This article makes two assumptions that need more support. One, that having a particular "threshold brain structure" is a necessary condition for consciousness. And two, that consciousness is a binary, as opposed to a spectrum.
The case against plant consciousness
81–90 of 131 posts
Re: The case against plant consciousness
#82I'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…
> I'm not sure why having neurons enters into the equation at all when deciding whether something is conscious.
Because neuroscience is bigger business than philosophy.
Re: The case against plant consciousness
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Good point. Don't have a good answer to that.
However, this happens very frequently in humans, we have multiple different languages and even multiple synonyms for a lot of (most?) words in every one of those languages.
At the same time, would correlation of two things make one of them worthless to have/know/understand?
Re: The case against plant consciousness
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Thank you for teaching me something new, had never heard of panpsychism before - fascinating.
Do you know of this concept has been incorporated into physics somehow? Are there any models in physics that consider panpsychism as fundamental? (i.e. That consider consciousness as a basic property of matter/energy, just like the 3 special dimensions or time)
Re: The case against plant consciousness
#85While 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…
> There are things such as cellular intelligence which we know is exhibited in even the smallest of prokaryotes and eukaryotes cells
Ah, that's a biiig claim. Which may be true nonetheless. Can you be more precise in this context about 'intelligence' as distinct from action-reaction?
BTW there is a claim that plants can be conditioned a la pavlov. I'll try to dig out the ref (recently in new scientist). Amazing if verified.
> about how plants were more adaptive to radiation
Adapted in this context means adaptations so as to 'not die' I suspect. Please correct me if needed.
Re: The case against plant consciousness
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I seriously wonder if there are any extreme psychopaths or serial killers, that intentionally eat as much Octopus as possible just to satisfy their urge to cause maximum harm to other beings?
I can't eat Octopus, Pigs, Dogs, or any type of Ape because they are too aware of the process.
Oddly I don't have the same aversion to Dolphins or Whales. They may have a comparable amount of intelligence to animals that I wouldn't eat, and a dolphin is even cuter than an octopus, but for some reason I don't have a problem identifying them as food. Sort of like Sheep and Goats, they are cute, but also clearly labeled as food in my head.
Re: The case against plant consciousness
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
I'm not sure I understand the question. You might be right if there is no passage of time, but thanks to time, the effect of one instant can be a cause in the next instant. The choice of reaction develops with time.
Re: The case against plant consciousness
#88In 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).
Good question and a difficult one for me to answer as I am no expert here. I believe it was the discovery that trees were using pheromones during an acute external event, with or without "intent" as we understand it, to alter neighboring trees, that was surprising to the researchers as we typically associate pheromones with animals.
If a single tree under duress is using its resources and energy to signal to other trees that have no way of directly helping the tree in question, what evolutionary advantage is being provided to the tree releasing the pheromones?
Not sure I am able to expand on this but it seems that the trees may have an awareness of your last line: "since the trees with the response would fare better, thus reproduce more successfully", and that awareness may be a form of consciousness different than our own.
Re: The case against plant consciousness
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
That's not really a distinction. Kin selection is a phenomena by which genes can propagate despite them not benefiting (or even harming) the individual that possesses them if it increases the probability of reproduction for other individuals possessing the gene (eg. if they are likely to be related).
It's evolutionarily plausible and explains a massive range of traits and behaviors up through full altruism. See eg. "gay uncle" hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation...
I would describe kin selection as a phenomena that is caused by natural selection because natural selection is a phenomena describing propagation of genes and not propagation of individuals. This is a subtle point and often not taught unless taking specific relevant coursework (I learned about it in an animal behavior class).
I am likely using slightly incorrect phrasing and evolutionary science experts may phrase things differently, though I am confident in the essence of this argument.
Re: The case against plant consciousness
#90While 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…
It sounds like you're starting from an assumption that thoughts are somehow inherently different from responses. But we don't actually know if they are. Nothing that we've ever learned about how brains work has ever shown that choices, really all thoughts, are anything other than automatic. Our behaviors are tremendously complex, but that doesn't demonstrate that we have free will.
So the question shouldn't be whether we can adapt in ways that plants can't but rather what degree of adaptability feels sufficiently thoughtful to our meat computers.