part of the animal. The result would be a shared purpose and it could explain the creation of "the purpose" of nature (Gaia philosophy).

Plants dream? Is there evidence of this because it is news to me; I didn't even know they had an unconscious mind (which would be the minimum required for dreaming). There are other things that could try to explain the Gaia philosophy.

Clearly the original poster, and every other poster that I have read here, has no idea of the complexity of the concept of "self", as the original poster seems to misunderstand it, and no one else questioned that misunderstanding.

At base, I merely stated that when it is considered a fact that plants "talk" that the presence of a 'self' is evident.

No that does not make the presence of a "self" evident. Baby dolls, radios, and robots "talk", does that mean that they have a "self"? I can't imagine how you decided that talking and self were related.

If you want to prove that plants have a "self", it is easy. All life has survival instincts, aka self preservation, so all life has a self that it is trying to preserve, to make survive. After that it starts to get complex, because there are more selfs and there are larger and smaller selfs, like the self of your family, your race, your nation, your specie, your planet, and maybe your Universe. Then it gets more complicated even if you don't address issues like reincarnation: I think Dennett decided that self did not really exist. (chuckle) But you can look up "self" in Wiki to get an idea of the problems involved with this idea.

If we are going to get technical, all of the cells in your body 'talk' to other cells and other systems in your body, and all life is intelligent. So according to your ideas here, there is a good possibility that it would be immoral to pick a scab, cut off a toe nail, cut your hair, or scratch your backside, as you may be damaging cells.

No one has even considered what is required for a specie to be moral. Nor considered that emotion is necessary. Nor considered that a life form needs the ability to conceptualize in order to experience emotion. Generally speaking, it is well accepted that a brain is required in order to conceptualize.

Is emotion necessary for morality? I beg to differ.

Well you can beg all you want, but there is a reason why spirituality and morality are both studied by religion, and that reason is that religion studies emotion, and both of those ideas are based in emotion. All morality is, is laws and rules that are guided by emotion; conceptualizing that emotion is what makes them good or bad (evil). Spirituality is also conceptualized emotion.

Emotion as it is perceived by humans is essentially a functional biochemical process in response of something that precedes that process, something of which it can be stated that it is real.

I agree that emotion is real, whereas I am not sure how real thought actually is, but you are missing a step. Consider that when you have surgery, you feel no emotion. This is because knowledge of the "biochemical processes" are cut off from the brain and from your knowing, so you have no emotional response -- like a vegetable.

The actual 'biochemical process' produces an attraction/repulsion or want that works much like magnets in many ways. Knowledge of that want or repulsion is what we interpret as emotion. But this also works top down and bottom up, because knowledge of emotional ideas can also cause biochemical processes -- like a blush. But without thought, knowledge, there is no actual emotion. This requires conceptualization, knowledge, a brain of some kind.

A plant may have formed a different system by which that which precedes the senses is valued in relation to its 'self'.

May have? You are stretching here.

If a plant does not have a 'self', how could it develop a symbiosis with animals?

I don't see where a plant's 'self' would have anything to do with it. On the other hand, a larger 'self', like an ecosystem or Gaia, might have something to do with it.

For symbiosis to be possible, the plant must be aware of the interests of others (animals) before it can develop in a way that serves that other. (In most cases) it is not the other that is creating something in the plant. The plant is giving it.

I don't see where it has to be aware of the interests of others. Give me an example.

Why are flowers beautiful for animals/humans? Is it plausible to assume that the beauty of flowers is an accident?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Flowers are beautiful; weeds are ugly -- to some, but not to others.

These are some of the issues that would have to be addressed in order for me to seriously consider the idea expressed in the topic title.
Gee

Considering the recent scientific discoveries that plants may have something similar to neurons, there is a basis to consider that plants may in fact be capable of intelligence and thus it would be relevant to question whether plants deserve moral consideration.

I think that all life has some intelligence, which is why it evolves, but is intelligence alone a cause for morality? If so, can I be sued or maybe jailed for throwing my smart phone on the ground?

Gee

[psyreporter]

So when you say "meaningful relationships", what you are talking about is conscious relationships? Are you saying that a relationship that does not involve life has no meaning? If it has no meaning are you saying that it is not causal? Is this some form of solipsism or idealism?

When one views the world, one essentially looks into infinity until one meets an object. Pattern recognition introduces a "begin" by which the world becomes finite and definable. Meaning that is derived thereof is relative only to the individual self.

When one views another 'self' a special situation arises by which one's view into infinity meets another view into infinity. Pattern recognition cannot find a begin or end and meaning therefor is applicable to a "shared future".

The 'self' can exploit the other as an object, an example being a chicken farm with barbaric circumstances. However, at question is (for me), would morality be applicable by which the potential "good" that is possible, may be enhanced?

What are you talking about here? That plants talk???

All life signals other life; there is no reason to call this "talking".

The concept "talk" may be invalid by definition. Communicating meaningfully may be more appropriate. Yes, I believe that plants are capable of that. But at question will be: what could a plant possibly intend to communicate in relation to a human? Perhaps it is very little in the 'fast time space' that is most relevant to the human (i.e. the human wants to eat every day). It is likely that potential communication is far from the scope of what humans consider sensible from their individual perspective. By sharing its actuality with another being and thereby becoming part of it, the relation itself provides sensibility for the human. The fullest sense of a plant complements the fullest sense of the human/animal.

As presumably being a "slow animal", a response by the plant may span many years to thousands of years.

What is required for a plant to prosper, not just in and of themselves, but in a shared future with a human? It may be vital that the human develops morality by which the plant can be given that which it needs.

The concept "idea" as it is perceived by humans is not likely to be transferred by plants out of themselves, however, when a plant touches the reality of a human and becomes part of its actuality perhaps something is possible by which ideas that are formed by the human are sensible in relation to its interaction with a plant.

Exactly what does the underlined above mean?

What would happen when a plant would communicate that it observes the human 'self', is that the human can consider its 'self' observed by which the plant has become an extension of what is considered a manifestation of intelligence by the human 'self'. The plant achieves a state of fulfillment of the human potential to be observed as what it is. It can result in a moment of awe.

On plant scales some aspects may span thousands of years. But it may be considered apparent that a symbiosis has started at some point in time, and that it would imply the requirement of awareness of the animal by the plant.

Plants dream? Is there evidence of this because it is news to me; I didn't even know they had an unconscious mind (which would be the minimum required for dreaming). There are other things that could try to explain the Gaia philosophy.

Plants may become part of what is experienced as a dream by the animal. The plant itself likely has a different experience but that doesn't mean that what is experienced as a dream by the animal in relation to the plant is not sensible for the plant.

The plants would not need to dream like an animal. The plant would merely complement it as being and provide sensibility and potential for fulfilment.

With 'dream' I intend to denote imagination for a better future (a dream to be fulfilled) or to derive purpose.

No that does not make the presence of a "self" evident. Baby dolls, radios, and robots "talk", does that mean that they have a "self"? I can't imagine how you decided that talking and self were related.

If you want to prove that plants have a "self", it is easy. All life has survival instincts, aka self preservation, so all life has a self that it is trying to preserve, to make survive. After that it starts to get complex, because there are more selfs and there are larger and smaller selfs, like the self of your family, your race, your nation, your specie, your planet, and maybe your Universe. Then it gets more complicated even if you don't address issues like reincarnation: I think Dennett decided that self did not really exist. (chuckle) But you can look up "self" in Wiki to get an idea of the problems involved with this idea.

If we are going to get technical, all of the cells in your body 'talk' to other cells and other systems in your body, and all life is intelligent. So according to your ideas here, there is a good possibility that it would be immoral to pick a scab, cut off a toe nail, cut your hair, or scratch your backside, as you may be damaging cells.

The consideration of morality for plants does not entail that it is immoral to for example cut a plant. The questions that arise out of moral consideration could be of a different nature. For example, it could entail how or when to cut a plant or how to shape human culture for optimal treatment of/interaction with a plant.

When one intends to achieve the ultimate condition for human and plant life to prosper, morality may be essential.

Chickens can easily remain in a healthy/liveable condition in chicken farms under extreme harsh conditions, while growing up with their feet in a layer of feces by which their feet rot. However, after a few hundred years, will the chicken as a specie have evolved in the most optimal way, by which in turn, it can complement the human in the best way?

With cows it can be seen that the specie is driven to extinction.

The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction
https://qz.com/1649587/the-way-we-breed ... xtinction/

For plants similar questions may be applicable. Morality may be important for plants - and nature as a bigger whole - to prosper when human science evolves further, for example considering the developments in synthetic biology and GMO.

Exponential growth introduces unique and serious risks by which morality may be vital to prevent potential fatal flaws in human evolution.

Well you can beg all you want, but there is a reason why spirituality and morality are both studied by religion, and that reason is that religion studies emotion, and both of those ideas are based in emotion. All morality is, is laws and rules that are guided by emotion; conceptualizing that emotion is what makes them good or bad (evil). Spirituality is also conceptualized emotion.

Beg to differ is an expression that one considers to have a reason to doubt an argument while maintaining that it is merely an opinion.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... o%20differ

I agree that emotion is real, whereas I am not sure how real thought actually is, but you are missing a step. Consider that when you have surgery, you feel no emotion. This is because knowledge of the "biochemical processes" are cut off from the brain and from your knowing, so you have no emotional response -- like a vegetable.

The actual 'biochemical process' produces an attraction/repulsion or want that works much like magnets in many ways. Knowledge of that want or repulsion is what we interpret as emotion. But this also works top down and bottom up, because knowledge of emotional ideas can also cause biochemical processes -- like a blush. But without thought, knowledge, there is no actual emotion. This requires conceptualization, knowledge, a brain of some kind.

In my opinion, emotion as you describe it, is merely a functional end of something that has preceded it. It could be argued that the actual truth aspect of the emotion is thereby not to be found in the process that you described, despite what it entails as manifestation for the human as individual, but in that which has preceded the emotion. From that perspective, plants may have a different method to manifest that same aspect of which it may not be possible to state that it is of a lesser intrinsic value than what has preceded human emotions.

A plant may have formed a different system by which that which precedes the senses is valued in relation to its 'self'.

May have? You are stretching here.

There are scientific clues and some of the studies with new discoveries are from 2019. For example, the presence of neurotransmitters combined with the fact that it has been discovered recently makes one wonder what more will be discoverable and by definition it makes the following question relevant: why did plants develop the same neurotransmitters that are used in animal brains?

Neurotransmitters, neuroregulators and neurotoxins in the life of plants
https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pd ... 41/P06-034

How is it possible that a plant would develop neurotransmitters that in animals are essential for the functioning of the complex brains of animals?

If a plant does not have a 'self', how could it develop a symbiosis with animals?

I don't see where a plant's 'self' would have anything to do with it. On the other hand, a larger 'self', like an ecosystem or Gaia, might have something to do with it.

There appears to be no argument to consider that a 'self' arises out of nothing. A larger 'self' could merely be the result of an accumulation of 'self' when considering that the parts of the whole are individuals. The parts must hold the quality in and of themselves for it to be possible to arise in a bigger whole.

For symbiosis to be possible, the plant must be aware of the interests of others (animals) before it can develop in a way that serves that other. (In most cases) it is not the other that is creating something in the plant. The plant is giving it.

I don't see where it has to be aware of the interests of others. Give me an example.

Soul Mates: Nutcrackers, Whitebark Pine, and a Bond That Holds an Ecosystem Together
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/soul ... -together/

It may be evidence that the tree has been aware of the animal. The tree has made itself dependent on the animal and will go extinct if the animal goes extinct.

Why are flowers beautiful for animals/humans? Is it plausible to assume that the beauty of flowers is an accident?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Flowers are beautiful; weeds are ugly -- to some, but not to others.

I do not agree with that argument, although you may be correct that the beauty of flowers does not imply that the plant must have been aware of an animal observer. I consider the question whether it could be so worthy of consideration.

Considering the recent scientific discoveries that plants may have something similar to neurons, there is a basis to consider that plants may in fact be capable of intelligence and thus it would be relevant to question whether plants deserve moral consideration.

I think that all life has some intelligence, which is why it evolves, but is intelligence alone a cause for morality? If so, can I be sued or maybe jailed for throwing my smart phone on the ground?

Gee

It is argued that plants are essentially "slow animals" that can see, hear and smell – and respond, i.e., that have a 'self' that can have a meaningful relation/interaction with an animal. If such is to be considered valid, then morality may be important.

Plants can see, hear and smell – and respond
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109 ... nd-respond

[Consul]

The media is reporting about it in their titles.

(2019) Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming
http://theconversation.com/science-as-w ... ing-126143

The author, Philip Goff, is a philosopher and an avowed panpsychist. The panpsychistic "revolution" in science he sees coming is a fata morgana. How can he possibly know that consciousness will never be scientifically explicable by "conventional scientific methods"?

"As organisms become simpler, there may be a point where consciousness suddenly switches off – but it’s also possible that it just fades but never disappears completely, meaning even an electron has a tiny element of consciousness." – Philip Goff

As far as I can see, he hasn't given any plausible answer to how an electron can have subjective sensations despite its lack of any sensory apparatus or sense organs.

Moreover, by writing things such as "Physics tells us nothing about what philosophers like to call 'the intrinsic nature of matter', how matter is in and of itself", Goff presupposes the correctness of particular ontological theories concerning the relationships between dispositional properties and categorical properties, and between quantitative properties (quantities) and qualitative properties (qualities), which can be called into question (and are called into question by other philosophers).

You may be correct but Fenwick's theory appears to be an option to consider (merely by looking at the publication on psychologytoday.com). There are more indications that a similar theory could be valid, Panpsychism theory being one of them. Neutrinos (Ghost Particles) could potentially be the 'property' that is filtered by the brain, considering its ability to morph its mass at its own terms and the fact that it is estimated that 100 trillion Neutrinos fly through the human body every second.

Yes, but no, the brain is not a "neutrino filter". Anyway, it's absurd to attribute mental/experiential properties to a neutrino.

What does consciousness truly entail? Is it's quality merely definitive by what humans can observe empirically? Or could it be that by the nature of the unexplainability of the origin of consciousness its true quality is likely not empirically observable, thereby opening the door to different manifestations with nonetheless fulfillment of its purpose of which it cannot be said that it is of a lesser value than that of a human because it precedes the human?

There are many non- and prehuman forms of consciousness; but they all occur within the animal kingdom.

As mentioned earlier: humanity is of highest value to humanity. Humans will value their environment, animals and plants in relation to itself. It is ethics and it concerns the declaration of "good" from the perspective of the human. Morality is involved in ethics, but ethics itself is something else. Morality spans beyond the human because it originates from something that precedes the human. The "good" that it intends to serve is real which is evident by the realness of emotions such as pain. Morality involves a universal element, similar the universal element involved in beauty.

Ethics is moral philosophy, the philosophy of morality, and an ethic(s) is a particular system of morals (principles, codes, rules of conduct).

QUOTE>
"[T]he term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."

The Definition of Morality: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
<QUOTE

If plants signal stress it is evidence of a certain awareness and thereby the presence of a 'self'.

Plants signal stress like animals do: with neurotransmitters
https://www.zmescience.com/science/biol ... r-0425634/

What is a self?
If plants have a certain awareness, it's an objective awareness without subjective (phenomenal) consciousness. When plants "signal stress", there aren't any subjective feelings of stress involved. Plant stress is nothing but a purely physiological state without any psychological aspects.

Moreover, a molecule cannot properly be called a neurotransmitter unless it is part of neural processes in animals. Since plants have no nervous system, the molecules involved in botanical signaling do not function as neurotransmitters.

The idea that plants are a meaningless hump of matter does not seem plausible.

Plants aren't just lumps of matter; they are highly complex biological organisms. But what do you mean by "meaningless"? Of course, plants can mean something to us, and their lives can matter to us; but there are no objective ethical meanings.

[Consul]

All life signals other life; there is no reason to call this "talking".

The concept "talk" may be invalid by definition. Communicating meaningfully may be more appropriate. Yes, I believe that plants are capable of that.

Communication is more than interaction by means of reaction-triggering physical or chemical signals. Communication is an exchange of messages; and there is communication only where there is signification. That is, communication is an exchange of meaningful messages, of semantic(ally encoded) information, which can be mis- or disinformation.

Now the question is whether the physical or chemical signaling processes in plants or between plants, or between plants and animals are genuinely semiotic processes. Are those really emissions or exchanges of meaningful signs or representations that can be true (veridical, correct) or false (falsidical, incorrect), or are they nothing more than asemiotic causal processes triggering some automatic reaction in the signal-receiver? There is certainly a relevant difference between meaningless signals and meaningful signs.

It is argued that plants are essentially "slow animals" that can see, hear and smell – and respond, i.e., that have a 'self' that can have a meaningful relation/interaction with an animal. If such is to be considered valid, then morality may be important.

Plants can see, hear and smell – and respond
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109 ... nd-respond

If perceptual awareness/consciousness requires nothing more than sensitiveness and responsiveness to physical or chemical signals or stimuli, then plants are perceptually aware/conscious of their environment. But that's nothing more than objective perception without any subjective sensations, so it has nothing to do to with phenomenal consciousness aka subjective experience/sentience!

[psyreporter]

The author, Philip Goff, is a philosopher and an avowed panpsychist. The panpsychistic "revolution" in science he sees coming is a fata morgana. How can he possibly know that consciousness will never be scientifically explicable by "conventional scientific methods"?

Is there a sign/clue as of today that science may be on the right track to discover an answer? As it appears, one of the main concerns from an increasing amount of mainstream neuroscientists is that they have absolutely no idea how to continue to look for an answer, thereby increasingly looking at philosophy to continue the quest.

Yes, but no, the brain is not a "neutrino filter". Anyway, it's absurd to attribute mental/experiential properties to a neutrino.

The filter theory does seem to hold a certain level of plausibility. It is amazing that intelligent behavior can be found in something as small as a bacteria, a microbe or a virus.

Neutrinos can morph, increasing their mass up to 3000x in size (maybe more, recently a fourth heavy weight flavor was discovered) which is why the particle is called a "Ghost Particle". What could explain an act out of itself by a particle so small that it can pass straight through the core of the Sun? Perhaps it is a clue for the origin of intelligence/life.

What would happen when a Neutrino is created and actually flies into infinity? Endlessness would render it's begin purposeless. Therefor, perhaps, Neutrino's provide an origin of a force that attempts to render purpose to its creation, with as a physical result the exertion of a mass to interact with the visible world.

There are many non- and prehuman forms of consciousness; but they all occur within the animal kingdom.

What I intended to indicate is that until now science can only provide evidence for the manifestation of consciousness, not its origin. If the origin of consciousness precedes the human then it could have certain implications that could be relevant for inter-species morality. For example, from certain perspectives, the human could be seen on a same level as that of other species.

Ethics is moral philosophy, the philosophy of morality, and an ethic(s) is a particular system of morals (principles, codes, rules of conduct).

QUOTE>
"[T]he term “morality” can be used either
1. descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."

The Definition of Morality: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
<QUOTE

According to Bertrand Russell ethical philosophy offers little more than self-serving argument to justify violence. He developed a disgust of all ethical claims.

QUOTE>
Russell told one colleague that the talk (On Scientific Method in Philosophy, Oxford) ‘was partly inspired by disgust at the universal outburst of “righteousness” in all nations since the war began. It seems the essence of virtue is persecution, and it has given me a disgust of all ethical notions.
...
In private, Russell referred to the essay as ‘Philosophers and Pigs’.
...
Russell’s antiwar protest was so extensive that it would cost him both his job and, for a time, his personal freedom. His theoretical antidote to the irrational, sectarian vitriol between European nations was to try to show how logic could function as an international language that could be used impartially and dispassionately to adjudicate disputes. His theoretical antidote was, in other words, analytic philosophy.

‘The truth, whatever it may be, is the same in England, France, and Germany … it is in its essence neutral’
<QUOTE

Is the formulation of ethics moral? Aristotle's idea that philosophical contemplation is the highest human virtue may be indicative that ethical claims may not be virtuous. The virtue is in contemplation, not in the contemplated.

What is "good" relative to the human? Ethics can serve this quest and provide a foundation for ethical human life.

What is truly "good"? Ethical claims may contradictorily undermine morality and thereby unable to provide an answer. Morality may be found in contemplation, like an act of balancing by which one can be convinced that one has done everything in its power to achieve the best result while maintaining awareness that one may need to discover new insights to adapt or change ones perspective. Morality originates from valuing and uses theory as a means for reasoning. Ethics originates from theory.

What is a self?
If plants have a certain awareness, it's an objective awareness without subjective (phenomenal) consciousness. When plants "signal stress", there aren't any subjective feelings of stress involved. Plant stress is nothing but a purely physiological state without any psychological aspects.

Moreover, a molecule cannot properly be called a neurotransmitter unless it is part of neural processes in animals. Since plants have no nervous system, the molecules involved in botanical signaling do not function as neurotransmitters.

The human concept 'self' may not be translatable to a plant. By using a certain philosophical definition of the concept 'self', it may be possible to describe an applicable concept.

With regard to the requirement of a nervous system, some recent research is indicating that some human emotions and behavior originates from bacteria in the gut.

Collective unconscious: How gut microbes shape human behavior
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 5615000655

What is the true purpose of emotions? While there can be arguments from a mere functional perspective, as it appears to me, emotions are relative to what lays beyond what can be proven to exist empirically. There is a quality involved by which it may be plausible to consider that complex neurological processes are not required to explain emotions per se, i.e. as an origin for emotions. If emotions originate from a factor other than complex neurobiology, with complex neurobiology merely being an extension, then it could become plausible to consider that plants without an animal brain can poses consciousness and a form of 'self'.

Plants aren't just lumps of matter; they are highly complex biological organisms. But what do you mean by "meaningless"? Of course, plants can mean something to us, and their lives can matter to us; but there are no objective ethical meanings.

What is the purpose of life? Plants could be seen as a manifestation of a fulfillment of the purpose of life and by the inability to answer the question what their purpose could be, especially from an outsiders perspective, perhaps they should be provided with a base level of respect. (i.e. respect for their 'spirit')

My main argument for plant morality is that purpose could be vital for plants and nature to prosper, which in turn enables the human to prosper into the farther future (+10,000 years). If plant morality is applicable or even essential, it may be best to start investigating it a.s.a.p.

[Pattern-chaser]

If perceptual awareness/consciousness requires nothing more than sensitiveness and responsiveness to physical or chemical signals or stimuli, then plants are perceptually aware/conscious of their environment. But that's nothing more than objective perception without any subjective sensations, so it has nothing to do to with phenomenal consciousness aka subjective experience/sentience!

If plants have minds, they would be minds developed/evolved in the context of a plant, as opposed to a primate. Any similarities between a plant mind and a human one would likely be coincidental. A plant mind, if there is such a thing, might not even be recognisable as a mind by a primate. If this specualtion is to go anywhere useful, perhaps we need to stop being so dismissive, and simply wonder about what might be, before we dismiss ideas with scorn and a lack of serious consideration.

I don't think any philosopher would be surprised to find, at some time in the future, that plants do not have minds in any comprehensible sense. But that discovery has not yet been made, or at least verified....

[Consul]

If plants have minds, they would be minds developed/evolved in the context of a plant, as opposed to a primate. Any similarities between a plant mind and a human one would likely be coincidental. A plant mind, if there is such a thing, might not even be recognisable as a mind by a primate. If this specualtion is to go anywhere useful, perhaps we need to stop being so dismissive, and simply wonder about what might be, before we dismiss ideas with scorn and a lack of serious consideration.

I don't think any philosopher would be surprised to find, at some time in the future, that plants do not have minds in any comprehensible sense. But that discovery has not yet been made, or at least verified....

What exactly is a mind? What are the necessary conditions of having a mind or being a mental subject/subject of mentality?
A precise answer to this question is very hard to come by. Having phenomenal consciousness or being a subject of experience is surely sufficient, but is it also necessary?