Matter is not insentient

[Bahman]

I have recently read Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment and I found it very intriguing. To elaborate in simple manner one need to know that quantum particles such as photon obeys complementary principle meaning that quantum particle can behave as particle or as wave but not both depending on set up experiment. What Wheeler argues is that the true behaviour of a quantum particle can have subjectivity over time hence a quantum particle can decide about its behaviour even in very late state of an experiment. You can read about his thought experiment here.

Your thought?

 

[glendab]

Rocks are insentient matter. What else?

Glenda

 

[meltzerboy]

I have recently read Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment and I found it very intriguing. To elaborate in simple manner one need to know that quantum particles such as photon obeys complementary principle meaning that quantum particle can behave as particle or as wave but not both depending on set up experiment. What Wheeler argues is that the true behaviour of a quantum particle can have subjectivity over time hence a quantum particle can decide about its behaviour even in very late state of an experiment. You can read about his thought experiment here.

Your thought?

Apart from the physics experiment you cite that may point toward a goal-directed behavior for particles and perhaps therefore a certain level of sentience, there is mounting evidence that plants have sentience even without a nervous system, and not only sentience but empathy for their plant neighbors. This is surely a vegetarian’s and vegan’s worst nightmare! I think you will find less resistance to the matter proposal in Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Native American religions than in most Western religions and philosophies.

 

[Valiente88]

I second what Meltzer said. Christianity and Islam tend to encourage “Little Emperor” syndrome for how the faithful views itself in regards to the wider world i.e something special. Anything that goes against that like this will be rejected on principle if there’s some truth to it or not.

 

[glendab]

Okay. I’ve thought about it. Think of a duck on the pond. He glides from one side to the other leaving waves in his stead. If you could divide the surface of the pond into two layers he’s still going to effect both layers, but because of the division, it would create a space between the two layers through which the one object, the duck, would pass. We know there aren’t two ducks now that we’ve split the surface of the pond in two, nor are there two ponds either. Same duck (photon), same pond (space). Also with the duck/pond analogy, what you have is an appearance that a third party notices, the observer. Do you take the duck as a whole and ignore his wave across the pond’s surface as independent of the duck? And suppose you notices waves on the pond but cannot see any duck! Do you assume there is a duck that your eye cannot see? And do the conditions on the pond at the time of observation change the appearance and actions of all three? Yes. In my opinion, the photon is the same. It may be influenced by things not observed in its course and we cannot know that by present measuring devices because we can only see them at the end of their existence by measuring what happens when they die. So, dead ducks only tell us how ducks die, not about the entire life of ducks.

Glenda

 

[Bill1940]

Apart from the physics experiment you cite that may point toward a goal-directed behavior for particles and perhaps therefore a certain level of sentience, there is mounting evidence that plants have sentience even without a nervous system, and not only sentience but empathy for their plant neighbors. This is surely a vegetarian’s and vegan’s worst nightmare! I think you will find less resistance to the matter proposal in Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Native American religions than in most Western religions and philosophies.

Perhaps all living things have a level of sentience sufficient for survival and propagation. I watch our cucuzzi plants wrap their tendrils around a makeshift trellis to keep the fruit off the ground and in the sunlight. Wondrous is Thy Creation, Oh Lord.

 

[balto]

To elaborate in simple manner one need to know that quantum particles such as photon obeys complementary principle meaning that quantum particle can behave as particle or as wave but not both depending on set up experiment.

Maybe this is a dumb question (probably is), but can you design an experiment that tests for wave-like and particle-like behavior simultaneously? That would seem to settle the question. Why can’t it be the case that quantum “particles” are not waves nor particles but contain aspects of both natures, and the experimental setup is only detecting one side of the true nature? It would be like if we designed an experiment to detect redness in white light and then designed an experiment to test blueness in white light and thought that since the color depended on the experimental setup that the light was choosing to be red or blue in advance when it is really the case that the nature of white light includes all colors of the visible spectrum and the experiment is only detecting a small part of that nature.

 

[balto]

Apart from the physics experiment you cite that may point toward a goal-directed behavior for particles and perhaps therefore a certain level of sentience, there is mounting evidence that plants have sentience even without a nervous system, and not only sentience but empathy for their plant neighbors. This is surely a vegetarian’s and vegan’s worst nightmare! I think you will find less resistance to the matter proposal in Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Native American religions than in most Western religions and philosophies.

What you have said is true, but I would be hesitant to call such behavior in plants “sentience.” The specific meaning of sentience has to do with having subjective experiences utilizing so-called qualia and the like, which only animals have. That plants respond to their environment and cooperate with other plants would, if anything, be a return of the dreaded final causality and goal-directness rejected at the beginning of the modern period. Sentience is only a specific type of goal-directedness. If plants really do have qualia like animals do, then it would seem to be a cruel fact about nature that they can have subjective experiences but do nothing to act on those experiences.

 

[meltzerboy]

What you have said is true, but I would be hesitant to call such behavior in plants “sentience.” The specific meaning of sentience has to do with having subjective experiences utilizing so-called qualia and the like, which only animals have. That plants respond to their environment and cooperate with other plants would, if anything, be a return of the dreaded final causality and goal-directness rejected at the beginning of the modern period. Sentience is only a specific type of goal-directedness. If plants really do have qualia like animals do, then it would seem to be a cruel fact about nature that they can have subjective experiences but do nothing to act on those experiences.

Whether or not we should call them sentient, plants can and do act on those experiences and have an influence not only on other plants but on insects and animals as well. There is some fascinating research on all of this.

 

[Michael19682]

Apart from the physics experiment you cite that may point toward a goal-directed behavior for particles and perhaps therefore a certain level of sentience, there is mounting evidence that plants have sentience even without a nervous system, and not only sentience but empathy for their plant neighbors. This is surely a vegetarian’s and vegan’s worst nightmare! I think you will find less resistance to the matter proposal in Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Native American religions than in most Western religions and philosophies.

Empathy? The concept itself presupposes certain realities that can’t be proven even for human beings. Share or recognize emotions experienced by another real or fictional being? How can a person share what exists in a specific instantiation only within his her nervous system? Even the overflow, the verbal regurgitation, can only trigger a response. If you don’t believe in a “social pool” of shared energy that exists along some kind of invisible continuum, your really out of luck. Even during intercourse of a sexual nature, the share of one’s internal brain functioning can’t be accomplished through the external viscera?

 

[Kurisu35712]

What you have said is true, but I would be hesitant to call such behavior in plants “sentience.” The specific meaning of sentience has to do with having subjective experiences utilizing so-called qualia and the like, which only animals have. That plants respond to their environment and cooperate with other plants would, if anything, be a return of the dreaded final causality and goal-directness rejected at the beginning of the modern period. Sentience is only a specific type of goal-directedness. If plants really do have qualia like animals do, then it would seem to be a cruel fact about nature that they can have subjective experiences but do nothing to act on those experiences.

I’m pretty sure the CCC has a section regarding animals, plants, and souls. It talks about the “natural soul” present in all living things. I’m not sure if that makes a plant sentient, rather than just alive though. In a way, I imagine the “sentience” one can attribute to a plant is similar to the sentience one could attribute to a cell, since their reactions aren’t based on stimulation of a nervous system, but a reaction to chemical triggers similarly to how a white blood cell “identifies” an invading microbe. Obviously completely different processes, but the processes are usually based solely on a chemical reaction rather than a conscious one.

One thing I’ve always wondered, though, is whether or not a chloroplast or a mitochondria could be considered their own organisms in a sense. Really I’ve asked the same thing about our individual cells before. I recognize that my white blood cells are my own cells, but the fact that they can protect the other cells that make up my body is kind of amazing.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I’m pretty sure the CCC has a section regarding animals, plants, and souls. It talks about the “natural soul” present in all living things. I’m not sure if that makes a plant sentient, rather than just alive though. In a way, I imagine the “sentience” one can attribute to a plant is similar to the sentience one could attribute to a cell, since their reactions aren’t based on stimulation of a nervous system, but a reaction to chemical triggers similarly to how a white blood cell “identifies” an invading microbe. Obviously completely different processes, but the processes are usually based solely on a chemical reaction rather than a conscious one.

One thing I’ve always wondered, though, is whether or not a chloroplast or a mitochondria could be considered their own organisms in a sense. Really I’ve asked the same thing about our individual cells before. I recognize that my white blood cells are my own cells, but the fact that they can protect the other cells that make up my body is kind of amazing.

Quoting myself, but I had another thought to add. The soul of a plant is different from the soul of an animal, which is different from the soul of a human. I also read that each angel is its own “species.” So while I don’t know if sentience is the right term to describe a plant’s experience, I do agree with the notion that a plant has some level of ability to experience the world around it. Perhaps not with a level of consciousness we can understand as humans, but while I don’t think a plant can feel pain, I do think it has at least some level of awareness of it’s environment.

 

[Muzhik]

Maybe this is a dumb question (probably is), but can you design an experiment that tests for wave-like and particle-like behavior simultaneously? That would seem to settle the question. Why can’t it be the case that quantum “particles” are not waves nor particles but contain aspects of both natures, and the experimental setup is only detecting one side of the true nature? It would be like if we designed an experiment to detect redness in white light and then designed an experiment to test blueness in white light and thought that since the color depended on the experimental setup that the light was choosing to be red or blue in advance when it is really the case that the nature of white light includes all colors of the visible spectrum and the experiment is only detecting a small part of that nature.

They are not dumb questions, and the answer to the first one is no, you cannot test for wave-like and particle-like behavior simultaneously. The reason is something called “Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle”. It relates to the impossibility of an experimenter to totally separate his-or-herself from the results of the experiment. You cannot measure an object without changing something about the object, even slightly. To measure the “wave-like” behavior, you have to change the “particle-like” behavior (such as direction or speed) in some way. This means you can’t be sure that you are accurately measuring “particle-like” behavior at the same time you are measuring “wave-like” behavior.

As for the color of light question, white light is made of many different colors blending together. Measuring the red light or blue light is filtering out other colors of light, rather than forcing a particular photon to “choose” its frequency.

 

[glendab]

Hello Balto.

Maybe this is a dumb question (probably is), but can you design an experiment that tests for wave-like and particle-like behavior simultaneously? That would seem to settle the question. Why can’t it be the case that quantum “particles” are not waves nor particles but contain aspects of both natures, and the experimental setup is only detecting one side of the true nature? It would be like if we designed an experiment to detect redness in white light and then designed an experiment to test blueness in white light and thought that since the color depended on the experimental setup that the light was choosing to be red or blue in advance when it is really the case that the nature of white light includes all colors of the visible spectrum and the experiment is only detecting a small part of that nature.

I don’t think they can yet. This is because the photons entire life cannot be observed, only their deaths. So, even if they created waves or ride the waves of other energies and forms of matter in an opportunistic way, we have no way to observe this as yet. I think that if there is a way, it will be an after-effect of the mapping of the lives of nutrinos. Then the ducks will all be in a row. Quack quack. :tiphat:

Glenda

 

[balto]

They are not dumb questions, and the answer to the first one is no, you cannot test for wave-like and particle-like behavior simultaneously. The reason is something called “Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle”. It relates to the impossibility of an experimenter to totally separate his-or-herself from the results of the experiment. You cannot measure an object without changing something about the object, even slightly. To measure the “wave-like” behavior, you have to change the “particle-like” behavior (such as direction or speed) in some way. This means you can’t be sure that you are accurately measuring “particle-like” behavior at the same time you are measuring “wave-like” behavior.

Ah, that’s right. It’s been a while since I have taken a physics class (and I didn’t understand quantum mechanics too well back then )

As for the color of light question, white light is made of many different colors blending together. Measuring the red light or blue light is filtering out other colors of light, rather than forcing a particular photon to “choose” its frequency.

I understand that, the point I was trying to make is that it might be the same kind of thing that is involved with a photon, i.e. it exhibits both wave-like and particle-like behavior so the experiment is filtering one or the other out.

 

[balto]

I’m pretty sure the CCC has a section regarding animals, plants, and souls. It talks about the “natural soul” present in all living things. I’m not sure if that makes a plant sentient, rather than just alive though. In a way, I imagine the “sentience” one can attribute to a plant is similar to the sentience one could attribute to a cell, since their reactions aren’t based on stimulation of a nervous system, but a reaction to chemical triggers similarly to how a white blood cell “identifies” an invading microbe. Obviously completely different processes, but the processes are usually based solely on a chemical reaction rather than a conscious one.

Yes, that is correct. “Soul” is just a technical Aristotelian term for the form of a living thing. But the soul of a plant can only be called “vegetative” and not “sentient” because sentience involves subjective experiences such as seeing, feeling, tasting, hearing, etc. Animals and humans have that, all other life forms do not have that. I think if we define sentience broadly to include a reaction to any external stimulus, then we’ve just defined almost all of reality as “sentient.”

 

[Kurisu35712]

Yes, that is correct. “Soul” is just a technical Aristotelian term for the form of a living thing. But the soul of a plant can only be called “vegetative” and not “sentient” because sentience involves subjective experiences such as seeing, feeling, tasting, hearing, etc. Animals and humans have that, all other life forms do not have that. I think if we define sentience broadly to include a reaction to any external stimulus, then we’ve just defined almost all of reality as “sentient.”

Good point.

 

[tdgesq]

One of the problems with this type of speculation is that we don’t really know what a photon is.

All the fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no closer to answer the
question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Of course today every rascal thinks he knows
the answer, but he is deluding himself.
— Albert Einstein

In the Wiki article, Wheeler himself admits:

The thing that causes people to argue about when and how the photon learns that the experimental apparatus is in a certain configuration and then changes from wave to particle to fit the demands of the experiment’s configuration is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomers observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the galaxy or only one way. Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense, the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago “to be is to be perceived.”

While I disagree with the last sentence and Bishop Berkeley’s conclusion, the point I think is that metric data at a defined moment in time under isolated test conditions can’t reliably lead to ontological conclusions. I agree with meltzerboy that biological studies, particularly at the microscopic level, present some fascinating insights on the notion of sentient being.

 

[ynotzap]

Since the five senses are sentient organs, and physical (material) in this aspect, matter is sentient. It is found that electricity plays a major role in sensing, it is active in the nervous system. By the use of electricity scientists have been able to use this material power, the movement of electrons to sense objects. eg. heat-sensing missiles used in war. Sentient organs or powers have their origin in matter, not in spirit as our ability to reason, or make choices. This why we are said to be part spirits, and part animals, man, homo-sapien. A rock is not sentient as it hasn’t a sentient soul, the source of growth, order, found in plants or animals A sentient material or physical object is more complexed, and relies on external physical forces such as the sun, chemical reactions and such. Rocks can contain uranium, a highly radio-active substance which can be used to produce electricity eg. If it is strictly sentient, it is physical or material. Inorganic matter is not sentient

 

[Bahman]

Since the five senses are sentient organs, and physical (material) in this aspect, matter is sentient. It is found that electricity plays a major role in sensing, it is active in the nervous system. By the use of electricity scientists have been able to use this material power, the movement of electrons to sense objects. eg. heat-sensing missiles used in war. Sentient organs or powers have their origin in matter, not in spirit as our ability to reason, or make choices. This why we are said to be part spirits, and part animals, man, homo-sapien. A rock is not sentient as it hasn’t a sentient soul, the source of growth, order, found in plants or animals A sentient material or physical object is more complexed, and relies on external physical forces such as the sun, chemical reactions and such. Rocks can contain uranium, a highly radio-active substance which can be used to produce electricity eg. If it is strictly sentient, it is physical or material. Inorganic matter is not sentient

Perhaps you should read the link in the original post to see that a single photon is aware of setup experiment since it has different behavior given different setup. How you could possibly explain photon’s behavior then if it is not aware of its surrounding?