We may have to redefine "life."

We are somewhat conscious thinking centers, therefore I would say we are alive.

Plants don't think.

There is evidence pointing to it, and it has not been ruled out.

What was 'science fiction' in the past has today become fact.

Again, this topic is for discussion of possibilities. No one is trying to convince anyone, and I am not taking one side of an argument here.

I am just exploring possibilities.

That would depend on what you define as "thought."

All known examples of thought requires drawing correlations between objects of perception and/or one's own state of mind. Thus, if these things are not present, then thought cannot exist. In all known cases, a physiological nervous system replete with the ability to draw such correlations is present. Therefore, there is no good reason to suggest that all things that are alive are also "thinking centers". There are lot's of things that are alive that do not satisfy such a criterion.

As already mentioned, life requires self-replication. Self-replication does not require thought/belief.

We could alter the common meaning of all sorts of terms in order to fit our own preconceived notions. Confirmational bias often requires just that. The problem is that certain uses of words already have well established meanings. When we are referring to these, we often say 'in this sense'. This distinguishes one meaning/use from another, and allows the reader to better understand what it is that we're trying to say.

By the way, the first link provided rests it's laurels upon something that has already been clearly shown as unnecessary. In order for the argument to proceed, it posits the need for an ether(medium of light travel). It has long since been shown that no such thing is needed. If no such thing is needed in order to explain what is going on in the universe, then we drop the notion altogether. Dropping the notion of ether renders the argument without ground. It is premissed upon an unnecessary entity.

Occam's razor applied.

I am still wondering what difference it would make, or better yet, how we could reasonably apply such knowledge in order to make the world a better place.

it doesn't, the whole thing is like thinking what a banana would taste like if it looked like an apple... in other words meaningless, wasted thought...

Well moe,

It is certainly not meaningless. However, I do wonder how useful it is(or rather could be) to know something like that.

Whatever it is that plants do, whether or not you want to call it "thinking" they do sense and react to stimuli. They adapt and grow and produce a variety of blossoms to attract insects to their pollen. They lean towards the light. They send roots toward the water, etc.

Plants, insects, animals are all a part of a thinking universe of living things. You may see them as separate, but I say they are all connected. The cells in your body... they are all working together and yet they are individual cells communicating with each other and with your body.

People define words like 'thought' only in relation to human terms.

Does a bacteria think? How about a one celled animal? How about a fish? What about a clam or a bird?

At what point does a living thing graduate from whatever it is processing and start doing something you are permitted to call "thinking?"

I prefer to expand the meaning of the word thought outside of human terms. This universe is alive, and it is a thinking universe.

Both of you seem to lack imagination.

Creative you wonder how such knowledge be applied in order to make the world a better place?

If this universe is "simulated" (which is just another word for created) it merely points towards the direction of how it was created in scientific terms. (other than the primitive idea that God created it by magic.)

One of the things mankind has been asking for centuries is the question of how we came to exist. (Sorry to disappoint, but evolution does not answer that question.)

This three dimensional reality meets all the qualifications of a simulated universe. They currently know how to duplicate (simulate) a cell that cannot be distinguished from the real thing. It is a small beginning but it can lead to such things as simulated or artificial people created by nanites from the atom up that would be indistinguishable from a natural human. Not clones, not robots but flesh and blood bodies.

So how would it permit us to make the world a better place? That can only happen when we become better human beings, and use our knowledge for good instead of evil.

you keep working on that...maybe you will create the infinite probability drive

I think that line of work and study would be fascinating.

nothing's stopping ya...

My age. I would need years of college. Maybe in my next life I will be creating simulated universes.

One's preference does not a good argument make.

Is that what you are looking for? An argument?

I told you before, this is an exploration of possibilities, not an argument. Why do you assume I want to engage you in an argument? Is that all you understand?

Do you know how to discuss ideas and possibilities or does everything you discuss have to be an argument?

So do you want to argue about thought?



This sounds like you are only speaking of thought as it relates to humans or higher life forms.
Your statement above begins with the premise "All known examples of thought...."

Please tell me what a "known example of thought" is.




All living things are "thinking centers" with or without the above requirements.



Your criterion is wrong.



I believe you are very wrong about that.

A plant may not think like a human or a dog, but it still thinks.



No, what we could do is expand the common and inadequate meanings of terms to fit what is true.




Words need not be ridged in their meanings. We invented words and their meanings and those meanings are always changeable and expandable.

I believe the word 'thought' best describes the process that all living and all conscious things are engaged in doing.

Well yeah, I'm looking for an argument that begins with sensible premisses, has a valid form, and subsequently offers warrant for claiming that the universe is a "thinking universe". That ought include something more substantial than just one's preference.




Seeing how this is a philosophy forum, any and all exploration of possibilities ought at least follow the rules of valid inference. I don't assume that you 'want to engage me in an argument'. In fact, at this point in time, based upon how you've used the word "argument", I do not even assume that you mean the same thing I do by the term "argument". I'm using it in the standard academic sense. It is not meant as a descriptor of two(or more) folk in the midst of verbal/written disagreement, which is how you seem to be using it.




It can be both.

You already know that I know how to discuss ideas and possibilities. What possible reason do you have for feigning doubt other than for rhetorical effect? You're presupposing that arguments and discussions are mutually exclusive. They're not.

Anything worth listening to and/or believing when having such a discussion has to have certain qualities, validity being one of those and sensible grounds being another. When someone takes the role of making claims about the way the universe is, especially when doing so on an internet philosophy forum, then they voluntarily enter into an obligation to justify their claims. Again, that is especially true when and if those claims are contrary to common convention.

It's not a matter of whether or not I want to call it "thinking". It is a matter of whether or not it qualifies as such. What qualifies as thought is not a matter of preference or opinion. The term is used to describe something that existed before the term. So, what qualifies as "thought" is set out by a criterion that is point-of-view-invariant. That being said...

Stimulus/response mechanisms do not require thought nor sensing. The use of "sense" is misleading. Sensing requires sensory organs. Plants have no such thing. Using the term "sense" when describing how plants DETECT and react to stimulus is to describe things with words that do not align with fact/reality.






Here again there is a significant problem with this account. Saying that "they [snip] produce a variety of blossoms to attract insects to their pollen" is very misleading. It presupposes a plant's intent to produce blossoms for that specific reason, which requires a creature capable of forming thought/belief about fact/reality and then deliberately taking certain goal-oriented action.

Plants simply don't have what it takes to be able to do that.







Dreamy.







Cell/body dualism?

The cells are the body. The cells are the brain. The brain is a part of the body. The body is a part of the brain. Electrical signals traveling throughout our bodies do not qualify as individual cells communicating with each other and with the body.

To communicate is to successfully convey thought/belief about fact/reality.






What other kind of "terms" do we have other than "human terms" that we could use to define 'thought' in relation to?

If by that you mean something like "people define the word 'thought' in relation to what we know about human thought" then that doesn't do the discussion here any favors. It only puts bias on display. The most reasonable path of pursuit regarding our figuring out what qualifies as thought must begin where we know thought exists. We must look at and compare all known examples of thought and then compare those with cases of possible thought.

The known examples of thought must begin with human thought and those are expressed through language. This all requires a physiological nervous system replete with the capability to draw correlations and the capacity to vocalize utterances(to start at least). Roughly speaking, we can know many things about thought by looking in these two areas. The former(language) for meaning and the latter(the brain) for knowledge regarding which parts of the brain are in use while thinking about different subject matters.

If we use this knowledge by comparing it to other creatures that possess similar physical features, then doing so warrants subsequent observation/study of those which have or may have what it takes. I mean, there is no reason whatsoever to use what we do know to study bacteria, an amoeba, or fungus as though they possess thought for there is no justified reason to think that they are capable of it. We certainly are foolish to build any subsequent belief upon such a flimsy notion. Could it be the case that there are other kinds of communication, thought, and what not? Sure. I mean it is logically possible. Possibility is inadequate reason for assent.

However, there is no reason to deny that thought/belief formation happens within many other kinds of animals. The exact content of that thought/belief will always have doubt attached to it, but we can safely conclude that thought/belief formation happens by watching, recording, and carefully assessing certain behaviors.