Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 181 posts

Re: Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious?

#81

Post by greglindahl »

gumby wrote: post #44
nradov wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fish aren't necessarily any less smart than chickens or cattle. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24942105 If you count cephalopods as "fish", some species are as smart as primates.

Indeed! I'm mocking these people. Plus fish are in the same kingdom as any other animal , which means you can hardly be a "vegetarian" unless you only eat vegetables (well, fungi and yeasts are OK too IMHO).

Do you find that any of your vegetarian friends, of which you appear to have several, find any of your "jokes" to be "funny"? Asking for a friend.

Re: Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious?

#83

Post by lsc »

oh_sigh wrote: post #38
DoreenMichele wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that there are lots of valid reasons to eat lower on the food chain, many of which can be framed as having a moral impetus. But the idea that it is morally superior based on plants being stupid is repugnant to me. It opens the door on questions like "So, is it okay to eat mentally retarded people?" Some moral arguments I can agree with: A mostly plant based diet is less resource intensive. Since most wa…

Is war really about scarcity of resources or about conflict over resources, regardless of scarcity?

>Is war really about scarcity of resources or about conflict over resources, regardless of scarcity?

I think there is a huge difference between the world before the green revolution and after, and I personally think that this difference is a big part of why we haven't seen major power wars after the middle of the 20th century.

World war two was the last major power war, and it was also the last major power war fought when there were not enough calories for everyone to eat their fill. Coincidence?

After world war two (well, after the 'green revolution' that happened in the mid 20th century) there was enough food, and... you could argue that we haven't had a direct major power war since then.

I personally think that the fact that getting enough calories is generally not a problem anymore has a lot to do with the fact that we haven't seen any major power wars lately.

Re: Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious?

#84

Post by chr1 »

firethief wrote: post #71
DoreenMichele wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eating plants, as opposed to eating animals that ate lots of plants?

By eating animals you save lots of plants from being eaten in the future!

Re: Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious?

#85

Post by omeid2 »

gowld wrote: post #34
taneq wrote: post #20

> “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,…

The correct statement is "Plants are less [more like robotic, stimulus-response devices than people are] than previously assumed."

The hard question is, how large is the spectrum between Robotic and Conscious and at which point it is reasonable to suspect Consciousness?

Re: Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious?

#86

Post by askmike »

serf wrote: post #80
make3 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean I also have a physicalist materialist view of the world but that's exaggeratedly simple

> 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 co…

If you take that stance you also say there is no such thing as free will, since all your actions are some kind of response from the environment.

Not saying that that means you're wrong.

Re: Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious?

#87

Post by alexmat »

askmike wrote: post #86
serf wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 co…

If you take that stance you also say there is no such thing as free will, since all your actions are some kind of response from the environment. Not saying that that means you're wrong.

You can still experience "free will" without invalidating the materialist point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_model

Re: Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious?

#88

Post by hux_ »

nezzle wrote: post #74
taneq wrote: post #20

> “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?

So would you allow me to chop up someone you have decided is unconscious? If the answer is no, why?

Re: Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious?

#89

Post by [deleted] »

askmike wrote: post #86
serf wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 co…

If you take that stance you also say there is no such thing as free will, since all your actions are some kind of response from the environment. Not saying that that means you're wrong.

[deleted]

Re: Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious?

#90

Post by icebraining »

everdev wrote: post #30
DoreenMichele wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that there are lots of valid reasons to eat lower on the food chain, many of which can be framed as having a moral impetus. But the idea that it is morally superior based on plants being stupid is repugnant to me. It opens the door on questions like "So, is it okay to eat mentally retarded people?" Some moral arguments I can agree with: A mostly plant based diet is less resource intensive. Since most wa…

Or for me: I should only eat something that I am willing to kill, clean and cook myself. When we pass the important moral test of killing an animal to someone else or a factory I think we lose touch with the decision we're making.

On the other hand, professionals are more efficient, and you can impose rules on them, as to minimize the suffering. My family is from a rural area, and the stories I've heard of inexpert killings are horrifying, certainly worse than using the wrong levels of CO² or similar.
Post reply on HN