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

41–50 of 131 posts

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#41

Post by shawnz »

JackFr wrote: post #9
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 it sounds like someone very familiar with the literature who's uncomfortable with some hyperbolic claims in his field. Someone who is comfortable attributing consciousness to arthropods is probably comfortable with dismantling human exceptionalism.

The literature of what, philosophy of mind? This question is not relevant to his field, which is psychiatry.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#42

Post by mikeg8 »

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.

I don't think so. Being turned on/powered up is not equivalent to being awake. "Awake", at minimum, implies a living subject.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#43

Post by [deleted] »

azeotropic wrote: post #39

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…

[deleted]

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#44

Post by pixelbash »

blancheneige wrote: post #37
dbt00 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]…

Without leaning one way or the other I've always wondered what neuroimaging one of these experiences would look like. If nothing obvious is happening and the imagee reports a rich and detailed experience it might be persuasive.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#46

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

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".

Honest question: it what sense can anything that exists in an environment be said to not be aware of it? How do you define "awareness" outside of observed reactions to stimuli, which everything in the universe exhibits to varying degrees of complexity?

I submit that what we think of as "consciousness", the awareness of being, is impossible within a model based purely on objectively measurable criteria.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#47

Post by droithomme »

billmalarky wrote: post #6
bin0 wrote: post #4

So here's an interesting question: if plants are conscious, can vegans eat them? And if not, what will they eat? Not trying to troll vegans; if this is different and some one can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

If consciousness is a byproduct of advanced organization of organic matter, I imagine we can use technology to create simplified versions that lack the complexity required for consciousness while still being nutritious.

> I imagine we can use technology to create simplified versions that lack the complexity required for consciousness while still being nutritious.

Or economically valuable for organ extraction.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,138483,...

> [Labs] at the University of Texas and at the University of Bath ... created headless mice [and] headless tadpoles.

> "It would almost certainly be possible to produce human bodies without a forebrain," Princeton biologist Lee Silver told the London Sunday Times. "These human bodies without any semblance of consciousness would not be considered persons, and thus it would be perfectly legal to keep them 'alive' as a future source of organs."

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#48

Post by mikeg8 »

In The Hidden Life of Trees, one cool fact that stuck with me in support of tree consciousness was how trees that are under attack from certain insect species will release pheromones to warn neighboring trees. The neighboring trees will then rapidly increase production of tanins and other defense chemicals to stave of the insect onslaught. pretty cool

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#49

Post by sdegutis »

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.

When people reject novelty theories like this, it's usually because basic intelligence tells us it's so unlikely to be either true or useful that it's not worth considering.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#50

Post by sebringj »

I would have to think something like... Plants cannot plan, reason or postulate or conceptualize etc, they can only respond similar to a chemical reaction but with the added complexity of evolution giving them much more nuanced reactions appropriate to specific scenarios... rather than trying to say the word consciousness as that is a loaded concept.
Post reply on HN