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

131–140 of 181 posts

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

#131

Post by iamnothere »

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.

> Not saying that that means you're wrong.

Your statement presumes that the typical conception of "free will" does indeed exist and that this is a universally held position. As a counterpoint, determinism has many backers.

A typical (grossly simplified) physicalist response to your claim is that the illusion of "choice" is really the result of complex processes playing out.

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

#132

Post by pharrington »

omeid2 wrote: post #85
gowld wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Spectrum? Between?

The hard thing is to be less reliant your assumptions and start figuring out what to start measuring.

edit: s/ditch/be less reliant on/

edit2: even that's not quite right; the derivative I'm reaching for is first testing the validity of your assumptions

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

#133

Post by gumby »

iainmerrick wrote: post #94
greglindahl wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it okay to eat you?

Only if you are a humanitarian, I suppose.

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

#134

Post by gumby »

greglindahl wrote: post #81
gumby wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was a vegetarian myself for many years, and now you mention it I don't have any self-declared veg friends or relatives whom I know eat any animal products apart from dairy.

Interestingly some do it for moral/religious reasons and some do it for health reasons, and it does seem the latter are the ones who want to bring it up.

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

#135

Post by fsloth »

akvadrako wrote: post #125
nezzle wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my bets." - Richard Dawkins

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

#137

Post by pavel_lishin »

akvadrako wrote: post #125
nezzle wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wonder how you'd spot a Bicameral person in modern society.

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

#138

Post by kaffeemitsahne »

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.

>there is no such thing as free will, since all your actions are some kind of response from the environment

And why couldn't that be free will? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism

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

#139

Post by cmrdporcupine »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #19
jopsen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I would argue that eating animals is morally superior to cannibalism :) So why can't eating plants be morally superior to eat animals.

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…

Ruminant animals are far more efficient than us at turning plants into high energy protein and fat. And omnivores like pigs and chickens can eat things that we can't/won't (food waste, insects, worms, grasses, seeds), and turn them into protein and fat.

Our current animal feed system is terrible (grow large quantities of monocrop corn and soy on high quality arable land using vast quantities of fertilizer and terrible soil conservation practices).

But farm animals are an important part of the 'circuit' of a viable small farm. Chickens and ducks can help with weeding. Goats and sheep can turn sod into manure, one of them best fertilizers. Having meat/lard/soup bones in the freezer is an important way to get through the winter.

Legumes don't produce a complete protein that we can survive on by themselves. Vegetarian diets tend to skew too far in the direction of carbohydrates. Plants that produce fats and proteins in the quantities we needs (nuts, avocados, etc.) are pretty much as water hungry as animals.

A pure vegetarian diet may not in fact turn out to be more energy efficient or environmentally sound if it just replaces our monocrop animal feed farms with monocrops of unhealthy insuling-provoking carbohydrates.

Historically, highly hierarchical or slaveholding agricultural societies fed their slaves almost exclusively maize/rice/wheat -- and kept the meat/fish for elites. If you look at the archaeological record and remains of those bodies, the health effects are obvious. Short stature, dental health issues, bone density problems, shortened lifespans. Roman soldiers were terrified of their taller and stockier Germanic/Celtic foes who lived on a more well-rounded diet with more meat and dairy.

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

#140

Post by asciimo »

ahartman00 wrote: post #122
geofft wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Egg and dairy production it pretty horrific. (And chickens and cows are fed plants.)
Post reply on HN