The case against plant consciousness • Hacker News Board

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#101

Post by lioeters » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 11:52 PM UTC

For a remarkable footage showing how plants might fit some definition of "conscious", I recommend the French documentary called Microcosmos.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117040/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcosmos_(film)

Some of the scenes in time-lapse ("fast motion"), you can see how plants reach out their vines and leaves, moving and feeling the world around them. So, at least they seem to have a level of "awareness", by some definition of the term.

Anecdotally, I've had countless experiences of what might be called "consciousness" in all living beings - but then again, it depends what one means by that word.

Edit: I mean, is a maze-solving slime mold conscious? And what makes human consciousness so uniquely different from slime mold's?

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#102

Post by loup-vaillant » Wed, Jul 03, 2019, 11:54 PM UTC

ebg13 wrote: post #90

hathawsh wrote: post #74

Earlier 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…

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 whethe…

> Our behaviors are tremendously complex, but that doesn't demonstrate that we have free will.

If by "free will", you do mean what I think you mean, it would be very surprising we have it. It would basically imply dualism, which I have dismissed a long time ago.

Of course our thoughts are entirely automatic. They're physical processes like any other. It would still be nice to understand their structure. I for one would be thrilled to learn how choices actually happen.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#103

Post by ianai » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 12:04 AM UTC

vfc1 wrote: post #15

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.

Plant conscience and plant lives matter arguments are usually used as a futility fallacy argument against the reduction of animal products consumption. Something like: See, even plants are conscious, there is no point so let's just continue eating steaks and pork chops every day.

Aka they’re a nearly thoughtless dismissal of veganism.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#104

Post by dTal » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 12:14 AM UTC

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…

Gee, under that definition I'm not sure I'm conscious!

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#105

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 12:26 AM UTC

ta1234567890 wrote: post #84

blackhaz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

[deleted]

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#106

Post by hathawsh » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 12:32 AM UTC

dTal wrote: post #104

hathawsh wrote: post #74

Earlier 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…

Gee, under that definition I'm not sure I'm conscious!

What I described matches the Disney/Pixar movie Inside Out, which most people readily identify with. :-)

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#107

Post by cnvqjpwips » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 12:53 AM UTC

ta1234567890 wrote: post #84

blackhaz wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

https://reducing-suffering.org/is-there-suffering-in-fundame...

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#108

Post by hathawsh » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 12:55 AM UTC

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #97

hathawsh wrote: post #74

Earlier 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…

Plants engage actively with their environment, and communicate with other plants. Usually by secreting some kind of chemical ("secondary metabolite"), which makes sense given they don't move very fast. Things that don't move very fast are at an advantage where energy efficiency is important. The general trend is that low-energy things modify their environment chemically and high-energy things modify their environment…

Plant communication is certainly fascinating, but I wouldn't call it a sign of consciousness. Isn't it just another reaction to stimuli?

I can imagine an experiment where some plants are placed in an environment where the communication chemical they secrete interacts with a gas in the air, slowly poisoning the plants. Would the plants adapt by changing their own behavior, or would some later generation survive due to a mutation? If they changed their own behavior, that might point toward a kind of individual consciousness.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#109

Post by eternalban » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 1:01 AM 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…

> At the most abstract interpretation I think consciousness can be defined as a closed system ...

Why closed? Who says it is closed? I claim it is open, and, spans the entirety of physical reality, fully entangled.

> ... that contain both input and output, in which information is gathered and alters some component of the system itself.

That sounds like a model for computation not consciousness. A JIT compiler would qualify.

Re: The case against plant consciousness

#110

Post by Retric » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 1:03 AM UTC

hathawsh wrote: post #108

xkcd-sucks wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plants engage actively with their environment, and communicate with other plants. Usually by secreting some kind of chemical ("secondary metabolite"), which makes sense given they don't move very fast. Things that don't move very fast are at an advantage where energy efficiency is important. The general trend is that low-energy things modify their environment chemically and high-energy things modify their environment…

Plant communication is certainly fascinating, but I wouldn't call it a sign of consciousness. Isn't it just another reaction to stimuli? I can imagine an experiment where some plants are placed in an environment where the communication chemical they secrete interacts with a gas in the air, slowly poisoning the plants. Would the plants adapt by changing their own behavior, or would some later generation survive due to…

The medical definition of conciseness includes things like responding to bright light by constructing the iris. It’s not high on the scale, but it’s very much part of the current definition in active usage. So, in practice it’s useful have level of consciousness and as such the minimum can be extremely low without becoming less meaningful.

More importantly as we understand more about the brain we may eventually understand how everything works. Any definition that would then exclude humans as conscious becomes irrelevant.