The Simple Explanation of Life

[RG1]

The Simple Explanation of Life

Whether I am a human being, a blade of grass, or a single-cell organism, I experience sensations; I react to stimuli. This is ALL there is to Life. There is no other magic. The End.

Okay, a little more explanation…

Experiences are the sensations or ‘felt reactions’ that happen to us, supposedly triggered by something called stimuli. If we are alive, then we are experiencing. We feel, we sense, we are aware. We experience moment by moment, and call this Life. The why or how we are ‘able’ to experience anything in the first place doesn’t really matter. Although the ‘why and how’ of this seemingly magical event begs for further exploration, it does nothing to change the fact that we (all us living things) DO react to stimuli. We DO experience. And it is this experience that gives ‘existence’ to life.

For us humans, these experiences (these ‘reactions’ to stimuli) come in the form of Awareness, Thought, and Feelings. All that we experience in life can be classified in one of these three forms. Awareness is that group of sensations or felt reactions to our surrounding environment, presumably occurring from our senses and into our brain. Thoughts are the experience of hearing ourselves talk within. It is that endless monologue playing in our head. Thoughts can also include visions, sounds, ideas, concepts, and other sensory experiences that seem to make their presence within our head, all presumably occurring from our memories. Feelings encompass the balance of our experiences. These include emotions, pains, pleasures, urges, instincts, intentions, compulsions, acts of recognition, and other felt reactions, all presumably triggered or caused by something (!), and presumably occurring within the brain. All that we experience, and subsequently know in this life, come to us through Awareness, Thought, and Feelings.

These three classifications though, could ultimately be reduced to just one, that of ‘Feelings’. For example, the experience of ‘thought’ could be considered a ‘feeling’ since it is the ‘act of recognition’ (the feeling of an “aha” moment) that we actually experience. Without this act of recognition, there can be no experience of thought, or more precisely -- Without this act of recognition, this moment cannot be experienced or known. We must first ‘recognize’ (experience that “aha” moment) before we can claim to have had (or possess knowledge of) the thought. But I digress. It doesn’t really matter anyway. Yes, I say it again. It doesn’t really matter. Nor does it matter the ‘where’, ‘why’, or ‘how’ these experiences actually occur. These details are just distracting quibble that tempt and pull our focus away. Although the science of this (quibble) may be interesting, the crux of the matter is that EVERYTHING in life comes to us as an ‘experience’ in one form or another (…as it is not logically possible to experience anything that is not itself an experience!). Everything that we experience in this life, is still …just …an …experience. The obviousness of this statement shouldn't be overlooked. Experiences are ALL there CAN be to life.

Even though logic tells us that experiences are all there can be to life, many of us ‘insist’ that human life contains something special, something more. We call this special something “consciousness”. Consciousness has different meanings to different people, but in general, most would agree that consciousness is the word that represents the sensation of a ‘mind’ that is aware, that can think and feel, and one that possesses conscious control (i.e. ‘free-will’).

We sense this consciousness. We sense a mind-within called “Me” (a self-aware entity), one that is in charge and in control of ‘me’ (the body). We somehow feel that this “Me” (the mind), ‘is’ the entity, or the ‘self’, that does the experiencing. In other words, we feel that it is “Me” (the mind) that is the one that is aware, and is the one that is experiencing thoughts and feelings. Furthermore, we feel that this “Me” (the mind) not only can experience thoughts, but can also ‘think’ thoughts; meaning that it can create/construct its own thoughts for which then to experience. And, with these self-constructed thoughts, this “Me” (the mind) thereby possesses ‘conscious control’; the ability (i.e. the ‘free-will’) to make autonomous decisions that dictate and determine its direction and fate in this life. But this ‘insistence’ of a consciousness; of a “Me” (a mind), that thinks, and possesses the power of conscious control (i.e. free-will), is wrought with logical impossibilities.

If logic is the basis of our reasoning, then there can be no "Me" (a mind) that is directing the show of Life. There can only be a 'me' (the body) that ‘experiences’ this show. Although our thoughts and feelings (and desires) may want to tell us otherwise, it is simply not possible to do the impossible. Now if we can throw logic out the window, then truth can be whatever we desire!

“Me”. The phenomena/sensation of an entity called “Me” (a mind) that can think, and (consciously) control me (the body), is simply the result of experiencing thoughts. Without thoughts, the ‘thought’ of a “Me” can’t exist. This “Me” (the mind) exists only as an ‘experience’ of me (the body).

Thinking. Thinking (the ability to knowingly construct one’s own thoughts to then experience) is not logically possible due to ‘infinite regression’. Does the ‘act-of-thinking’ require thoughts? If so, then did these thoughts themselves require thinking? It is not logically possible for any entity to ‘think’, but instead, only to ‘experience thoughts’.

Conscious Control. If conscious control (i.e. free-will) relies on the existence of a “Me” with the ability to think, then conscious control does not exist, except only as a felt ‘experience’.

Consciousness. The experience of consciousness does not (nor logically cannot) exist ‘outside’ of experience. Just the mere act of experiencing consciousness, relegates it to the category of experiences. It is trapped within the same bubble as all our other experiences. So to be precise, consciousness in itself does not exist, except as an ‘experience(s)’.

We humans are no different than any other living entity. We all experience (i.e. react accordingly) to the stimuli surrounding and within us. We are no more special nor significant than a blade of grass blowing in the wind, or of a single cell organism reacting to a beam of light. We all react. We all experience. This is ALL there is to Life. There is no other magic. The End.

[Lev Muishkin]

The Simple Explanation of Life

Whether I am a human being, a blade of grass, or a single-cell organism, I experience sensations; I react to stimuli. This is ALL there is to Life. There is no other magic. The End.
.. The End.

I think you might have set off on the wrong foot.
I'm not sure you can say that a blade of grass "experiences sensations".
On one level a sensation requires a nervous system and a brain of some kind to experience it.
You might retort that a micro-organism "experiences" in some sense, because it has irritability and can be witnessed reacting to stimuli. But then when I open a bottle of coke it responds by fizzing, there are numerous inanimate examples, that may not include awareness or consciousness.
But let's pretend that single celled organisms can experience through their nuclei. Blades of grass are made up of cells. But few of those cells have nuclei. Nuclei are found only in the stem cells, and specialised tissues, and these have no way of communicating with each other to "share" the experience of the wind, sun, or being eaten.
So 'qua' a blade of grass does not 'experience sensations" even if some of the cells it is constituted by might.

Different living things have different experiences. Not just in degree of difference but difference in kind.

[cirin]

Unfortunately this is not the explanation of life. Explanations should answer the questions why life began, like and whereby it exists, the meaning of life, etc. ...
I want to submit an article for discussion "Modern, harmonious worldview" is expounded in the book "The Modern Understanding of Life. Human essence. How to live by spirit. Elementary Introduction" (95 pages, russian language). The book was published in 2014 in the Ukraine. There, simply and briefly, without fictions and religious philosophical fantasies, the concept of the new world outlook is being offered with documented proofs of its streamlined and logical system of views. Explanations and determinations of Spirit, Soul, Mind, Body, and the constituents of the human ‘I’, as typically used in sciences, religions and everyday life. Builds a simple, clear construction of a man, explains his layout and co-operation with the world around him. It calls us to answer the question of how to correct the main error in sciences, religions and peoples lives – the Darvin primitive, materialistic world view.
The book contains the following chapters: 1.Appeal, 2.Introduction, 3.The meaning of life, 4. What is the Person, 5. What is the Spirit, 6. What is the Soul, 7. What is the Mind, 8. What is I, 9. What is the Consciousness, 10. Healthy body and Satan, 11.The way out of the impasse.
Please let me know vidianov@gmail.com your interest study and translation of this book.

[RG1]

The Simple Explanation of Life

Whether I am a human being, a blade of grass, or a single-cell organism, I experience sensations; I react to stimuli. This is ALL there is to Life. There is no other magic. The End.
.. The End.

I think you might have set off on the wrong foot.
I'm not sure you can say that a blade of grass "experiences sensations".
On one level a sensation requires a nervous system and a brain of some kind to experience it.
You might retort that a micro-organism "experiences" in some sense, because it has irritability and can be witnessed reacting to stimuli. But then when I open a bottle of coke it responds by fizzing, there are numerous inanimate examples, that may not include awareness or consciousness.
But let's pretend that single celled organisms can experience through their nuclei. Blades of grass are made up of cells. But few of those cells have nuclei. Nuclei are found only in the stem cells, and specialised tissues, and these have no way of communicating with each other to "share" the experience of the wind, sun, or being eaten.
So 'qua' a blade of grass does not 'experience sensations" even if some of the cells it is constituted by might.

I admit that I surely cannot know if other (than myself) living things actually ‘experience’. This is pure presumption on my part. And likewise, because of the subjective nature of experience, you must likewise admit that we cannot know/claim that living things do ‘not’ experience.

Although plants do not have a nervous/brain system, I do recall reading somewhere that plants actually ‘experience’ pain when their parts are broken/cut.

So I start my first paragraph with the presumption that 1) living things ‘react to stimuli’, and 2) that this (felt) reaction is the ‘experience’ that I refer to. Note: if the reaction is not ‘felt/sensed’, then it is not an experience (i.e. if the coke did not feel the fizzing, then the coke did not ‘experience’).

[Lev Muishkin]

The Simple Explanation of Life

Whether I am a human being, a blade of grass, or a single-cell organism, I experience sensations; I react to stimuli. This is ALL there is to Life. There is no other magic. The End.
.. The End.

I think you might have set off on the wrong foot.
I'm not sure you can say that a blade of grass "experiences sensations".
On one level a sensation requires a nervous system and a brain of some kind to experience it.
You might retort that a micro-organism "experiences" in some sense, because it has irritability and can be witnessed reacting to stimuli. But then when I open a bottle of coke it responds by fizzing, there are numerous inanimate examples, that may not include awareness or consciousness.
But let's pretend that single celled organisms can experience through their nuclei. Blades of grass are made up of cells. But few of those cells have nuclei. Nuclei are found only in the stem cells, and specialised tissues, and these have no way of communicating with each other to "share" the experience of the wind, sun, or being eaten.
So 'qua' a blade of grass does not 'experience sensations" even if some of the cells it is constituted by might.

I admit that I surely cannot know if other (than myself) living things actually ‘experience’. This is pure presumption on my part. And likewise, because of the subjective nature of experience, you must likewise admit that we cannot know/claim that living things do ‘not’ experience.

Although plants do not have a nervous/brain system, I do recall reading somewhere that plants actually ‘experience’ pain when their parts are broken/cut.

So I start my first paragraph with the presumption that 1) living things ‘react to stimuli’, and 2) that this (felt) reaction is the ‘experience’ that I refer to. Note: if the reaction is not ‘felt/sensed’, then it is not an experience (i.e. if the coke did not feel the fizzing, then the coke did not ‘experience’).

It's not that we cannot know that living things don't experience as that would assume that can; its actually a fact that we cannot know if they do experience!!!

A subjective experience means that I cannot know that even YOU can experience; it means that I can only know that I DO.

But we can also safely assume that if other living things do experience then they would have to have the same physicality as ourselves to experience as we do.
In other words, without a brain, nervous system and sensory organs, a mushroom cannot experience the world as we do; no ears, no hearing; no eyes, no seeing; no nose, no smell; no semi-circular canals, no balance perception.. and right on for all 27 senses- no brain, no reason; no brain, no memory. No nerves; NO PAIN - and I don't care where you "read it", plants do not feel pain.

So without all these things, what is a single cell even capable of? It it at all meaningful to apply "experience" to an amoeba at all? They cannot "feel" at all. they might react, but that is not the same as experience.

Now take the argument to a bacteria, or then to a virus. Each step takes us further away from what we know personally as experience and closer to what is not living.
A salt crystal reacts to the evaporation of water to make the crystal grow. And a light bulb reacts to electricity by shining light from its element.
Even a rock falling from a height "reacts" to gravity by falling.
So the differences between living and non-living is a scale.

[Ginkgo]

So without all these things, what is a single cell even capable of? It it at all meaningful to apply "experience" to an amoeba at all? They cannot "feel" at all. they might react, but that is not the same as experience.

Now take the argument to a bacteria, or then to a virus. Each step takes us further away from what we know personally as experience and closer to what is not living.
A salt crystal reacts to the evaporation of water to make the crystal grow. And a light bulb reacts to electricity by shining light from its element.
Even a rock falling from a height "reacts" to gravity by falling.
So the differences between living and non-living is a scale.

You are right, but here is the interesting bit. An amoeba doesn't have a single neuron, yet it is able to find food, swim around avoiding obstacles, find a mate and reproduce.It can even learn to escape from a pipette tube. Apparently the more often you capture it the faster it learns to escape.

How does it do manage these tasks? The answer is probably in the microtubules found within its body.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule

[HexHammer]

I'm not sure you can say that a blade of grass "experiences sensations".
On one level a sensation requires a nervous system and a brain of some kind to experience it.

Not quite, some trees will alert other trees about bug attack, by releasing chemicals (dunno the correct term for this)
Plants will search for sunlight by moving their "arms" around. Then some plants will twist their whole stem just to catch optimal light, the whole day.

[cirin]

The above reasoning is based on materialism. He has already proved to be ineffective. Here's an example "Nevertheless, in nature there are many unexplained facts and phenomena, which have not been found persuasive answers. I still do not have an explanation, the so-called "super powers" of man who in private life are called "sixth sense" - clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairgnosis, clairsentience, the perception of emotions - empathy, mental smell, psychometry, intuition, telepathy, psychokinesis, telekinesis, etc. . You do not just read about the ability of some people to see with their eyes closed. Scientists studying this phenomenon came to the conclusion that if a person does not enjoy this time of the eyes, then the information comes to him as something else. How does this happen? This question Rosa Kuleshov innocently replied: "Read your fingers is not difficult, you need to close your eyes, touch the text, find the line - that's all." And she immediately read a few lines, recruited fairly small print. At a meeting with the editorial board of one journal Rose Kuleshov demonstrated reading toes elbow. Large font is readable even when printed pages are in the envelope".
I offer a worldview that can explain all the events in your life.

[HexHammer]

Nwm.

[Wyman]

The Simple Explanation of Life

Whether I am a human being, a blade of grass, or a single-cell organism, I experience sensations; I react to stimuli. This is ALL there is to Life. There is no other magic. The End.

Okay, a little more explanation…

Experiences are the sensations or ‘felt reactions’ that happen to us, supposedly triggered by something called stimuli. If we are alive, then we are experiencing. We feel, we sense, we are aware. We experience moment by moment, and call this Life. The why or how we are ‘able’ to experience anything in the first place doesn’t really matter. Although the ‘why and how’ of this seemingly magical event begs for further exploration, it does nothing to change the fact that we (all us living things) DO react to stimuli. We DO experience. And it is this experience that gives ‘existence’ to life.

For us humans, these experiences (these ‘reactions’ to stimuli) come in the form of Awareness, Thought, and Feelings. All that we experience in life can be classified in one of these three forms. Awareness is that group of sensations or felt reactions to our surrounding environment, presumably occurring from our senses and into our brain. Thoughts are the experience of hearing ourselves talk within. It is that endless monologue playing in our head. Thoughts can also include visions, sounds, ideas, concepts, and other sensory experiences that seem to make their presence within our head, all presumably occurring from our memories. Feelings encompass the balance of our experiences. These include emotions, pains, pleasures, urges, instincts, intentions, compulsions, acts of recognition, and other felt reactions, all presumably triggered or caused by something (!), and presumably occurring within the brain. All that we experience, and subsequently know in this life, come to us through Awareness, Thought, and Feelings.

These three classifications though, could ultimately be reduced to just one, that of ‘Feelings’. For example, the experience of ‘thought’ could be considered a ‘feeling’ since it is the ‘act of recognition’ (the feeling of an “aha” moment) that we actually experience. Without this act of recognition, there can be no experience of thought, or more precisely -- Without this act of recognition, this moment cannot be experienced or known. We must first ‘recognize’ (experience that “aha” moment) before we can claim to have had (or possess knowledge of) the thought. But I digress. It doesn’t really matter anyway. Yes, I say it again. It doesn’t really matter. Nor does it matter the ‘where’, ‘why’, or ‘how’ these experiences actually occur. These details are just distracting quibble that tempt and pull our focus away. Although the science of this (quibble) may be interesting, the crux of the matter is that EVERYTHING in life comes to us as an ‘experience’ in one form or another (…as it is not logically possible to experience anything that is not itself an experience!). Everything that we experience in this life, is still …just …an …experience. The obviousness of this statement shouldn't be overlooked. Experiences are ALL there CAN be to life.

Even though logic tells us that experiences are all there can be to life, many of us ‘insist’ that human life contains something special, something more. We call this special something “consciousness”. Consciousness has different meanings to different people, but in general, most would agree that consciousness is the word that represents the sensation of a ‘mind’ that is aware, that can think and feel, and one that possesses conscious control (i.e. ‘free-will’).

We sense this consciousness. We sense a mind-within called “Me” (a self-aware entity), one that is in charge and in control of ‘me’ (the body). We somehow feel that this “Me” (the mind), ‘is’ the entity, or the ‘self’, that does the experiencing. In other words, we feel that it is “Me” (the mind) that is the one that is aware, and is the one that is experiencing thoughts and feelings. Furthermore, we feel that this “Me” (the mind) not only can experience thoughts, but can also ‘think’ thoughts; meaning that it can create/construct its own thoughts for which then to experience. And, with these self-constructed thoughts, this “Me” (the mind) thereby possesses ‘conscious control’; the ability (i.e. the ‘free-will’) to make autonomous decisions that dictate and determine its direction and fate in this life. But this ‘insistence’ of a consciousness; of a “Me” (a mind), that thinks, and possesses the power of conscious control (i.e. free-will), is wrought with logical impossibilities.

If logic is the basis of our reasoning, then there can be no "Me" (a mind) that is directing the show of Life. There can only be a 'me' (the body) that ‘experiences’ this show. Although our thoughts and feelings (and desires) may want to tell us otherwise, it is simply not possible to do the impossible. Now if we can throw logic out the window, then truth can be whatever we desire!

“Me”. The phenomena/sensation of an entity called “Me” (a mind) that can think, and (consciously) control me (the body), is simply the result of experiencing thoughts. Without thoughts, the ‘thought’ of a “Me” can’t exist. This “Me” (the mind) exists only as an ‘experience’ of me (the body).

Thinking. Thinking (the ability to knowingly construct one’s own thoughts to then experience) is not logically possible due to ‘infinite regression’. Does the ‘act-of-thinking’ require thoughts? If so, then did these thoughts themselves require thinking? It is not logically possible for any entity to ‘think’, but instead, only to ‘experience thoughts’.

Conscious Control. If conscious control (i.e. free-will) relies on the existence of a “Me” with the ability to think, then conscious control does not exist, except only as a felt ‘experience’.

Consciousness. The experience of consciousness does not (nor logically cannot) exist ‘outside’ of experience. Just the mere act of experiencing consciousness, relegates it to the category of experiences. It is trapped within the same bubble as all our other experiences. So to be precise, consciousness in itself does not exist, except as an ‘experience(s)’.

We humans are no different than any other living entity. We all experience (i.e. react accordingly) to the stimuli surrounding and within us. We are no more special nor significant than a blade of grass blowing in the wind, or of a single cell organism reacting to a beam of light. We all react. We all experience. This is ALL there is to Life. There is no other magic. The End.

OK, step one is easy. Everything is everything. This really says nothing. It is step two that is difficult - dividing everything into categories. You have not justified dividing all experience into your categories of feelings, thoughts, etc.. And you have not justified why consciousness is different from or distinct from, 'experiencing.' You just state these divisions as if they are as uncontroversial as the first statement.

Take Hume - he said that all experience is divisible into impressions and ideas. Wittgenstein, at one point, said that the world divided into atomic facts. Descartes divided it into corporeal nature and ideas of the mind. Parmenides said that it was all one - end of story. Plato divided it various ways, but at some points, just into appearance and reality.

At any rate, I hope you see that step 2 is really the whole she-bang, so to speak, or nearly so. It often presupposes, or is the edifice, for whole philosophical frameworks.

[Lev Muishkin]

So without all these things, what is a single cell even capable of? It it at all meaningful to apply "experience" to an amoeba at all? They cannot "feel" at all. they might react, but that is not the same as experience.

Now take the argument to a bacteria, or then to a virus. Each step takes us further away from what we know personally as experience and closer to what is not living.
A salt crystal reacts to the evaporation of water to make the crystal grow. And a light bulb reacts to electricity by shining light from its element.
Even a rock falling from a height "reacts" to gravity by falling.
So the differences between living and non-living is a scale.

You are right, but here is the interesting bit. An amoeba doesn't have a single neuron, yet it is able to find food, swim around avoiding obstacles, find a mate and reproduce.It can even learn to escape from a pipette tube. Apparently the more often you capture it the faster it learns to escape.

How does it do manage these tasks? The answer is probably in the microtubules found within its body.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule

You might want to find out more about living things before you describe them.
Starting from a position is better than a position of ignorance.
Amoeba do not seek mate. Single celled organisms practice asexual reproduction by division.
I've no idea where you get the idea that they avoid pipettes. sounds ridiculous.
As for the other stuff, it can be explained by chemical detection. But amoeba continually eat stuff they cannot assimilate and form vacuoles around potential food stuff; digest what they are capable of and reject the remainder.

[Ginkgo]

So without all these things, what is a single cell even capable of? It it at all meaningful to apply "experience" to an amoeba at all? They cannot "feel" at all. they might react, but that is not the same as experience.

Now take the argument to a bacteria, or then to a virus. Each step takes us further away from what we know personally as experience and closer to what is not living.
A salt crystal reacts to the evaporation of water to make the crystal grow. And a light bulb reacts to electricity by shining light from its element.
Even a rock falling from a height "reacts" to gravity by falling.
So the differences between living and non-living is a scale.

You are right, but here is the interesting bit. An amoeba doesn't have a single neuron, yet it is able to find food, swim around avoiding obstacles, find a mate and reproduce.It can even learn to escape from a pipette tube. Apparently the more often you capture it the faster it learns to escape.

How does it do manage these tasks? The answer is probably in the microtubules found within its body.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule

You might want to find out more about living things before you describe them.
Starting from a position is better than a position of ignorance.
Amoeba do not seek mate. Single celled organisms practice asexual reproduction by division.
I've no idea where you get the idea that they avoid pipettes. sounds ridiculous.
As for the other stuff, it can be explained by chemical detection. But amoeba continually eat stuff they cannot assimilate and form vacuoles around potential food stuff; digest what they are capable of and reject the remainder.

I was working off a corollary. I saw a post here a long time ago. Someone posted a study on flatworms. The idea was to show that flatworms actually do have a memory. No one is suggesting simple organisms such as the amoeba and flatworm are conscious, but they do store their memory somewhere and the most likely candidate is their microtubules.

[Lev Muishkin]

You are right, but here is the interesting bit. An amoeba doesn't have a single neuron, yet it is able to find food, swim around avoiding obstacles, find a mate and reproduce.It can even learn to escape from a pipette tube. Apparently the more often you capture it the faster it learns to escape.

How does it do manage these tasks? The answer is probably in the microtubules found within its body.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule

You might want to find out more about living things before you describe them.
Starting from a position is better than a position of ignorance.
Amoeba do not seek mate. Single celled organisms practice asexual reproduction by division.
I've no idea where you get the idea that they avoid pipettes. sounds ridiculous.
As for the other stuff, it can be explained by chemical detection. But amoeba continually eat stuff they cannot assimilate and form vacuoles around potential food stuff; digest what they are capable of and reject the remainder.

I was working off a corollary. I saw a post here a long time ago. Someone posted a study on flatworms. The idea was to show that flatworms actually do have a memory. No one is suggesting simple organisms such as the amoeba and flatworm are conscious, but they do store their memory somewhere and the most likely candidate is their microtubules.

I do not know what you mean "working off a corollary".

I'm grateful for the link. It seems a lot of work has been done on this since I studied science. We had endoplasmic reticulum; and the idea of the tubules fills some questions concerning the transport of molecules to and from. But I do not think "memory" is established.

[Ginkgo]

But here is the real interesting bit.The study of microtubules in recent years has been dominated by people such as Stuart Hameroff. Hameroff first proposed that microtubules carry out quantum computations. This was laughed at by mainstream science for a long time. However, recently a group of Japanese scientists working in this area discovered that microtubules indeed quantize information.

[RG1]

A subjective experience means that I cannot know that even YOU can experience; it means that I can only know that I DO.

Yes, agreed.

But we can also safely assume that if other living things do experience then they would have to have the same physicality as ourselves to experience as we do.

Ummm, I’m not so sure this is a “safe” assumption. Isn’t it possible for other living things to ‘experience’ without possessing ‘human equipment’ (brain, nervous system, etc.)? Don’t other living things feel/sense/detect their environments (and then react accordingly)? If so, then isn’t this also experiencing?

In other words, without a brain, nervous system and sensory organs, a mushroom cannot experience the world as we do…

Yes, but you are missing the point. It is not about experiencing as ‘we humans do’, it is about ‘experiencing’. The ability for a living thing to experience (to ‘react’-to-stimuli) does not necessarily require the ‘human equipment’ (brain, nervous system, etc.).

It it at all meaningful to apply "experience" to an amoeba at all? They cannot "feel" at all. they might react, but that is not the same as experience.

If they can’t “feel” (sense/detect) then how do they know to react? What is the impetus to react? Why would they react? And why do they react the way that they do? It seems obvious to me that if a living thing is able to ‘react’-to-stimuli, then this living thing ‘experiences’. These may not be human experiences, but nonetheless are still experiences.