Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Sriram on November 23, 2022, 04:50:26 PM
-
Hi Everyone,
Here is an article about self medication in birds....
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/23/world/bird-self-medicates-scn-scli-intl/index.html
Shows a great degree of instinctive 'knowledge'....
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi Everyone,
Here is an article about self medication in birds....
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/23/world/bird-self-medicates-scn-scli-intl/index.html
Shows a great degree of instinctive 'knowledge'....
Cheers.
Sriram
You'll need to make your hypothesis clearer.
-
Its an observation that birds, insects and other animals self medicate. They are able to locate, identify and use a variety of substances that they don't use normally, for prevention and cure of illnesses.
-
Its an observation that birds, insects and other animals self medicate. They are able to locate, identify and use a variety of substances that they don't use normally, for prevention and cure of illnesses.
Yes, i got that but you seemed by the use of the term 'instinctive ''knowledge'" to be talking about something further?
ETA: when you use the term 'that they don't normally use' surely they exactly normally use?
-
This is not about self medication but about the bird's ability to figure out how to rid the venom off the toad...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-63699884
***********
The toad's skin contains venom which it releases when threatened, causing most animals that come into contact with it to die quickly of a heart attack.
"Ibis were flipping the toads about, throwing them in the air, and people just wondered what on earth they were doing," she told the BBC.
"After this they would always either wipe the toads in the wet grass, or they would go down to a water source nearby, and they would rinse the toads out."
She believes it is evidence of a "stress, wash and repeat" method that the birds have developed to rid the toads of their toxins before swallowing them whole.
************
-
Any reason why you have just ignored what I asked?
-
No hard feelings NS... I just don't like pointless, dead end arguments.
I am merely pointing out observations that are difficult to explain. I know Natural Selection is enough to 'explain everything' according to most of you. But I think of Natural Selection as just a metaphor. It is as bad as 'God of the gaps'.
-
No hard feelings NS... I just don't like pointless, dead end arguments.
I am merely pointing out observations that are difficult to explain. I know Natural Selection is enough to 'explain everything' according to most of you. But I think of Natural Selection as just a metaphor. It is as bad as 'God of the gaps'.
again, I am unsure about what you are trying to say. What do you see as hard to explain? And what are you suggesting as an explanation?
-
I am talking of consciousness. The ability to 'know' which substance to use in which way to prevent or cure illnesses. In the other case, the intelligence to know how to get rid of toxins in the toad before imbibing it.
-
I am talking of consciousness. The ability to 'know' which substance to use in which way to prevent or cure illnesses. In the other case, the intelligence to know how to get rid of toxins in the toad before imbibing it.
The idea that animals are conscious at least to some degree is not a new one. the general scientific consensus is that this is so. The Cambridge Declaration of 2012 emphasises that point. Indeed Darwin was of the opinion that animals would reflect many of the qualities of humans to a greater or lesser degree, not least because of evolutionary continuity. Increasingly we are able to see, examine and document behaviours which point to the conclusion that various species of animals have a sense of awareness which Descartes and the pervading Christian religious lobby of the preceding centuries denied them.
-
Just want to highlight the fact that Hinduism as early as 3000 years ago (or earlier) has considered animals as just a part of the spectrum of creation with humans beings as just the highest level of consciousness. in fact every soul is believed to evolve through repeated incarnation into different animal species before being born as human.
Even in humans, souls are believed to incarnate at different lower levels of consciousness before being born wise and saintly. The reason human birth is considered as special is because it is the level at which we can reach out and attain higher levels through conscious intent. Humans have the capacity to attain levels of consciousness that make further incarnations on earth unnecessary,
Just for information.
-
Just want to highlight the fact that Hinduism as early as 3000 years ago (or earlier) has considered animals as just a part of the spectrum of creation with humans beings as just the highest level of consciousness. in fact every soul is believed to evolve through repeated incarnation into different animal species before being born as human.
Even in humans, souls are believed to incarnate at different lower levels of consciousness before being born wise and saintly. The reason human birth is considered as special is because it is the level at which we can reach out and attain higher levels through conscious intent. Humans have the capacity to attain levels of consciousness that make further incarnations on earth unnecessary,
Just for information.
Please refrain from posting religious superstition on the science topic.
Do you have any evidence at all for this reincarnation crap.
-
https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruL65FHeAv4
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/202112/evaluating-the-evidence-reincarnation
As Voltaire is believed to have said....why is it more surprising to be born twice than once? (or words to that effect).
-
What bugged me was that Sriram seems to have simply used a potential discussion on the link between self medication in animals leading to ideas of consciousness in animals to introduce his well known hobby horse of reincarnation which has little or nothing to do with the original subject. As I do not intend to get bogged down on the subject of reincarnation, I'll take no further part in this discussion. :)
-
What bugged me was that Sriram seems to have simply used a potential discussion on the link between self medication in animals leading to ideas of consciousness in animals to introduce his well known hobby horse of reincarnation which has little or nothing to do with the original subject. As I do not intend to get bogged down on the subject of reincarnation, I'll take no further part in this discussion. :)
No one is compelling you to get bogged down in this discussion. I was asked for evidence of reincarnation and I provided it.
You talked of Christianity and I pointed out some relevant aspects of Hinduism in connection with consciousness.
-
https://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruL65FHeAv4
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/202112/evaluating-the-evidence-reincarnation
As Voltaire is believed to have said....why is it more surprising to be born twice than once? (or words to that effect).
You've got a few anecdotes. Oh, wow.
Now stop with your bullshit reincarnation crap. This is meant to be the science topic.
-
You've got a few anecdotes. Oh, wow.
Now stop with your bullshit reincarnation crap. This is meant to be the science topic.
Why are you getting angry?!!
-
No one is compelling you to get bogged down in this discussion.
You seem to have a problem with understanding, Sriram. Of course no one is compelling me to get bogged down, I choose not to, and furthermore it was on the subject of reincarnation, not 'this discussion'.
I was asked for evidence of reincarnation and I provided it.
And before that, in post 10, you expounded on your pet subject of reincarnation.
You talked of Christianity and I pointed out some relevant aspects of Hinduism in connection with consciousness.
Yes I referred to how Christianity briefly(less than half a sentence) as an aside to my main point that science increasingly sees animals as having some form of consciousness. However in post 10 you devoted most of your post to the Hindu idea of reincarnation for reasons known only to yourself. So I find the idea of me referring to Christianity as a justification for your attempt to get reincarnation into the discussion to be rather artificial, and especially as you made no mention of reincarnation in your preceding 5 posts. You did however mention 'consciousness' in post 8, and it is that to which I was quite reasonably responding.
-
Enki....the discussion was about consciousness in animals. Reincarnation becomes relevant when we talk of the development of consciousness from animals to humans.
jeremyp.... Reincarnation is a valid hypothesis given the number of cases Jim Tucker has highlighted. Yes....they are anecdotal. That is the way research in such matters happens. You don't expect some instrument to record instances of reincarnation, do you?!
-
Here's a very recent scientific theory of consciousness from Professor Johnjoe McFadden
https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/new-theory-consciousness-proposed-surrey-scientist#:~:text=Electromagnetic%20energy%20in%20the%20brain,from%20the%20University%20of%20Surrey.
Obviously one does not have to agree that it goes far enough or even that it is correct, but it would at least satisfy to some extent where consciousness arises and it would also help to explain consciousness in animals.
-
Enki....the discussion was about consciousness in animals.
Is it - I thought the OP was about animals that had particular behavioural traits that are described in the article as 'self medication', but aren't really anything of the sort as that implies conscious knowledge, but there are plenty of reasons why animals may avoid or actively seek out certain substances that are innate traits and nothing to do with 'consciousness'. Further, if this avoidance and/or seeking out trait provides a survival advantage and is heritable then evolution will run its course and select for individuals who have developed this avoidance or seeking out trait.
-
You guys are taking too much trouble to come up with convoluted 'explanations'. Accepting consciousness as a fundamental attribute of living things is the simplest explanation.
-
You guys are taking too much trouble to come up with convoluted 'explanations'. Accepting consciousness as a fundamental attribute of living things is the simplest explanation.
No it isn't unless you can provide evidence that simple organisms or animals with lower neurophysiology have consciousness. And if you do we are simply back into the whole definitional debate.
So to explain these phenomena in terms of consciousness requires either definitional contortion or accepting something for which there is no evidence.
Much simpler to explain this in simple evolutionary terms, of this nature. Species x, edible matter y that is harmful/fatal (or beneficial). Some individuals of that species find that foodstuff distasteful (bitter, unpleasant etc) due to physiological variability. Those members of the species avoid edible substance y and therefore are less likely to be harmed/die. Hence more likely to survive and breed. Confers evolutionary advantage and over time the population becomes increasingly dominated by individuals whose physiology means they avoid that harmful substance.
The argument works with beneficial substances. Also works with more complex behaviours, provided they can be passed on to subsequent generations through genetic/epigenetic traits, or via learned behaviour. And, of course, learned behaviour in many species is also an important evolutionary trait.
-
As I have mentioned on the other thread....simply attributing our consciousness to neurophysiology is like attributing all the traits of a robot to its circuitry. It is the human using it who forms its core. If not for the human using it, the robot is just a rusting piece of junk, just as the body is just a rotting piece of flesh.
-
As I have mentioned on the other thread....simply attributing our consciousness to neurophysiology is like attributing all the traits of a robot to its circuitry. It is the human using it who forms its core. If not for the human using it, the robot is just a rusting piece of junk, just as the body is just a rotting piece of flesh.
Yawn - anthropocentric nonsense. Get yourself a sense of perspective Sriram.
-
Why anthropocentric??!!
-
Why anthropocentric??!!
Because you see everything as if humans are the centre of the universe and that everything revolves around human-like attributes. We aren't and it doesn't and there is no reason why humans need to exist at all - the universe could quite happily trundle along without humans, as indeed it did for virtually all its existence to date.
-
You guys are taking too much trouble to come up with convoluted 'explanations'. Accepting consciousness as a fundamental attribute of living things is the simplest explanation.
It's just as simple to say that there is no such thing as consciousness. That, of course, doesn't make it right, anymore than suggesting that consciousness resides in all living things.
I see no reason to think that a sponge is a conscious entity but I see good reasons to suggest that a chimpanzee is a conscious entity. Hence I distinguish between the two.
-
Why are you getting angry?!!
Because you are openly bringing up superstitions bullshit on a science thread.
-
jeremyp.... Reincarnation is a valid hypothesis given the number of cases Jim Tucker has highlighted. Yes....they are anecdotal. That is the way research in such matters happens. You don't expect some instrument to record instances of reincarnation, do you?!
How would you try to falsify reincarnation?
This is not science. It's bollocks.
-
As I have mentioned on the other thread....simply attributing our consciousness to neurophysiology is like attributing all the traits of a robot to its circuitry. It is the human using it who forms its core. If not for the human using it, the robot is just a rusting piece of junk, just as the body is just a rotting piece of flesh.
Unless one rejects the idea that there is a 'human' controlling this 'robot' and instead sees the 'human' as the material mind within the 'robot'. Then it makes complete sense and has the useful addition of being supported by the evidence.
-
Regardless of what you people may keep asserting....
Reincarnation is a valid hypothesis. Consciousness being present in all living beings is also a valid hypothesis.
Thanks guys....
-
Regardless of what you people may keep asserting....
Reincarnation is a valid hypothesis. Consciousness being present in all living beings is also a valid hypothesis.
Thanks guys....
They are both bollocks. Is a bowl of petunias conscious?
-
Regardless of what you people may keep asserting....
Reincarnation is a valid hypothesis. Consciousness being present in all living beings is also a valid hypothesis.
For a hypothesis to be valid it needs to be:
a) Based on prior evidence and
b) Testable
Struggling to see how reincarnation fits either. Universal consciousness seems only to fit if you re-define consciousness. But then there is no real hypothesis to test as you are simply answering your hypothesis through changing a definition rather than through subjecting it to rigorous testing.
-
They are both bollocks. Is a bowl of petunias conscious?
Plant consciousness has been discussed here many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cognition
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2018/05/09/a-mind-without-a-brain-the-science-of-plant-intelligence-takes-root/?sh=7f50ac0976dc
-
Plant consciousness has been discussed here many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cognition
Sriram - cognition and consciousness are different things. You seem to have slipped from a discussion on consciousness to one on cognition.
Cognition involves nothing more that the ability to gain information about surroundings via sensing etc. Of course plants are able to do this, as are all sorts of artificial systems.
Consciousness goes well beyond simple cognition, although conscious entities tend to exhibit cognition too. For consciousness there needs to be some element of self-awareness. So this goes far beyond the ability of an entity simply to sense its surroundings.
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2018/05/09/a-mind-without-a-brain-the-science-of-plant-intelligence-takes-root/?sh=7f50ac0976dc
I think we'd discussed this in the past. Realistically this discussion is about memory and learning. Can plants learn and do they have memory - sure they do, that's hardly controversial. And so, of course do all sorts of artificial systems that are able to build up memory of their surroundings and 'learn' from sensing their surrounding.
None of that comes close to consciousness, that unless you head down the most extreme re-defining, requires self-awareness. Does a plant know that it is a plant? I don't think there is any evidence that it does even if it can exhibit cognition of its surrounding, develop a memory of that information and develop alternative behaviours, i.e. learning. None of that is consciousness.
-
The assumption that consciousness is just an emergent property of certain chemical reactions is what needs to be further investigated. Life itself needs to be further investigated outside our current assumptions about it. We have hardly scratched the surface.
-
The assumption that consciousness is just an emergent property of certain chemical reactions is what needs to be further investigated. Life itself needs to be further investigated outside our current assumptions about it. We have hardly scratched the surface.
Do you mean that you accept that the Rishis didn't work it all out thousands of years ago?
Also not sure exactly why this needs to be investigated. Does anyone have any plans for what they are going to do once we know everything?
-
Do you mean that you accept that the Rishis didn't work it all out thousands of years ago?
Also not sure exactly why this needs to be investigated. Does anyone have any plans for what they are going to do once we know everything?
Nice long bath, some chocolates, and a smooth Brunello in my case.
-
What are we going to do by discovering more and more galaxies and how many light years away they are?
At least understanding consciousness, life and death could mean something to each of us as individuals and could even change our priorities and our ideas of right and wrong.....
-
The assumption that consciousness is just an emergent property of certain chemical reactions is what needs to be further investigated.
If you wish to make a claim that consciousness isn't an emergent property of a high complex set of chemical reactions then the onus is on you to provide the evidence for this. Currently there seems to be no evidence that consciousness can exist outside of or beyond the context of those complex chemical reactions, so it becomes a reasonable assumption that it is an emergent property of those reactions.
Life itself needs to be further investigated outside our current assumptions about it. We have hardly scratched the surface.
Why do think there are thousands of biologists and life scientists around the globe working tirelessly on research projects aimed at exactly that - understanding more about life processes. And over the past decades we have made enormous strides forward in our understanding, but you are correct we have only scratched the surface - but to go further requires more and better biological research and life science research. What we don't need to people to try to fill the gaps, in a 'god of the gaps' manner, with incoherent and unevidenced woo.
You like the word 'assumptions' don't you Sriram. Well when our 'assumptions' are actually the evidence-base the that seems entirely appropriate. When people start making assumptions that have no evidence to back them up, e.g. consciousness exists outside of chemical processes, then we are in trouble. But I think we know which one of us bases their assumptions on evidence and which one assumes stuff without evidence.
-
What are we going to do by discovering more and more galaxies and how many light years away they are?
Who knows, but there is interest in it and plenty of funding. There is always the possibility of breakthrough discoveries allowing for improvements in energy use and engineering. In life sciences, for disease control, health and so on. Practical reasons.
At least understanding consciousness, life and death could mean something to each of us as individuals and could even change our priorities and our ideas of right and wrong.....
Meaning and morality are in a different box. People, likely for over a million years, have lived their lives with or without meaning, choosing their priorities and to do right or wrong as determined by their own nature and logic. How will more metaphysical or subjective understanding change that? How will they even agree on any findings or results?
-
Plant consciousness has been discussed here many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cognition
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2018/05/09/a-mind-without-a-brain-the-science-of-plant-intelligence-takes-root/?sh=7f50ac0976dc
They don't have a nervous system. They are not conscious.
-
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/quick-facts-on-iit-the-leading-theory-of-consciousness/
*********
One line of argument takes the principles of integrated information theory (IIT) to their logical conclusion. Some level of experience can be found in all organisms, it says, including perhaps in Paramecium and other single-cell life forms. Indeed, according to IIT, which aims to precisely define both the quality and the quantity of any one conscious experience, experience may not even be restricted to biological entities but might extend to non-evolved physical systems previously assumed to be mindless a pleasing and parsimonious conclusion about the makeup of the universe.
CHRISTOF KOCH, IS CONSCIOUSNESS EVERYWHERE? AT THE MIT PRESS READER (MARCH 15, 2021)
*********
-
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/quick-facts-on-iit-the-leading-theory-of-consciousness/
*********
One line of argument takes the principles of integrated information theory (IIT) to their logical conclusion. Some level of experience can be found in all organisms, it says, including perhaps in Paramecium and other single-cell life forms. Indeed, according to IIT, which aims to precisely define both the quality and the quantity of any one conscious experience, experience may not even be restricted to biological entities but might extend to non-evolved physical systems previously assumed to be mindless a pleasing and parsimonious conclusion about the makeup of the universe.
CHRISTOF KOCH, IS CONSCIOUSNESS EVERYWHERE? AT THE MIT PRESS READER (MARCH 15, 2021)
*********
Which is certainly interesting, but don't forget the objections to this line of approach, particularly those of Searle and Aaronson, and for which I have some sympathy.