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

71–80 of 131 posts

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#71

Post by blackhaz »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #66
uj8efdjkfdshf wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd personally back such a definition of consciousness, and reframe the question more as one of what level of consciousness (eg complexity of processing, breadth of collected inputs) must an entity possess before we consider its consciousness as being meaningful to us.

Love this way of framing the subject. Following that line of reasoning, you could say that even the smallest particle/bit of energy has some level of consciousness. Then you could also say that Earth (and any planet or star), is also conscious, and at a way higher level than we (humans) are.

So we've got to panpsychism. Why not? We're in the company of Thales, Plato, Spinoza and Leibniz.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#72

Post by baddox »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #61
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 seems like a reductio ad absurdum definition of consciousness, to echo rotrux's "By this definition my air conditioning system is conscious" comment. Consciousness may be hard to define, but it certainly…

I'm not so against considering an air conditioning system to be conscious. If the goal is to define "consciousness" deliberately in such a way that you get to keep considering only a certain set of things to be conscious, then you might as well just define it as exactly that set of things.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#73

Post by solipsism »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #61
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 seems like a reductio ad absurdum definition of consciousness, to echo rotrux's "By this definition my air conditioning system is conscious" comment. Consciousness may be hard to define, but it certainly…

I think it's a big mistake to not include at least some level of self-awareness in the definition

These are the most boring sorts of arguments. You want to talk about only systems that have self awareness? Fine, you go do that on this side of the room. You want to talk about systems that don't necessarily have self awareness? Okay, do that on the other side of the room.

If you can't decide on common definitions for words, you can't play together.

You seem to be saying that there's a "special" thing, and that thing must include self awareness by your reckoning, and you call that thing "consciousness". Instead of arguing about whose definition of the word "consciousness" is better, just define that thing rigorously, call it anything you want, and then we can talk about it.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#74

Post by hathawsh »

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…

The word "consciousness" has important connotations that are not captured by the generic definition. As others noted, an air conditioner with a built in thermostat can fit the generic definition of consciousness.

When I say an entity is conscious, I mean to say it not only has the ability to react to stimuli, but it can also abstractly choose how to react. It can rewire its own reactions, not just in a Pavlovian sense, but it can also develop internal thought frameworks and route its reactions through the frameworks it prefers.

The only mechanism plants have for improving the way they react to their environment is biological evolution. You could call that mechanism a type of consciousness, but in doing so you would have to treat the species as the conscious entity, not the individual plant; individual plants are like passing thoughts.

Thus I don't think individual plants are conscious unless they have some way to improve their reaction to their environment outside of biological evolution.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#76

Post by mikeg8 »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #67
mikeg8 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My brief Wikipedia look-up on kin selection makes it seem like it is an evolutionary strategy exclusive to animals. Do you have examples of non animal species or "trivial organisms" that have used this strategy? Edit: just saw a small snippet on plants down the page but if anything, i think kin selection in and of itself is supporting of consciousness. I have a hard time imaging non-conscious subjects exhibiting kin…

> i think kin selection in and of itself is supporting of consciousness Why would you think that? Evolution operates on a population via shaping the distribution of traits via selection. The selection is being done by the environment, not the population, and requires no conscious entity.

You are confusing natural selection with kin selection. Natural selection is by the environment, kin selection is by the organism.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#77

Post by sixplusone »

mikeg8 wrote: post #48

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

How do you determine whether the tree releases pheromones to warn others -vs- it happens to release pheromones and it induces a response in the others?

i.e., the former requires intent, whereas the latter simply evolutionary pressure (since the trees with the response would fare better, thus reproduce more successfully).

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#78

Post by solipsism »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #66
uj8efdjkfdshf wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd personally back such a definition of consciousness, and reframe the question more as one of what level of consciousness (eg complexity of processing, breadth of collected inputs) must an entity possess before we consider its consciousness as being meaningful to us.

Love this way of framing the subject. Following that line of reasoning, you could say that even the smallest particle/bit of energy has some level of consciousness. Then you could also say that Earth (and any planet or star), is also conscious, and at a way higher level than we (humans) are.

Then you could also say that Earth (and any planet or star), is also conscious, and at a way higher level than we (humans) are.

What's the point of the word "conscious" if it's just a synonym of the word "complex"? If it doesn't add anything, it's not worth having the word.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#79

Post by DonaldFisk »

hathawsh wrote: post #74
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…

The word "consciousness" has important connotations that are not captured by the generic definition. As others noted, an air conditioner with a built in thermostat can fit the generic definition of consciousness. When I say an entity is conscious, I mean to say it not only has the ability to react to stimuli, but it can also abstractly choose how to react. It can rewire its own reactions, not just in a Pavlovian sens…

David Chalmers discusses the consciousness of theromostats here: http://consc.net/notes/lloyd-comments.html

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#80

Post by lottin »

hathawsh wrote: post #74
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…

The word "consciousness" has important connotations that are not captured by the generic definition. As others noted, an air conditioner with a built in thermostat can fit the generic definition of consciousness. When I say an entity is conscious, I mean to say it not only has the ability to react to stimuli, but it can also abstractly choose how to react. It can rewire its own reactions, not just in a Pavlovian sens…

I tend to agree, but at the same time an entity capable of choosing how to react would violate the law of cause and effect. So, can conscious beings really choose how to react, or is consciousness just the illusion that we can make choices?
Post reply on HN