The case against plant consciousness • Hacker News Board

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#31

Post by aidoejebrji » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 8:14 PM UTC

>“Feinberg and Mallatt concluded that only vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods possess the threshold brain structure for consciousness.

The relationship betwen brain structure and consciousness is so poorly understood that this statement is basically idiotic. We know various ways to affect consciousness in humans. For example, using blunt force or drugs. However, we have no understanding at all of any mechanisms by which matter gives rise to consciousness and we cannot even be sure that matter does give rise to consciousness. And we have no way to evaluate the relationship between matter and consciousness in non-human entities like plants that do not communicate to us in any understandable (to us) way about their consciousness or lack of it.

It often amazes me how many people are highly advanced in their own technical fields but fail to grasp the hard problem of consciousness - something that can be understood by a bright kid.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#32

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 8:15 PM UTC

rotrux wrote: post #27

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.

[deleted]

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#33

Post by rolph » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

There seems to be a predisposition toward consciousness as a property of nervous systems, or biological systems.

in speculation perhaps the concept of consciousness as an emergent property of physical systems should be explored. if consciousness is dependent on persistence of a quantum mechanism it is possible for consciousness to exist as a result of any sufficiently spanning rule parsing interactions; And i'll just leave this right here;

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

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183954.Hidden_Order

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#34

Post by kingkawn » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

It’s so clear watching them, especially if you use time lapse photography, that they are conscious.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#35

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

rotrux wrote: post #27

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.

[deleted]

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#36

Post by CephalopodMD » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

This relies on the assumption that the authors model of consciousness is "correct" for lack of a better term. If you accept this model, then we should be able to agree on this conclusion, but it's not like this is the only model of consciousness out there. This is just one model of one type of consciousness that we think we can agree on. The truth is, we don't know that plants aren't conscious, just that if they are, they don't use the same mechanisms to experience it. It's like saying that life is impossible on a planet without carbon. It's possible that silicon based life exists it there somewhere, we've just never directly observed it.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#37

Post by blancheneige » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 8:25 PM UTC

dbt00 wrote: post #18

plutonorm wrote: post #2

This just sounds like a member of the old guard being uncomfortable with progress. His arguments dont seem very strong, questions over why plants would have such a capacity. Then some hand waving about alternative explanations for experimental results. Probably just another case of the dismantling of human exceptionalism making people uncomfortable.

Or perhaps exceptional claims (plants have brains we just can’t see them) require exceptional evidence.

Like the exceptional claim that human consciousness resides in the brain despite documented evidence of remote viewing [1], terminal lucidity [2], memories of past lives [3], etc.? Maybe it's time these "scientists" start doing actual science instead of sticking to their ultra-materialist dogma.

[1] https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/air1995.pdf

[2] https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploa...

[3] https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/publications/aca...

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#38

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 8:27 PM UTC

rendall wrote: post #3

I'm sure that "consciousness" is carefully defined in the paper, but, from the article "...whether plants can think, learn, and intentionally choose their actions..." is a much easier position to debate than whether plants are in some sense aware of themselves, their environment and others like themselves, which is what I think of when I hear "consciousness".

[deleted]

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#39

Post by azeotropic » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 8:32 PM UTC

I'm not sure why having neurons enters into the equation at all when deciding whether something is conscious.

This is a hard question and the Feinberg-Mallatt definition of consciousness seems circular.

An artificial or alien life form might possess consciousness without having traversed the same evolutionary trajectory as animals, and will probably not possess animal neurons. Even a sufficently diverged animal might use novel strategies for organizing neurons (or alternatives to neurons?) to sense, move, focus attention, and remember.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#40

Post by scarejunba » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 8:33 PM UTC

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…

Okay so based on those generic definitions, I’m practically pulling someone off life support when I turn off my Google Home. Or maybe my learning thermostat.