It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

What thinks? Where do we draw the line?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89

There is self- evidence that shows rocks are not able to make choices that impact their well-being. That is a difference between the capabilities of a rock and life. But at what point does that start? There is evidence of bacteria making choices (thus using temporal sensing) and I am researching more into how this works. Yes, this is a part of Chemotaxis, but still, how does it work?
edit on 17amSat, 17 Sep 2016 00:33:47 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: darkbake
Calling a response to stimulus making a choice is a reach.

Is it a choice to move your hand when it's too close to a fire? Do you have to think about it?


So you do admit that humans can choose to move their hand closer to the fire?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Indeed. Some.
Stupid humans.

edit on 9/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So what if there was evidence that showed a young bacteria does try to swim towards poison at first, until it learns not to.

Also, there is this:


Typically microbes in aqueous environments continually move around looking for nutrients. Even microorganisms in the soil have uses and opportunities for movement. Sometimes this movement is random, but in other cases it is directed toward or away from something. As a rough guide, bacteria want to move towards food or energy sources and away from toxic compounds. In other words, bacteria are capable of showing simple behavior that depends upon various stimuli.


Source

So are the bacteria thinking? You can check the page for more information.
edit on 17amSat, 17 Sep 2016 03:36:37 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Is there?

What if my uncle was a woman? Wouldn't that mean he was my aunt?

edit on 9/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well, do you think bacteria make it through life without making mistakes (making the wrong choices)? That is what you would have to believe to deny they are thinking. Because then it would all be chemistry.

Also, there is increasing evidence of communication between cells. I've been reading to find out more.
edit on 17amSat, 17 Sep 2016 03:43:12 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake



Well, do you think bacteria make it through life without making mistakes (making the wrong choices)?
Very few, if any.


Also, there is increasing evidence of communication between cells.
At its basic level, communication is a transfer of information. It does not require awareness. Genes transfer information. Chemical reactions transfer information.

Feel free to define awareness and communication any way you wish. But don't call it a consensus of scientists.


edit on 9/17/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
Part of this is the ability to see time flow around us


Time does not exist in a visible form, only "change".
"Time" is just a four letter word applied to measure those changes, changes which existed long before "time" existed.

(imo).



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:36 AM
link   
What thinks????
The assumption here is that you think!
Until it is realised that you do not think, you may assume other things think.

Thought says that you exist. 'I think therefore I am'. Thinking implies there is a thinker - but is there a separate thinker from thought?

Experience arises as thinking and that one (thinking) is divided into a 'thinker' of 'thought' - but there is no one thinking.
Thought just arises - it can be noticed that the thought and the knower of thought arise as one seamless happening.

If you want to understand thought, it is possible to watch to see where and when it arises. Can you tell me what your next thought will be before it appears? It appears at very instant it is known. The seer and seen are one.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Have you considered that the human body consists of 90% bacteria? What is really 'you' anyway?
www.dailymail.co.uk...
Is there really a 'who' running the show?
edit on 17-9-2016 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Very true our guts are literally lined with these guys



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Antwonzilla

Interesting topic and conversation


Thanks



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

I concur best regards



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Well my thoughts are that our souls experience control over a large part of our bodies, but not the bacteria, which are independent. I am also weighing the option of smaller individuals making up a larger individual. This is rather important in my thoughts concerning how culture is created.
edit on 17pmSat, 17 Sep 2016 16:52:49 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Blaine91555

I *am* wondering if cells and bacteria are self-aware, as the ability to learn from mistakes and make choices based on learned data is a kind of introspection.


Thinking and self awareness are two entirely different things to me. Asking if an organism can think, or asking if they are self aware are two entirely different conversations IMO.

This argument matches my thinking pretty well.


We need to administer a kind of intellectual enema to rid ourselves of anthropic projection in biology. It seems to me that we’d do a lot better if we taught biologists to distinguish between language that helps us think (for we evolved to think in terms of agency and intelligence) and what the properties of the biological objects themselves are separate to how we describe them. There’s a fallacy in play here, an Intentional Fallacy we might call it. Genes do not get “proofread”, they get modified by molecular ensembles so that mismatches are changed to match the most methylated (probably the oldest) strand of DNA. Bacteria do not solve problems or learn; they adapt their interactions to deal with changes in the environment, with machinery (another metaphor) that evolved for that purpose (another metaphor).

We understand the biological world best in its own terms, and if that means we have to uneducate our language first, then so be it.

edit on 9/17/2016 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
You are not your thoughts
You are the observor of the thoughts/ideas you recieve
You can have many types of thought but this does not mean you will act on all of them
You the observor make choices
You are a thought being ... thought is your link to reality
Thought actuates you

Yet there is a secondary thought process which is automatic ...
You do not have to think ... "Breath in then out then in then out" etc for the rest of your lifetime on Earth
Though it is automatic and requires no awareness ... You the concious being can intervene
For example "I will hold my breath"

Plants, bacteria etc do not have awareness as such and automatically respond to stimilus be it Sun, rain, soil changes or even a predator





edit on 17-9-2016 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-9-2016 by artistpoet because: typos



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

I should find more specific wording to use. I'm specifically talking about temporal awareness and things like learning from past experience and making beneficial choices towards a future outcome. I'm interested in how that works, even if it is only through chemistry. In the end, I want to compare and contrast the "thinking" a bacteria does with the thinking we do.

I am wondering if temporal awareness, no matter how it is generated, is a facet of life. It seems to be all the way down to bacteria. It is not present in a rock or else the rock would start learning from experience and making choices.
edit on 17pmSat, 17 Sep 2016 17:16:43 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I wouldn't call it 'thinking' - I would call it natural intelligence. A crow has the problem solving ability of a 7 year old child.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

I think that when we first learn to breathe, we are consciously trying each possible way of doing it until we come to a pattern that we store in memory. So that memory was accessed and modified by our consciousness at one point.

So you are saying that bacteria have no conscious awareness? Therefore its temporal sensing would be fabricated? Does having temporal sensing give it awareness?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   


I think that when we first learn to breathe, we are consciously trying each possible way of doing it until we come to a pattern that we store in memory. So that memory was accessed and modified by our consciousness at one point.
a reply to: darkbake

I think we become aware we are breathing we do not have to learn to do so
But by being aware we are breathing yes we can play with that ... for example holding our breath or increasing our rate of breathing
But breathing is automitic we are hard wired to do so upon the first breath we take




So you are saying that bacteria have no conscious awareness? Therefore its temporal sensing would be fabricated? Does having temporal sensing give it awareness?


I am stating what I understnd to be true if you disagree that is fine as we are all trying to understand things and each has their own way of doing so

Having said that I will be perfectly honest with you as to what I truly believe
Which is highly controversial ... but I hope you will consider it

The Universe itself is Intelligent and intelligence runs through all things
Our own Intelligence is a part of the Universal Intelligence





edit on 17-9-2016 by artistpoet because: typos

edit on 17-9-2016 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-9-2016 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join