The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a
path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved- ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
On 4/18/2026 11:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved- ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
The ICR is still running their grand canyon trips.-a I recall these trips advertized around the same time that the ID scam was first coming to TO in the late 1990's.
https://canyonministries.org/icr-grand-canyon-trips/
Ron Okimoto
On 2026/04/18 11:36 AM, RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 11:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved
a path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-
resolved- ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?
utm_source=sfmc
The ICR is still running their grand canyon trips.-a I recall these
trips advertized around the same time that the ID scam was first
coming to TO in the late 1990's.
https://canyonministries.org/icr-grand-canyon-trips/
US$550 a day to be lied to.
Ron Okimoto
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River >originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a
path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a
path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble
and expense just to go view it?
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a
path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble
and expense just to go view it?
On 4/20/26 2:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a
path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces
created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble
and expense just to go view it?
Just about everything I have ever known has become more beautiful and more awesome the more I learned about it.-a If your interest in the Grand Canyon is limited to looking at it, you are missing most of the grandeur.
Besides, there are other sciences that investigate feelings. Why would you expect a geology paper to address cognitive psychology?
On 4/18/2026 12:50 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/18 11:36 AM, RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 11:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin- resolved- ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge? utm_source=sfmc
The ICR is still running their grand canyon trips.-a I recall these trips advertized around the same time that the ID scam was first coming to TO in the late 1990's.
https://canyonministries.org/icr-grand-canyon-trips/
US$550 a day to be lied to.
It is difficult to imagine what they tell the rubes.-a The canyon is a mile deep.-a There are trilobite fossils in the lower levels of the canyon.-a They have animal tracks fossilized in some of the more recent sedimentary layers that were supposed to have been laid down by the flood.-a These were fresh water sand dunes (likely desert dunes) that would have had to be created during the global flood and some hardy survivors would have been walking around on them.-a This would all have had to be happening as the continents moved thousands of miles to their present position in the single year of the flood.-a They really believe that the Atlantic basin was created during the flood.-a My guess is with all that crustal movement and subduction in other regions of the earth that what was left was rubble or molten rock.-a Over 65 million years of continental drift occuring within one year.
Ron Okimoto
Ron Okimoto
On 2026/04/20 3:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a
path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces
created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
It's called "neuro chemistry."
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble
and expense just to go view it?
Their brains.
WTF?
On 4/20/26 2:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a
path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces
created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble
and expense just to go view it?
Just about everything I have ever known has become more beautiful and
more awesome the more I learned about it. If your interest in the Grand >Canyon is limited to looking at it, you are missing most of the grandeur.
Besides, there are other sciences that investigate feelings. Why would
you expect a geology paper to address cognitive psychology?
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:24:57 -0600, ShyDavid
<noreply@murdermingle.com> wrote:
On 2026/04/20 3:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces
created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
It's called "neuro chemistry."
Well that's not the most erudite explanation I've ever been given.
Sounds like an irreligious version of 'Godidit'.
On 2026/04/21 7:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:24:57 -0600, ShyDavid
<noreply@murdermingle.com> wrote:
On 2026/04/20 3:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to >>>>> shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces >>>> created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything >>>> to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when >>>> they see a it.
It's called "neuro chemistry."
Well that's not the most erudite explanation I've ever been given.
Sounds like an irreligious version of 'Godidit'.
Reality does not care about your "sounds like." I stated a demonstrable fact.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a
path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble
and expense just to go view it?
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:32:24 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces
created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble
and expense just to go view it?
Just about everything I have ever known has become more beautiful and
more awesome the more I learned about it. If your interest in the Grand
Canyon is limited to looking at it, you are missing most of the grandeur.
Never suggested that my interest is limited in that way; I experience
awe and grandeur in many things, not least the actual ability of
science to reveal so much about nature.
Besides, there are other sciences that investigate feelings. Why would
you expect a geology paper to address cognitive psychology?
I wouldn't expect it but my question was not directed at that paper or
its authors, it was directed at people here, especially those who
insist there is a materialistic explanation for everything. I'm
interested in hearing what they have to offer as explanation for the
sense of awe and wonder that seems unique to humans as a species but apparently there is not much on offer.
On 4/21/26 7:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:32:24 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Never suggested that my interest is limited in that way; I experience
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to >>>>> shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces >>>> created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything >>>> to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when >>>> they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble >>>> and expense just to go view it?
Just about everything I have ever known has become more beautiful and
more awesome the more I learned about it. If your interest in the Grand >>> Canyon is limited to looking at it, you are missing most of the grandeur. >>
awe and grandeur in many things, not least the actual ability of
science to reveal so much about nature.
Besides, there are other sciences that investigate feelings. Why would
you expect a geology paper to address cognitive psychology?
I wouldn't expect it but my question was not directed at that paper or
its authors, it was directed at people here, especially those who
insist there is a materialistic explanation for everything. I'm
interested in hearing what they have to offer as explanation for the
sense of awe and wonder that seems unique to humans as a species but
apparently there is not much on offer.
First, I doubt the sense of awe is limited to humans. I vaguely recall
some indications that it is possessed also by elephants. And until >researchers get busy actively looking for it in whales, apes, and
corvids, I don't think "seems unique to humans" can be justified.
Second, I get the impression many people have the sense that
"materialism" implies mechanisms no more complicated than a 19th-century >pocket watch. Materialism is every bit as all-encompassing as the God >hypothesis, with the single exception of omitting the god, which is >unobserved anyway.
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 09:33:33 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/21/26 7:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:32:24 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Never suggested that my interest is limited in that way; I experience
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to >>>>>> shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River >>>>>> originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course. >>>>>>
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It >>>>> does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces >>>>> created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything >>>>> to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when >>>>> they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble >>>>> and expense just to go view it?
Just about everything I have ever known has become more beautiful and
more awesome the more I learned about it. If your interest in the Grand >>>> Canyon is limited to looking at it, you are missing most of the grandeur. >>>
awe and grandeur in many things, not least the actual ability of
science to reveal so much about nature.
Besides, there are other sciences that investigate feelings. Why would >>>> you expect a geology paper to address cognitive psychology?
I wouldn't expect it but my question was not directed at that paper or
its authors, it was directed at people here, especially those who
insist there is a materialistic explanation for everything. I'm
interested in hearing what they have to offer as explanation for the
sense of awe and wonder that seems unique to humans as a species but
apparently there is not much on offer.
First, I doubt the sense of awe is limited to humans. I vaguely recall
some indications that it is possessed also by elephants. And until
researchers get busy actively looking for it in whales, apes, and
corvids, I don't think "seems unique to humans" can be justified.
"I vaguely recall" is rather rCa well .. vague. I'm sure you would
clearly recall if you had ever seen an elephant gazing at a
spectacular sunset; ora whale entranced by the complexities of an
orchestra playing a bit of Tchaikovsky; or an ape pondering the
mysteries of a rainbow; or a covid entranced by the reflection of some
trees and hills in a still lake.
What particularly fascinates me about all this is that we humans fully understand how these things are simply the result of natural forces,
yet we get still a feeling of awe whereas other species who don't
understand the physics behind them don't even notice them. Funny old
world ain't it.
Second, I get the impression many people have the sense that
"materialism" implies mechanisms no more complicated than a 19th-century
pocket watch. Materialism is every bit as all-encompassing as the God
hypothesis, with the single exception of omitting the god, which is
unobserved anyway.
Well, materialism certainly makes at least as many unevidenced claims
as the God hypothesis does.
On 4/20/2026 4:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a
path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-
resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?
utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces
created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble
and expense just to go view it?
Natural selection, of course.
Anyway, I just bought this book, though it is short in length and at
$14.57 pricey, but it is a non-creationist view of the shortcomings of
the materialistic approach to precisely what you are referring to.-a He calls it a failure.-a You might want to check it out.
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008SQL6NS?nodl=0>
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:24:57 -0600, ShyDavid
<noreply@murdermingle.com> wrote:
On 2026/04/20 3:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces
created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
It's called "neuro chemistry."
Well that's not the most erudite explanation I've ever been given.
Sounds like an irreligious version of 'Godidit'.
On 4/21/2026 11:22 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-
resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?
utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces
created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble
and expense just to go view it?
Natural selection, of course.
Anyway, I just bought this book, though it is short in length and at
$14.57 pricey, but it is a non-creationist view of the shortcomings of
the materialistic approach to precisely what you are referring to.-a He
calls it a failure.-a You might want to check it out.
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008SQL6NS?nodl=0>
I came across this article today showing some current work in this area.
-aNote the honesty in the article regarding "one of the most enduring questions in science."-a You are correct Martin in that they can't
explain the "mind" yet, but these guys are attempting to show brain
activity related to it.-a I'm not sure that will ever give a definitive answer, as the mind can certainly process things originating in the
mind, if there is a difference.-a But the investigations are certainly interesting.-a Even if the Mind questions are not fully answered, the research is certain to yield other medically valuable tools in the future.
<https://modernity.news/2026/04/23/scientists-believe-our-consciousness- may-have-a-quantum-heartbeat/>
On 4/21/26 09:41, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:24:57 -0600, ShyDavid
<noreply@murdermingle.com> wrote:
On 2026/04/20 3:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to >>>>> shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces >>>> created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything >>>> to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when >>>> they see a it.
It's called "neuro chemistry."
Well that's not the most erudite explanation I've ever been given.
Sounds like an irreligious version of 'Godidit'.
One possibly important difference between Goddidit and brainsdidit
is that we can tell that brains exist. We can observe them.
Why does it matter whether the explanation is erudite? When
somebody says the ground is wet because it has rained, nobody
objects that the explanation isn't erudite.
On 4/22/26 5:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 09:33:33 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/21/26 7:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:32:24 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Never suggested that my interest is limited in that way; I experience
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to >>>>>>> shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River >>>>>>> originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>>>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course. >>>>>>>
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It >>>>>> does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces >>>>>> created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything >>>>>> to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when >>>>>> they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble >>>>>> and expense just to go view it?
Just about everything I have ever known has become more beautiful and >>>>> more awesome the more I learned about it. If your interest in the Grand >>>>> Canyon is limited to looking at it, you are missing most of the grandeur. >>>>
awe and grandeur in many things, not least the actual ability of
science to reveal so much about nature.
Besides, there are other sciences that investigate feelings. Why would >>>>> you expect a geology paper to address cognitive psychology?
I wouldn't expect it but my question was not directed at that paper or >>>> its authors, it was directed at people here, especially those who
insist there is a materialistic explanation for everything. I'm
interested in hearing what they have to offer as explanation for the
sense of awe and wonder that seems unique to humans as a species but
apparently there is not much on offer.
First, I doubt the sense of awe is limited to humans. I vaguely recall
some indications that it is possessed also by elephants. And until
researchers get busy actively looking for it in whales, apes, and
corvids, I don't think "seems unique to humans" can be justified.
"I vaguely recall" is rather rCa well .. vague. I'm sure you would
clearly recall if you had ever seen an elephant gazing at a
spectacular sunset; ora whale entranced by the complexities of an
orchestra playing a bit of Tchaikovsky; or an ape pondering the
mysteries of a rainbow; or a covid entranced by the reflection of some
trees and hills in a still lake.
I know most or all of those animals play, and playfulness doesn't seem
all that distant from awe.
I do not know what an elephant is thinking
about when just standing in one spot, but then, I don't think you know >either. (I am told that camels, in their free time, cogitate on higher >mathematics.[*])
* Pratchett, T., _Pyramids_.
What particularly fascinates me about all this is that we humans fully
understand how these things are simply the result of natural forces,
yet we get still a feeling of awe whereas other species who don't
understand the physics behind them don't even notice them. Funny old
world ain't it.
Second, I get the impression many people have the sense that
"materialism" implies mechanisms no more complicated than a 19th-century >>> pocket watch. Materialism is every bit as all-encompassing as the God
hypothesis, with the single exception of omitting the god, which is
unobserved anyway.
Well, materialism certainly makes at least as many unevidenced claims
as the God hypothesis does.
You're the one claiming to know how animals think.
For the record, though, I am not a materialist, for the same reason why
I am not a socialist -- because the label carries enough baggage that it >obfuscates any meaning the word might once have had.
On 4/21/2026 11:22 AM, sticks wrote:
On 4/20/2026 4:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-
resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?
utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces
created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble
and expense just to go view it?
Natural selection, of course.
Anyway, I just bought this book, though it is short in length and at
$14.57 pricey, but it is a non-creationist view of the shortcomings of
the materialistic approach to precisely what you are referring to.-a He
calls it a failure.-a You might want to check it out.
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008SQL6NS?nodl=0>
I came across this article today showing some current work in this area.
Note the honesty in the article regarding "one of the most enduring
questions in science." You are correct Martin in that they can't
explain the "mind" yet, but these guys are attempting to show brain
activity related to it. I'm not sure that will ever give a definitive >answer, as the mind can certainly process things originating in the
mind, if there is a difference. But the investigations are certainly >interesting. Even if the Mind questions are not fully answered, the >research is certain to yield other medically valuable tools in the
future.
<https://modernity.news/2026/04/23/scientists-believe-our-consciousness-may-have-a-quantum-heartbeat/>
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 08:10:07 -0600, ShyDavid
<noreply@murdermingle.com> wrote:
On 2026/04/21 7:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:24:57 -0600, ShyDavid
<noreply@murdermingle.com> wrote:
On 2026/04/20 3:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to >>>>>> shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River >>>>>> originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course. >>>>>>
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It >>>>> does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces >>>>> created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything >>>>> to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when >>>>> they see a it.
It's called "neuro chemistry."
Well that's not the most erudite explanation I've ever been given.
Sounds like an irreligious version of 'Godidit'.
Reality does not care about your "sounds like." I stated a demonstrable fact.
How is it demonstrable? If you mean through neuro research, that shows
us where activity is going on in the brain when we experience awe and
wonder but it tells us nothing about how or why that activity is
triggered.
On 2026-04-21, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 08:10:07 -0600, ShyDavid
<noreply@murdermingle.com> wrote:
On 2026/04/21 7:41 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:24:57 -0600, ShyDavid
<noreply@murdermingle.com> wrote:
On 2026/04/20 3:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to >>>>>>> shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River >>>>>>> originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>>>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course. >>>>>>>
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It >>>>>> does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces >>>>>> created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything >>>>>> to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when >>>>>> they see a it.
It's called "neuro chemistry."
Well that's not the most erudite explanation I've ever been given.
Sounds like an irreligious version of 'Godidit'.
Reality does not care about your "sounds like." I stated a demonstrable fact.
How is it demonstrable? If you mean through neuro research, that shows
us where activity is going on in the brain when we experience awe and
wonder but it tells us nothing about how or why that activity is
triggered.
Do all humans feel this sense of awe?
Why do you make the assumption of universality?
Do other animals?
How would we know?
On Wed, 22 Apr 2026 16:36:41 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/22/26 5:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 09:33:33 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/21/26 7:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:32:24 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/20/26 2:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to >>>>>>>> shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River >>>>>>>> originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>>>>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course. >>>>>>>>
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It >>>>>>> does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces >>>>>>> created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything >>>>>>> to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when >>>>>>> they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble >>>>>>> and expense just to go view it?
Just about everything I have ever known has become more beautiful and >>>>>> more awesome the more I learned about it. If your interest in the Grand >>>>>> Canyon is limited to looking at it, you are missing most of the grandeur.
Never suggested that my interest is limited in that way; I experience >>>>> awe and grandeur in many things, not least the actual ability of
science to reveal so much about nature.
Besides, there are other sciences that investigate feelings. Why would >>>>>> you expect a geology paper to address cognitive psychology?
I wouldn't expect it but my question was not directed at that paper or >>>>> its authors, it was directed at people here, especially those who
insist there is a materialistic explanation for everything. I'm
interested in hearing what they have to offer as explanation for the >>>>> sense of awe and wonder that seems unique to humans as a species but >>>>> apparently there is not much on offer.
First, I doubt the sense of awe is limited to humans. I vaguely recall >>>> some indications that it is possessed also by elephants. And until
researchers get busy actively looking for it in whales, apes, and
corvids, I don't think "seems unique to humans" can be justified.
"I vaguely recall" is rather rCa well .. vague. I'm sure you would
clearly recall if you had ever seen an elephant gazing at a
spectacular sunset; ora whale entranced by the complexities of an
orchestra playing a bit of Tchaikovsky; or an ape pondering the
mysteries of a rainbow; or a covid entranced by the reflection of some
trees and hills in a still lake.
I know most or all of those animals play, and playfulness doesn't seem
all that distant from awe.
WOW, you certainly aren't afraid of stretching!
I do not know what an elephant is thinking
about when just standing in one spot, but then, I don't think you know
either. (I am told that camels, in their free time, cogitate on higher
mathematics.[*])
* Pratchett, T., _Pyramids_.
What particularly fascinates me about all this is that we humans fully
understand how these things are simply the result of natural forces,
yet we get still a feeling of awe whereas other species who don't
understand the physics behind them don't even notice them. Funny old
world ain't it.
Second, I get the impression many people have the sense that
"materialism" implies mechanisms no more complicated than a 19th-century >>>> pocket watch. Materialism is every bit as all-encompassing as the God
hypothesis, with the single exception of omitting the god, which is
unobserved anyway.
Well, materialism certainly makes at least as many unevidenced claims
as the God hypothesis does.
You're the one claiming to know how animals think.
For the record, though, I am not a materialist, for the same reason why
I am not a socialist -- because the label carries enough baggage that it
obfuscates any meaning the word might once have had.
So what word would you use for the belief that there is no such thing
as the supernatural, that everything can be explained by natural
forces, even the thoughts we think and the feelings we feel?
On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 03:15:30 -0400, David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca>
wrote:
On 4/21/26 09:41, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:24:57 -0600, ShyDavid
<noreply@murdermingle.com> wrote:
On 2026/04/20 3:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to >>>>>> shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River >>>>>> originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course. >>>>>>
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It >>>>> does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces >>>>> created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything >>>>> to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when >>>>> they see a it.
It's called "neuro chemistry."
Well that's not the most erudite explanation I've ever been given.
Sounds like an irreligious version of 'Godidit'.
One possibly important difference between Goddidit and brainsdidit
is that we can tell that brains exist. We can observe them.
Why does it matter whether the explanation is erudite? When
somebody says the ground is wet because it has rained, nobody
objects that the explanation isn't erudite.
Until somebody else points out that a farmer has been irrigating the
area ... or someone points out that there is a burst pipe there ....
On 4/26/26 16:49, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2026 03:15:30 -0400, David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
On 4/21/26 09:41, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:24:57 -0600, ShyDavid
<noreply@murdermingle.com> wrote:
On 2026/04/20 3:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to >>>>>> shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River >>>>>> originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a >>>>>> path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course. >>>>>>
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It >>>>> does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces >>>>> created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything >>>>> to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when >>>>> they see a it.
It's called "neuro chemistry."
Well that's not the most erudite explanation I've ever been given.
Sounds like an irreligious version of 'Godidit'.
One possibly important difference between Goddidit and brainsdidit
is that we can tell that brains exist. We can observe them.
Why does it matter whether the explanation is erudite? When
somebody says the ground is wet because it has rained, nobody
objects that the explanation isn't erudite.
Until somebody else points out that a farmer has been irrigating the
area ... or someone points out that there is a burst pipe there ....
"... nobody objects that the explanation isn't erudite."
A few weeks ago, I referred Mark to a Scientific American article
back in February that fairly well sums up the state of the game in
research into consciousness. Here is a non-paywalled link to the
article; well worth a read if you have an interest in this subject.
https://archive.is/1k2ej
On 4/26/26 2:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
A few weeks ago, I referred Mark to a Scientific American article
back in February that fairly well sums up the state of the game in
research into consciousness. Here is a non-paywalled link to the
article; well worth a read if you have an interest in this subject.
https://archive.is/1k2ej
I had lost that link and have not read the article until now. Thank you
for reposting it. Here are my thoughts on it:
Overall, it looks like a good summary. I didn't know all the different >models and approaches myself, so I can't comment on them, but it jibes
with what else I have read. The only hypothesis I see the article left
out is quantum theories, regarding which: good riddance. One quote in
the article is very much an overstatement: Demertzi is quoted saying, >"Everything comes down to it [consciousness], everything." Kidney
function does not come down to consciousness, nor does your fingertips >wrinkling after long immersion in water. But that's a quibble.
The article says that the researchers don't agree on a definition of >consciousness, but, frustratingly, it does not give any definitions nor >describe the differences. Since definition is fundamental to the
problem, especially as it might apply to AI (which the article considers
at some length), this is a major omission.
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:00:01 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
A few weeks ago, I referred Mark to a Scientific American article
back in February that fairly well sums up the state of the game in
research into consciousness. Here is a non-paywalled link to the
article; well worth a read if you have an interest in this subject.
https://archive.is/1k2ej
I had lost that link and have not read the article until now. Thank you
for reposting it. Here are my thoughts on it:
Overall, it looks like a good summary. I didn't know all the different
models and approaches myself, so I can't comment on them, but it jibes
with what else I have read. The only hypothesis I see the article left
out is quantum theories, regarding which: good riddance. One quote in
the article is very much an overstatement: Demertzi is quoted saying,
"Everything comes down to it [consciousness], everything." Kidney
function does not come down to consciousness, nor does your fingertips
wrinkling after long immersion in water. But that's a quibble.
The article says that the researchers don't agree on a definition of
consciousness, but, frustratingly, it does not give any definitions nor
describe the differences. Since definition is fundamental to the
problem, especially as it might apply to AI (which the article considers
at some length), this is a major omission.
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is
a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to
write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in
plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Basically, botanists talk about this openly among themselves but not externally. The reluctance to discuss it externally is due to the
ridicule and opprobrium that they would likely get from the wider
scientific community especially those involved in neurology who
dominate the research into consciousness. The author puts some of that
down to the dreadful book 'The Secret Life Of Plants' published in
1973 which effectively poisoned the well for rational discussion of
plant intelligence by making stupid claims like plants preferring
Beethoven to rock 'n' roll and reacting to a polygraph when someone
imagined setting them on fire.
The main scientific issue, however, is that neurologists insist that consciousness is driven entirely by the brain. Plants have neither a
brain nor a nervous system and botanists have come to the general
conclusion that consciousness may be a "whole-body" thing. That idea
is now getting some support in animal biology with increasing
understanding of how much of a role microbes play in determining
behaviour and personality, particularly with the discovery that
transplanting microbes can result in behavioural transfers.
e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7294648/
Mind you, I don't think the idea that consciousness as a whole-body
thing will come as any great surprise to anyone who has felt their
heart broken by grief, their stomach fluttering with butterflies or
their bowels clenching with fear.
On 28/04/2026 10:01, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:00:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
A few weeks ago, I referred Mark to a Scientific American article
back in February that fairly well sums up the state of the game in
research into consciousness. Here is a non-paywalled link to the
article; well worth a read if you have an interest in this subject.
https://archive.is/1k2ej
I had lost that link and have not read the article until now. Thank you
for reposting it. Here are my thoughts on it:
Overall, it looks like a good summary. I didn't know all the different
models and approaches myself, so I can't comment on them, but it jibes
with what else I have read. The only hypothesis I see the article left
out is quantum theories, regarding which: good riddance. One quote in
the article is very much an overstatement: Demertzi is quoted saying,
"Everything comes down to it [consciousness], everything." Kidney
function does not come down to consciousness, nor does your fingertips
wrinkling after long immersion in water. But that's a quibble.
The article says that the researchers don't agree on a definition of
consciousness, but, frustratingly, it does not give any definitions nor
describe the differences. Since definition is fundamental to the
problem, especially as it might apply to AI (which the article considers >>> at some length), this is a major omission.
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is
a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to
write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in
plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Perhaps specific instances of "communication, memory, altruism, kin >selection and mimicry" would be regarded as signs of consciousness and >intelligence, but these are not things that are in general so regarded.
Memory and communication occur in bacteria. Mimicry (molecular mimicry) >occurs in viruses. In general these all occur in organisms (in addition
to plants) without nervous systems. There also occur in animals in >circumstances that are not assumed to be signs of consciousness and >intelligence - for example Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in butterflies.
Basically, botanists talk about this openly among themselves but not
externally. The reluctance to discuss it externally is due to the
ridicule and opprobrium that they would likely get from the wider
scientific community especially those involved in neurology who
dominate the research into consciousness. The author puts some of that
down to the dreadful book 'The Secret Life Of Plants' published in
1973 which effectively poisoned the well for rational discussion of
plant intelligence by making stupid claims like plants preferring
Beethoven to rock 'n' roll and reacting to a polygraph when someone
imagined setting them on fire.
The main scientific issue, however, is that neurologists insist that
consciousness is driven entirely by the brain. Plants have neither a
brain nor a nervous system and botanists have come to the general
conclusion that consciousness may be a "whole-body" thing. That idea
is now getting some support in animal biology with increasing
understanding of how much of a role microbes play in determining
behaviour and personality, particularly with the discovery that
transplanting microbes can result in behavioural transfers.
e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7294648/
I think you have a fallacy in there. Consciousness as an epiphenomenon
of the brain is not equivalent to consciousness being unaffected by
factors external to the brain. Neurologists don't, for example, deny the >existence of psychoactive chemicals.
Mind you, I don't think the idea that consciousness as a whole-body
thing will come as any great surprise to anyone who has felt their
heart broken by grief, their stomach fluttering with butterflies or
their bowels clenching with fear.
On 28/04/2026 10:01, Martin Harran wrote:
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is
a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to
write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in
plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Perhaps specific instances of "communication, memory, altruism, kin >selection and mimicry" would be regarded as signs of consciousness and >intelligence, but these are not things that are in general so regarded.
Memory and communication occur in bacteria.
Mimicry (molecular mimicry)
occurs in viruses.
In general these all occur in organisms (in addition
to plants) without nervous systems. There also occur in animals in >circumstances that are not assumed to be signs of consciousness and >intelligence - for example Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in butterflies.
On 4/26/26 2:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
A few weeks ago, I referred Mark to-a a Scientific American article
back in February that fairly well sums up the state of the game in
research into consciousness. Here is a non-paywalled link to the
article; well worth a read if you have an interest in this subject.
https://archive.is/1k2ej
I had lost that link and have not read the article until now. Thank you
for reposting it. Here are my thoughts on it:
Overall, it looks like a good summary. I didn't know all the different models and approaches myself, so I can't comment on them, but it jibes
with what else I have read. The only hypothesis I see the article left
out is quantum theories, regarding which: good riddance. One quote in
the article is very much an overstatement: Demertzi is quoted saying, "Everything comes down to it [consciousness], everything." Kidney
function does not come down to consciousness, nor does your fingertips wrinkling after long immersion in water. But that's a quibble.
The article says that the researchers don't agree on a definition of consciousness, but, frustratingly, it does not give any definitions nor describe the differences. Since definition is fundamental to the
problem, especially as it might apply to AI (which the article considers
at some length), this is a major omission.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:59:47 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2026 10:01, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:00:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
A few weeks ago, I referred Mark to a Scientific American article
back in February that fairly well sums up the state of the game in
research into consciousness. Here is a non-paywalled link to the
article; well worth a read if you have an interest in this subject.
https://archive.is/1k2ej
I had lost that link and have not read the article until now. Thank you >>>> for reposting it. Here are my thoughts on it:
Overall, it looks like a good summary. I didn't know all the different >>>> models and approaches myself, so I can't comment on them, but it jibes >>>> with what else I have read. The only hypothesis I see the article left >>>> out is quantum theories, regarding which: good riddance. One quote in
the article is very much an overstatement: Demertzi is quoted saying,
"Everything comes down to it [consciousness], everything." Kidney
function does not come down to consciousness, nor does your fingertips >>>> wrinkling after long immersion in water. But that's a quibble.
The article says that the researchers don't agree on a definition of
consciousness, but, frustratingly, it does not give any definitions nor >>>> describe the differences. Since definition is fundamental to the
problem, especially as it might apply to AI (which the article considers >>>> at some length), this is a major omission.
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is
a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to
write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in
plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Perhaps specific instances of "communication, memory, altruism, kin
selection and mimicry" would be regarded as signs of consciousness and
intelligence, but these are not things that are in general so regarded.
Memory and communication occur in bacteria. Mimicry (molecular mimicry)
occurs in viruses. In general these all occur in organisms (in addition
to plants) without nervous systems. There also occur in animals in
circumstances that are not assumed to be signs of consciousness and
intelligence - for example Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in butterflies.
Basically, botanists talk about this openly among themselves but not
externally. The reluctance to discuss it externally is due to the
ridicule and opprobrium that they would likely get from the wider
scientific community especially those involved in neurology who
dominate the research into consciousness. The author puts some of that
down to the dreadful book 'The Secret Life Of Plants' published in
1973 which effectively poisoned the well for rational discussion of
plant intelligence by making stupid claims like plants preferring
Beethoven to rock 'n' roll and reacting to a polygraph when someone
imagined setting them on fire.
The main scientific issue, however, is that neurologists insist that
consciousness is driven entirely by the brain. Plants have neither a
brain nor a nervous system and botanists have come to the general
conclusion that consciousness may be a "whole-body" thing. That idea
is now getting some support in animal biology with increasing
understanding of how much of a role microbes play in determining
behaviour and personality, particularly with the discovery that
transplanting microbes can result in behavioural transfers.
e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7294648/
I think you have a fallacy in there. Consciousness as an epiphenomenon
of the brain is not equivalent to consciousness being unaffected by
factors external to the brain. Neurologists don't, for example, deny the
existence of psychoactive chemicals.
Mind you, I don't think the idea that consciousness as a whole-body
thing will come as any great surprise to anyone who has felt their
heart broken by grief, their stomach fluttering with butterflies or
their bowels clenching with fear.
So what do you make of this?
<quote>
Karban [1] often talks to colleagues who study personality traits
among animals, and he's come to a simple yet groundbreaking conclusion
about how to approach his research: animals and plants are clearly
different, yet they share a common world. Their daily travails are
very similar. They need to find food, and they need to find mates. And
they need to do it all while other things are trying to eat them. "If
animals have solved a problem in a particular way, it's not
unreasonable I think to ask, huh, I wonder if plants have done
something analogous."
Usually, when scientists measure characteristics of organisms-whether
plants or animals-they look at the average of the tendencies of the
entire group. For at least the last hundred years in plant biology, individual plants within a species have been seen as replicants. No individual trait matters to science, which only looks at the average
of the traits of the entire population. If one individual falls too
far outside the average, it tends to get discarded from the study as
an outlier. "What individuals do is seen as just noise," Karban
explains. But his work with sagebrush throws away the relevance of
averages. Personality research treats individual differences as
valuable data. Each one is a point on the spectrum of behavior. The
noise becomes the signal. "This is the opposite approach: It's paying attention to the variation among individuals."
After a long career studying how sagebrush send signals to each other,
Karban is finely attuned to variation in this process. He sees that
the exchange doesn't turn out the same way every time. Sometimes a
plant will signal distress, and its neighbors won't produce defensive compounds, or sometimes they just produce less. Karban believes this
may be because individual plants may have different tolerances for
risk-one metric of personality. Some, he says, might exhibit a
personality akin to, say, natural-born scaredy-cats; they will signal
wildly at the slightest disturbance. In that case, other plants in the
same family will treat their scared kin like the boy who cried wolf
and ignore them. They won't produce compounds of their own.
</quote>
Schlanger, Zo|2. The Light Eaters: The Acclaimed International
Bestseller (p. 68). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition. Pp66-68
[1] Richard Karban, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Entomology, University of California-Davis,
On 4/28/26 7:21 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:59:47 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2026 10:01, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:00:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
A few weeks ago, I referred Mark to a Scientific American article >>>>>> back in February that fairly well sums up the state of the game in >>>>>> research into consciousness. Here is a non-paywalled link to the
article; well worth a read if you have an interest in this subject. >>>>>>
https://archive.is/1k2ej
I had lost that link and have not read the article until now. Thank you >>>>> for reposting it. Here are my thoughts on it:
Overall, it looks like a good summary. I didn't know all the different >>>>> models and approaches myself, so I can't comment on them, but it jibes >>>>> with what else I have read. The only hypothesis I see the article left >>>>> out is quantum theories, regarding which: good riddance. One quote in >>>>> the article is very much an overstatement: Demertzi is quoted saying, >>>>> "Everything comes down to it [consciousness], everything." Kidney
function does not come down to consciousness, nor does your fingertips >>>>> wrinkling after long immersion in water. But that's a quibble.
The article says that the researchers don't agree on a definition of >>>>> consciousness, but, frustratingly, it does not give any definitions nor >>>>> describe the differences. Since definition is fundamental to the
problem, especially as it might apply to AI (which the article considers >>>>> at some length), this is a major omission.
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is >>>> a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to
write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in >>>> plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Perhaps specific instances of "communication, memory, altruism, kin
selection and mimicry" would be regarded as signs of consciousness and
intelligence, but these are not things that are in general so regarded.
Memory and communication occur in bacteria. Mimicry (molecular mimicry)
occurs in viruses. In general these all occur in organisms (in addition
to plants) without nervous systems. There also occur in animals in
circumstances that are not assumed to be signs of consciousness and
intelligence - for example Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in butterflies. >>>
Basically, botanists talk about this openly among themselves but not
externally. The reluctance to discuss it externally is due to the
ridicule and opprobrium that they would likely get from the wider
scientific community especially those involved in neurology who
dominate the research into consciousness. The author puts some of that >>>> down to the dreadful book 'The Secret Life Of Plants' published in
1973 which effectively poisoned the well for rational discussion of
plant intelligence by making stupid claims like plants preferring
Beethoven to rock 'n' roll and reacting to a polygraph when someone
imagined setting them on fire.
The main scientific issue, however, is that neurologists insist that
consciousness is driven entirely by the brain. Plants have neither a
brain nor a nervous system and botanists have come to the general
conclusion that consciousness may be a "whole-body" thing. That idea
is now getting some support in animal biology with increasing
understanding of how much of a role microbes play in determining
behaviour and personality, particularly with the discovery that
transplanting microbes can result in behavioural transfers.
e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7294648/
I think you have a fallacy in there. Consciousness as an epiphenomenon
of the brain is not equivalent to consciousness being unaffected by
factors external to the brain. Neurologists don't, for example, deny the >>> existence of psychoactive chemicals.
Mind you, I don't think the idea that consciousness as a whole-body
thing will come as any great surprise to anyone who has felt their
heart broken by grief, their stomach fluttering with butterflies or
their bowels clenching with fear.
So what do you make of this?
<quote>
Karban [1] often talks to colleagues who study personality traits
among animals, and he's come to a simple yet groundbreaking conclusion
about how to approach his research: animals and plants are clearly
different, yet they share a common world. Their daily travails are
very similar. They need to find food, and they need to find mates. And
they need to do it all while other things are trying to eat them. "If
animals have solved a problem in a particular way, it's not
unreasonable I think to ask, huh, I wonder if plants have done
something analogous."
Usually, when scientists measure characteristics of organisms-whether
plants or animals-they look at the average of the tendencies of the
entire group. For at least the last hundred years in plant biology,
individual plants within a species have been seen as replicants. No
individual trait matters to science, which only looks at the average
of the traits of the entire population. If one individual falls too
far outside the average, it tends to get discarded from the study as
an outlier. "What individuals do is seen as just noise," Karban
explains. But his work with sagebrush throws away the relevance of
averages. Personality research treats individual differences as
valuable data. Each one is a point on the spectrum of behavior. The
noise becomes the signal. "This is the opposite approach: It's paying
attention to the variation among individuals."
After a long career studying how sagebrush send signals to each other,
Karban is finely attuned to variation in this process. He sees that
the exchange doesn't turn out the same way every time. Sometimes a
plant will signal distress, and its neighbors won't produce defensive
compounds, or sometimes they just produce less. Karban believes this
may be because individual plants may have different tolerances for
risk-one metric of personality. Some, he says, might exhibit a
personality akin to, say, natural-born scaredy-cats; they will signal
wildly at the slightest disturbance. In that case, other plants in the
same family will treat their scared kin like the boy who cried wolf
and ignore them. They won't produce compounds of their own.
</quote>
Schlanger, Zo|2. The Light Eaters: The Acclaimed International
Bestseller (p. 68). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition. Pp66-68
[1] Richard Karban, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Entomology,
University of California-Davis,
Nothing there that speaks to consciousness. Intriguing behavioral
questions, for sure, but unknown behavior is not the same as consciousness.
Again we run into the problem of a lack of definition. Before you can
say it is consciousness, you must be able to say what consciousness is.
And even that might not help. The sole definition of consciousness I
have encountered refers to "a state of mind ... in which there is
private and personal knowledge of our own existence, situated relative
to whatever its surround may be at a given moment." That might be useful
for me to know whether I am conscious, but it does not seem very easy to >determine the private and personal knowledge of anything else.
(And lest you be tempted to criticize that definition, I myself think it >needs improvement, but it stands above everything else simply by existing.)
[...]
The main scientific issue, however, is that neurologists insist that consciousness is driven entirely by the brain. Plants have neither a
brain nor a nervous system and botanists have come to the general
conclusion that consciousness may be a "whole-body" thing. That idea
is now getting some support in animal biology with increasing
understanding of how much of a role microbes play in determining
behaviour and personality, particularly with the discovery that
transplanting microbes can result in behavioural transfers.
e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7294648/
Mind you, I don't think the idea that consciousness as a whole-body
thing will come as any great surprise to anyone who has felt their
heart broken by grief, their stomach fluttering with butterflies or
their bowels clenching with fear.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:45:32 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/28/26 7:21 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:59:47 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2026 10:01, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:00:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
A few weeks ago, I referred Mark to a Scientific American article >>>>>>> back in February that fairly well sums up the state of the game in >>>>>>> research into consciousness. Here is a non-paywalled link to the >>>>>>> article; well worth a read if you have an interest in this subject. >>>>>>>
https://archive.is/1k2ej
I had lost that link and have not read the article until now. Thank you >>>>>> for reposting it. Here are my thoughts on it:
Overall, it looks like a good summary. I didn't know all the different >>>>>> models and approaches myself, so I can't comment on them, but it jibes >>>>>> with what else I have read. The only hypothesis I see the article left >>>>>> out is quantum theories, regarding which: good riddance. One quote in >>>>>> the article is very much an overstatement: Demertzi is quoted saying, >>>>>> "Everything comes down to it [consciousness], everything." Kidney
function does not come down to consciousness, nor does your fingertips >>>>>> wrinkling after long immersion in water. But that's a quibble.
The article says that the researchers don't agree on a definition of >>>>>> consciousness, but, frustratingly, it does not give any definitions nor >>>>>> describe the differences. Since definition is fundamental to the
problem, especially as it might apply to AI (which the article considers >>>>>> at some length), this is a major omission.
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is >>>>> a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to >>>>> write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in >>>>> plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Perhaps specific instances of "communication, memory, altruism, kin
selection and mimicry" would be regarded as signs of consciousness and >>>> intelligence, but these are not things that are in general so regarded. >>>>
Memory and communication occur in bacteria. Mimicry (molecular mimicry) >>>> occurs in viruses. In general these all occur in organisms (in addition >>>> to plants) without nervous systems. There also occur in animals in
circumstances that are not assumed to be signs of consciousness and
intelligence - for example Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in butterflies. >>>>
Basically, botanists talk about this openly among themselves but not >>>>> externally. The reluctance to discuss it externally is due to the
ridicule and opprobrium that they would likely get from the wider
scientific community especially those involved in neurology who
dominate the research into consciousness. The author puts some of that >>>>> down to the dreadful book 'The Secret Life Of Plants' published in
1973 which effectively poisoned the well for rational discussion of
plant intelligence by making stupid claims like plants preferring
Beethoven to rock 'n' roll and reacting to a polygraph when someone
imagined setting them on fire.
The main scientific issue, however, is that neurologists insist that >>>>> consciousness is driven entirely by the brain. Plants have neither a >>>>> brain nor a nervous system and botanists have come to the general
conclusion that consciousness may be a "whole-body" thing. That idea >>>>> is now getting some support in animal biology with increasing
understanding of how much of a role microbes play in determining
behaviour and personality, particularly with the discovery that
transplanting microbes can result in behavioural transfers.
e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7294648/
I think you have a fallacy in there. Consciousness as an epiphenomenon >>>> of the brain is not equivalent to consciousness being unaffected by
factors external to the brain. Neurologists don't, for example, deny the >>>> existence of psychoactive chemicals.
Mind you, I don't think the idea that consciousness as a whole-body
thing will come as any great surprise to anyone who has felt their
heart broken by grief, their stomach fluttering with butterflies or
their bowels clenching with fear.
So what do you make of this?
<quote>
Karban [1] often talks to colleagues who study personality traits
among animals, and he's come to a simple yet groundbreaking conclusion
about how to approach his research: animals and plants are clearly
different, yet they share a common world. Their daily travails are
very similar. They need to find food, and they need to find mates. And
they need to do it all while other things are trying to eat them. "If
animals have solved a problem in a particular way, it's not
unreasonable I think to ask, huh, I wonder if plants have done
something analogous."
Usually, when scientists measure characteristics of organisms-whether
plants or animals-they look at the average of the tendencies of the
entire group. For at least the last hundred years in plant biology,
individual plants within a species have been seen as replicants. No
individual trait matters to science, which only looks at the average
of the traits of the entire population. If one individual falls too
far outside the average, it tends to get discarded from the study as
an outlier. "What individuals do is seen as just noise," Karban
explains. But his work with sagebrush throws away the relevance of
averages. Personality research treats individual differences as
valuable data. Each one is a point on the spectrum of behavior. The
noise becomes the signal. "This is the opposite approach: It's paying
attention to the variation among individuals."
After a long career studying how sagebrush send signals to each other,
Karban is finely attuned to variation in this process. He sees that
the exchange doesn't turn out the same way every time. Sometimes a
plant will signal distress, and its neighbors won't produce defensive
compounds, or sometimes they just produce less. Karban believes this
may be because individual plants may have different tolerances for
risk-one metric of personality. Some, he says, might exhibit a
personality akin to, say, natural-born scaredy-cats; they will signal
wildly at the slightest disturbance. In that case, other plants in the
same family will treat their scared kin like the boy who cried wolf
and ignore them. They won't produce compounds of their own.
</quote>
Schlanger, Zo|2. The Light Eaters: The Acclaimed International
Bestseller (p. 68). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition. Pp66-68
[1] Richard Karban, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Entomology,
University of California-Davis,
Nothing there that speaks to consciousness. Intriguing behavioral
questions, for sure, but unknown behavior is not the same as consciousness.
Is it any more 'unknown' than what neurologists are investigating?
Again we run into the problem of a lack of definition. Before you can
say it is consciousness, you must be able to say what consciousness is.
In that case, is research into consciousness by neurologists pointless
as you have agreed that they too don't have a definition?
And even that might not help. The sole definition of consciousness I
have encountered refers to "a state of mind ... in which there is
private and personal knowledge of our own existence, situated relative
to whatever its surround may be at a given moment." That might be useful
for me to know whether I am conscious, but it does not seem very easy to
determine the private and personal knowledge of anything else.
(And lest you be tempted to criticize that definition, I myself think it
needs improvement, but it stands above everything else simply by existing.)
I don't see much difference between it and 'cogito, ergo sum'. Both
are useful only at a personal level, the only way we can judge if
someone or something else is conscious is by their behaviour or lack
of behaviour. I use the word 'judge' deliberately because it is
ultimately a judgement. We have no objective way of assessing it.
Despite its shortcomings, using behaviour to identify consciousness is something we do all the time. That applies to other animals as well as people. I'm fairly sure that you've agreed in the past that other apes
are conscious; how have you decided that other than by their
behaviour?
I see no reason to not apply the same judgement to plant behaviour.
Taking your definition above, I have outlined in a post to Ernest how
the boquila vine adapts the colour and shape of its leaves to the
plant it is growing through and modifies the colour and shape as it
grows through different parts of the host plant. Does that not look
very like "private and personal knowledge of [its] own existence,
situated relative to whatever its surround may be at a given moment."?
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:59:47 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2026 10:01, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:00:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
A few weeks ago, I referred Mark to a Scientific American article
back in February that fairly well sums up the state of the game in
research into consciousness. Here is a non-paywalled link to the
article; well worth a read if you have an interest in this subject.
https://archive.is/1k2ej
I had lost that link and have not read the article until now. Thank you >>>> for reposting it. Here are my thoughts on it:
Overall, it looks like a good summary. I didn't know all the different >>>> models and approaches myself, so I can't comment on them, but it jibes >>>> with what else I have read. The only hypothesis I see the article left >>>> out is quantum theories, regarding which: good riddance. One quote in
the article is very much an overstatement: Demertzi is quoted saying,
"Everything comes down to it [consciousness], everything." Kidney
function does not come down to consciousness, nor does your fingertips >>>> wrinkling after long immersion in water. But that's a quibble.
The article says that the researchers don't agree on a definition of
consciousness, but, frustratingly, it does not give any definitions nor >>>> describe the differences. Since definition is fundamental to the
problem, especially as it might apply to AI (which the article considers >>>> at some length), this is a major omission.
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is
a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to
write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in
plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Perhaps specific instances of "communication, memory, altruism, kin
selection and mimicry" would be regarded as signs of consciousness and
intelligence, but these are not things that are in general so regarded.
Memory and communication occur in bacteria. Mimicry (molecular mimicry)
occurs in viruses. In general these all occur in organisms (in addition
to plants) without nervous systems. There also occur in animals in
circumstances that are not assumed to be signs of consciousness and
intelligence - for example Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in butterflies.
Basically, botanists talk about this openly among themselves but not
externally. The reluctance to discuss it externally is due to the
ridicule and opprobrium that they would likely get from the wider
scientific community especially those involved in neurology who
dominate the research into consciousness. The author puts some of that
down to the dreadful book 'The Secret Life Of Plants' published in
1973 which effectively poisoned the well for rational discussion of
plant intelligence by making stupid claims like plants preferring
Beethoven to rock 'n' roll and reacting to a polygraph when someone
imagined setting them on fire.
The main scientific issue, however, is that neurologists insist that
consciousness is driven entirely by the brain. Plants have neither a
brain nor a nervous system and botanists have come to the general
conclusion that consciousness may be a "whole-body" thing. That idea
is now getting some support in animal biology with increasing
understanding of how much of a role microbes play in determining
behaviour and personality, particularly with the discovery that
transplanting microbes can result in behavioural transfers.
e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7294648/
I think you have a fallacy in there. Consciousness as an epiphenomenon
of the brain is not equivalent to consciousness being unaffected by
factors external to the brain. Neurologists don't, for example, deny the
existence of psychoactive chemicals.
Mind you, I don't think the idea that consciousness as a whole-body
thing will come as any great surprise to anyone who has felt their
heart broken by grief, their stomach fluttering with butterflies or
their bowels clenching with fear.
So what do you make of this?
<quote>
Karban [1] often talks to colleagues who study personality traits
among animals, and he's come to a simple yet groundbreaking conclusion
about how to approach his research: animals and plants are clearly
different, yet they share a common world. Their daily travails are
very similar. They need to find food, and they need to find mates. And
they need to do it all while other things are trying to eat them. "If
animals have solved a problem in a particular way, it's not
unreasonable I think to ask, huh, I wonder if plants have done
something analogous."
Usually, when scientists measure characteristics of organisms-whether
plants or animals-they look at the average of the tendencies of the
entire group. For at least the last hundred years in plant biology, individual plants within a species have been seen as replicants. No individual trait matters to science, which only looks at the average
of the traits of the entire population. If one individual falls too
far outside the average, it tends to get discarded from the study as
an outlier. "What individuals do is seen as just noise," Karban
explains. But his work with sagebrush throws away the relevance of
averages. Personality research treats individual differences as
valuable data. Each one is a point on the spectrum of behavior. The
noise becomes the signal. "This is the opposite approach: It's paying attention to the variation among individuals."
After a long career studying how sagebrush send signals to each other,
Karban is finely attuned to variation in this process. He sees that
the exchange doesn't turn out the same way every time. Sometimes a
plant will signal distress, and its neighbors won't produce defensive compounds, or sometimes they just produce less. Karban believes this
may be because individual plants may have different tolerances for
risk-one metric of personality. Some, he says, might exhibit a
personality akin to, say, natural-born scaredy-cats; they will signal
wildly at the slightest disturbance. In that case, other plants in the
same family will treat their scared kin like the boy who cried wolf
and ignore them. They won't produce compounds of their own.
</quote>
Schlanger, Zo|2. The Light Eaters: The Acclaimed International
Bestseller (p. 68). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition. Pp66-68
[1] Richard Karban, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Entomology, University of California-Davis,
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:59:47 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2026 10:01, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
I meant to home in on a couple of things here.
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is
a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to
write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in
plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Perhaps specific instances of "communication, memory, altruism, kin
selection and mimicry" would be regarded as signs of consciousness and
intelligence, but these are not things that are in general so regarded.
Memory and communication occur in bacteria.
Does that not lend support to the idea that they contribute to animal behaviour?
Mimicry (molecular mimicry)
occurs in viruses.
What is particularly striking in mimicry in plants adapts to a range
of species. The boquila vine is particularly striking in this regard.
<quote>
As we moved along the thicket, I saw that boquila didn't always mimic anything at all. Sometimes it was just itself. But over and over,
Gianoli [1] pointed to clumps of boquila mimicking different species.
Each time it took my eyes a moment to pluck out the boquila from the
plants surrounding it. The replicas were close, but not perfect.
Sometimes the stem was the wrong color, or the thickened leaf had not
quite thickened enough to pass. On one plant, the boquila leaves were suddenly huge and fingerlike, dark-green and glossy, elongated to
nearly the length of my hand. They were matching notro (Embothrium coccineum), a species of small evergreen tree that hung its branches
into the clearing beside it. Less than five feet away, the boquila's
leaves were suddenly petite and wispy, no longer slender fingers but
instead round and about the size of a quarter, perhaps fifteen or
sixteen times smaller than those of the boquila nearby. Instead of
glossy and dark, these leaves were matte and a shade of cool mint
green, like a different plant nearby
[rCa]
We walked a little farther. I saw that where a plant was yellowing,
the mimicking boquila yellowed too. Gianoli pointed out a bush covered
in shingles of glossy, thick little leaves, dark green, ranging in
size from thumbnail to pinkie nail. This, he told me, was
Rhaphithamnus spinosus. Tendrils of boquila wound around its stem. The boquila leaves looked quite standard at the base, but as I looked
higher on the vine, where it began to wind through the leafy parts of
the rhaphithamnus, the boquila leaves got drastically smaller and took
on a dark gloss. In the older branches, the boquila leaves closest to rhaphithamnus leaves were matched perfectly to the raphithamnus in
size, color, and shape.
</quote>
Schlanger, Zo|2. The Light Eaters: The Acclaimed International
Bestseller (p. 179). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.
The big question is, how does the boquila know what shape and colour
to take? Some scientists think that the epidermis of the leaves of
some plants may be light sensitive and give the plants what is
essentially a form of vision. Others think that the information might
be transferred by airborne microbes to the boquila from the mimicked
plant. Nobody really knows.
..
In general these all occur in organisms (in addition
to plants) without nervous systems. There also occur in animals in
circumstances that are not assumed to be signs of consciousness and
intelligence - for example Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in butterflies. >>>
[1] Ernesto Gianoli, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences,
Tarleton State University
On 4/18/2026 12:50 PM, ShyDavid wrote:I've read mention of Racing Continents but have never come
On 2026/04/18 11:36 AM, RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 11:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
It is difficult to imagine what they tell the rubes.-a The canyon is a
mile deep.-a There are trilobite fossils in the lower levels of the canyon.-a They have animal tracks fossilized in some of the more recent sedimentary layers that were supposed to have been laid down by the
flood.-a These were fresh water sand dunes (likely desert dunes) that
would have had to be created during the global flood and some hardy survivors would have been walking around on them.-a This would all have
had to be happening as the continents moved thousands of miles to their present position in the single year of the flood.-a They really believe
that the Atlantic basin was created during the flood.-a My guess is with
all that crustal movement and subduction in other regions of the earth
that what was left was rubble or molten rock.-a Over 65 million years of continental drift occuring within one year.
On 2026/04/18 11:36 AM, RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 11:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved
a path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved- >>> ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
The ICR is still running their grand canyon trips.-a I recall these
trips advertized around the same time that the ID scam was first
coming to TO in the late 1990's.
https://canyonministries.org/icr-grand-canyon-trips/
US$550 a day to be lied to.
On 4/21/26 7:06 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:32:24 -0700, Mark Isaak
On 4/20/26 2:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
Second, I get the impression many people have the sense that
"materialism" implies mechanisms no more complicated than a 19th-century pocket watch. Materialism is every bit as all-encompassing as the God hypothesis, with the single exception of omitting the god, which is unobserved anyway.
On 4/18/2026 11:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a
path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-resolved- ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?utm_source=sfmc
The ICR is still running their grand canyon trips.-a I recall these trips advertized around the same time that the ID scam was first coming to TO
in the late 1990's.
https://canyonministries.org/icr-grand-canyon-trips/
On 2026/04/18 3:38 PM, RonO wrote:Don't know about that, BUT, my observation runs more along
On 4/18/2026 12:50 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/18 11:36 AM, RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 11:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
By now every Creationist apologists must know how the Grand Canyon (and other canyons) formed, at least regarding the basics. The Creationists hosting these rafting trips surely know by now how and when the Grand
Canyon formed--- they know that what they assert is demonstrably false.
In this, they are like palm readers, fortune teller, and many
astrologers (most astrologers actually believe that which they claim to believe), Tarot card readers, "psychics," and other cold readers.
I have yet to read about, or hear about, or hear from, a Creationism apologist who was honest.
RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 12:50 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/18 11:36 AM, RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 11:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
It is difficult to imagine what they tell the rubes.-a The canyon is aI've read mention of Racing Continents but have never come
mile deep.-a There are trilobite fossils in the lower levels of the
canyon.-a They have animal tracks fossilized in some of the more recent
sedimentary layers that were supposed to have been laid down by the
flood.-a These were fresh water sand dunes (likely desert dunes) that
would have had to be created during the global flood and some hardy
survivors would have been walking around on them.-a This would all have
had to be happening as the continents moved thousands of miles to
their present position in the single year of the flood.-a They really
believe that the Atlantic basin was created during the flood.-a My
guess is with all that crustal movement and subduction in other
regions of the earth that what was left was rubble or molten rock.
Over 65 million years of continental drift occuring within one year.
across a reference for it. Got one? SOunds like entertaining
reading for Coffee and Donuts...
On 5/4/2026 10:39 AM, Pro Plyd wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 12:50 PM, ShyDavid wrote:I've read mention of Racing Continents but have never come
On 2026/04/18 11:36 AM, RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 11:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
It is difficult to imagine what they tell the rubes.a The canyon is a
mile deep.a There are trilobite fossils in the lower levels of the
canyon.a They have animal tracks fossilized in some of the more recent
sedimentary layers that were supposed to have been laid down by the
flood.a These were fresh water sand dunes (likely desert dunes) that
would have had to be created during the global flood and some hardy
survivors would have been walking around on them.a This would all have
had to be happening as the continents moved thousands of miles to
their present position in the single year of the flood.a They really
believe that the Atlantic basin was created during the flood.a My
guess is with all that crustal movement and subduction in other
regions of the earth that what was left was rubble or molten rock.
Over 65 million years of continental drift occuring within one year.
across a reference for it. Got one? SOunds like entertaining
reading for Coffee and Donuts...
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/plate-tectonics/?srsltid=AfmBOorw2a_nNefAf55LOoErhjsXrtbtMY70XuW5MFrWEcQw5zwTBFxK
I didn't watch the video, but they claim that the continents "sprinted"
to their current positions during the flood.
https://creation.com/en/articles/hydroplate-theory
This seems to be an unintentionally humorous analysis of the mechanism
for moving the continents thousands of miles during the year of the
flood. The serious tone of the writing is often entertaining for anyone >that has been told the various flood models that the lunatics have come
up with, and understands what the author is alluding to and referencing.
I only read to the HPT mechanism.
Ron Okimoto
RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 12:50 PM, ShyDavid wrote:
On 2026/04/18 11:36 AM, RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 11:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
It is difficult to imagine what they tell the rubes.-a The canyon is aI've read mention of Racing Continents but have never come
mile deep.-a There are trilobite fossils in the lower levels of the
canyon.-a They have animal tracks fossilized in some of the more recent
sedimentary layers that were supposed to have been laid down by the
flood.-a These were fresh water sand dunes (likely desert dunes) that
would have had to be created during the global flood and some hardy
survivors would have been walking around on them.-a This would all have
had to be happening as the continents moved thousands of miles to
their present position in the single year of the flood.-a They really
believe that the Atlantic basin was created during the flood.-a My
guess is with all that crustal movement and subduction in other
regions of the earth that what was left was rubble or molten rock.
Over 65 million years of continental drift occuring within one year.
across a reference for it. Got one? SOunds like entertaining
reading for Coffee and Donuts...
On Mon, 4 May 2026 14:03:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/2026 10:39 AM, Pro Plyd wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 12:50 PM, ShyDavid wrote:I've read mention of Racing Continents but have never come
On 2026/04/18 11:36 AM, RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 11:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
It is difficult to imagine what they tell the rubes.-a The canyon is a >>>> mile deep.-a There are trilobite fossils in the lower levels of the
canyon.-a They have animal tracks fossilized in some of the more recent >>>> sedimentary layers that were supposed to have been laid down by the
flood.-a These were fresh water sand dunes (likely desert dunes) that
would have had to be created during the global flood and some hardy
survivors would have been walking around on them.-a This would all have >>>> had to be happening as the continents moved thousands of miles to
their present position in the single year of the flood.-a They really
believe that the Atlantic basin was created during the flood.-a My
guess is with all that crustal movement and subduction in other
regions of the earth that what was left was rubble or molten rock.
Over 65 million years of continental drift occuring within one year.
across a reference for it. Got one? SOunds like entertaining
reading for Coffee and Donuts...
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/plate-tectonics/?srsltid=AfmBOorw2a_nNefAf55LOoErhjsXrtbtMY70XuW5MFrWEcQw5zwTBFxK
I didn't watch the video, but they claim that the continents "sprinted"
to their current positions during the flood.
You didn't miss much. Can you believe, for example, that he cites
marine fossils on mountain tops as evidence that the Flood waters
covered those mountains? (with the standard explanation, of course,
being that those fossils are the remains of marine deposits raised up
by plate tectonics mountain building activities). He also uses a
straw man version of mainstream geology, where local catastrophes just
can't happen for some reason.
He says if there was a Flood, we would expect to find billions of dead animals fossilized in the rocks without dealing with the utter lack of
any evidence for a human civilizations in the fossil record that were supposed to have been the reason for the alleged Flood in the first
place. He talks about rocks being deformed without mentioning how that
can happen slowly under high pressure and temperature, or given low
strain rates under much more prosaic conditions.
And he doesn't talk about how the walls of the Grand Canyon could
maintain their structural integrity if they weren't turned to rock
during the Flood. He also conflates large depositional environments
with large areas for Flood deposits to form. And he doesn't mention
that contact between layers often show erosion like river channels if
they're traced far enough laterally, and doesn't explain how paleosols
could form at the boundaries of these layers in a Flood.
It's pseudoscience in its purest form, in this case a comic-book
version of science.
https://creation.com/en/articles/hydroplate-theory
This seems to be an unintentionally humorous analysis of the mechanism
for moving the continents thousands of miles during the year of the
flood. The serious tone of the writing is often entertaining for anyone
that has been told the various flood models that the lunatics have come
up with, and understands what the author is alluding to and referencing.
I only read to the HPT mechanism.
Ron Okimoto
His conclusion is:
"As a result of my analysis of BrownrCOs HPT model for the Flood, I do
not consider his model a viable Flood model for the general and
specific reasons summarized above."
On 5/4/2026 3:14 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2026 14:03:26 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/4/2026 10:39 AM, Pro Plyd wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 12:50 PM, ShyDavid wrote:I've read mention of Racing Continents but have never come
On 2026/04/18 11:36 AM, RonO wrote:
On 4/18/2026 11:14 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
It is difficult to imagine what they tell the rubes.a The canyon is a >>>>> mile deep.a There are trilobite fossils in the lower levels of the
canyon.a They have animal tracks fossilized in some of the more recent >>>>> sedimentary layers that were supposed to have been laid down by the
flood.a These were fresh water sand dunes (likely desert dunes) that >>>>> would have had to be created during the global flood and some hardy
survivors would have been walking around on them.a This would all have >>>>> had to be happening as the continents moved thousands of miles to
their present position in the single year of the flood.a They really >>>>> believe that the Atlantic basin was created during the flood.a My
guess is with all that crustal movement and subduction in other
regions of the earth that what was left was rubble or molten rock.
Over 65 million years of continental drift occuring within one year.
across a reference for it. Got one? SOunds like entertaining
reading for Coffee and Donuts...
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/plate-tectonics/?srsltid=AfmBOorw2a_nNefAf55LOoErhjsXrtbtMY70XuW5MFrWEcQw5zwTBFxK
I didn't watch the video, but they claim that the continents "sprinted"
to their current positions during the flood.
You didn't miss much. Can you believe, for example, that he cites
marine fossils on mountain tops as evidence that the Flood waters
covered those mountains? (with the standard explanation, of course,
being that those fossils are the remains of marine deposits raised up
by plate tectonics mountain building activities). He also uses a
straw man version of mainstream geology, where local catastrophes just
can't happen for some reason.
He says if there was a Flood, we would expect to find billions of dead
animals fossilized in the rocks without dealing with the utter lack of
any evidence for a human civilizations in the fossil record that were
supposed to have been the reason for the alleged Flood in the first
place. He talks about rocks being deformed without mentioning how that
can happen slowly under high pressure and temperature, or given low
strain rates under much more prosaic conditions.
And he doesn't talk about how the walls of the Grand Canyon could
maintain their structural integrity if they weren't turned to rock
during the Flood. He also conflates large depositional environments
with large areas for Flood deposits to form. And he doesn't mention
that contact between layers often show erosion like river channels if
they're traced far enough laterally, and doesn't explain how paleosols
could form at the boundaries of these layers in a Flood.
It's pseudoscience in its purest form, in this case a comic-book
version of science.
https://creation.com/en/articles/hydroplate-theory
This seems to be an unintentionally humorous analysis of the mechanism
for moving the continents thousands of miles during the year of the
flood. The serious tone of the writing is often entertaining for anyone >>> that has been told the various flood models that the lunatics have come
up with, and understands what the author is alluding to and referencing. >>>
I only read to the HPT mechanism.
Ron Okimoto
His conclusion is:
"As a result of my analysis of BrownAs HPT model for the Flood, I do
not consider his model a viable Flood model for the general and
specific reasons summarized above."
It should be noted that the author is YEC and believes that there was a >global flood just a few thousand years ago,
and that the continents must
have moved to their current locations from being a single land mass
during the flood. He believes that the Biblical god did it, but he is >admitting that they do not know how god-did-it.
Gondwana started to
break up 180 million years ago, and the Atlantic basin was forming and >growing by around 70 million years ago, but that option isn't available
to YEC.
On 4/30/26 1:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 20:45:32 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/28/26 7:21 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Is it any more 'unknown' than what neurologists are investigating?
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:59:47 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2026 10:01, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:00:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
A few weeks ago, I referred Mark to a Scientific American article >>>>>>>> back in February that fairly well sums up the state of the game in >>>>>>>> research into consciousness. Here is a non-paywalled link to the >>>>>>>> article; well worth a read if you have an interest in this subject. >>>>>>>>
https://archive.is/1k2ej
I had lost that link and have not read the article until now. Thank you >>>>>>> for reposting it. Here are my thoughts on it:
Overall, it looks like a good summary. I didn't know all the different >>>>>>> models and approaches myself, so I can't comment on them, but it jibes >>>>>>> with what else I have read. The only hypothesis I see the article left >>>>>>> out is quantum theories, regarding which: good riddance. One quote in >>>>>>> the article is very much an overstatement: Demertzi is quoted saying, >>>>>>> "Everything comes down to it [consciousness], everything." Kidney >>>>>>> function does not come down to consciousness, nor does your fingertips >>>>>>> wrinkling after long immersion in water. But that's a quibble.
The article says that the researchers don't agree on a definition of >>>>>>> consciousness, but, frustratingly, it does not give any definitions nor >>>>>>> describe the differences. Since definition is fundamental to the >>>>>>> problem, especially as it might apply to AI (which the article considers
at some length), this is a major omission.
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is >>>>>> a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to >>>>>> write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in >>>>>> plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be >>>>>> regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Perhaps specific instances of "communication, memory, altruism, kin
selection and mimicry" would be regarded as signs of consciousness and >>>>> intelligence, but these are not things that are in general so regarded. >>>>>
Memory and communication occur in bacteria. Mimicry (molecular mimicry) >>>>> occurs in viruses. In general these all occur in organisms (in addition >>>>> to plants) without nervous systems. There also occur in animals in
circumstances that are not assumed to be signs of consciousness and
intelligence - for example Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in butterflies. >>>>>
Basically, botanists talk about this openly among themselves but not >>>>>> externally. The reluctance to discuss it externally is due to the
ridicule and opprobrium that they would likely get from the wider
scientific community especially those involved in neurology who
dominate the research into consciousness. The author puts some of that >>>>>> down to the dreadful book 'The Secret Life Of Plants' published in >>>>>> 1973 which effectively poisoned the well for rational discussion of >>>>>> plant intelligence by making stupid claims like plants preferring
Beethoven to rock 'n' roll and reacting to a polygraph when someone >>>>>> imagined setting them on fire.
The main scientific issue, however, is that neurologists insist that >>>>>> consciousness is driven entirely by the brain. Plants have neither a >>>>>> brain nor a nervous system and botanists have come to the general
conclusion that consciousness may be a "whole-body" thing. That idea >>>>>> is now getting some support in animal biology with increasing
understanding of how much of a role microbes play in determining
behaviour and personality, particularly with the discovery that
transplanting microbes can result in behavioural transfers.
e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7294648/
I think you have a fallacy in there. Consciousness as an epiphenomenon >>>>> of the brain is not equivalent to consciousness being unaffected by
factors external to the brain. Neurologists don't, for example, deny the >>>>> existence of psychoactive chemicals.
Mind you, I don't think the idea that consciousness as a whole-body >>>>>> thing will come as any great surprise to anyone who has felt their >>>>>> heart broken by grief, their stomach fluttering with butterflies or >>>>>> their bowels clenching with fear.
So what do you make of this?
<quote>
Karban [1] often talks to colleagues who study personality traits
among animals, and he's come to a simple yet groundbreaking conclusion >>>> about how to approach his research: animals and plants are clearly
different, yet they share a common world. Their daily travails are
very similar. They need to find food, and they need to find mates. And >>>> they need to do it all while other things are trying to eat them. "If
animals have solved a problem in a particular way, it's not
unreasonable I think to ask, huh, I wonder if plants have done
something analogous."
Usually, when scientists measure characteristics of organisms-whether
plants or animals-they look at the average of the tendencies of the
entire group. For at least the last hundred years in plant biology,
individual plants within a species have been seen as replicants. No
individual trait matters to science, which only looks at the average
of the traits of the entire population. If one individual falls too
far outside the average, it tends to get discarded from the study as
an outlier. "What individuals do is seen as just noise," Karban
explains. But his work with sagebrush throws away the relevance of
averages. Personality research treats individual differences as
valuable data. Each one is a point on the spectrum of behavior. The
noise becomes the signal. "This is the opposite approach: It's paying
attention to the variation among individuals."
After a long career studying how sagebrush send signals to each other, >>>> Karban is finely attuned to variation in this process. He sees that
the exchange doesn't turn out the same way every time. Sometimes a
plant will signal distress, and its neighbors won't produce defensive
compounds, or sometimes they just produce less. Karban believes this
may be because individual plants may have different tolerances for
risk-one metric of personality. Some, he says, might exhibit a
personality akin to, say, natural-born scaredy-cats; they will signal
wildly at the slightest disturbance. In that case, other plants in the >>>> same family will treat their scared kin like the boy who cried wolf
and ignore them. They won't produce compounds of their own.
</quote>
Schlanger, Zo|2. The Light Eaters: The Acclaimed International
Bestseller (p. 68). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition. Pp66-68
[1] Richard Karban, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Entomology,
University of California-Davis,
Nothing there that speaks to consciousness. Intriguing behavioral
questions, for sure, but unknown behavior is not the same as consciousness. >>
Again we run into the problem of a lack of definition. Before you can
say it is consciousness, you must be able to say what consciousness is.
In that case, is research into consciousness by neurologists pointless
as you have agreed that they too don't have a definition?
Not pointless, but with much room for improvement.
And even that might not help. The sole definition of consciousness II don't see much difference between it and 'cogito, ergo sum'. Both
have encountered refers to "a state of mind ... in which there is
private and personal knowledge of our own existence, situated relative
to whatever its surround may be at a given moment." That might be useful >>> for me to know whether I am conscious, but it does not seem very easy to >>> determine the private and personal knowledge of anything else.
(And lest you be tempted to criticize that definition, I myself think it >>> needs improvement, but it stands above everything else simply by existing.) >>
are useful only at a personal level, the only way we can judge if
someone or something else is conscious is by their behaviour or lack
of behaviour. I use the word 'judge' deliberately because it is
ultimately a judgement. We have no objective way of assessing it.
Despite its shortcomings, using behaviour to identify consciousness is
something we do all the time. That applies to other animals as well as
people. I'm fairly sure that you've agreed in the past that other apes
are conscious; how have you decided that other than by their
behaviour?
I don't believe any plants have passed the mirror test.
I see no reason to not apply the same judgement to plant behaviour.
Taking your definition above, I have outlined in a post to Ernest how
the boquila vine adapts the colour and shape of its leaves to the
plant it is growing through and modifies the colour and shape as it
grows through different parts of the host plant. Does that not look
very like "private and personal knowledge of [its] own existence,
situated relative to whatever its surround may be at a given moment."?
I have a lot of questions before I answer that. How closely does the
vine interact with the leaves of the other plant? (Does it press
directly against them, e.g.? Does it have eyes to see them with?) Does
the vine mimic a completely novel artificial trellis it grows through,
or even a plant species that is exotic to the vine's range? If it grows >through two different plants, do the vine's leaves mimic two different >plants?
I don't know how color changes work on chameleons (and I very much doubt
it does work this way), but I can imagine a case in which there is some
kind of optic sensor in the chameleon's skin, and the skin on the
opposite side of the body reflexively, with no brain involvement
whatsoever, changes to the detected color. That could create the same
sort of mimicry you describe with the vines (as I understand them)
without a hint of consciousness.
I'm still trying to think of what *would* look like consciousness in
plants, and I don't have any answers yet. But applying the label >"consciousness" to anything we see does not seem helpful.
Are you making vision a prerequisite for consciousness?Despite its shortcomings, using behaviour to identify consciousness isI don't believe any plants have passed the mirror test.
something we do all the time. That applies to other animals as well as
people. I'm fairly sure that you've agreed in the past that other apes
are conscious; how have you decided that other than by their
behaviour?
On 28/04/2026 15:21, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:59:47 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2026 10:01, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:00:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
A few weeks ago, I referred Mark to a Scientific American article >>>>>> back in February that fairly well sums up the state of the game in >>>>>> research into consciousness. Here is a non-paywalled link to the
article; well worth a read if you have an interest in this subject. >>>>>>
https://archive.is/1k2ej
I had lost that link and have not read the article until now. Thank you >>>>> for reposting it. Here are my thoughts on it:
Overall, it looks like a good summary. I didn't know all the different >>>>> models and approaches myself, so I can't comment on them, but it jibes >>>>> with what else I have read. The only hypothesis I see the article left >>>>> out is quantum theories, regarding which: good riddance. One quote in >>>>> the article is very much an overstatement: Demertzi is quoted saying, >>>>> "Everything comes down to it [consciousness], everything." Kidney
function does not come down to consciousness, nor does your fingertips >>>>> wrinkling after long immersion in water. But that's a quibble.
The article says that the researchers don't agree on a definition of >>>>> consciousness, but, frustratingly, it does not give any definitions nor >>>>> describe the differences. Since definition is fundamental to the
problem, especially as it might apply to AI (which the article considers >>>>> at some length), this is a major omission.
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is >>>> a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to
write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in >>>> plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Perhaps specific instances of "communication, memory, altruism, kin
selection and mimicry" would be regarded as signs of consciousness and
intelligence, but these are not things that are in general so regarded.
Memory and communication occur in bacteria. Mimicry (molecular mimicry)
occurs in viruses. In general these all occur in organisms (in addition
to plants) without nervous systems. There also occur in animals in
circumstances that are not assumed to be signs of consciousness and
intelligence - for example Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in butterflies. >>>
Basically, botanists talk about this openly among themselves but not
externally. The reluctance to discuss it externally is due to the
ridicule and opprobrium that they would likely get from the wider
scientific community especially those involved in neurology who
dominate the research into consciousness. The author puts some of that >>>> down to the dreadful book 'The Secret Life Of Plants' published in
1973 which effectively poisoned the well for rational discussion of
plant intelligence by making stupid claims like plants preferring
Beethoven to rock 'n' roll and reacting to a polygraph when someone
imagined setting them on fire.
The main scientific issue, however, is that neurologists insist that
consciousness is driven entirely by the brain. Plants have neither a
brain nor a nervous system and botanists have come to the general
conclusion that consciousness may be a "whole-body" thing. That idea
is now getting some support in animal biology with increasing
understanding of how much of a role microbes play in determining
behaviour and personality, particularly with the discovery that
transplanting microbes can result in behavioural transfers.
e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7294648/
I think you have a fallacy in there. Consciousness as an epiphenomenon
of the brain is not equivalent to consciousness being unaffected by
factors external to the brain. Neurologists don't, for example, deny the >>> existence of psychoactive chemicals.
Mind you, I don't think the idea that consciousness as a whole-body
thing will come as any great surprise to anyone who has felt their
heart broken by grief, their stomach fluttering with butterflies or
their bowels clenching with fear.
So what do you make of this?
<quote>
Karban [1] often talks to colleagues who study personality traits
among animals, and he's come to a simple yet groundbreaking conclusion
about how to approach his research: animals and plants are clearly
different, yet they share a common world. Their daily travails are
very similar. They need to find food, and they need to find mates. And
they need to do it all while other things are trying to eat them. "If
animals have solved a problem in a particular way, it's not
unreasonable I think to ask, huh, I wonder if plants have done
something analogous."
Usually, when scientists measure characteristics of organisms-whether
plants or animals-they look at the average of the tendencies of the
entire group. For at least the last hundred years in plant biology,
individual plants within a species have been seen as replicants. No
individual trait matters to science, which only looks at the average
of the traits of the entire population. If one individual falls too
far outside the average, it tends to get discarded from the study as
an outlier. "What individuals do is seen as just noise," Karban
explains. But his work with sagebrush throws away the relevance of
averages. Personality research treats individual differences as
valuable data. Each one is a point on the spectrum of behavior. The
noise becomes the signal. "This is the opposite approach: It's paying
attention to the variation among individuals."
After a long career studying how sagebrush send signals to each other,
Karban is finely attuned to variation in this process. He sees that
the exchange doesn't turn out the same way every time. Sometimes a
plant will signal distress, and its neighbors won't produce defensive
compounds, or sometimes they just produce less. Karban believes this
may be because individual plants may have different tolerances for
risk-one metric of personality. Some, he says, might exhibit a
personality akin to, say, natural-born scaredy-cats; they will signal
wildly at the slightest disturbance. In that case, other plants in the
same family will treat their scared kin like the boy who cried wolf
and ignore them. They won't produce compounds of their own.
</quote>
Schlanger, Zo|2. The Light Eaters: The Acclaimed International
Bestseller (p. 68). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition. Pp66-68
[1] Richard Karban, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Entomology,
University of California-Davis,
I was puzzled as to why you raised this, but on reflection perhaps it's
the 3rd paragraph that you're interested in, and I shouldn't have been >distracted by the surprising claims that botanists are uninterested in >individual variation* in species. It also seems a bit of a tangent -
it's a specific example that on the face of it isn't a rejoinder to what
I had written previously.
For a nominal entomologist Karban has a lot of papers (50 odd) on
signalling in sagebrush. Sagebrush uses methyl jasmonate as a wounding >signal. This is a short range signal (around 2 feet), and seems to be >primarily used for intra-plant signalling - signalling between branches >through the medium of the air rather than through the plant tissues -
and inter-plant signalling comes along for free.
I wonder how much of the third paragraph represents Karban, and how much
is Schlanger's spin. My take is that there is individual variation in
methyl jasmonate production in response to herbivory (totally
unsurprising), and that there is individual variation in the production
of anti-herbivore compounds in response to exposure to methyl jasmonate >(also totally unsurprising). (Several of Karban's papers are about wild >tobacco "eavesdropping" on the sagebrush methyl jasmonate signal.
With the short range of the signalling mechanism, observation of the >behaviour implied in the last few sentences in the field doesn't seem >likely. Karban has done lab experiments, but these involved pot-grown >plants, so an additional signalling mechanism through the roots can be >discounted. It is conceivable that the implied observations could have
been made in the lab - experiments using pot grown plant raised from >cuttings allow experiments where an individual clone can interact with
more other clones that occurs in the wild - but I'd want to see a paper >rather than hearsay. To obtain the implied observations a large scale >experiment would need to be performed - e.g. 10 clones interacting with
10 other clones iterated chronologically 10 times requires 1000 tests.
The implied observations require that the plants can distinguish between >different methyl jasmonate sources. (One could speculate an ability to >distinguish based on the spectrum of volatile compounds.) It also
requires that the plants can tell whether the response was needed in >hindsight, and remember this. In principle epigenetics could offer the >latter.
Given the short range it is conceivable that this, if it exists, is not
a whole plant phenomenon, but a branch-scale phenomenon utilising local >epigenetic modifications.
* Contradicted, inter alia, by a paper that I was an author on last year.
On 28/04/2026 15:54, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:59:47 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2026 10:01, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
I meant to home in on a couple of things here.
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is >>>> a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to
write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in >>>> plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Perhaps specific instances of "communication, memory, altruism, kin
selection and mimicry" would be regarded as signs of consciousness and
intelligence, but these are not things that are in general so regarded.
Memory and communication occur in bacteria.
Does that not lend support to the idea that they contribute to animal
behaviour?
Why are you asking this? What have I written that could possible lead
you to think that I deny the memory and communication contribute (in
many instances) to animal behaviour?
Saying that X is not necessarily a sign of Y is not the same as saying
that Y precludes X.
Mimicry (molecular mimicry)
occurs in viruses.
What is particularly striking in mimicry in plants adapts to a range
of species. The boquila vine is particularly striking in this regard.
Wikipedia says that Boquila trifoliata is the only plant known to
display mimetic polymorphism (as does the original paper on leaf mimicry
in Boquila trifoliata). If they are correct your implication that it is
more widespread would be incorrect.
Would you care to make an argument. Your initial claim was "behaviours
in plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be >regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include things >like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and mimicry." That
reads like a general claim that these things should be considered "signs
of consciousness and intelligence", and I argued by counterexamples
against that claim. I did accept the possibility that there might be >specific instances for which the claim could be valid. If you wanted to >offer leaf mimicry in Boquila trifoliata as a specific example, you
could at least have withdrawn the general claim, or clarified that you >didn't intend it. You leave me uncertain of what your position actually is.
Leaf mimicry here involves changes to leaf growth, and presumably is >controlled epigenetically (it's the detection and signalling mechanism
which is harder to conceive.) Mimetic polymorphism in butterflies is >genetically, not epigenetically, controlled. Mimetic polymorphism
(substrate matching) in cephalopods is neurologically, not
epigenetically, controlled. Boquila trifoliata is weird,
and as of now
uncomprehended, but heterophylly in other plant species seems a closer >parallel than substrate matching in cephalopods. Termite castes
(different, epigenetically controlled, morphs), might be a closer parallel.
<quote>
As we moved along the thicket, I saw that boquila didn't always mimic
anything at all. Sometimes it was just itself. But over and over,
Gianoli [1] pointed to clumps of boquila mimicking different species.
Each time it took my eyes a moment to pluck out the boquila from the
plants surrounding it. The replicas were close, but not perfect.
Sometimes the stem was the wrong color, or the thickened leaf had not
quite thickened enough to pass. On one plant, the boquila leaves were
suddenly huge and fingerlike, dark-green and glossy, elongated to
nearly the length of my hand. They were matching notro (Embothrium
coccineum), a species of small evergreen tree that hung its branches
into the clearing beside it. Less than five feet away, the boquila's
leaves were suddenly petite and wispy, no longer slender fingers but
instead round and about the size of a quarter, perhaps fifteen or
sixteen times smaller than those of the boquila nearby. Instead of
glossy and dark, these leaves were matte and a shade of cool mint
green, like a different plant nearby
[rCa]
We walked a little farther. I saw that where a plant was yellowing,
the mimicking boquila yellowed too. Gianoli pointed out a bush covered
in shingles of glossy, thick little leaves, dark green, ranging in
size from thumbnail to pinkie nail. This, he told me, was
Rhaphithamnus spinosus. Tendrils of boquila wound around its stem. The
boquila leaves looked quite standard at the base, but as I looked
higher on the vine, where it began to wind through the leafy parts of
the rhaphithamnus, the boquila leaves got drastically smaller and took
on a dark gloss. In the older branches, the boquila leaves closest to
rhaphithamnus leaves were matched perfectly to the raphithamnus in
size, color, and shape.
</quote>
Schlanger, Zo|2. The Light Eaters: The Acclaimed International
Bestseller (p. 179). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.
The big question is, how does the boquila know what shape and colour
to take? Some scientists think that the epidermis of the leaves of
some plants may be light sensitive and give the plants what is
essentially a form of vision. Others think that the information might
be transferred by airborne microbes to the boquila from the mimicked
plant. Nobody really knows.
The original publication can be found here
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(14)00269-3
The experiment reported in the paper below lends support to the
hypothesis that it is a form of vision.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15592324.2021.1977530#d1e495
..
In general these all occur in organisms (in addition
to plants) without nervous systems. There also occur in animals in
circumstances that are not assumed to be signs of consciousness and
intelligence - for example Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in butterflies. >>>>
[1] Ernesto Gianoli, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences,
Tarleton State University
On Fri, 1 May 2026 11:23:06 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2026 15:21, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:59:47 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2026 10:01, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2026 21:00:01 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/26/26 2:32 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
A few weeks ago, I referred Mark to a Scientific American article >>>>>>> back in February that fairly well sums up the state of the game in >>>>>>> research into consciousness. Here is a non-paywalled link to the >>>>>>> article; well worth a read if you have an interest in this subject. >>>>>>>
https://archive.is/1k2ej
I had lost that link and have not read the article until now. Thank you >>>>>> for reposting it. Here are my thoughts on it:
Overall, it looks like a good summary. I didn't know all the different >>>>>> models and approaches myself, so I can't comment on them, but it jibes >>>>>> with what else I have read. The only hypothesis I see the article left >>>>>> out is quantum theories, regarding which: good riddance. One quote in >>>>>> the article is very much an overstatement: Demertzi is quoted saying, >>>>>> "Everything comes down to it [consciousness], everything." Kidney
function does not come down to consciousness, nor does your fingertips >>>>>> wrinkling after long immersion in water. But that's a quibble.
The article says that the researchers don't agree on a definition of >>>>>> consciousness, but, frustratingly, it does not give any definitions nor >>>>>> describe the differences. Since definition is fundamental to the
problem, especially as it might apply to AI (which the article considers >>>>>> at some length), this is a major omission.
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is >>>>> a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to >>>>> write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in >>>>> plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Perhaps specific instances of "communication, memory, altruism, kin
selection and mimicry" would be regarded as signs of consciousness and >>>> intelligence, but these are not things that are in general so regarded. >>>>
Memory and communication occur in bacteria. Mimicry (molecular mimicry) >>>> occurs in viruses. In general these all occur in organisms (in addition >>>> to plants) without nervous systems. There also occur in animals in
circumstances that are not assumed to be signs of consciousness and
intelligence - for example Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in butterflies. >>>>
Basically, botanists talk about this openly among themselves but not >>>>> externally. The reluctance to discuss it externally is due to the
ridicule and opprobrium that they would likely get from the wider
scientific community especially those involved in neurology who
dominate the research into consciousness. The author puts some of that >>>>> down to the dreadful book 'The Secret Life Of Plants' published in
1973 which effectively poisoned the well for rational discussion of
plant intelligence by making stupid claims like plants preferring
Beethoven to rock 'n' roll and reacting to a polygraph when someone
imagined setting them on fire.
The main scientific issue, however, is that neurologists insist that >>>>> consciousness is driven entirely by the brain. Plants have neither a >>>>> brain nor a nervous system and botanists have come to the general
conclusion that consciousness may be a "whole-body" thing. That idea >>>>> is now getting some support in animal biology with increasing
understanding of how much of a role microbes play in determining
behaviour and personality, particularly with the discovery that
transplanting microbes can result in behavioural transfers.
e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7294648/
I think you have a fallacy in there. Consciousness as an epiphenomenon >>>> of the brain is not equivalent to consciousness being unaffected by
factors external to the brain. Neurologists don't, for example, deny the >>>> existence of psychoactive chemicals.
Mind you, I don't think the idea that consciousness as a whole-body
thing will come as any great surprise to anyone who has felt their
heart broken by grief, their stomach fluttering with butterflies or
their bowels clenching with fear.
So what do you make of this?
<quote>
Karban [1] often talks to colleagues who study personality traits
among animals, and he's come to a simple yet groundbreaking conclusion
about how to approach his research: animals and plants are clearly
different, yet they share a common world. Their daily travails are
very similar. They need to find food, and they need to find mates. And
they need to do it all while other things are trying to eat them. "If
animals have solved a problem in a particular way, it's not
unreasonable I think to ask, huh, I wonder if plants have done
something analogous."
Usually, when scientists measure characteristics of organisms-whether
plants or animals-they look at the average of the tendencies of the
entire group. For at least the last hundred years in plant biology,
individual plants within a species have been seen as replicants. No
individual trait matters to science, which only looks at the average
of the traits of the entire population. If one individual falls too
far outside the average, it tends to get discarded from the study as
an outlier. "What individuals do is seen as just noise," Karban
explains. But his work with sagebrush throws away the relevance of
averages. Personality research treats individual differences as
valuable data. Each one is a point on the spectrum of behavior. The
noise becomes the signal. "This is the opposite approach: It's paying
attention to the variation among individuals."
After a long career studying how sagebrush send signals to each other,
Karban is finely attuned to variation in this process. He sees that
the exchange doesn't turn out the same way every time. Sometimes a
plant will signal distress, and its neighbors won't produce defensive
compounds, or sometimes they just produce less. Karban believes this
may be because individual plants may have different tolerances for
risk-one metric of personality. Some, he says, might exhibit a
personality akin to, say, natural-born scaredy-cats; they will signal
wildly at the slightest disturbance. In that case, other plants in the
same family will treat their scared kin like the boy who cried wolf
and ignore them. They won't produce compounds of their own.
</quote>
Schlanger, Zo|2. The Light Eaters: The Acclaimed International
Bestseller (p. 68). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition. Pp66-68
[1] Richard Karban, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Entomology,
University of California-Davis,
I was puzzled as to why you raised this, but on reflection perhaps it's
the 3rd paragraph that you're interested in, and I shouldn't have been
distracted by the surprising claims that botanists are uninterested in
individual variation* in species. It also seems a bit of a tangent -
it's a specific example that on the face of it isn't a rejoinder to what
I had written previously.
Sorry, I can't grasp what you are saying there. What do you mean by "individual variation in species" and why do you think I am claiming botanists are uninterested in it?
For a nominal entomologist Karban has a lot of papers (50 odd) on
signalling in sagebrush. Sagebrush uses methyl jasmonate as a wounding
signal. This is a short range signal (around 2 feet), and seems to be
primarily used for intra-plant signalling - signalling between branches
through the medium of the air rather than through the plant tissues -
and inter-plant signalling comes along for free.
I wonder how much of the third paragraph represents Karban, and how much
is Schlanger's spin. My take is that there is individual variation in
methyl jasmonate production in response to herbivory (totally
unsurprising), and that there is individual variation in the production
of anti-herbivore compounds in response to exposure to methyl jasmonate
(also totally unsurprising). (Several of Karban's papers are about wild
tobacco "eavesdropping" on the sagebrush methyl jasmonate signal.
With the short range of the signalling mechanism, observation of the
behaviour implied in the last few sentences in the field doesn't seem
likely. Karban has done lab experiments, but these involved pot-grown
plants, so an additional signalling mechanism through the roots can be
discounted. It is conceivable that the implied observations could have
been made in the lab - experiments using pot grown plant raised from
cuttings allow experiments where an individual clone can interact with
more other clones that occurs in the wild - but I'd want to see a paper
rather than hearsay. To obtain the implied observations a large scale
experiment would need to be performed - e.g. 10 clones interacting with
10 other clones iterated chronologically 10 times requires 1000 tests.
The implied observations require that the plants can distinguish between
different methyl jasmonate sources. (One could speculate an ability to
distinguish based on the spectrum of volatile compounds.) It also
requires that the plants can tell whether the response was needed in
hindsight, and remember this. In principle epigenetics could offer the
latter.
Given the short range it is conceivable that this, if it exists, is not
a whole plant phenomenon, but a branch-scale phenomenon utilising local
epigenetic modifications.
* Contradicted, inter alia, by a paper that I was an author on last year.
On Fri, 1 May 2026 12:21:46 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2026 15:54, Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:59:47 +0100, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2026 10:01, Martin Harran wrote:
[rCa]
I meant to home in on a couple of things here.
I've just finished reading 'The Light Eaters' by Zo|2 Schlanger. It is >>>>> a thoroughly fascinating book and I hope at some stage to get time to >>>>> write a detailed review of it but briefly, it identifies behaviours in >>>>> plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include
things like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and
mimicry.
Perhaps specific instances of "communication, memory, altruism, kin
selection and mimicry" would be regarded as signs of consciousness and >>>> intelligence, but these are not things that are in general so regarded. >>>>
Memory and communication occur in bacteria.
Does that not lend support to the idea that they contribute to animal
behaviour?
Why are you asking this? What have I written that could possible lead
you to think that I deny the memory and communication contribute (in
many instances) to animal behaviour?
Sorry, was I was just trying to probe a bit more.
Saying that X is not necessarily a sign of Y is not the same as saying
that Y precludes X.
Mimicry (molecular mimicry)
occurs in viruses.
What is particularly striking in mimicry in plants adapts to a range
of species. The boquila vine is particularly striking in this regard.
Wikipedia says that Boquila trifoliata is the only plant known to
display mimetic polymorphism (as does the original paper on leaf mimicry
in Boquila trifoliata). If they are correct your implication that it is
more widespread would be incorrect.
OK, I obviously misunderstood that, I thought it was more widespread
because the authors also talk about "Vavilovian mimicry" where weeds
evolve to share characteristics with a crop they are growing in but I realise now that that is straightforward evolution.
Would you care to make an argument. Your initial claim was "behaviours
in plants that if they were identified in any animal species would be
regarded as signs of consciousness and intelligence. They include things
like communication, memory, altruism, kin selection and mimicry." That
reads like a general claim that these things should be considered "signs
of consciousness and intelligence", and I argued by counterexamples
against that claim. I did accept the possibility that there might be
specific instances for which the claim could be valid. If you wanted to
offer leaf mimicry in Boquila trifoliata as a specific example, you
could at least have withdrawn the general claim, or clarified that you
didn't intend it. You leave me uncertain of what your position actually is.
Hopefully I've cleared up the Boquila issue now - sorry for the
confusion.
In regard to my overall position, it is that when all the behavioural
aspects I have mentioned are taken together, they do amount to a
strong body of evidence for some form of consciousness. I've just
posed in a reply to Mark, the definition of consciousness I favour but
let's maybe keep the discussion on consciousness there rather than two separated discussions going on.
Leaf mimicry here involves changes to leaf growth, and presumably is
controlled epigenetically (it's the detection and signalling mechanism
which is harder to conceive.) Mimetic polymorphism in butterflies is
genetically, not epigenetically, controlled. Mimetic polymorphism
(substrate matching) in cephalopods is neurologically, not
epigenetically, controlled. Boquila trifoliata is weird,
At least we agree on that :)
To quote Bob Casonovo's sig from Isaac Asimov: The most exciting
phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is
not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
and as of now
uncomprehended, but heterophylly in other plant species seems a closer
parallel than substrate matching in cephalopods. Termite castes
(different, epigenetically controlled, morphs), might be a closer parallel. >>>
<quote>
As we moved along the thicket, I saw that boquila didn't always mimic
anything at all. Sometimes it was just itself. But over and over,
Gianoli [1] pointed to clumps of boquila mimicking different species.
Each time it took my eyes a moment to pluck out the boquila from the
plants surrounding it. The replicas were close, but not perfect.
Sometimes the stem was the wrong color, or the thickened leaf had not
quite thickened enough to pass. On one plant, the boquila leaves were
suddenly huge and fingerlike, dark-green and glossy, elongated to
nearly the length of my hand. They were matching notro (Embothrium
coccineum), a species of small evergreen tree that hung its branches
into the clearing beside it. Less than five feet away, the boquila's
leaves were suddenly petite and wispy, no longer slender fingers but
instead round and about the size of a quarter, perhaps fifteen or
sixteen times smaller than those of the boquila nearby. Instead of
glossy and dark, these leaves were matte and a shade of cool mint
green, like a different plant nearby
[rCa]
We walked a little farther. I saw that where a plant was yellowing,
the mimicking boquila yellowed too. Gianoli pointed out a bush covered
in shingles of glossy, thick little leaves, dark green, ranging in
size from thumbnail to pinkie nail. This, he told me, was
Rhaphithamnus spinosus. Tendrils of boquila wound around its stem. The
boquila leaves looked quite standard at the base, but as I looked
higher on the vine, where it began to wind through the leafy parts of
the rhaphithamnus, the boquila leaves got drastically smaller and took
on a dark gloss. In the older branches, the boquila leaves closest to
rhaphithamnus leaves were matched perfectly to the raphithamnus in
size, color, and shape.
</quote>
Schlanger, Zo|2. The Light Eaters: The Acclaimed International
Bestseller (p. 179). HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition.
The big question is, how does the boquila know what shape and colour
to take? Some scientists think that the epidermis of the leaves of
some plants may be light sensitive and give the plants what is
essentially a form of vision. Others think that the information might
be transferred by airborne microbes to the boquila from the mimicked
plant. Nobody really knows.
The original publication can be found here
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(14)00269-3
The experiment reported in the paper below lends support to the
hypothesis that it is a form of vision.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15592324.2021.1977530#d1e495
The author talks about how boquila perfectly matches rhaphithamnus
leaves in size, color, and shape including a sharp thorn at the
extreme end of each leaf tip. The spike on the rhaphithamnus curls
under the leaf (similarly on the boquila) and is not visible from
above; that would seem to be an argument against vision -or at least
vision alone.
The author goes on to note that the spiny tip itself "is remarkable
to Gianoli. Whether or not a plant has a spiny leaf tip, he says, is
often used to distinguish the species itself. It's considered central
to a plant's identity, an immutable thing that makes it unique. For it
to pop up in a plant that has no history of making spikes like this is unprecedented. It would be like a person growing a rhino tusk. It just doesn't happen."
Is that valid?
..
In general these all occur in organisms (in addition
to plants) without nervous systems. There also occur in animals in
circumstances that are not assumed to be signs of consciousness and
intelligence - for example Batesian and Mullerian mimicry in butterflies. >>>>>
[1] Ernesto Gianoli, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences,
Tarleton State University
The author goes on to note that the spiny tip itself "is remarkable
to Gianoli. Whether or not a plant has a spiny leaf tip, he says, is
often used to distinguish the species itself. It's considered central
to a plant's identity, an immutable thing that makes it unique. For it
to pop up in a plant that has no history of making spikes like this is unprecedented. It would be like a person growing a rhino tusk. It just doesn't happen."
And creationists never tell us what the purpose was
of having God-mediated plate tectonics in the first place.
On 5/5/2026 1:47 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
And creationists never tell us what the purpose was
of-a having God-mediated plate tectonics in the first place.
Evidently, you've just never heard or understood it.-a One of the
purposes was to create the fuel we would require for civilization to exist.-a Having abandoned the paradise we began with, we would require
the oil, gas, and coal the massive amounts of organics would create. The huge deposits found around the world fit nicely into the global flood view.-a Slow and gradual not so much.
On 08/05/2026 15:18, sticks wrote:
On 5/5/2026 1:47 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
And creationists never tell us what the purpose was
of-a having God-mediated plate tectonics in the first place.
Evidently, you've just never heard or understood it.-a One of the
purposes was to create the fuel we would require for civilization to
exist.-a Having abandoned the paradise we began with, we would require
the oil, gas, and coal the massive amounts of organics would create.
The huge deposits found around the world fit nicely into the global
flood view.-a Slow and gradual not so much.
I presume that you've never looked at a stratigraphic section of Coal Measures deposits.
My preferred example for how ridiculous ascribing the geological column
to a Noachian flood is the Chalk Group, which is primarily composed of
the skeletons of plankton, and is over 500m thick in parts of England. Elsewhere "(in) the North Sea region, the Upper Cretaceous to Paleogene Chalk Group forms an almost pure calcitic succession, reaching a maximum thickness of over 2500 m in the Norwegian and British sectors of the
Central Graben". But the cyclothems of the coal measures (with repeated cycles of marine beds, seatearths and coal seams) would also serve.>
On 5/5/2026 1:47 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
And creationists never tell us what the purpose was
of having God-mediated plate tectonics in the first place.
Evidently, you've just never heard or understood it. One of the
purposes was to create the fuel we would require for civilization to
exist.
Having abandoned the paradise we began with, we would require
the oil, gas, and coal the massive amounts of organics would create.
The huge deposits found around the world fit nicely into the global
flood view. Slow and gradual not so much.
On 5/8/2026 10:31 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 08/05/2026 15:18, sticks wrote:
On 5/5/2026 1:47 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
And creationists never tell us what the purpose was
of-a having God-mediated plate tectonics in the first place.
Evidently, you've just never heard or understood it.-a One of the
purposes was to create the fuel we would require for civilization to
exist.-a Having abandoned the paradise we began with, we would require
the oil, gas, and coal the massive amounts of organics would create.
The huge deposits found around the world fit nicely into the global
flood view.-a Slow and gradual not so much.
I presume that you've never looked at a stratigraphic section of Coal
Measures deposits.
My preferred example for how ridiculous ascribing the geological
column to a Noachian flood is the Chalk Group, which is primarily
composed of the skeletons of plankton, and is over 500m thick in parts
of England. Elsewhere "(in) the North Sea region, the Upper Cretaceous
to Paleogene Chalk Group forms an almost pure calcitic succession,
reaching a maximum thickness of over 2500 m in the Norwegian and
British sectors of the Central Graben". But the cyclothems of the coal
measures (with repeated cycles of marine beds, seatearths and coal
seams) would also serve.>
Of course I'm familiar with the deposits, of course there are
creationist arguments explaining the structure, and of course you are
aware of those.-a My point in posting was not to debate the differing interpretations, but to counter the uninformed Vincent post that there
is not a creationist purpose involved that has been offered.-a I'm fine
with those who think the process took millions of years in their interpretation.-a I just disagree and choose not to call your opinion ridiculous.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:50:52 -0700, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 4/30/26 1:59 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
[...]
Despite its shortcomings, using behaviour to identify consciousness is
something we do all the time. That applies to other animals as well as
people. I'm fairly sure that you've agreed in the past that other apes
are conscious; how have you decided that other than by their
behaviour?
I don't believe any plants have passed the mirror test.
Are you making vision a prerequisite for consciousness?
Raher than me quoting lengthy passages from the book, you might find
the following Wiki article interesting as it summarises a lot of the
same issues covered in the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_intelligence
The article discusses the specific problem you have raised - the lack
of a definition of intelligence. FWIW, I like the summary compiled by
Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter:
- Intelligence is a property an individual has when it interacts
with the world around them.
- Intelligence is the individual's ability to succeed or profit when pursuing a goal.
- Intelligence is the capability of the individual to adapt to
various goals and environments.
I note that most of the criticism of the ideas summarised at the end
of the article is based on the argument that it is impossible for consciousness to exist without neurons and a brain but I think there
is a big element of a priori in that.
I'm still trying to think of what *would* look like consciousness in
plants, and I don't have any answers yet. But applying the label
"consciousness" to anything we see does not seem helpful.
I'm not sure how that argument is any different regarding neurological research into consciousness.
On 4/20/2026 4:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2026 09:14:21 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
The latest Science shows findings that suggest that a flood helped to
shape the Grand Canyon. No, not a global flood. The Colorado River
originally drained into a lake. When that lake overflowed, it carved a
path over the Kaibab Plateau and gave the river its current course.
https://www.science.org/content/article/grand-canyon-s-origin-
resolved-ancient-lake-s-flood-may-have-etched-famed-gorge?
utm_source=sfmc
I think this is a good example of where science runs out of steam. It
does a fantastic job of figuring out and explaining how natural forces
created and carved the Grand Canyon but it can't really offer anything
to explain the feeling of awe and grandeur that people experience when
they see a it.
Where do those feelings come from; why do people go to so much trouble
and expense just to go view it?
Natural selection, of course.
Anyway, I just bought this book, though it is short in length and at
$14.57 pricey, but it is a non-creationist view of the shortcomings of
the materialistic approach to precisely what you are referring to.-a He calls it a failure.-a You might want to check it out.
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008SQL6NS?nodl=0>
On 4/21/2026 11:22 AM, sticks wrote:
Anyway, I just bought this book, though it is short in length and at
$14.57 pricey, but it is a non-creationist view of the shortcomings of
the materialistic approach to precisely what you are referring to.-a He
calls it a failure.-a You might want to check it out.
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008SQL6NS?nodl=0>
So I did read the atheist Nagel's book.-a At 136 printed pages it's not a long read.-a But because of the way he writes it is not a book you can
zoom right through.-a He is methodical in his approach to the subject, though he often relies on falling back to "possibly", or "perhaps", or "maybe we'll never know" when he gets right to where you're expecting more.-a He certainly has a vast vocabulary and would qualify as a sesquipedalian, and I would say it is to his detriment.-a In the end, the book title gives away the ending.-a He does claim Darwinian evolution
does not adequately account for consciousness and the mind.-a He uses several specific things like cognition, value, pain and pleasure to make
his points.-a Interesting read, and he said the materialist faction is probably not ready to hear what he writes and he will be dismissed.-a I don't think that has been the case because he is not abandoning
evolution and natural selection, he just is showing how he thinks it
isn't answering the question.
As a creationist, the one thing I found odd was in his inclusion of
Theistic answers to his questions.-a He goes over each point using 4-5 different paradigms, one being the theistic evolutionist.-a He doesn't specifically name any religions, just generalizes.-a However, he only
does so for one group, and that is theistic evolution proponents.-a Being
an atheist, it's his book and I understand that is his choice.-a But to
lump all creationists into the realm of theistic evolutionists misses
the mark.-a He could have just left them out entirely and just used evolutionists.
Anyway, I just bought this book, though it is short in length and at
$14.57 pricey, but it is a non-creationist view of the shortcomings of
the materialistic approach to precisely what you are referring to.-a He
calls it a failure.-a You might want to check it out.
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008SQL6NS?nodl=0>
So I did read the atheist Nagel's book.-a At 136 printed pages it's not a long read.-a But because of the way he writes it is not a book you can
zoom right through.-a He is methodical in his approach to the subject, though he often relies on falling back to "possibly", or "perhaps", or "maybe we'll never know" when he gets right to where you're expecting more.-a He certainly has a vast vocabulary and would qualify as a sesquipedalian, and I would say it is to his detriment.-a In the end, the book title gives away the ending.-a He does claim Darwinian evolution
does not adequately account for consciousness and the mind.-a He uses several specific things like cognition, value, pain and pleasure to make
his points.-a Interesting read, and he said the materialist faction is probably not ready to hear what he writes and he will be dismissed.-a I don't think that has been the case because he is not abandoning
evolution and natural selection, he just is showing how he thinks it
isn't answering the question.
On 5/13/2026 4:44 PM, sticks wrote:
Anyway, I just bought this book, though it is short in length and at
$14.57 pricey, but it is a non-creationist view of the shortcomings of
the materialistic approach to precisely what you are referring to.a He
calls it a failure.a You might want to check it out.
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008SQL6NS?nodl=0>
So I did read the atheist Nagel's book.a At 136 printed pages it's not a
long read.a But because of the way he writes it is not a book you can
zoom right through.a He is methodical in his approach to the subject,
though he often relies on falling back to "possibly", or "perhaps", or
"maybe we'll never know" when he gets right to where you're expecting
more.a He certainly has a vast vocabulary and would qualify as a
sesquipedalian, and I would say it is to his detriment.a In the end, the
book title gives away the ending.a He does claim Darwinian evolution
does not adequately account for consciousness and the mind.a He uses
several specific things like cognition, value, pain and pleasure to make
his points.a Interesting read, and he said the materialist faction is
probably not ready to hear what he writes and he will be dismissed.a I
don't think that has been the case because he is not abandoning
evolution and natural selection, he just is showing how he thinks it
isn't answering the question.
---snip---
I should add he does write something I think is higher up the ladder of >unforgivable in the naturalist world. He makes several references >throughout the book on the problems with current Origin of Life theories.
Examples:
oIt is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the
result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism
of natural selection.o
oMy skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any >definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific >evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in
this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of
common sense. That is especially true with regard to the origin of life.o
oAs I have said, doubts about the reductionist account of life go
against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces
problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough,
both with respect to the evolution of life forms through accidental
mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from
dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution. The more we
learn about the intricacy of the genetic code and its control of the >chemical processes of life, the harder those problems seem.o
And though he does affirm his atheism, he does not dismiss ID proponents
as is done here and thanks them for their contributions:
oEven if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the >actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the >orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not >deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly >unfair.o
oI believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for >challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion
displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to >liberate us from religion.o
Gasp!!
On 5/13/2026 4:44 PM, sticks wrote:
Anyway, I just bought this book, though it is short in length and at
$14.57 pricey, but it is a non-creationist view of the shortcomings
of the materialistic approach to precisely what you are referring
to.-a He calls it a failure.-a You might want to check it out.
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008SQL6NS?nodl=0>
So I did read the atheist Nagel's book.-a At 136 printed pages it's not
a long read.-a But because of the way he writes it is not a book you
can zoom right through.-a He is methodical in his approach to the
subject, though he often relies on falling back to "possibly", or
"perhaps", or "maybe we'll never know" when he gets right to where
you're expecting more.-a He certainly has a vast vocabulary and would
qualify as a sesquipedalian, and I would say it is to his detriment.
In the end, the book title gives away the ending.-a He does claim
Darwinian evolution does not adequately account for consciousness and
the mind.-a He uses several specific things like cognition, value, pain
and pleasure to make his points.-a Interesting read, and he said the
materialist faction is probably not ready to hear what he writes and
he will be dismissed.-a I don't think that has been the case because he
is not abandoning evolution and natural selection, he just is showing
how he thinks it isn't answering the question.
---snip---
I should add he does write something I think is higher up the ladder of unforgivable in the naturalist world.-a He makes several references throughout the book on the problems with current Origin of Life theories.
Examples:
rCLIt is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism
of natural selection.rCY
rCLMy skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in
this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of
common sense. That is especially true with regard to the origin of life.rCY
rCLAs I have said, doubts about the reductionist account of life go
against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces
problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough,
both with respect to the evolution of life forms through accidental
mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from
dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution. The more we
learn about the intricacy of the genetic code and its control of the chemical processes of life, the harder those problems seem.rCY
And though he does affirm his atheism, he does not dismiss ID proponents
as is done here and thanks them for their contributions:
rCLEven if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously.-a They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.rCY
rCLI believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion
displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion.rCY
Gasp!!
On 15/05/2026 1:39 am, sticks wrote:
On 5/13/2026 4:44 PM, sticks wrote:
Anyway, I just bought this book, though it is short in length and at
$14.57 pricey, but it is a non-creationist view of the shortcomings
of the materialistic approach to precisely what you are referring
to.-a He calls it a failure.-a You might want to check it out.
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008SQL6NS?nodl=0>
So I did read the atheist Nagel's book.-a At 136 printed pages it's
not a long read.-a But because of the way he writes it is not a book
you can zoom right through.-a He is methodical in his approach to the
subject, though he often relies on falling back to "possibly", or
"perhaps", or "maybe we'll never know" when he gets right to where
you're expecting more.-a He certainly has a vast vocabulary and would
qualify as a sesquipedalian, and I would say it is to his detriment.
In the end, the book title gives away the ending.-a He does claim
Darwinian evolution does not adequately account for consciousness and
the mind.-a He uses several specific things like cognition, value,
pain and pleasure to make his points.-a Interesting read, and he said
the materialist faction is probably not ready to hear what he writes
and he will be dismissed.-a I don't think that has been the case
because he is not abandoning evolution and natural selection, he just
is showing how he thinks it isn't answering the question.
---snip---
I should add he does write something I think is higher up the ladder
of unforgivable in the naturalist world.-a He makes several references
throughout the book on the problems with current Origin of Life theories.
Examples:
rCLIt is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the
result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism
of natural selection.rCY
rCLMy skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any
definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available
scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion,
does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the
incredulity of common sense. That is especially true with regard to
the origin of life.rCY
rCLAs I have said, doubts about the reductionist account of life go
against the dominant scientific consensus, but that consensus faces
problems of probability that I believe are not taken seriously enough,
both with respect to the evolution of life forms through accidental
mutation and natural selection and with respect to the formation from
dead matter of physical systems capable of such evolution. The more we
learn about the intricacy of the genetic code and its control of the
chemical processes of life, the harder those problems seem.rCY
And though he does affirm his atheism, he does not dismiss ID
proponents as is done here and thanks them for their contributions:
rCLEven if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the
actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for
the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously.-a They do
not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is
manifestly unfair.rCY
rCLI believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude
for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion
displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to
liberate us from religion.rCY
Gasp!!
Amen.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 08:38:18 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (6,679K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,947 |