"Talking with trees" in July's Touchstone

[Bart]

Cool

[Al Hakim]

Hi Will,

I like your differentiation between “aesthetic aand conceptual consciousness” . It hits the point and allows scientific research on plant communication and personal perception at the same time.
Well done.

Al Hakim

[Bart]

I think there is a gradient of consciousness. A lot of couch potatoes do qualify for zombie and show the same level of reflective capabilities as your average willow. The structuring energies are within all objects, the spirit is however sometimes on standby.

[Will]

I think there is a gradient of consciousness..

Bart, Emphatically yes, in my view the exploration of consciousness is a wide open space for exploration containing many gradients. As with any explorer moving into an explored universe it is useful (in my quite limited experience), to rely on such prior experience as may seem useful; and to begin identifying and naming recognizable landmarks, so I can remember where I've been. In beginning an exploration of consciousness, it may be sufficient for some to say this is mine, I know where I am, and everything is arm and fuzzy. If changes to my consciousness occur, the ok, great I'll float along and see where I end up next. This is a perfectly fine, comfortable and livable way.

Others may wish to develop a more detailed concept of the consciousness universe; and will full move from around it, as the need or desire arises. I am more of exploring and moving willfully about. Hence, developing recognizable conceptual landmarks is useful. Pls note that I in no way understand that my own explorations and landmarks in any way represent the truth; or that really is such a thing as aesthetic or conceptual consciousness. These are only names that I (and perhaps others) find useful in navigating a willfully chosen journey through this sea of consciousness through many of us, rather amoeba like, make or way from ephemeral moment to the next.

Nor am I saying that it is n either or description. While I may strive for a more (or mostly) conceptual consciousness while driving; and a more aesthetic while walking in the woods, I rarely achieve a fully pure consciousness doing either. Further, as a good druid and an avowed triphiliac, two identifiable land marks (or recognizable directions, or reference indices) are insufficient to allow navigation through the full universe of consciousness. To grasp the full scope of possible locations within the great sea of consciousness, I must identify three "landmarks; and they must be sufficiently "orthogonal". Three landmarks or reference points that all lie in the same place may describe a comfortably well known niche; but they fail to support exploration and navigation through the greater ocean.

At the moment, I can posit two land marks in the great ocean called consciousness: aesthetic and conceptual. I am not sure I concur with the names, but only note they are names used bu others. I've not "tested" these two as pair to determine if they lead in and describe fully independent spaces within the ocean of consciousness; nor begun to identify a third, except to notionally know (after the myth of Tailtiu and philosophy of CS Peirce) that there is a third. Perhaps spiritual consciousness?. But is that sufficiently orthogonal to both conceptual and aesthetic. Or maybe all three get trashed out; and entirely other trine proves more useful. Again, I do not try to disclose the truth of consciousness's great sea; only to identify a few familiar stars to me help me navigate through one explorer's journey.

Of course, nothing restricts any other consciousness to navigate by my stars as they not determine the true structure consciousness. Nor must I or any other stick to a true course aligned to ant single direction, star or landmark; unless by choice. Nor must any even choose to navigate; both pelagic drifting and littoral residency prove quite nourishing and successful journeys through the great sea.

Gradients there are. Many, In all directions. Enjoy the ride.

Just a thought, Will

[dvawlqos]

I think there is a gradient of consciousness..

Bart, Emphatically yes, in my view the exploration of consciousness is a wide open space for exploration containing many gradients. As with any explorer moving into an explored universe it is useful (in my quite limited experience), to rely on such prior experience as may seem useful; and to begin identifying and naming recognizable landmarks, so I can remember where I've been. In beginning an exploration of consciousness, it may be sufficient for some to say this is mine, I know where I am, and everything is arm and fuzzy. If changes to my consciousness occur, the ok, great I'll float along and see where I end up next. This is a perfectly fine, comfortable and livable way.

Others may wish to develop a more detailed concept of the consciousness universe; and will full move from around it, as the need or desire arises. I am more of exploring and moving willfully about. Hence, developing recognizable conceptual landmarks is useful. Pls note that I in no way understand that my own explorations and landmarks in any way represent the truth; or that really is such a thing as aesthetic or conceptual consciousness. These are only names that I (and perhaps others) find useful in navigating a willfully chosen journey through this sea of consciousness through many of us, rather amoeba like, make or way from ephemeral moment to the next.

Nor am I saying that it is n either or description. While I may strive for a more (or mostly) conceptual consciousness while driving; and a more aesthetic while walking in the woods, I rarely achieve a fully pure consciousness doing either. Further, as a good druid and an avowed triphiliac, two identifiable land marks (or recognizable directions, or reference indices) are insufficient to allow navigation through the full universe of consciousness. To grasp the full scope of possible locations within the great sea of consciousness, I must identify three "landmarks; and they must be sufficiently "orthogonal". Three landmarks or reference points that all lie in the same place may describe a comfortably well known niche; but they fail to support exploration and navigation through the greater ocean.

At the moment, I can posit two land marks in the great ocean called consciousness: aesthetic and conceptual. I am not sure I concur with the names, but only note they are names used bu others. I've not "tested" these two as pair to determine if they lead in and describe fully independent spaces within the ocean of consciousness; nor begun to identify a third, except to notionally know (after the myth of Tailtiu and philosophy of CS Peirce) that there is a third. Perhaps spiritual consciousness?. But is that sufficiently orthogonal to both conceptual and aesthetic. Or maybe all three get trashed out; and entirely other trine proves more useful. Again, I do not try to disclose the truth of consciousness's great sea; only to identify a few familiar stars to me help me navigate through one explorer's journey.

Of course, nothing restricts any other consciousness to navigate by my stars as they not determine the true structure consciousness. Nor must I or any other stick to a true course aligned to ant single direction, star or landmark; unless by choice. Nor must any even choose to navigate; both pelagic drifting and littoral residency prove quite nourishing and successful journeys through the great sea.

Gradients there are. Many, In all directions. Enjoy the ride.

Just a thought, Will

I dunno I think the thrid is sort of a combo of the first two. The joiner of forces if you like. I've been sort of influenced by the Timeless Universe theory of Julian Barbour, and interestingly enough, he has three forces that underline reality.

He calls them mysts, and the combination of his green mist and blue mist is the golden path. Since this is the way the universe gets its structure, I think it's a very fruitful way to meditate.

[Bart]

Please be aware you are posting in the skeptical druid.
I love to see scientific proof of the golden path giving structure to the universe. This will give CERN something to read.

[Will]

Please be aware you are posting in the skeptical druid. I love to see scientific proof.

Bart, To the extent that the "skeptical druid" attracts some with a sort of "scientific" inclination, I might expect the discussion may occasionally turn towards the fantastic. There is much in science that precedes the proof. You cant prove what you cant see; and you cant see what you are not looking for. Theory building suggests what things to seek; and can often sound quite fantastic until proven or at least well socialized. I dont know that the theory if theory of "mysts" is much wilder or less proven than the theory of "strings"; or CS Peirce's theory of "firstness, secondness, thirdbess". Strings maybe considered more probable to some because of its roots in mathematics. Mysts may appeal to others because of a shared personal cognition. Peirce's work may appeal to those who share his logic and philosophy.

Each in their own way may contribute to informing a testable theory; may point the way towards what the proof might look like. If this is a list/forum for examining just the results of the long and winding scientific process; perhaps that suggests the need for other lists where we can explore and contribute to other earlier phases of the process. Perhaps it falls to druid's task to recognize "Blue Myst" as a critical unknown, like DNA several decades past; and dedicate a life time to constructing a Bluemystometer so that everyone else can see it.

Maybe such activity does not belong on "Talking with Trees" in the "skeptical druid". Where does it belong?

[Bart]

Will, Before DNA itself was discovered there was enough evidence of a carrier of information. Breeding was based on this fact.
Unfortunately Blue mist comes out the blue sky. You are right that fantasy precedes a testable hypothesis. But it is fantasy based on observed facts, which starts a philosophical excersise. The current scientific method is rational that way. Even the alchemist Newton based his fluffy stuff on an arabic history reviewing the philosopher stone.

The discussion on talking with trees, is, as you can read in the first part of the discussion, based on the fact that fluffy conclusions should not be presented with a sciency eyeshadow. Just present it as it is, a fluffy theory which you may, or may not, believe.

The whole idea of a skeptical attiditude is to keep questioning the source, which according to me is perfectly valid with all the fluffy nonsense out there. There is a sign upon entering this section, which will tell you that you may vent fluffy stuff. But be prepared to substantiate it with other facts than: because I think it is.

@ Nico: I hope you were kidding about leaving, I do appreciate your sane input.

[Hennie]

I think the point Will is trying to get across -in a not unhumoristic way, I dare say - is the philosophical stance that there is no science outside human brains, minds, souls, whatever, and a vast amount of human conventions, human agreements and such. I quite enjoy Wills writing.

[Bart]

My text was not a reflection on Wills writing, only on his point.

We make sense with our brain, even the unconsious can only be reflectes upon by a brain. I don't know if it has to be human. Our brain also produces delusions, ridicule, nonsense, and other nonsense. Being skeptical is trying to make a distinction.

[illion]

I don't know if this can be interpreted as "communication" but it is an interesting thougth: "A study conducted at McMaster University found that individual plants of the same species actually change their growth patterns depending on whether they are sharing a pot with a member of their kin group or one with which they are not related." Of course we don't know WHY they change their growth patterns, but maybe we one day will find out:
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/home-g ... lants.html

[Bart]

Could very well be feromones. Female Humans also align themselves if they live in the same house.

[illion]

You are right, Bart. Interesting topic, I think

[Hennie]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... e-together

[Lily]

Interesting article, Hennie

Interesting how the effects diminish on scientific inquiry....
Originally, the person did an off-hand observation in her own college dorm.
So to just notice it by eye the effect should be striking.
On analysis, it turns out that the difference declined from >6 days to >4 days, which was later shown to be probably by random chance and by faulty reporting.
And certainly not big enough that a casual observer would really notice.

Subsequent studies showed nothing.
The dedicated researcher thinks "but there must be something"! - then they keep investigating and look at ovulation (not something a 70's college coed would see casually) -
quite far off from the starting point, eh?

[Hennie]

Yes.

That is why I often get the chills if someone calls something "scientific truth" or "a scientific fact" or such.
"Hypothesis ", theory", "plausibility" are terms I can stand.

[Lily]

well, there are degrees, Hennie:

scientific fact - poison X kills you at dose Y; has been observed, works every time.

plausibility - poison X killed victim Z since it was found in his system

scientific theory - evolution; gravity; electromagnetism

scientific hypothesis - there is a higgs boson

i would agree that scientific truth is a b.s. expression.

[Bart]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-women-who-live-together-menstruate-together

OK I fell for an urban myth. Thanks for setting me straight.

[Hennie]

Right Lily.

But "fact" I would not use either; there are very often reported exceptions to "facts" once more research is done and more data come available.

[Lily]

no, that's not how "fact" is defined.
"fact" is as I said above, is an observed event; we observe that poison X kills an animal at a certain dose. Or that the number of hippopotamus is declining.

Whatever conclusion you draw from a collection of facts (data), do some statistics on them, etc, in a few years down the road someone may re-do your work in a slightly better way and come to a different conclusion if the effects you saw were marginal.
Viz, the study in the college dorm in the 1970s.
Or you may decide the number of hippopotamus is declining due to too many lions. Later on, someone might detect a new virus that was killing them off (not that I really believe lions can kill a hippo anyway).