Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

161–170 of 181 posts

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

#161
post #160
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do, but I'm not going to play this game unless you seriously want to argue that a thermostat is conscious, in which case you have to go first.

Seems to me that consciousness is a matter of degree, with devices like thermostats at one pole, and self-reflective neocortex-style consciousness at the other. Not that I have a strong desire to defend the consciousness of thermostats. I just wouldn't consider the article pseudo-scientific rubbish, and I definitely wouldn't just write off this type of inquiry or discussion as some kind of harmful fake news.

> consciousness is a matter of degree

That's true, but that doesn't mean that thermostats are conscious. Shortness is "a matter of degree" too. Nonetheless, Danny Devito is short (4'10"), and Michael Jordan (6'6") is not. We can argue about Tom Cruise (5'7") and Johnny Depp (5'10"), and with regards to consciousness, we can argue about dolphins and dogs and maybe even cockroaches. But not plants and not thermostats.

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

#162

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…

> 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. These people definitely exist, as you’ve illustrated, but in my experience they are a small minority. What’s interesting to me is that vegetarians/vegans have this reputation for being in-your-face about it, yet in reality the experience reported by my…

I am well aware that vegetarians are often given a hard time for their choice to not eat meat. I grew up in a meat-and-potatoes family. I was a wannabe vegetarian for a time, but I have a serious medical condition and that simply doesn't work for me. Still, I eat a great deal less meat than is the norm for many of my relatives.

On visits home, I have been accused of being vegetarian because I don't necessarily have meat as part of Every. Single. Meal. For health reasons, it is not unusual for me to choose a vegetarian option. Even when I do eat meat, it is typically the smallest portion of anyone at the table.

I have thought very long and hard about food and ethics. I occasionally spell that out if it seems pertinent for some reason. Getting on my high horse about how my food choices are ethical or about the amount of time I have put into deciding my position on the matter as a means to piss on other people never strikes me as pertinent.

So it rather annoys me when a) I am equally given hell for my food choices by both vegetarians and by those who perceive me as a vegetarian and b) vegetarians inevitably assume that they have thought more on the matter and researched it more than I have simply because I don't agree with them.

Most of the world is raised on either a shame model or a guilt model. If you are choosing to not eat meat for ethical reasons, it isn't surprising that meat eaters will feel judged by you. Most vegetarians are, in fact, judgy about the diets of others. It isn't hard to convey that fact and meat eaters are not oblivious to it.

I rarely get hassled these days, in part because I mostly either eat alone or with my two adult sons. When I do attend a meal at a social function, if anyone comments on a lack of meat on my plate, I go out of my way to make it a non issue. I don't talk about food ethics. I usually avoid talking about my medical situation. I try to frame it as "Oh, the (vegetarian option) just looked scrumptious! I really love cheese dishes!"

Because I am a big believer in go pray in your closet and not interested in making my food choices a political issue between me and friends, family or acquaintances. So I go to great lengths to frame it as a personal choice that implies nothing at all about them.

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

#163
post #161
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to me that consciousness is a matter of degree, with devices like thermostats at one pole, and self-reflective neocortex-style consciousness at the other. Not that I have a strong desire to defend the consciousness of thermostats. I just wouldn't consider the article pseudo-scientific rubbish, and I definitely wouldn't just write off this type of inquiry or discussion as some kind of harmful fake news.

> consciousness is a matter of degree That's true, but that doesn't mean that thermostats are conscious. Shortness is "a matter of degree" too. Nonetheless, Danny Devito is short (4'10"), and Michael Jordan (6'6") is not. We can argue about Tom Cruise (5'7") and Johnny Depp (5'10"), and with regards to consciousness, we can argue about dolphins and dogs and maybe even cockroaches. But not plants and not thermostats.

You're drawing arbitrary cutoffs in your height example. Which brings back the original question, what's your selection criteria for consciousness?

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

#164

Is the planet conscious but on a time scale that we are out-of-touch with? Plants are just an order of magnitude quicker to react but still much slower than needed to make us care. The truth is, we associate speed with intelligence, it's natural for us. We even have the word "slow" to mean stupid. It's possible we will eventually have a super intelligence able to craftily manipulate matter at the highest ability -- b…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ent

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

#165
post #2

What

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? You've done it a lot and we eventually ban such accounts.

Of course you're welcome to contribute if you want to use HN as intended. It works like this: when you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; when you don't, please don't comment until you do.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#166
post #163
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consciousness is a matter of degree That's true, but that doesn't mean that thermostats are conscious. Shortness is "a matter of degree" too. Nonetheless, Danny Devito is short (4'10"), and Michael Jordan (6'6") is not. We can argue about Tom Cruise (5'7") and Johnny Depp (5'10"), and with regards to consciousness, we can argue about dolphins and dogs and maybe even cockroaches. But not plants and not thermostats.

You're drawing arbitrary cutoffs in your height example. Which brings back the original question, what's your selection criteria for consciousness?

No, they are not arbitrary cutoffs. They are universally agreed upon conventions among speakers of English, and they give effective meaning to the words "short" and "tall". Quibbling over that is pure pedantry.

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

#167
post #166
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're drawing arbitrary cutoffs in your height example. Which brings back the original question, what's your selection criteria for consciousness?

No, they are not arbitrary cutoffs. They are universally agreed upon conventions among speakers of English, and they give effective meaning to the words "short" and "tall". Quibbling over that is pure pedantry.

Convention = arbitary. It's conventional. For convenience. Relative. Not absolute. Same as your lines defining what is and isn't conscious.

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

#168
post #124
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sorry this is late, but check out Dr. Giulio Tononi's mathematical apparatus called Integrated Information Theory. In a nutshell, it considers a system and all the causal relations within it, measures some quantity related to the number of states that system can take, and then considers the graph cut that minimizes this quantity in the subsystems. The difference between the uncut and cut graphs gives a degree of "integrated information", which can be argued is a useful analogue or even the very definition of consciousness.

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

#169
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have any references? Wikipedia suggests the opposite. I do not find anything wrong with new research but presenting it as groundbreaking is laughable.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose [2] https://doi.org/10.1038%2F360062a0

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

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 consciou…

But the definition isn’t if it is like something for a human to be a bat. Human experience doesn’t really come into it.

It is like something to be a human. But the conscious experience of a bat (if it exists) may be completely alien to us in every way. That’s not relevant to what it is to be like a bat. The only important thing is if it is like something to be a bat.

Post reply on HN