A field that is being researched with interesting findings:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-green-mind/201412/are-plants-entering-the-realm-the-sentient

I wonder how this affects veganism?

Another good question. Answer: No.

But since it doesn't cost much to establish the fact that not only conscious, but also semi-conscious and non-conscious human mind-body conditions exist, anyone is free to conduct their own empirical investigation: simply observe that people can be awake, asleep, or in a coma. — Galuchat

But if the answer is No, in virtue of consciousness being reducible to a cognitive-behavioural definition, then "consciousness" is nothing more than a linguistic convention.

Hence the sentence "a functioning brain is aware" is analytic, and therefore meaningless, and everyone is free to invent their own definition of "awareness", irrespective of observed matters of fact.

Hence the sentence "a functioning brain is aware" is analytic, and therefore meaningless, and everyone is free to invent their own definition of "awareness", irrespective of observed matters of fact. — sime

I would say that sentence is meaningless because I connected awareness with mental (i.e., mind) experiences, not with brains. In any case, you are correct that "everyone is free to invent their own definition of", not only awareness, but any other term. Do you have another definition of consciousness that you would like to propose?

A field that is being researched with interesting findings: — Rich

Thanks for the link. Javra has mentioned similar research in previous posts. I'm not sure whether the explanations offered are analogous or metaphorical with respect to animal psychology.

Is the type of information being "acquired", "processed", "integrated", and "transmitted" by plants (i.e., chemical and electrical signals) the same type of information which animal minds acquire, process, etc. (i.e., concepts and models)? In other words, do plants have minds which are analogous to animal minds?

If plants are conscious, my psychological definitions No.6&7 need to replace "brain" with another term. Any suggestions?

In other words, do plants have minds which are analogous to animal minds? — Galuchat

There are similarities in the differences and differences in the similarities. These are what we are observing. The mind travels many paths. Analogies work to a certain extent, but only to a certain extent and then we embrace the differences. Heraclitus called this life energy, the Lagos, Daoism calls it the Dao, and Bergson calls it the Elan vital. It is the creative force that permeates the universe.

It is the creative force that permeates the universe. — Rich

Is this your definition of consciousness? And is it a panpsychist conception?

I tend to stay away from labels since labels tend to mean different things to different people. Suffice to say there is a creative force that has memory and will that is evolving as it v experiments and learns.

I tend to stay away from labels since labels tend to mean different things to different people. Suffice to say there is a creative force that has memory and will that is evolving as it v experiments and learns. — Rich

Definitions aren't labels. What is "the creative force that permeates the universe"?

The creative force? It's fundamental and irreducible.

The creative force? It's fundamental and irreducible. — Rich

If so, do you have an answer for the OP (i.e., "how one can logically go from inanimate matter to conscious agency")?

I don't really bother with logic. I use observations of patterns to better understand life.

If one asks me is there a reasonable way to explain how life pops out of a salad of chemicals, I would say no and there doesn't seem to be any overriding reason why one should pursue such a line of thought since accepting mind as it explains everything quite adequate and is in conformance with every day experience. It is only when the goal (no-mind) takes precedence over actual experience (I have a mind) that things get convoluted. As usual, such goal seeking can be correlated with the availability of funding. It more or less becomes a career onto itself. There is a huge amount of economic incentive to embrace no-mind.

If one asks me is there a reasonable way to explain how life pops out of a salad of chemicals, I would c say no and there doesn't seem to be any overriding reason why one should pursue such a line of thought since accepting mind as it explains everything quite adequate and is in conformance with every day experience. — Rich

Fair enough. Thanks.
So, just to clarify: it's "mind" which is "the creative force that permeates the universe"? And do all living organisms have minds, or only some?

So, just to clarify: it's "mind" which is "the creative force that permeates the universe"? And do all living organisms have minds, or only some? — Galuchat

All life can be considered a manifestation of this creative force and one can observe the expression of this creativity in its innumerable variations. Each variation of life shares similarities and differences.

Cheers.

Suppose a panpsychist argues that his pet rock is conscious and that it should be handled with great care

"Human's cannot be in possession of emergent spiritual qualities that aren't already present in someway in so-called 'inanimate' matter"

A materialist smashes the rock and replies

"This rock wasn't conscious since it lacked sensory receptors, a nervous system and wasn't self preserving"

Is this really a dispute over objective facts, or is it merely a rhetorical exchange of subjective behavioural preferences?

How are metaphysical disagreements different from disputes over the best flavour of ice-cream?

In Japan, the Shinto's tie little tags around rocks and trees and put them near rivers- in the middle of nowhere I may add, and on those tags is written the one word 'God'.

Panpsychism is the best theory for the emergence of not just intelligence, but life itself. Everything would make so much more sense if only there wasn't life doing cartwheels across the front of the lecture theatre.

How to understand the emergence of consciousness is just by understanding emergent order through heirachy (thanks Apokrisis). A rock may not have the same type of sentience a living creature has, but that's just a reflection of the type of society the atoms have built. The atoms themselves are teaming with life.

Is this really a dispute over objective facts, or is it merely a rhetorical exchange of subjective behavioural preferences?

How are metaphysical disagreements different from disputes over the best flavour of ice-cream? — sime

In resolving conceptual questions, fact should be the starting point for Philosophy. It is the remit of Science, not Philosophy, to establish fact. The remit of Philosophy is to determine concept coherence.

The OP poses a conceptual question, presupposing that relevant facts have not been established.

So, in order to progress the OP:
1) Have any relevant facts been established by means of empirical investigation? If so, what are they?
2) If not, what are the relevant metaphysical concepts, and which one(s) make(s) sense?

I previously noted one relevant fact: consciousness exists. Criterial evidence: the conscious behaviour of animals.

From this:
1) What are some examples of conscious behaviour?
2) Is there criterial evidence of consciousness in anything other than animals?
3) What is the efficient cause of conscious behaviour?

In resolving conceptual questions, fact should be the starting point for Philosophy. It is the remit of Science, not Philosophy, to establish fact. The remit of Philosophy is to determine concept coherence. — Galuchat

In that case, if a perfectly content panpsychist imagines everything to be alive, and a perfectly content behaviourist imagines everything to be dead, and a perfectly content dualist imagines a duplication of entities, why should a third-party philosopher assume that there is a transcendental fact-of-the-matter that determines who is 'correct'?

1) What are some examples of conscious behaviour?
2) Is there criterial evidence of consciousness in anything other than animals?
3) What is the efficient cause of conscious behaviour? — Galuchat

Consciousness (or what I prefer Creative Mind) behavior is the movement (will) toward organization and evolution (learning).

There are all manner of gradients in such a movement in all forms of life. Without communication it is impossible to create an unbiased (human oriented) definition, though some claim to be able to communicate with other forms of life.

Organization and creative evolution stands in sharp contrast to decaying matter, which still demonstrates some aspect of spontaneity (the probabilistic decay) but can no longer in itself organize. However, it is possible for such decaying matter to once again spring to life when it falls into the wellspring of life as a nutrient.

in order to see the difference in life and death you must first define life. — Pollywalls

That which is self-organizing and creates.

Photons (Light) have long been considered the essence of Spirit, that which sparks life.

With a little practice, one might learn to observe the differences and similarities between that which is creating and that which is being used to create.

why should a third-party philosopher assume that there is a transcendental fact-of-the-matter that determines who is 'correct'? — sime

I give up, why? Seriously, I don't understand the question.

Without communication it is impossible to create an unbiased (human oriented) definition, though some claim to be able to communicate with other forms of life. — Rich

I agree that defining consciousness on the basis of conscious animal behaviour introduces bias, because there are many other forms of life.

Consciousness (or what I prefer Creative Mind) behavior is the movement (will) toward organization and evolution (learning). — Rich

I'm not a biologist, so must defer to others to determine whether or not your proposed definition of consciousness (i.e., creative mind) and conscious behaviour (i.e., the movement/will toward organisation and evolution/learning) comprehend all forms of life.

The last group I would defer to are biologists. They are having distinguishing a tube full of sulfur and a living human being. They need the most practice on observation.

A philosopher needs skills in observation, pattern recognition (the detective work), and intuition.

I give up, why? Seriously, I don't understand the question. — Galuchat

I'm only saying that questions about "life" and "death" and of the existence or non-existence of "other minds" are skin-deep without metaphysical significance, because the definitions of these concepts reduce to society's emotional responses to observed behaviour, and were only invented for the social needs of society.

An abortion advocate doesn't feel empathy towards a fetus, hence by definition the fetus isn't conscious for the abortion advocate.

A pro-lifer feels empathy towards the fetus, hence by definition the fetus is conscious for the pro-lifer.

If there aren't any community-independent criteria to settle the matter one way or the other, then why should we think that there is a mind-independent fact of the matter about whether a fetus is or is not conscious?

If there aren't any community-independent criteria to settle the matter one way or the other, then why should we think that there is a mind-independent fact of the matter — sime

Thanks for the explanation. However, it sounds a bit reality-independent to me.

I can sort of imagine chemistry getting more complicated, but for more complicated life-chemistry to form stuff that could snap together, stay together, and make something more or less alive, seems to be on the outside of possibility. It seems like the ur-life form would have to pop into existence, rather than crawl into existence.

On the other hand, I don't want to invoke an exterior agent -- God, for instance, or some sort of cosmic will.

Solutions? — Bitter Crank

As you appear to be, I am confused by Javra's response to your post. I thought it was responsive and moved the discussion forward.

On the other hand, I don't understand why you'd think that a transition from non-life to life is "outside of possibility." In our search for life on other locations other than Earth, we may find out that it happens all the time. That would be my guess, although I have no evidence to back it up.

On the other hand, I don't understand why you'd think that a transition from non-life to life is "outside of possibility." — T Clark

I do not think it is outside of possibility. I believe it is not only possible, I think it happened. What I was trying to say clearly is that "I don't know how it could happen". Maybe somebody else knows how, but I don't.

I do not think it is outside of possibility. I believe it is not only possible, I think it happened. What I was trying to say clearly is that "I don't know how it could happen". Maybe somebody else knows how, but I don't. — Bitter Crank

I doubt there's any big mystery to it. My money is on life beginning because of some mundane physical or chemical process that we just haven't identified yet.

Time has said something about this; it will say more. In fact, time will tell.

science does not know the cause of life.