Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

121–130 of 181 posts

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

#121
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…

By your logic then plants should have consciousness too.

Alternatively are you implying that human consciousness is meta physical in nature?

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

#122
post #24
post #4

Great, they’ve ruined vegetarianism.

Can you construct a complete human diet out of fungi (mushrooms, truffles, yeast, etc.)? What about if you add milk and eggs?

Searching for mushroom nutrition facts, it looks like you wont be getting any micro nutrients. Milk and eggs will add protein and fat, but you will be lacking in fiber, and I don't think you will be getting all the types of fats you need.

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

#123
post #97
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…

You didn't read the article I guess?

This paragraph provides answer to your objection. Plants learn to modify the response based on experience.

> Under poor soil conditions, the pea seems to be able to assess risk. The sensitive plant can make memories and learn to stop recoiling if you mess with it enough. The Venus fly trap appears to count when insects trigger its trap. And plants can communicate with one another and with caterpillars.

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

#124
post #116
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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] reca…

I agree in general, but a degree seems even harder than a binary condition?

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

#125
post #74
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?

The best explanation demystifying consciousness I've found comes from a claim it's a social phenomena that only arose around 3000 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

These days most people are conscious because you need it to function in society; there is a good deal of evidence in the book.

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

#126
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When someone says they're a "vegetarian" but eat fish" I always think, "ah, it's the IQ school of vegetarianism: you'll eat anything you think is as smart as asparagus."

I heard an interesting argument that while eating fish can cause suffering in absolute terms, in marginal terms it's not so bad -- fish don't die gracefully in the wild in the way that a farm animal might otherwise do, they die from being eaten, from disease, or starvation, often more slowly and painfully compared to suffocating in a fishing net. Of course this analysis ignores things like environmental consequences,…

"they die from being eaten, from disease, or starvation"

This is true in the animal kingdom as well. Especially for a farm animal, being eaten. If wolves can catch deer or elk, they can catch a cow. I mean you've seen cows right, not very fast. :) This is also an unfortunate consequence when animal rights activists decide to release domesticated animals, they don't know how to survive in the wild. My family would always take cats people didn't want anymore on our farm, and they disappeared quickly. We assumed coyotes, because their parents didn't teach them how to be careful. :( Instinct can only get you so far, you need to be taught as well, and generations in captivity means the parents didn't know what to teach.

And food gets scarce in winter. I was watching a documentary where one chipmunk was storing acorns, and another was hiding nearby, and just stealing them. I don't remember the name, but it was on netflix, and it was focused on high speed, high resolution camera work. The animals seemed to be an excuse to use the cameras, lol.

Also, if I had to die, I'd rather have a humane execution like a farm animal, rather than being eaten or starving. I know there are 'documentaries' that portray suffering on farms, but the farmers I know take good care of their animals. At least in the dairy magazines my dad gets, they are constantly stressing animal comfort, prevention of disease, reduce stress, etc. Because this maximizes production. First, those documentaries are biased, and second, those farmers aren't good at their jobs. Our cows seem happy and content, and why shouldnt they be? Plentiful food and water, we keep threats away(which is unfortunately why predators are often endangered or threatened), we do everything we can to make them comfortable, healthy, and happy. Keep in mind cows don't care about being in captivity, they don't have the concept of freedom. They just want food, safety, and mating.

Hope this doesn't sound harsh, but that argument is wrong. A good farm is supposed to be the ideal environment for the animal, the same way a garden is supposed to be the ideal place for a vegetable. The animals die much more humanely than in the wild. I facepalm every time i hear on of those "it is more ethical to hunt than buy from the store" arguments.

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

#127

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.

Not that amazing, given that it's never been successfully been replicated and quite likely to be bunk.

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

#128
post #104
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As deep as it needs to be to allow people to accept lab grown meat. The equivalent of conscientious vegetarians of the future may be those that only eat lab grown human meat, of their own grown cells. Me-steak is the meat of the future. Of course, genetics probably means some of us taste better than others...

There's no reason to believe that single cells can't be conscious too. You'd have to eat organic molecule synthesized through a non-biological, industrial process that feeds on energy harvested in space, so that all solar energy on earth can be given back to the wilderness. Yes, using terrestrial solar and wind energy deprives geologic, atmospheric, marine and wild biological processes from the energy they're natural…

“We're dissipative structures, and we can't survive (i.e. keep our inner entropy low) without raising the entropy in our surrounding, so there's gonna be some environmental disruption if we want to survive, and it's going to be at the expense of other organisms, be they cute, plain or disgusting.”

My one quibble is the defeatist “it’s going to be”. Advances in lower-level physics can open up new possibilities. Even now terrestrial solar, while depriving some types organisms from sunlight, can provide shade for other types of organisms to thrive, and who knows what it would be on balance.

I doubt that avoiding any environmental change is in itself a sensible goal, and framing it as always “disruption at the expense of other organisms” seems not constructive. Like any organism, we change the environment purely by existing and interacting with other organisms. Becoming more and more well-off, stable and conscientious ourselves, learning what conscience is and how many conscious agents are around us that are not us, we’ll have resources to iterate and become better at taking care of those agents, from not breaking them up unnecessarily to helping them thrive and build up complexity themselves.

Eventually, if we don’t go extinct too soon, as a result of our growth I believe we’d expand our definition of “us” to include life and nail energy absorption enough to shift the rising entropy entirely to the outside of that scope. That picture of food being synthesized industrially in space, ensuring nothing is harmed in the process—along those lines.

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

#129
post #78
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not unless they're fertilised.

Tell that to the Catholic church.

Er, I am pretty sure the Catholic Chuech does not regard unfertilized eggs as equivalent to babies in any way?

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

#130
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no reason to believe that single cells can't be conscious too. You'd have to eat organic molecule synthesized through a non-biological, industrial process that feeds on energy harvested in space, so that all solar energy on earth can be given back to the wilderness. Yes, using terrestrial solar and wind energy deprives geologic, atmospheric, marine and wild biological processes from the energy they're natural…

“We're dissipative structures, and we can't survive (i.e. keep our inner entropy low) without raising the entropy in our surrounding, so there's gonna be some environmental disruption if we want to survive, and it's going to be at the expense of other organisms, be they cute, plain or disgusting.” My one quibble is the defeatist “it’s going to be”. Advances in lower-level physics can open up new possibilities. Even n…

Looks like we're in agreement on the fundamentals :-)

My point here is that renewable energy has an ecologic footprint that goes beyond the ostensible animal deaths caused by the blades of wind turbines. It is a zero sum game, and it is disruptive in ways we can't all anticipate (especially in an economic growth context).

Whether or not other organisms are conscious is not very relevant to our survival. What's relevant is how useful they are to environmental stability.

Also re. taking care, nature is generally brutal. Few wild organisms die of old age, sipping mojitos on the beach.

Starvation, injury, disease or being eaten is the norm, and that chaos is part of what makes ecosystems resilient (within bounds that we're currently breaking).

Post reply on HN