71–80 of 181 posts
Great, they’ve ruined vegetarianism.
We have known for years that plants give off a pulse ("scream") when assaulted, communicate chemically etc. I have said for years that the idea that eating plants is morally superior because they aren't sentient is basically speciesist, for lack of a better word.
K sooo to (kinda) answer the question: depends. What's your definition of consciousness? Now as for the implication that anesthetics sedating plants has ANYTHING to do with this/whether or not they are conscious: no. No sorry, not buying it. Need more science. This just suggests we may have similar inhibitory biochemical responses to certain organic compounds. That's not surprising since were all made out of hydrocar…
> What's your definition of consciousness? How about - ability to adapt to environment and select good actions depending on situation, learning from reward/loss signals.
My favourite definition for consciousness is the following:
If it is something to be like a particular thing, then that thing is conscious.
If it is something to be like a bat, then a bat is conscious. If it isn’t something to be like a bat - the “lights are off” so to speak - then it’s not conscious.
Edit: clarity
> “Plants are not just robotic, stimulus-response devices,” said Frantisek Baluska I don't see how this follows from the finding that sedatives can prevent plants from responding to stimuli. It just means that there's a shared mechanism behind plants' responses and animals' responses, which wouldn't be overly surprising. Of course, that doesn't mean that plants don't have a lot more going on than we usually realise,…
E.g. I feel like a lot of people aren't conscious :) Prove me right or wrong?
> “Plants are not just robotic, stimulus-response devices,” said Frantisek Baluska I don't see how this follows from the finding that sedatives can prevent plants from responding to stimuli. It just means that there's a shared mechanism behind plants' responses and animals' responses, which wouldn't be overly surprising. Of course, that doesn't mean that plants don't have a lot more going on than we usually realise,…
Yet this is the same type of work people are using to argue that that crabs/fish can feel/experience pain. Proving or disproving consciousness is basically impossible. E.g. I feel like a lot of people aren't conscious :) Prove me right or wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So a Roomba is conscious?
Why not? And if it's power source runs out, the Roomba loses consciousness. That seems closer to the everyday definition of consciousness most people operate by, than to the hopelessly bikeshed attempts at making it a uniquely human thing.
Great, they’ve ruined vegetarianism.
Even if you believe that plants are conscious eating plants instead of animals is still more ethical because it takes around 7kg of plant feed to produce 1kg of meat. So you’re responsible for the death of the animal and all the plants it ate.
Great, they’ve ruined vegetarianism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For all I care humans are "just robotic, stimulus-response devices".
I mean I also have a physicalist materialist view of the world but that's exaggeratedly simple
it's simple, but I don't think that it's exaggerated. If anything I think it just speaks to the hidden power and complexity that can arise from following simple rule-sets.
Although not typically used to describe such (internal) behavior, the text-book definition of 'stimulus' is just "a thing or event that evokes a specific functional reaction in an organ or tissue." -- If one were to consider that definition, 'stimulus' would also include everything your brain does; along with introspection, prediction, and everything we include as 'consciousness', and not just external forces that evoke an internal response (like sound,smell, light, touch, taste, etc.).