How do we know neurons are necessary for thinking?
Plants communicate, remember - past experience affect behavior - learn and more. Yes, we can’t know that they are experiencers - that they are aware. But they exhibit many cognitive and communicative skills.
Heck, there are slime molds that can solve problems faster than humans.
Does the Cosmos Have a Purpose?
Raymond Tallis argues intently against universal intention.
Not sure what the point is then. If there is an overarching ontological meaning and purpose embedded “somewhere” in the Cosmos, then each of us as individuals either becomes aware of it or we don’t. And there either are or there are not particular consequences – i.e. judgment Days – if we do or if we don’t.
Now, if this cosmological purpose is not in sync with any specific local purposes…what then? Especially if those local purposes are embraced and emobodied introspectively with utter sincerity and devotion.
And then here, of course, this frame of mind had been, is now and probably always will be accepted “in general” by any number of communities down through the ages and across the globe. But then, as the say, in reality, “the rest is history”. And then, some suggest, this means that "those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”
In other words, back to, among others, Marx and Engels.
Here, again, however, I come back to translating what you think he means into a description, an assessment and a judgment of your own behaviors given what you think the purpose of everything is.
As for the actual historical and cultural intertwining of meaning and purpose, one thing certainly hasn’t changed: whose meaning? whose purpose?
And, in particular, once we go beyond “the idea” of them.
Does the Cosmos Have a Purpose?
Raymond Tallis argues intently against universal intention.
Isn’t this perhaps the most mind-boggling part of all this? Taking God out of the narrative, we are expected to believe the existence of Philosophy Now was “somehow” built right into the laws of matter?
In fact, there are times when I find myself wondering if the world I live in now might possibly be a Sim world…or a matrix concoction. Think about it. I’m going to post this to the PN forum. One click and these words will end up at your end and those of many others around the globe. Like immediately.
Huh?
How is that even possible? Especially as there are no wires it can all traverse on. In fact, for most of us, it might just as well be magic. Then the part where we have to factor all of that into a narrative that includes a teleological component?
Yet isn’t that basically the whole point of objectivism? And even the fact that they are competing with hundreds of other One True Paths, all insisting it is their own way or the highway, they simply have too much invested in the comfort and consoltion that comes with having convinced themselves that how they understand the world is really how the world is. Then it’s just a matter of distinguishing here between those attach “or else” in regard to others and those content with just sustaining how it makes themselves feel.
And then how far some will take this:
But then back to the part [for some of us] where these elementary particles interact in the either/or world as opposed to the is/ought world.
Well, let’s just say it is one thing to propose such a thing and another thing altogether substantiating it in such a way that – click – it can’t possibly be disputed other than by those who are, among other things, ignorant or irrational.
Does the Cosmos Have a Purpose?
Raymond Tallis argues intently against universal intention.
On the other hand, if you start with my own assumption that feeling comforted and consoled is often the whole point of embracing one or another cosmic purpose, then all you’re left with is the task of going back in time in order track down the existential components rooted in dasein in order to explain further how you first came to encounter this particular One True Path rather than one of the many, many others.
More mind-boggling still [for some of us] is the utter enormity of the universe. Or the fact that some argue that “our universe” is but one of an infinite number of additional universes in the “multi-verse”. So, to speak of the cosmos “as usually understood”…?
Whatever that might possibly mean “for all practical purposes” when factoring in your own personal meaning regarding, well, you tell me? Then the part where most are going to anchor their own cosmogony to one or another God or ideology or school of philosophy. “I” in the context of “all there is”? No sweat, they’ve got that covered.
The fool! Right? You know exactly what this all means. Tell us about it.
Show me “thinking” taking place without neurons
According to self-effacing libtarded false authority-worshipping simps who instinctively love nothing more than to cut down their own kind and remain obediently self-blind to billionaire corporations and political groups who they naively believe “care about them”, yes we should. As long as “muh establishment respectable publication” says jump their instinctive response is only to respond with “how high?”
I mean, imagine actually hating yourself that much. To compare yourself and what you are and have, with a slime mold.
Average libs be like
Hey, if you ever choose to interact with my post, let me know.
I did though. I asked you for an example of thinking without neurons.
.
Since I started getting out more, I’ve been seeing evidence of that everywhere… those who wanna be somebody/make loads a money, sacrificing their kin-folk in exchange.
Just look at what the British Prime Minister is doing to Britain… guy’s so busy policing the people, he’s forgotten what policy is.
To me, politicians are closer to slime molds than human beings.
1 Like
Which is not interacting with my post: my examples, for example. You know in science they used to deny that animals were conscious and thought. We have had a bias to not granting things unlike us consciousness, intelligence, thinking, motivations, etc. And part of the problem was that one could not show the thinking. So, animals were considered more or less chemical machines, batches of reflexes. Then the obvious was acknowledged. Of course, animists, many people who worked with animals or owned animals knew that animals were conscious and thoughts. Of course, animals have neurons, but I am talking about the bias which is now hovering around plants. They exhibit signs we consider intelligent in humans…but I mentioned this earlier.
Further…
You haven’t answered my question: How do we know that neurons are necessary for thinking?
So we package our meaning in words, and the brain feels the package/part as a neuron (think of neuron as a part of speech, but not if it just existed all by itself). We can definitely do artificial versions of that. Not that we are the original intelligence.
This isn’t too hard to imagine when you realize that DNA is a language that does the same thing.
And our irreducibly complex brains are hardwired for language.
I still need to nail down how they distinguish between animal language, and human language, because there is some overlap. Human language allows for freedom and creativity, but apparently there are variations of that in other animals as well. Maybe even trees.
Imagine a mind whose body is the universe. Just a random little thought I thought I’d add at the end.
Not a new thought, on matters of the universe…
True. But it’s not pantheism. And doesn’t necessarily have all the baggage panentheism usually gets loaded up with.
.
I said anything about pantheism…
Didn’t think so!
1 Like
I’m not denying that animals have to some degree and in some ways what we call consciousness, or that animals have something akin to what we call thinking. Of course they do, that is obvious by observing them and then seeing how they work internally.
My point is that no such parallel observations or internal examination of plants yields the same result. At least not as far as I’ve seen. You didn’t mention again the points you made previously about what these signs are, so I had to scroll back and try to find that.
You said,
"Plants respond to stimuli, for example. Plants take measures in response to threats and they communicate about threats to other plants, not just intraspecies. Plants seem to remember and learn.
How do we know neurons are necessary for thinking?
Plants communicate, remember - past experience affect behavior - learn and more. Yes, we can’t know that they are experiencers - that they are aware. But they exhibit many cognitive and communicative skills.
Heck, there are slime molds that can solve problems faster than humans. "
Rocks also respond to stimuli. If you smash one with a hammer it might break in half.
Plants respond to threats by doing things like growing spikes or producing poisons. They do this because of natural selection. Not because the plant sat around observing the threat and thinking “ok I will formulate a poisonous concoction and excrete it from my pores to defend myself”.
How do plants communicate to each other or inter-species? That’s new to me.
How do plants remember and learn? That’s also new to me. I’m curious what sort of examples you have for these.
Slime molds can solve some problems faster than humans, so can computers. So can amoebas. It depends on the problem and the scale we are talking about, and how the organism in question has been designed by natural selection (or is utilizing active intelligence in the moment, like humans do) to respond to the problem. An amoeba can respond quickly to light by extending a pseudopod to push it away from the light, but that doesn’t mean it is thinking or understands what it is doing. It is just a hard-wired stimulus-response pattern in its DNA as a result of natural selection.
“How do we know neurons are necessary for thinking?” We don’t know that, but so far the only examples of thinking we have are the thinking that comes from organisms endowed with neurons. Not just any neurons but highly complex and organized billions and billions of them.
I suppose we need to define what we mean by thinking in order to avoid the fallacy of talking past one another. For me, thinking inherently involves aspects of what we call intelligence, perception, subjectivity/self-perspective, and mind or inner mentality. Basically I understand thinking as not just a process of producing result outputs from some set of stimuli, but an internalization of sorts, a self-perspectival process by which an inner-‘mind’s eye’ occurs within a larger space of active processing of information receiving inputs, like for us via our senses for example; these inputs pass from the broader background context we might call proprioception or raw perception, or the unconscious as well, pass into what we call the inner mind’s eye or the self, “I” which is self-perceiving itself against the background of both its own body and the outside environment, forming an inherent juxtaposition and element of contrast within which it separates itself from those other stimuli and a categorical differentiation occurs: self vs other. Me, and not-me. For me this is intrinsic to what we call thinking, otherwise thinking can be said to be nothing but any kind of rational or calculation process pairing outputs to inputs. And within the context of this whole subjectivity “I” thing, thinking itself can be parsed out as the aspect of that context which is engaged in what we call rational calculation, utilizing logic to form step by step conclusions and objects in time and space separated as images perceived internally as part of that same “I” space. The thinking as far as I understand it is the part of the subjectivity/mind/consciousness that engages with logical step by step conclusions and forming inner images that occupy inner subjective space and exist across time, across a series of moments. That way the process can be observed internally and we can thereby extract new truths by observing different stages along that process, from start to finish. This whole inner process of thinking as we call it then produces some kind of result or outcome, which we can then apply to the world around us to gain more insight, solve a problem, learn something new, avoid a danger, etc.
Anyway that is my long winded attempt to explain what thinking is, as far as I understand it. I’m sure I said some of it poorly and there is more to be said. But I am curious what is your understanding or definition of thinking?
Rocks? Rocks don’t communicate or learn. They don’t share resources with weak peers, for example.
First let’s be clear: you ruled out the possibility that there could be thinking without neurons. So, please demonstrate that this must be the case.
In any case:
Plant Communication
Here are some informative articles exploring how plants communicate with each other:
-
The Role of Volatile Organic Compounds in Plant Communication – Frontiers in Plant Science discusses volatile organic compounds (VOCs) plants emit in response to stress, like insect attacks. These VOCs can signal neighboring plants to ramp up their defenses, effectively “warning” them of potential threats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_communication#:~:text=Plants%20communicate%20through%20a%20host,amino%20acid%20derivatives%2C%20and%20terpenoids.
-
Plant Signaling and Cognitive Abilities – MDPI’s special issue on plant behavior and communication delves into how plants sense, communicate, and adapt to their environments using a range of complex signaling pathways. This article covers everything from the modular structure of plants to their sensory systems that aid in survival and adaptation.[Plant Signaling, Behavior and Communication](https://](Plant Signaling, Behavior and Communication)
-
Forest Communication Networks – Suzanne Simard’s research, featured in Yale E360 highlights the underground mycorrhizal networks that trees use to communicate. Trees can share resources and even send distress signals, with “mother trees” supporting younger or stressed trees.
-
Chemical Signaling Between Plants –You can read articles in the Annals of Botany Plants that explore how certain plants release chemical signals when under attack, prompting nearby plants to activate defense mechanisms and reduce their appeal to herbivores.
-
Defense Signaling in Plarnts – Studies show how plants can mirror the defenses of neighboring plants under attack, enhancing community-wide resilience. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Ftpj.15068 for example.
Trees (for example) sharing resources
Plants learning
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep38427
Then, yes, even molds:
There is a lot of work being done in these areas. Three journals which have lots of articles on plant learning, cognition and communication are Plant Signaling & Behavior, Frontiers in Plant Science and Journal of Plant Interactions.
While this is just an abstract, you can see how current science is starting to be aware of its own historical bias. Things unlike us don’t think. Things unlike us aren’t aware. Heck we even used to do this with other races, to varying degrees related to women. Babies were considered not to experience…yet. Anyway, the abstract:
Plant behaviour and communication - PubMed.
So, I see no reason to have the assumption that only animals (with neurons) can think. That’s an assumption and one that many scientists no longer make, which is good since they are then not prevented from learning about what plants are doing and capable of. Is it proven that plants think? I’d say we are in the process. But I see no reason to rule it out and a lot of evidence that they do. Do they experience? I don’t know.