Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious? • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by n17r4m » Sat, Feb 03, 2018, 9:54 AM UTC

m12k wrote: post #97

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…

I think an important distinction is whether the response to stimulus is hardcoded or not, and the degree to which it's not. Saying simply 'stimulus-response' makes it sound like a reflex like pulling back your hand when you accidentally touch a hot plate. There's a world of difference between an automaton that always reacts the same way to a given stimulus on one end and on the other end a deeply learning mind that c…

Suppose it is hardcoded? what difference does that make?

edit: I know about hardware and software, but since we are all wetware, maybe we should think about it as its own class and/or function?

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

#112

Post by lostmsu » Sat, Feb 03, 2018, 9:55 AM UTC

DoreenMichele wrote: post #59

woodman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If IQ measured the depth of emotional understanding, then yes. You don't have to like it, just find another reason to argue against eating people - there are plenty.

Plenty of very smart people have terrible social and emotional intelligence. So, I don't think so.

Or maybe they do, but we are unable to perceive it, because of our low emotIQ?

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

#113

Post by qznc » Sat, Feb 03, 2018, 9:57 AM UTC

rotrux wrote: post #29

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…

Yes, all those discussions dissolve once you use a precise definition, but there is no generally accepted one.

The definition must apply to humans. It must not apply to rocks. It should probably not apply to plants, fungi, bacteria, and worms. It will probably apply to dolphins, dogs, and pigs. Will it apply to companies, robots, cities, ant swarms, chicken, or fish?

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

#114

Post by red75prime » Sat, Feb 03, 2018, 10:13 AM UTC

PinkMilkshake wrote: post #73

visarga wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That seems more like a definition for intelligence or learning. 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

You probably couldn't use this definition even if you had a magical device which transforms you into a bat and then back again.

After you are yourself again you'll need to interpret the acquired memories. You remember echolocview of the room (bats have memory, it's testable), hunger, disorientation and some other sensations. Does it mean that bat is conscious? What will you remember differently if bat wasn't conscious? You'll remember nothing? But memories are there and you should have access to them. The lack of self-awareness? But you don't know how you would remember the presence of self-awareness in a bat.

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

#115

Post by red75prime » Sat, Feb 03, 2018, 10:26 AM UTC

yorwba wrote: post #65

gboudrias wrote: post #52

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.

Humans have a bit more elaborated internal representation of themselves than a Rumba (which doesn't have any. Early versions even had no representation for the room they operate in).

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

#116

Post by uoaei » Sat, Feb 03, 2018, 10:30 AM UTC

qznc wrote: post #113

rotrux wrote: post #29

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…

Yes, all those discussions dissolve once you use a precise definition, but there is no generally accepted one. The definition must apply to humans. It must not apply to rocks. It should probably not apply to plants, fungi, bacteria, and worms. It will probably apply to dolphins, dogs, and pigs. Will it apply to companies, robots, cities, ant swarms, chicken, or fish?

What scale of "rocks" are we talking about?

I'm reminded of the xkcd comic about making a computer out of tons of rocks in the desert[1]. Sure, one rock is crystalline (enough) and has essentially no stimulus-processing power. But a pile of rocks, arranged just so, can be set up so as to respond to certain stimuli that, to an outside observer, seems like thought/consciousness. This is the Chinese room problem[2] recast.

By approaching it in this way, we are forced to reconsider: what's so special about humans that makes how you define consciousness more applicable to them than a rock or plant? Why exclude rocks at all?

I'm firmly in the camp that any attempt to quantify consciousness will necessarily be a matter of degree, with no system exhibiting zero consciousness except a perfect crystal (i.e., zero entropy).

[1] https://www.xkcd.com/505/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

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

#117

Post by drieddust » Sat, Feb 03, 2018, 10:45 AM UTC

murukesh_s wrote: post #5

Remembering reading about the work done by Jagadish Chandra Bose: "He researched the mechanism of the seasonal effect on plants, the effect of chemical inhibitors on plant stimuli and the effect of temperature. From the analysis of the variation of the cell membrane potential of plants under different circumstances, he hypothesised that plants can "feel pain, understand affection etc." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki…

Yeah its amazing that his research is completely forgotten perhaps too conveniently.

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

#118

Post by ahartman00 » Sat, Feb 03, 2018, 10:45 AM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #90

everdev wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The rules are important: "As the trend of backyard flock tending skyrocketed in recent years, so has deadly infections"

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/10/thousands-of-diy-foo...

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

#119

Post by pygy_ » Sat, Feb 03, 2018, 10:48 AM UTC

codeisawesome wrote: post #11

They mention that sedating bacteria can cause them to “pause” as well. Are bacteria considered conscious?

Transcription factors are proteins that activate or inhibit genes, including the genes of other transcription factors. They form complex regulation network isomorphic to neuronal networks.

It looks like consciousness arises from what the brain does (processing information), and that DNA can do the same thing, so... why not?

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

#120

Post by kaybe » Sat, Feb 03, 2018, 10:49 AM UTC

hyperion2010 wrote: post #60

DoreenMichele wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It is mocking the idea that the food choices of vegetarians makes them morally superior and entitled to look down their noses at everyone else and be awful to them. My dislike of the tendency for vegetarians to be all holier than thou was solidified while I was homeless and being harassed online by a holier than thou vegan* who claimed to be vegan because she couldn't tolerate the suffering of the farm raised ani…

Yes. Basically if your reason to not eat meat is because you want to minimize your carbon footprint then usually you won't attack people for what they eat, but because they have a larger carbon footprint. Personally I fly a lot (I don't particularly want to), so therefore I could never use that argument. But I have met people who fly as much as I do who try to pull the morally superior diet card and I just move on be…

Isn't it better to improve at least a little? It is better to save some emissions, and it is better to kill fewer animals.

I still find the vegetarian chism of the past incredible - how can there be a conflict about advocating for less meat consumption by everyone vs trying to convert them all the way to vegetarianism? If you get 50% of the population to eat half of what they had before, it beats converting the 2% you can optimistically get in the short-to-medium term vastly, so just do both.

It's the Copenhagen interpretation of Ethics again - if you interact with a problem in any way, eg by improving it a little, it is now your fault and responsibility to the end. Meanwhile, if you had no interaction, you are morally free not to do anything.