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

The case against plant consciousness

news.ucsc.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 131 posts

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#21

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

viklove wrote: post #17
krisrm wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly! And yeah - I'm sure there's a whole range of perspectives. Probably the idea that plants might be defined as "conscious" bothers some people, but I just can't understand that frame of mind. What are you going to do about it... starve?

I think the point is that the line between animals and plants would become arbitrary if plants were indeed conscious and could feel pain. Why eat plants but not animals then?

I think that line would become blurred, but there would still be room for a variety of views.

There's still the level of consciousness and intelligence to look at.

I eat everything but octopus/calamari. I think they are too intelligent to eat. I've seen smart cows, and if I didn't grow up eating beef and it wasn't such a great source a protein, I would cut it out too and just eat chicken. For me it's where do I draw the line of intelligence of what I want to eat. The less likely the animal can comprehend what's going on, the easier I feel about it.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#22

Post by hirundo »

If plants have no consciousness does that make them any less worthy of care? Consciousness is nice, I'm glad I have some, but it's just one among many strategies that may help us replicate. Like flight or teeth or roses. An unconscious organism is different than a conscious one but not necessarily lesser in the way that matters: genetic survival.

It may be that consciousness is a net positive to us in that it lets us adapt to conditions more quickly. Our genes may last longer than plant genes as a result. But it also burdens us with destructive tendencies that threaten our survival. The jury is out.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#25

Post by rotrux »

hirundo wrote: post #22

If plants have no consciousness does that make them any less worthy of care? Consciousness is nice, I'm glad I have some, but it's just one among many strategies that may help us replicate. Like flight or teeth or roses. An unconscious organism is different than a conscious one but not necessarily lesser in the way that matters: genetic survival. It may be that consciousness is a net positive to us in that it lets us…

> "If plants have no consciousness, does that make them any less worthy of care?"

No it doesn't, but that's not what's at debate. The fact anyone needed to be told plants aren't conscious is kind of crazy.

There's an insinuation that level-of-consciousness is the measure by which we should judge the importance of organisms. This is an anthropocentric view of life, and a shallow one at that.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#26

Post by yes_man »

A thing being alive (collection of cells being "not dead") and sentient are two different things. If we assume sentience is some kind of concentration of information, then I would assume regular plants' synapses are not complex enough to create a relevant feedback loop of consciousness. Mushrooms and their networks (interconnected myceliums) on the other hand may be a different case.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#27

Post by rotrux »

anon_z88 wrote: post #20

While I agree with his reasoning based on his definition of consciousness, I am not sure if this is the most appropriate way of defining consciousness. We still do not properly understand it, thus we cannot define it. While I try to stray from vague or ambiguous interpretations, I do think it's significant to point that out. Let's look at the generic definition: * consciousness - "the state of being awake and aware o…

By this definition my air conditioning system is conscious.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#29

Post by anon_z88 »

yes_man wrote: post #26

A thing being alive (collection of cells being "not dead") and sentient are two different things. If we assume sentience is some kind of concentration of information, then I would assume regular plants' synapses are not complex enough to create a relevant feedback loop of consciousness. Mushrooms and their networks (interconnected myceliums) on the other hand may be a different case.

This is actually a really interesting comparison. From what I have studied, mushrooms behave similar to a neural network. This is one of the reasons they are so good at revitalizing forests and are seemingly unaffected by viruses. Not to mention their benefits on immune regulation in primates.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#30

Post by daveFNbuck »

anon_z88 wrote: post #20

While I agree with his reasoning based on his definition of consciousness, I am not sure if this is the most appropriate way of defining consciousness. We still do not properly understand it, thus we cannot define it. While I try to stray from vague or ambiguous interpretations, I do think it's significant to point that out. Let's look at the generic definition: * consciousness - "the state of being awake and aware o…

> At the most abstract interpretation I think consciousness can be defined as a closed system that contain both input and output, in which information is gathered and alters some component of the system itself.

This is very similar to the definition I was given for "robot" in an embedded systems course.

Post reply on HN