Could stars be sentient beings?!?

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 07:41 AM

Well anyway I personally never bother with New Scientist and I recommend the approach. Not bad lavatorium reading I suppose. ;-)

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Stu
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 07:16 AM

" Therefore , that it came from a living being is far more plausible, and accords with our experience far closer."

Why is more plausible? Are you suggesting that inorganic atoms and molecules are incapable of self-organisation?


"the only article I fully agreed with was written almost 20 years ago. I co wrote it..."

Beyond parody.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 06:06 AM

Did not have. See what I mean about us all not saying what we intended? *looking sheepish*

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 06:03 AM

And I understand that is your point, Steve. I believe I may be one of the few non-specialists in the world who got to the end of the aforementioned Road to Reality and it was a hard slog indeed, with maybe a six month break in the middle to recover. Understanding science can be an arduous activity even though it simultaneously has great beauty.

Nevertheless, the quote about never bothering with the New Scientist did have any of qualifications you are making now

Look: I am teasing you. We all say things that don't accurately reflect what we think. I don't think we need to try and claim they did.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:46 AM

Faith is a form of exhibiting superstition. What is wrong with that statement? Nothing as I can see. Faith also bolsters your bigotry. Again, nothing wrong with that. We all have some. Mine extend to people who wear baseball caps the wrong way around, freemasons and old men doing 40 in a 60 zone then carry on doing 40 in a 30 zone. I have faith in the fact that they live up to their stereotype.

As there is no evidence whatsoever other than fertile imaginations to suggest any religious belief system, it is by any definition a superstition. That isn't to express a derogatory view on religion but to state a lexicon based term of reference.

Perhaps the McGraths of this world would like to begin to understand the basics of science before knavish digs at perfectly sensible statements on here. No wonder some of us prefer anonymity.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:45 AM

My whole point, DMcG, is that glossy mags that need to sell lots of copies are in danger of trivialising science. The articles from popular science mags occasionally linked here are usually good examples of that. They are not going to include the boring or hard bits. They will be very selective. As long as you have the skills to pick the bones out of that, great. Otherwise, good in parts, but which parts? I'm not being snobby nor exclusive. I'm saying that scientific advance is hard graft and is rarely going to provide instant gratification.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:36 AM

Hmm. Religious faith positions (as pete might put it), are certainty based on superstition, as you have to embrace an invisible God who breaks the rules of nature. And if you believe that your faith is the only legitimate one, or the best one, and you go around saying so or carrying out its partisan policies, then you're a bigot too. Dunno about you, Kevin, but when I went to school we were told that only baptised Catholics went to heaven. I'd say that that brief assertion is a perfect combination of superstition and bigotry. I suppose it's possible to sidestep the bigotry if you're a thinking and measured person (quite a big if). But the superstition sticks to you like shit to a blanket.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 05:35 AM

You did say "Just goes to show you should never bother with New Scientist" which could easily make people think you had a different view to "I never said those mags don't contain good stuff"!

Pulling your leg a bit, I know....

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 04:30 AM

Guest Dave has it right. I never said that those mags don't contain good stuff. We have to remember that glossy magazines survive by selling lots of copies at low prices. The need to be attractive may override the need to be dull, deep and accurate. Telling the difference is the skill.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:52 AM

faith is a word restricted to superstition and bigotry
That is probably the most ludicrous thing anybody has said in these threads. And there is quite a lot of competition.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 03:09 AM

You will never find evidence that life evolved from non-life. You may well find evidence that it could, and could have, and we are probably quite close to that. But that will never satisfy the fundamentalists.

New Scientist is a curate's egg. It has championed some stupid things in the past, such as Shawyer's em-Drive. But it does have some good, well-written articles by people pretty close the cutting edge research. I do not know Adam Becker, but other people involved with the Open Journal of Astrophysics are very reputable indeed.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 02:57 AM

The same old opportunistic sounding themes DO keep coming from Steve.   But despite his great learning he has not shown evidence even from his own discipline that life evolved from non life. Therefore , that it came from a living being is far more plausible, and accords with our experience far closer.   Some of the previous posts here, seem to admit that you are no closer to a materialistic solution. You just have faith that there must be one !

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 15 - 02:18 AM

Thanks for that Steve. It is always interesting to hear how other people approach things like that.

I probably subscribe to less journals than you, maybe read slightly less intelligent-layman books and slightly more university textbooks.

Journals are excellent for depth in a specialism so I find I we need something else for the breadth. Intelligent layman books are good, but only some.fields are.well represented.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 07:19 PM

It was. I mentioned that I subscribe to a couple of learned journals, dry as an owld bone to the uninterested but great for me with my predilections. On top of that I buy, or get bought for me, lots of up-to-date books on the stuff I'm mostly interested in, mainly geology, meteorology and the living environment. And anything by that genius Nigella Lawson. Like most old scientific duffers, I lose interest in certain aspects and get out of date. Generally, I tend to shut up here about those. Lots of good stuff online too, though I jib at having to pay to read anything. As ever, the essential study skill of being able to discriminate between what's good and what's rubbish is especially important online (as well as in those science mags). Without wishing to sound opportunistic, which I will anyway, that is one of the reasons I hate what goes on in religion classes in schools. I can't bear the thought that children can be told that it's ok to believe in anything that you can't be sceptical about and ask for real evidence for.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 07:02 PM

Maybe it was in the post that didn't take but I still don't know what you recommend for trying to keep up to date on a broad range of scientific matter without using the magazines.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 04:02 PM

Grrr. I posted at least six hours ago, have just checked back now, and found that the damn thing didn't take!

Please stop being so typically tiresome, Keith. First, here you go again appealing to authority. Second, I said "often" and I said was suspicious and I have not damned every article in every popular science magazine.

What I was saying in that lost post was covered nicely by Guest#. It doesn't matterr that I was trained as a biologist (botany was indeed my main subject, but I assure you that I had to endure plenty of zoology, chemistry, plant pathology and timber technology). The education was in the scientific method and that translates very well across disciplines. We all tend to think the same way. If you do think that way, the popular mags are fine. But science can be hard, and anything hard is at risk of degradation by superficiality. As a parallel, I've been playing Irish music for decades. As a short cut, there would be no harm in my learning a tune from a tune book instead of by ear. But you wouldn't be telling a beginner that's it's ok to do that, would you? Well I wouldn't, anyway!

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 01:10 PM

Steve, that new Scientist article was written by Adam Becker.
Is he Noddy or Big Ears, and what would that make you?

Adam Becker is a freelance astrophysicist, working to help people understand the universe and other complicated things. He earned a PhD in cosmology from the University of Michigan in 2012, where he wrote his thesis on the distribution of matter and energy in the universe right now, and what it can tell us about the behavior of the universe a fraction of a second after the Big Bang.

Since then, Adam's career has focused largely on science communication and publication. He worked at New Scientist magazine, where he designed and coded several interactive features, and also wrote about new developments in physics and astronomy. After that, he worked in the Labs division at the Public Library of Science (PLOS), an open-access scientific publisher, where he developed tools to change the way scientific research results are shared.

These days, Adam does contract and consulting work in science communication, open science publishing, and astrophysics research software development. He is also managing editor of the Open Journal of Astrophysics, slated to open its doors in fall 2015. He's written a series of articles for the BBC about big questions in astrophysics, and he's also writing a book about the sordid untold history of quantum physics.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 11:02 AM

The language used in specialty areas, and what ain't these days, will by its nature turn away or discourage many common folk. I say that with no intention of demeaning average people. Many of us use specialized vocabularies in our day-to-day activities, also. I don't see how anyone can talk knowledgeably about quantum physics using a neurosurgeon's terms, and I expect the converse holds true. A cursory understanding of astrophysics will require different analogies than a cursory understanding of nutrition science, and for a deep understanding the sheer number of maths to utilize is so staggering I doubt anyone alive knows and can use them all. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_mathematics_topics .

I think magazines that expose people to understandable explanations of various sciences are a boon. I don't doubt they will simplify things and sometimes too much, but for beginners it's a place to start.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 09:05 AM

So as a genuine open question Steve. What do you think is the best way of trying to see current activity in science in the broad? You've mentioned a background in the botanical sciences before, so I can see how one might try to keep up with what is new in a more restricted field like that, but it won't tell you what is happening in neuroscience, or vice versa. Similarly, it's not that hard to know more established, historical science (though how Penrose's The Road To Reality ever made the Sunday Times Top Ten Best sellers list is beyond me.)

Part of the reason I ask is that I get quite irritated when I read a paper and it is clear they have never read something I as a much more general reader know about that would really help their research. But because everyone is so specialised they simply don't have the time to read and benefit from other work unless it is directly in their speciality.

So, as I say, I use New Scientist and Scientific American as a way of at least being aware of some of the current thinking across a relatively broad span of scientific subjects. What ways have you found to keep things both broad and current?

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 08:42 AM

I've always been extremely suspicious of popular science magazines. The articles are often replete with weasel words, unattributed assertions and fanciful speculations. Great if you're an actual scientist capable of picking the bones out of it, otherwise it's all a bit like telling a beginner to learn Irish music from tune books. A sure-fire way of obstructing your path to the heart of the matter. Good communication in science is an elusive talent but we have to keep at it. Science is full of unavoidable complicated bits. Overviews and colour pictures may fire your imagination but there's a lot more to life.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: DMcG
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 07:55 AM

"Just goes to show that you should never bother with New Scientist. New Scientist is to science what Noddy and Big Ears are to literature."

A bit harsh, Steve. Science is a rather larger subject so even getting a superficial overview of what is happening is a tremendous task and New Scientist and Scientific American (both of which I subscribe to) make a solid attempt. Of course, when you find something of interest you need to start to get into JSTOR or the Lancet or whatever, and start looking at actual papers written by actual scientists, but you won't get any sort of overview that way. It is a full time job just to keep up with quite a narrow speciality as anyone involved at that level is well aware.


I should declare an interest: New Scientist has published letters I've written in the last few years. But whether that makes Steve's case stronger is open to debate!

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 15 - 06:51 AM

Well, whatever else they are, those don't look much like models in any scientific sense.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 11:38 PM

You guys doo get teejus, as the song says.

There are two basic models under all the discussion: (A): Matter forms into structures which bring about consciousness or (B) Consciousness exists separate from matter and operates or animates or even possibly generates it.

While most of you seem to be loyal to model (A), there is ALSO some evidence for model )B). If you are a hardcore "Model A" believer, however that evidence will not be acceptable because (in a circular sort of style) you insist on material evidence for it.

It's a bit of a quandary, really; the two models have reciprocally exclusive bases of acceptable data, and methods of proof. n As a result, the collision of the two views can produce almost infinite discussions. For that, the Mudcat archives alone produce massive evidence, supported by reams of other human history.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 02:58 PM

Just goes to show that you should never bother with New Scientist. New Scientist is to science what Noddy and Big Ears are to literature.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 02:13 PM

That the formation of life on earth is unlikely is a completely meaningless statement, first because we have only a sample of one planet to work from, and second because if life had not formed we wouldn't be around to say how unlikely it was (the anthropic principle, which has a bit of a bad reputation when it comes to speculating on the fine tuning of physical constants, but when it comes to biological processes clearly does hold).

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 12:32 PM

" so does the idea that living, replicating cells formed spontaneously on Earth"

That living, replicating cells formed spontaneously is so unlikely that nobody would take the idea seriously. That a chemical system developed in which elements replicated is however rather more likely. The big problem is that we don't know what replicators were involved at such a hypothetical stage, or what environment it operated in. Or even if it was on Earth.

Replicators first- cells later. Maybe metabolism before replicators. At which point it gets called "life" is a useless discussion until we know more about the process. It would be nice to develop a non- DNA replicator because we could study that without poreconceptions. Hopefully a worse replicator than DNA so we don't have to worry about it escaping and eating us all.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 08:05 AM

They are just speculating on what is possible, not saying it is so.
It seems unlikely, but so does the idea that living, replicating cells formed spontaneously on Earth.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 03:03 AM

Well, if scientists say that, Keith, how can it not be true...

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 02:45 AM

Word soup!

Ha! Ha! I like that.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 01:51 AM

Also Keith's reference to Boltzmann brains- it seemed clever in 19-oh-whatever,

New Scientist May 2013
"Physicists have dreamed up some bizarre ideas over the years, but a decade or so ago they outdid themselves with the concept of Boltzmann brains – fully formed, conscious entities that form spontaneously in outer space.

It may seem impossible for a brain to blink into existence, but the laws of physics don't rule it out entirely. All it requires is a vast amount of time. Eventually, a random chunk of matter and energy will happen to come together in the form of a working mind. It's the same logic that says a million monkeys working on a million typewriters will replicate the complete works of Shakespeare, if you leave them long enough.

Most models of the future predict that the universe will expand exponentially forever. That will eventually spawn inconceivable numbers of Boltzmann brains, far outnumbering every human who has ever, or will ever, live."

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Nov 15 - 01:15 AM

The only science relevant here is linguistic science. "Assumption" means "something that is taken for granted". "Any current definition of consciousness" is a way of saying that what is being defined is taken for granted.

Once again, I am not saying I believe that consciousness is not confined to living matter but is a characteristic of all matter. I am merely saying that it is an assumption that it is.

Saying that it is an assumption is not saying it is false.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 09:42 PM

"A unit that is aware of awareness is a conscious unit."

Before I saw Paul Burke's reply, something close to 'tautology' was MY first thought.... but Amos is already....ummm... aware... of my opinions on where consciousness might reside.

My other thoughts on the matter are about the amazing way language/nomenclature can be processed to imply, assert or confoozilate (yeah, I made that one up) ideas about the discussion. I suspect it is possible to go on for 40-50 posts without anyone being really sure what they are against... or maybe even what they are for!

I spent 6 years in Philosophy just trying to understand what the categories OF 'existence' were, and how to construct a dialogue about them.... and after a few years at Mudcat, I wonder if I learned anything useful... :>)

...anyway.. " awareness of awareness", no matter where it resides, is an important concept, as it refers to that aspect of being Human that seems to be unique to humans.. if THAT is not also tautological.

My brain hurts.... g'night

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 07:26 PM

Absolutely not. Your assigning of the word assumption to anything at all that I say is a straw man. You're a fine fellow who I respect greatly, but you're no scientist.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 06:56 PM

I'm not making any kind of assertion about whether consciousness is a characteristic of all matter or not. I am merely saying that the assumption that it is not is precisely that, an assumption. The expression "any current definition of the term" is another way of saying "assumption".

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 06:26 PM

No non-living thing has ever shown signs of consciousness according to any current definition of the term. You say that is not evidence. It is not evidence if it has never been put under observation. But it has been observed, billions of times. You and I observe it every day. If you wish to contradict this, tell me your evidence for any non- living entity displaying anything remotely resembling consciousness. This is the religion thing again, isn't it, Kevin. An outrageous assertion is made: there is a supernatural, all-knowing, all-seeing being. You tell me that the absence of any corroborated evidence for him is, er, not evidence. Well, yes it is, if we've looked for it and found that it isn't there, as I've done. I think the trouble here is that you're confusing evidence and conclusion. Now the issue of life on other planets is entirely different. Life on other planets has never been observed. But there are hundreds of billions of stars in the universe. We have got more and more evidence that many stars have planets. The likelihood that there is a planet, or indeed millions of planets, somewhere with conditions similar to those on earth is very high. Therefore the probability of the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is high. The existence of life somewhere else in the universe makes a good hypothesis, as it's testable and is predicated on evidence and reason. The existence of consciousness in non-living things does not even get to the starting block, rather like God. Of course, you may want to put the assertion beyond science. But until then the ball is in your court. If you think that non-living things can be conscious, let's see your evidence and hear your reasoning. Until then, your hypothesis is not only potentially null, it can't be a hypothesis at all.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 05:57 PM

Sorry Amos, tautology. Or perhaps infinite regression. What does "aware" mean without consciousness? Think a bit more. Also Keith's reference to Boltzmann brains- it seemed clever in 19-oh-whatever, but misses the point totally. It is in fact the aposciencis of solipsism.

I'd get away from that sort of stuff- it drives you mad like it did Cantor. Better to limit the scope, operate on that level, and state the limitations at the start. Dennett did a good job in "Consciousness Explained" (trades descriptions act warning) by describing some of the limitations of consciousness- like it's demonstrable that however conscious you may be, it's not there all the time.

Where a lot of chatter falls down is that you can't talk about time being produced by a temporary fluctuation of a universe, because "temporary" implies....

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 02:51 PM

The word consciousness has a referent--the state of awareness; some would adds, the state of being aware of awareness, since you could argue a thermostat is "aware" of temperature even though it doesn't notice itself being so.

A unit that is aware of awareness is a conscious unit.

A

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 05:15 AM

"The core issue is what the requisites are for consciousness"

I don't think so, the first requisite is an idea of what we mean by "consciousness", otherwise like Hume's ladies of Edinburgh, we're arguing from different premises.As an example, one interlocutor might work from the assumption that consciousness is a "thing", a discrete attribute of an object that can be examined solely by referring to that object. Another might see it as a process in which it only exists as a result of interactions. Without an agreed description, the one party could be insisiting that we look for the source code for a wheel, while the other could be taking a computer apart to find a subroutine.

"A Boltzmann brain is a hypothesized self aware entity which arises due to random fluctuations out of a state of chaos."

If that's other than word soup, it's in a language I've not come across. "Quantum physics is the foundation of self-righteous self-knowledge" (Deepak Chopra).

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Stu
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 04:41 AM

"Needless to say, I object to the word "demonstrates"."

Fair point.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 03:57 AM

A Boltzmann brain is a hypothesized self aware entity which arises due to random fluctuations out of a state of chaos.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 15 - 03:51 AM

.
By any definition of consciousness currently in vogue, no non-living thing has ever shown any sign of it. Believe it or not, Kevin, that is evidence.

No, it is not evidence. It is another way of saying that it is an accepted assumption. Which is what I was pointing out.

There is at present no evidence that there is life elsewhere in the universe either. That is in no way evidence against it.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 10:51 PM

The core issue is what the requisites are for consciousness. Some believe it requires a brain. Others --more conversant with the boundless immaterial aspects of consciousness--assert that only a being is needed for consciousness to occur. This assumes a state of being that is not the product of material structures. There is some evidence for this interpretation, but some find this extremely uncomfortable as it interferes with both classical materialism and a variety of standard religious model.

The argument from such an interpretation might be that since a star is a material phenomenon it cannot in itself be conscious, not being a being. On the other hand there is no reason a being couldn't spend an indeterminate amount of time just being a star.

So the answer would be "sometimes", I guess. Or perhaps "it depends".

A

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 09:00 PM

"There is no evidence that non-living things possess any consciousness, but equally there is no evidence that they don't. "

Er, sorry about this, but the ball is in your court. "Equally" doesn't cut it. By any definition of consciousness currently in vogue, no non-living thing has ever shown any sign of it. Believe it or not, Kevin, that is evidence.

"While it may indeed be reasonable to cast doubt on the suggestion that there are blue seven legged aliens inhabiting the outer rings of Saturn"

It Is only reasonable to "cast doubt" by asking for evidence and getting either insufficient or none at all. I tend to not cast doubt unless I can substantiate that viewpoint, either by finding that there isn't sufficient evidence to propose a hypothesis, or that all the evidence available points to counteracting the notion. If you think about it, this approach is the reason I'm an atheist.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:38 PM

There is no evidence that non-living things possess any consciousness, but equally there is no evidence that they don't. It's not "my notion" that they do, I was just pointing out that it is an assumption to say that they don't.

While it may indeed be reasonable to cast doubt on the suggestion that there are blue seven legged aliens inhabiting the outer rings of Saturn, it is less reasonable to cast doubts on the suggestion that there might be living creatures elsewhere in the universe, merely because of an assumption that there weren't any. The assumption that "non-living matter cannot possess any kind of consciousness is perhaps closer to the second rather than the first.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:25 PM

Well it's hard to conceive of any way of testing the assumption that a race of blue seven-legged aliens inhabit the outer rings of Saturn, or, indeed, that there is a God, to be honest, Kevin. Scientists can't really be arsed with that kind of thing. Generally speaking, a hypothesis must be based on at least some kind of honest-to-goodness observation, not a flight of fancy or a whim. There is no evidence that non-living things possess consciousness. Like belief in God, that's no more than wild imaginings. Unless you can provide some evidence, your notion is belly-up.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:19 PM

Well, I guess that if your petunias turn toward you and shed little tears as sad 'words' come into your head from that 'direction', it may be one bit of evidence... *shrug*

I would firmly bet that there are other sentient 'entities' in the universe, but whether we will ever meet or contact them is another shrug.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 08:13 PM

We may well feel that only living matter can possess any kind of consciousness, but it is hard to conceive of any way of testing that assumption. But who knows, maybe the ingenuity of scientists may devise such a way.

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 07:21 PM

Agreed, Bill. I used to mark "A" level biology essay papers for the University of London. Any candidate who ever referred to "an experiment to demonstrate..." automatically felt the harsh slash of the red pen!

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 07:04 PM

"research also demonstrates plants can learn and remember "

♫"I'm a lonely little petunia in an onion patch,
And all I do is cry all day"♫

Needless to say, I object to the word "demonstrates".

Subject: RE: Could stars be sentient beings?!?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 Nov 15 - 05:18 PM

"Plants react to external stimuli, are capable of communication during predator attacks. Recent research also demonstrates plants can learn and remember"

But so can robots, and can be in ways that aren't simply programmed by the designer. There's the phenomenon of "emergent behaviour", which has been observed in automata from the days of simple relay- operated obstacle- avoiders - behaviour that shows adaptation, learning, and reactions that were not put in by the circuit designer. No one would call them sentient, and in that their behaviour wasn't intended or foreseen, they can't be dismissed as a simple extension of the sentience of the designer. They appear, in fact, to have some sort of free will. It's worth looking up the work of Stafford Beer, who tried to use the phenomenon as a way of organising industrial production. With some success, even though shareholders don't like tghe idea of unpredictability.

Some greedy reductionists would have it that "intelligent" behaviour is "no more than" an extension of this emergent behaviour in multiple interactions of massively complicated networks. No one has ever suggested how I feel it though. Perehaps I don't.