Not convincing enough, James.
Decision entails discretion. There must be multiple choices available for any entity to chose from, otherwise it cannot be called a decision, but merely a law or default action.
If you drop a ball from your hand, it would hit the ground every time. It would never go towards the sky. So, can we say that the ball made a conscious decision to fall on the ground? Certainly not, because there is no other way in which the ball can react. Falling on the ground is binding on it.
The same is with the thermostat too. Its action is not discretionary but a binding one thus not decision.
We eat when we feel hungry. That is our natural action in that particular circumstances but we can chose not to eat, even till death. That is decision because we intentionally opted another alternative. A thermostat/machine cannot do that. It will always do the same for what it is designed for, unless you change its internal structure. It cannot change neither its structure nor its behavior on its own, means, it cannot evolve on its own but humans/plants can do that. That is the difference.
Secondly, a thermostat behaves in a particular way because we designed it in that way. We know that. But, do we know why plants/animals behave in that way? One can argue that they learn and evolve through circumstances. There is nothing wrong in that argument but why a thermostat cannot learn on its own in the same way? Who is asking it not to learn? Why it cannot learn and evolve on its own? What is the difference between the two entities?
Thirdly, plants are not that complex entities biologically. With the scientific means available now, we can deduct and analyze a plant up to the last pat of the cell. Everything is in black and white. But still, we cannot explain its synchronized behavior, why the whole plant acts for a common goal.
In humans/animals each and every cell on the body is connected to CNS through neurons, directly or indirectly. That is necessary for the survival of them. Even a single cell out of control can cause cancer. Cancer is nothing but a refusal of one or some cells to obey CNS. It starts living its own life independently from the rest of the body and we know the result.
This neuron network and CNS in the humans/animals integrates cells into a harmonious or unified entity. If this network is broken anywhere in the body, the affected or disconnected portion becomes non-active, and we call it paralyze. Right!
But, there is no such communication network in the plants. We have not found any. Every botanist would be agree with that. If that is true, how and why roots suck water from the earth for the whole of the plant, and why only leaves prepare food for the whole plant? Why should a stem of sunflower plant should be concerned about keeping its flower facing the sun all the time? How the stem becomes aware of the importance of its function? What is the communicating and binding agent between the different organs or the plants? Why every organ or cell of the plants does not declare Independence from the main body and not start behaving like human cancer cells, given that there is absolutely no governing network?
It is not surprising that a single broken nerve of that governing network can cause the whole of the human body becoming nonfunctional, but many times bigger plants can survive even many times more than humans without having a governing network at all!
James, there must be some binding agent/mechanism/entity in the plants, which makes sure that the whole of the plant always behaves as a unified entity. And, that is consciousness. That is what that creates life in true sense. Plants have consciousness too and, it is such a entity which we are not able to trace physically so far. But, it is there for sure, hidden and integrated with every live form. A live, decision making, intelligent and evolving entity cannot be created without consciousness. That is why machines will never be able to have AI.
You can say that one day machines would have AI but this one day is not an argument but mere assumption. It is must be established either philosophically or physically, to be taken as a fact. Your explanation of forming a particle through RM/VO is perfect but it explains the formation of non-live matter only, not live ones.
[quote=“James S Saint”]
And a plant dies when it has systemic failure, no longer sustaining its nutrient cycle.
Again, that is not up to the mark.
Why a plant or even an animal should die? Why its system should fail? Why they cannot live forever after having established properly once in the ambient? Why death of all living organisms is necessary?
James, forget about humans/animals but plants are there for million of years before them. They had for more time than humans to evolve. And also, look at their journey of evolution from tiny ones to huge ones. How much they have been evolved? But, they have not yet learned to live forever. Why? If survival is most important thing for any living entity, why they have not able to defeat dying so far?
What is the need of dying for the plants? Once established, everything works fine. Unlike humans/animals, they do not have brain which can produce hormones of aging. They do not have to fight for essential resources like animals do. Means, a lone tree should survive forever. Yes, they cannot grow beyond a certain limit because of the limitation of the resources, but that should not cause their death.
with love,
sanjay