The case against plant consciousness(news.ucsc.edu)
news.ucsc.edu
The case against plant consciousness
https://news.ucsc.edu/2019/07/plant-consciousness.html
130 comments
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.
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.
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 mechanically. Compare the diversity of human-discovered secondary metabolites from plants/fungi (low power), insects/reptiles/amphibians (medium power), mammals/birds (high power)
https://www.mpg.de/15791/Plants_and_environment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_communication
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6b23/df2807a0fb8e77c4922377...
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 mechanically. Compare the diversity of human-discovered secondary metabolites from plants/fungi (low power), insects/reptiles/amphibians (medium power), mammals/birds (high power)
https://www.mpg.de/15791/Plants_and_environment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_communication
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6b23/df2807a0fb8e77c4922377...
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.
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.
Us humans are kind of undergoing that experiment right now with climate change and everything else, and even with the strategies available to us it is unclear whether humans will survive the coming hundreds of years :)
From a philosophical standpoint, and considering the spirit rather than the details: Is this hypothetical experiment just giving plants a challenge at them which they're too dumb or helpless to solve?
It seems there are plenty of analogous challenges which humans alone or in groups are unequipped to deal with.
Is any "challenge" humans respond to not a homeostatic correction, like if everything were perfectly perfect for a person would they do anything different at all? Considering also the homeostases we're built to maintain "just because", like novelty vs boredom.
If a thing "decided" to change its reproductive rate, or selected different sexual partners based on environmental conditions, is this necessarily a phenomenon unconnected to individual agency? Humans do this too.
Developmental neuroscience strongly supports the claim that physical brain architecture requires environmental stimuli, and psychology strongly supports the importance of "nurture" contributing to a person's "self". Do these stimulus responses have no bearing on consciousness?
If your conscious experience suddenly became transferred to a tree, and a lumberjack came to cut you down, how could you convince them you're conscious using the behaviors available to you?
Consider a conscious alien unfamiliar with human society, or a Stone age tribesperson who somehow doesn't embody human cognitive biases like assuming consciousness of things that look like them. If they observe a financial services office for a few hours, do they think the workers are modifying the environment in an individually considered manner?
If plants and humans were both considered by definition to be conscious, would life change?
From a philosophical standpoint, and considering the spirit rather than the details: Is this hypothetical experiment just giving plants a challenge at them which they're too dumb or helpless to solve?
It seems there are plenty of analogous challenges which humans alone or in groups are unequipped to deal with.
Is any "challenge" humans respond to not a homeostatic correction, like if everything were perfectly perfect for a person would they do anything different at all? Considering also the homeostases we're built to maintain "just because", like novelty vs boredom.
If a thing "decided" to change its reproductive rate, or selected different sexual partners based on environmental conditions, is this necessarily a phenomenon unconnected to individual agency? Humans do this too.
Developmental neuroscience strongly supports the claim that physical brain architecture requires environmental stimuli, and psychology strongly supports the importance of "nurture" contributing to a person's "self". Do these stimulus responses have no bearing on consciousness?
If your conscious experience suddenly became transferred to a tree, and a lumberjack came to cut you down, how could you convince them you're conscious using the behaviors available to you?
Consider a conscious alien unfamiliar with human society, or a Stone age tribesperson who somehow doesn't embody human cognitive biases like assuming consciousness of things that look like them. If they observe a financial services office for a few hours, do they think the workers are modifying the environment in an individually considered manner?
If plants and humans were both considered by definition to be conscious, would life change?
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.
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.
> The medical definition of conciseness includes things like responding to bright light by constructing the iris.
Which has an interesting parallel with many plant's ability to rotate the face of their leaves towards the current position of the sun.
Which has an interesting parallel with many plant's ability to rotate the face of their leaves towards the current position of the sun.
Mimosa Pudica and the Venus Fly Trap respond even faster (in iris response like times).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLTcVNyOhUc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLTcVNyOhUc
That's a very helpful clarification. Thanks!
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
How does an electron decide where to go in the dual hole experiment?
Like the double slit experiment with a photon, or the semi-transparent mirror?
Simple: it goes both ways. Then decoherence happens, the universe splits in half, and we experience being in either one of those halves. What we observe is but a glimpse of what actually happen. We don't have access to the other side (split universes don't communicate with each other, contrary to what much sci-fi material describes).
That may sound weird, but the alternative (that half the amplitude is "not real", or that it "collapses" (in a way that is non-local, that is, exceeds the speed of light), is even weirder.
Or you could just refuse to answer the question, and stick to "this equations mean I should observe this with those statistics".
Simple: it goes both ways. Then decoherence happens, the universe splits in half, and we experience being in either one of those halves. What we observe is but a glimpse of what actually happen. We don't have access to the other side (split universes don't communicate with each other, contrary to what much sci-fi material describes).
That may sound weird, but the alternative (that half the amplitude is "not real", or that it "collapses" (in a way that is non-local, that is, exceeds the speed of light), is even weirder.
Or you could just refuse to answer the question, and stick to "this equations mean I should observe this with those statistics".
> 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.
These are just reactions with a memory component. This would include any computers, and so is too broad. I think consciousness will end up being a specific type of information process, with certain properties including those you describe, but it must have more properties and so be more specific than what you outline.
These are just reactions with a memory component. This would include any computers, and so is too broad. I think consciousness will end up being a specific type of information process, with certain properties including those you describe, but it must have more properties and so be more specific than what you outline.
Also if you unpack “prefers”, there’s nothing there which is not based on current biochemistry, genetic make up, instinctive responses, conditioning, trauma and experiences until a fraction of a second ago, and environment.
Saying this because the definition seems to beer toward “free will”.
Saying this because the definition seems to beer toward “free will”.
David Chalmers discusses the consciousness of theromostats here: http://consc.net/notes/lloyd-comments.html
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.
I feel like evolution of a species is way too simple a process to claim it has a conscience. I believe if you simply combine variations (from either mutations or cross-breeding) along with “survival of the fittest” you essentially get evolution. There’s nothing more magical happening. Each of those processes is extremely boring and entirely mechanical.
> 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 is something that at least appears "special", and I think it's a big mistake to not include at least some level of self-awareness in the definition.
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 is something that at least appears "special", and I think it's a big mistake to not include at least some level of self-awareness in the definition.
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.
That's a straw man, no one has that goal. And it's pretty clear a definition of consciousness that would include a thermostat is so broad as to be nearly worthless.
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.
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.
I reduced it to a minimum so we could find points that we can agree on. I think self-awareness is a more complex system of consciousness, such as sentience. Which I do not believe an air conditioner is.
For example, is nature (evolution) conscious?
I mean this in the most literal sense, the system which created your definition of "consciousness", is that system itself consciousness?
The material that makes up our neurons once came from a non self-aware system. (basic minerals, etc.)
For example, is nature (evolution) conscious?
I mean this in the most literal sense, the system which created your definition of "consciousness", is that system itself consciousness?
The material that makes up our neurons once came from a non self-aware system. (basic minerals, etc.)
Following Thomas Nagel, I understand 'x is conscious' to mean roughly 'there is something that it is like to be x'. In this sense, a system can be intelligent without being conscious. Consciousness, intelligence, and self-awareness might all be orthogonal. We currently know vastly more about how to build an intelligent machine (extremely low as the level of intelligence may be) than about how to build a conscious machine (we know nothing at all about that).
Imagine waking up from deep sleep. In the first few seconds, there is virtually no intelligence present other than basic autonomous body survival intelligence, which is also present during deep sleep. So what has changed? What is the difference between being in deep sleep and being in the state of unintelligent awareness a second after waking from deep sleep? There is not something that it is like to be in deep sleep. There is something that it is like to be just awakened from deep sleep.
There is a lot of confusion in most conversations between consciousness, intelligence, and self-awareness. The three are different concepts and the relationships between them are poorly understod.
I can imagine a human-level intelligence that lacks consciousness (this is sort of what is meant by the term 'p-zombie'). I can imagine a being that almost or completely lacks intelligence (in the sense of problem-solving ability, pattern recognition, etc.), yet is conscious.
Humanity currently has a lot of knowledge about how various material phenomena (drugs, being hit in the head with a brick, etc.) affect consciousness, but as far as I know humanity currently has zero knowledge about the mechanisms by which material phenomena affect consciousness. Consciousness in its essence is not understood at all and may be fundamentally beyond the reach of science.
There is no reason to assume that it is in principle possible to objectively evaluate whether some entity is conscious.
Imagine waking up from deep sleep. In the first few seconds, there is virtually no intelligence present other than basic autonomous body survival intelligence, which is also present during deep sleep. So what has changed? What is the difference between being in deep sleep and being in the state of unintelligent awareness a second after waking from deep sleep? There is not something that it is like to be in deep sleep. There is something that it is like to be just awakened from deep sleep.
There is a lot of confusion in most conversations between consciousness, intelligence, and self-awareness. The three are different concepts and the relationships between them are poorly understod.
I can imagine a human-level intelligence that lacks consciousness (this is sort of what is meant by the term 'p-zombie'). I can imagine a being that almost or completely lacks intelligence (in the sense of problem-solving ability, pattern recognition, etc.), yet is conscious.
Humanity currently has a lot of knowledge about how various material phenomena (drugs, being hit in the head with a brick, etc.) affect consciousness, but as far as I know humanity currently has zero knowledge about the mechanisms by which material phenomena affect consciousness. Consciousness in its essence is not understood at all and may be fundamentally beyond the reach of science.
There is no reason to assume that it is in principle possible to objectively evaluate whether some entity is conscious.
> Consciousness, intelligence, and self-awareness might all be orthogonal.
Maybe, but probably not!
> I can imagine a human-level intelligence that lacks consciousness (this is sort of what is meant by the term 'p-zombie'). I can imagine a being that almost or completely lacks intelligence (in the sense of problem-solving ability, pattern recognition, etc.), yet is conscious.
I can imagine living forever, but it's actually impossible. The p-zombie argument depends upon a rhetorical trick that exposes our ignorance, much like Zeno's paradox.
> There is no reason to assume that it is in principle possible to objectively evaluate whether some entity is conscious.
Whatever argument you might use to to justify this, would also suggest that it is not possible in principle to objectively evaluate whether something is healthy, or alive or feels pain. And yet we seem quite adept at this.
Maybe, but probably not!
> I can imagine a human-level intelligence that lacks consciousness (this is sort of what is meant by the term 'p-zombie'). I can imagine a being that almost or completely lacks intelligence (in the sense of problem-solving ability, pattern recognition, etc.), yet is conscious.
I can imagine living forever, but it's actually impossible. The p-zombie argument depends upon a rhetorical trick that exposes our ignorance, much like Zeno's paradox.
> There is no reason to assume that it is in principle possible to objectively evaluate whether some entity is conscious.
Whatever argument you might use to to justify this, would also suggest that it is not possible in principle to objectively evaluate whether something is healthy, or alive or feels pain. And yet we seem quite adept at this.
By this definition my air conditioning system is conscious.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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?
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?
Synonymous != Correlated.
If you're saying they're synonymous, then it doesn't make sense to ask whether you can have one without the other.
So ask yourself, could you imagine something being complex but not conscious, or conscious but not complex? If so, then they're not synonymous and you have something interesting to talk about.
If you're saying they're synonymous, then it doesn't make sense to ask whether you can have one without the other.
So ask yourself, could you imagine something being complex but not conscious, or conscious but not complex? If so, then they're not synonymous and you have something interesting to talk about.
That was exactly the point. According to panpsychism, everything has consciousness.
We us as humans on the other hand, want to compare our consciousness to the one of animals/plants/etc.
Trying to bridge the two things, you could say that everything has consciousness, but that there's a "level" of it, which to make it simple, you could attribute to (or be roughly correlated to) complexity/size.
In a way, it's exactly how gravity is defined.
We us as humans on the other hand, want to compare our consciousness to the one of animals/plants/etc.
Trying to bridge the two things, you could say that everything has consciousness, but that there's a "level" of it, which to make it simple, you could attribute to (or be roughly correlated to) complexity/size.
In a way, it's exactly how gravity is defined.
Exactly. People do this all the time. They project their own experience onto something without taking the time to think if that even applies. Our brain has billions of neurons and trillions of axons, so many that it allows a platform of emergence, not magic. Plants having nothing like this.
How do you know that it isn't?
[deleted]
I don't think so. Being turned on/powered up is not equivalent to being awake. "Awake", at minimum, implies a living subject.
That is just kicking the definition can down the "living" road.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> 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 is very similar to the definition I was given for "robot" in an embedded systems course.
This is very similar to the definition I was given for "robot" in an embedded systems course.
I think this is the point that the poster is trying to make. They’re saying it’s difficult to declare something conscious or not using exact criteria.
A popular definition (in my experience) is the existence of a central nervous system, but we don’t really know whether or not that’s responsible for consciousness. I wonder if we’ll ever know for sure.
A popular definition (in my experience) is the existence of a central nervous system, but we don’t really know whether or not that’s responsible for consciousness. I wonder if we’ll ever know for sure.
Well an unconscious body has a central nervous system but is clearly not conscious.
> 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.
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.
You might like this TED talk, The Real Reason for Brains. It goes in a similar direction to the article.
Life forms that don't move don't need brains. Sophisticated decision-making isn't a challenge that a plant has to meet. I think this is a strong point against the idea of plants being conscious.
https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_wolpert_the_real_reason_for...
Life forms that don't move don't need brains. Sophisticated decision-making isn't a challenge that a plant has to meet. I think this is a strong point against the idea of plants being conscious.
https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_wolpert_the_real_reason_for...
Completely agree that it's very hard to have conversations about implications of consciousness without first having a definition that we can all agree on.
In that line, what do you define as a "closed system"? Technically, nothing exists that doesn't somehow interact with its surroundings. Including humans (we breath, eat, absorb/exchange heat from air/sun, etc). Also black holes (Hawking radiation).
In that line, what do you define as a "closed system"? Technically, nothing exists that doesn't somehow interact with its surroundings. Including humans (we breath, eat, absorb/exchange heat from air/sun, etc). Also black holes (Hawking radiation).
By closed system, I mean anything which you can isolate from anything else.
For example, a car and a truck are both vehicles, but a vehicle is neither a car or a truck.
The truck or car are the subject/closed system.
For example, a car and a truck are both vehicles, but a vehicle is neither a car or a truck.
The truck or car are the subject/closed system.
> 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
The trees were acacias (there may be other species that do this, I don't know) and the pheromone was ethylene, which is a very simple gas that's used in development of other things in plants, famously like fruit ripening but likely more (can't remember, prob bud development).
<https://asknature.org/strategy/leaves-signal-presence-of-pre...
> 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?
Its genetic legacy is being enhanced, if the trees it's protecting are related, which likely they are (very elegant phrasing though! upvoted just for that)
> thus reproduce more successfully", and that awareness may be a form of consciousness different than our own
Hmm. Be careful here. I need to sit down and read and understand this so please recognise I'm dumping this on you, but
"Michie’s design, called MENACE, was a large pile of matchboxes that contained a number of beads and learned to play tic-tac-toe."
...
"MENACE could never win against the perfect algorithm, but ended up drawing every time after about 90 games, making it equally as perfect"
<https://opendatascience.com/menace-donald-michie-tic-tac-toe...
I dunno. Where do you draw the line? HTH anyway.
<https://asknature.org/strategy/leaves-signal-presence-of-pre...
> 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?
Its genetic legacy is being enhanced, if the trees it's protecting are related, which likely they are (very elegant phrasing though! upvoted just for that)
> thus reproduce more successfully", and that awareness may be a form of consciousness different than our own
Hmm. Be careful here. I need to sit down and read and understand this so please recognise I'm dumping this on you, but
"Michie’s design, called MENACE, was a large pile of matchboxes that contained a number of beads and learned to play tic-tac-toe."
...
"MENACE could never win against the perfect algorithm, but ended up drawing every time after about 90 games, making it equally as perfect"
<https://opendatascience.com/menace-donald-michie-tic-tac-toe...
I dunno. Where do you draw the line? HTH anyway.
> that awareness may be a form of consciousness different than our own
the response requires no consciousness, only a mechanical operation
> what evolutionary advantage is being provided to the tree releasing the pheromones?
natural selection works in perpetuity; "this" tree benefited from the action/reaction it has, thanks to its parents having the same reaction/action. The reified response then promulgates because it helps the bearers survive, and becomes self-reinforcing.
the response requires no consciousness, only a mechanical operation
> what evolutionary advantage is being provided to the tree releasing the pheromones?
natural selection works in perpetuity; "this" tree benefited from the action/reaction it has, thanks to its parents having the same reaction/action. The reified response then promulgates because it helps the bearers survive, and becomes self-reinforcing.
Yes. A mouse trap reacts to being “attacked”.
That sort of behavior would be expected for even trivial organisms according to kin selection, though.
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 selection.
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 selection.
> 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.
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.
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.
> Natural selection is by the environment, kin selection is by the organism.
This is simply a false statement. Kin selection isn't distinct from natural selection. Kin selection is the idea that a trait could be harmful to an organism but if it confers sufficient benefit to close relatives (who are likely to have the same gene), the trait can be favored. It is one of the core ideas of "the selfish gene" view -- that from an organisms vantage point such a trait should go extinct, but viewed from the gene's vantage point, it is a desirable trait.
This is simply a false statement. Kin selection isn't distinct from natural selection. Kin selection is the idea that a trait could be harmful to an organism but if it confers sufficient benefit to close relatives (who are likely to have the same gene), the trait can be favored. It is one of the core ideas of "the selfish gene" view -- that from an organisms vantage point such a trait should go extinct, but viewed from the gene's vantage point, it is a desirable trait.
[deleted]
One could conclude that they have a sense for their community, an us-feelimg. Interesting...
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.
If his arguments are weak, it should not be necessary to buttress counterarguments with speculation about his motives.
Or perhaps exceptional claims (plants have brains we just can’t see them) require exceptional evidence.
Not so exceptional, the centriole is essentially the eye and brain of a cell. If cells are able to leverage quantum mechanics like our retina, chlorophyll, bird magnetoreception, and olfaction, then why not for memory or computation? Essentially neurons aren't a simple switch, but rather contain a processor & memory in themselves.
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...
[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...
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.
Indeed. Severe cases of hydrocephalus [1], for example, where an otherwise functional individual is missing large portions of their brain may provide partial answers.
[1] https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploa...
[1] https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploa...
Yep -- I remember reading a review of "Plant-Thinking" around the time it was published that said something like "The critics who deride [the notion of plant-consciousness as expressed in the book] do so in language that demonstrates exactly the hierarchical, essentialist attitudes that the book looks to expose and dismantle"
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.
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.
I submit that what we think of as "consciousness", the awareness of being, is impossible within a model based purely on objectively measurable criteria.
You could very well be right! The term "consciousness" is pretty loaded. Even "awareness" is perhaps too vague and indefinable for scientific discourse.
[deleted]
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?
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?
Is this the correct film? The links & the wiki page on it talk exclusively about insect interaction.
> how plants reach out their vines and leaves, moving and feeling the world around them
I could argue cold water dropped into a very hot pan 'spreads out' to 'feel' its environment, 'withdrawing' from the metal where it can.
> how plants reach out their vines and leaves, moving and feeling the world around them
I could argue cold water dropped into a very hot pan 'spreads out' to 'feel' its environment, 'withdrawing' from the metal where it can.
A big portion of the film is about insects - it also contains some wonderful footage (with some high-tech macro photography) of plants and the garden where it all takes place.
Good point about a water droplet's behavior, how it seems to be "alive" in some aspects - all due to physical/chemical reations. I think it's related to the question of what "alive" means, and how it's different from inert, non-living material.
With slime mold, much of its behavior is just like water - spreading, dripping, with surface tension, etc. - but there's definitely a difference (perhaps only subjectively), that an observer would say it "feels its way" toward a food source. I suppose the fact that we ascribe "feeling" to it, means we consider it alive, aware, and perhaps conscious.
Good point about a water droplet's behavior, how it seems to be "alive" in some aspects - all due to physical/chemical reations. I think it's related to the question of what "alive" means, and how it's different from inert, non-living material.
With slime mold, much of its behavior is just like water - spreading, dripping, with surface tension, etc. - but there's definitely a difference (perhaps only subjectively), that an observer would say it "feels its way" toward a food source. I suppose the fact that we ascribe "feeling" to it, means we consider it alive, aware, and perhaps conscious.
> With slime mold...
Seems it goes further. "People are irrational. Example: You wouldn’t buy a new dress, or suit, that costs $100 (‘that’s far too much to spend!’) but you would buy one that was $300, but is now ‘reduced’ to $150 (‘but just look at how far down it’s come!’) Sound familiar? You’re not alone, it’s fairly well-known that humans are irrational (at least by those in advertising- some products in supermarkets are never meant to be bought- they’re just there to get you to buy other products more), but are other animals just as irrational?"
Turns out slime moulds fall for it too. Full article https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/think-y... That really complicates thins.
All that said, I am really uncomfortable talking about consciousness in these contexts at all, for obvious reasons. When we can identify and quantify, I'll talk. See my point elsewhere about matchboxes learning.
Edit: fixed link
Seems it goes further. "People are irrational. Example: You wouldn’t buy a new dress, or suit, that costs $100 (‘that’s far too much to spend!’) but you would buy one that was $300, but is now ‘reduced’ to $150 (‘but just look at how far down it’s come!’) Sound familiar? You’re not alone, it’s fairly well-known that humans are irrational (at least by those in advertising- some products in supermarkets are never meant to be bought- they’re just there to get you to buy other products more), but are other animals just as irrational?"
Turns out slime moulds fall for it too. Full article https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/think-y... That really complicates thins.
All that said, I am really uncomfortable talking about consciousness in these contexts at all, for obvious reasons. When we can identify and quantify, I'll talk. See my point elsewhere about matchboxes learning.
Edit: fixed link
Ah, I love slime moulds (I thought "mold" was American spelling, but apparently even Scientific American spells it "mould") - thank you for the article. It's funny to think of moulds making irrational decisions.
> slime moulds make decisions through comparison to the other available options, rather than having an intrinsic value for things
That sense of subjectivity and "thought" process to make decisions, sure sounds like consciousness to me - but then again, a stream flowing down a mountain also "makes decisions", and I'm not sure if there's a quantifiable difference.
I just read the article you linked elsewhere: How 300 Matchboxes Learned to Play Tic-Tac-Toe [0]. When we call a completely mechanical process "learning", it seems to imply some kind of subjectivity and "thinking".
It's hard for me to pinpoint, what is the difference between a human and a machine learning? The difference seems merely the level of complexity.
Discussion about consciousness usually breaks down, I think, because the root of this concept is in our belief systems and philosophical view of life. At one end of the spectrum, all of existence is "conscious" in varying degrees; at the other end, nothing is really "conscious", it can all be explained as mechanical processes. The latter used to be a "heretical" worldview, to deny the "spirit" pervading all creation. These days, I'd say the former view is the odd one out, being unscientific (without experimental evidence) and based on an iffy definition of consciousness.
https://opendatascience.com/menace-donald-michie-tic-tac-toe...
---
Edit: Here's a quote I just came across:
> Freeman Dyson argued that "mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron."
..And a comment elsewhere mentioned, "consciousness as an emergent property of physical systems". That seems to be getting closer to a reasonable definition/explanation.
> slime moulds make decisions through comparison to the other available options, rather than having an intrinsic value for things
That sense of subjectivity and "thought" process to make decisions, sure sounds like consciousness to me - but then again, a stream flowing down a mountain also "makes decisions", and I'm not sure if there's a quantifiable difference.
I just read the article you linked elsewhere: How 300 Matchboxes Learned to Play Tic-Tac-Toe [0]. When we call a completely mechanical process "learning", it seems to imply some kind of subjectivity and "thinking".
It's hard for me to pinpoint, what is the difference between a human and a machine learning? The difference seems merely the level of complexity.
Discussion about consciousness usually breaks down, I think, because the root of this concept is in our belief systems and philosophical view of life. At one end of the spectrum, all of existence is "conscious" in varying degrees; at the other end, nothing is really "conscious", it can all be explained as mechanical processes. The latter used to be a "heretical" worldview, to deny the "spirit" pervading all creation. These days, I'd say the former view is the odd one out, being unscientific (without experimental evidence) and based on an iffy definition of consciousness.
https://opendatascience.com/menace-donald-michie-tic-tac-toe...
---
Edit: Here's a quote I just came across:
> Freeman Dyson argued that "mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent inherent in every electron."
..And a comment elsewhere mentioned, "consciousness as an emergent property of physical systems". That seems to be getting closer to a reasonable definition/explanation.
Agreed about the spelling, I thought it was UK/US mold/mould.
If you like slime moulds then, just in case you haven't met Dictyostelium discoideum, check out that on youtube. It goes from a collection of single-cells to a 'slug', a small multi-cellular organism which goes for a wander. Quite mind-blowing when I first met this behaviour.
All I can say is consciousness is a bugger. Everyone seems to have some idea of what it is except me, and I'm not going to claim that I am. I just don't know.
Anyway, a pleasant and constructive discussion, thanks!
If you like slime moulds then, just in case you haven't met Dictyostelium discoideum, check out that on youtube. It goes from a collection of single-cells to a 'slug', a small multi-cellular organism which goes for a wander. Quite mind-blowing when I first met this behaviour.
All I can say is consciousness is a bugger. Everyone seems to have some idea of what it is except me, and I'm not going to claim that I am. I just don't know.
Anyway, a pleasant and constructive discussion, thanks!
A thing being alive (collection of cells being "not dead") and sentient are two different things. If we assume sentience is some kind of concentration of information, then I would assume regular plants' synapses are not complex enough to create a relevant feedback loop of consciousness. Mushrooms and their networks (interconnected myceliums) on the other hand may be a different case.
This is actually a really interesting comparison. From what I have studied, mushrooms behave similar to a neural network. This is one of the reasons they are so good at revitalizing forests and are seemingly unaffected by viruses. Not to mention their benefits on immune regulation in primates.
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.
For a layman's introduction to the case for plant consciousness, Monica Gagliano and her plant consciousness experiments were featured on Radiolab last year (transcript available): https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/plant-parade
I saw her present at a conference recently, and subsequently bought her book. I'm finding it all fascinating, especially the pea plant experiment. I am not well enough informed about the state of the art in either consciousness research/thinking or plant reactions/behaviours, but it's certainly made me acutely aware there's something going on there which doesn't fit in with my mental model of how plants work.
I'm going to be following along here for quite some time I suspect...
I'm going to be following along here for quite some time I suspect...
Fungal networks act as a communication web. All plants are part fungi. The layer of mycelium in the dirt is both a digestive tract and a lung. We carry our stomachs, intestines, and lungs in sacks called bodies as we walk around, fungi are laid down instead. Fascinatingly, mycelium break down rocks and create soil from stone. Fungal networks will also allow inter-plant communication for insect-warding chemicals to be released, and also fungi will decomposition logs which provide bees with vital Cytochrome P450 action that cleanses their system of virii.
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.
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.
> 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.
Because neuroscience is bigger business than philosophy.
[deleted]
Those interested in this topic may wish to check out Michael Marder's "Plant-Thinking" [2013] -- on the philsophical rather than scientific end of the spectrum, but thought-provoking.
In my humble opinion, in a nutshell:
There is no such thing as consciousness, i.e. a mechanism that defines consiousness.
There is only a simulation process inside organisms that tries to mimic reality in order to predict the outcome of the current situation and subsequently produce a 'get away'-oriented or 'stay'-oriented response.
This simulation process' complexity is relative to the complexity of the organism.
The more complex the simulation is, the clearer the definition of objects in it is.
The clearer the definition of objects is, the clearer the definition of self is.
The clearer the definition of self is the higher the degree of 'consciousness' is.
I.e. consciousness can be defined as the ability of something to perceive itself.
With that definition, it is clear that that ability of self-perception changes from organism to organism.
Thus plants have a low ability to perceive themselves, and humans have the highest.
If we are searching for the mechanism of consciousness, we will never find it, because it doesn't exist: consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the operations of an organism.
There is no such thing as consciousness, i.e. a mechanism that defines consiousness.
There is only a simulation process inside organisms that tries to mimic reality in order to predict the outcome of the current situation and subsequently produce a 'get away'-oriented or 'stay'-oriented response.
This simulation process' complexity is relative to the complexity of the organism.
The more complex the simulation is, the clearer the definition of objects in it is.
The clearer the definition of objects is, the clearer the definition of self is.
The clearer the definition of self is the higher the degree of 'consciousness' is.
I.e. consciousness can be defined as the ability of something to perceive itself.
With that definition, it is clear that that ability of self-perception changes from organism to organism.
Thus plants have a low ability to perceive themselves, and humans have the highest.
If we are searching for the mechanism of consciousness, we will never find it, because it doesn't exist: consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the operations of an organism.
>“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.
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.
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
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
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.
I'm not a vegan, but if you think of veganism as more of a "harm reduction" approach to eating, it doesn't matter whether you define plants to be conscious or not. As in, it causes relatively more harm to a large number of organisms to eat an animal as food (the animals are presumably going to eat plants anyway), versus cutting out the middle man and just eating plants.
Vegan here -- naturally, there are as many philosophical approaches to vegan practice as there are vegans, but for me and others I know, it definitely is oriented toward 'harm-reduction' [or as I like to say, minimizing exploitation].
It's impossible to live and thrive without being detrimental to other organisms - for me, the idea is to accept the inevitable cycle of struggle and violence, while minimizing the _exploitative treatment_ of other beings [plant or animal -- easier said than done with regard to plants -- one easy step is to include as much fruit and perennial leaf matter in the diet as practical [i.e., the plant is treated more like something to be nurtured rather than merely 'grown and discarded']
It's impossible to live and thrive without being detrimental to other organisms - for me, the idea is to accept the inevitable cycle of struggle and violence, while minimizing the _exploitative treatment_ of other beings [plant or animal -- easier said than done with regard to plants -- one easy step is to include as much fruit and perennial leaf matter in the diet as practical [i.e., the plant is treated more like something to be nurtured rather than merely 'grown and discarded']
I went vegan initially after comparing the harmful effects of animal products with the relative ease of eating something else. Subjectively, I feel much healthier eating plant based, Whole foods. I have noticed beneficial effects as well-lost weight, for instance. Though I do perceive eating plants as more moral than animal products, as well. It seems like plants don’t experience treatment like animals do, just as a general.
Fair enough. I guess not all vegans will be homogeneous here either; I'm assuming some are in it for harm reduction, some for ecology, some for the "animals cute" factor. Oh well. I appreciate the insight.
Certainly! And yeah - I'm sure there's a whole range of perspectives. Probably the idea that plants might be defined as "conscious" bothers some people, but I just can't understand that frame of mind. What are you going to do about it... starve?
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 the line of intelligence of what I want to eat. The less likely the animal can comprehend what's going on, the easier I feel about it.
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 the line of intelligence of what I want to eat. The less likely the animal can comprehend what's going on, the easier I feel about it.
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.
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.
It would depend on why people are vegan as to whether they would be okay with eating conscious plants. They could adopt an even stricter diet such as Fruitarianism[0]. I'm not sure if it's currently feasible to adopt a diet of exclusively lab grown food, but that could be an option down the line. They could also become Level 5 Vegans [1] ;)
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_Yaa_LMDcs
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_Yaa_LMDcs
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.
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.
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
You could say the same about breeding animals for meat or even people for slavery - in fact that seems to be not to many steps down that route. I don't think either are acceptable though, so we're back to deciding where to draw that suffering line.
You could say the same about breeding animals for meat or even people for slavery - in fact that seems to be not to many steps down that route. I don't think either are acceptable though, so we're back to deciding where to draw that suffering line.
> 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."
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."
This discussion appears to have completely ignored the concept of a "sensorium" for a definition of consciousness which seems to me to be the only defining requirement. Whether or not it is possible to externally detect this is an open question.
It is hard to imagine that anything with eyes doesn't have this, and yet functioning eyes are clearly not a requirement. The only requirement at all one would assume is integrated information processing - but even that is not necessarily a given.
It is hard to imagine that anything with eyes doesn't have this, and yet functioning eyes are clearly not a requirement. The only requirement at all one would assume is integrated information processing - but even that is not necessarily a given.
To build that case you need most people to agree on what consciousness means first. So far no one still understand fully what it means
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.
I chuckled at the notion that attributing consciousness to plants is 'anthropomorphizing'.
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.
We don't really understand what consciousness is, so no one can say that plants have no consciousness. For me , everything has consciousness, but in varied degrees, or frequencies in a spectrum of existence.
It’s so clear watching them, especially if you use time lapse photography, that they are conscious.
They're made out of MEAT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GggK9SjJpuQ
For now. Wait till some superintelligence gives them skrodes.
Plants don't have consciousness because.
They.
Don't.
Have.
Brains.
If plants have no consciousness does that make them any less worthy of care? Consciousness is nice, I'm glad I have some, but it's just one among many strategies that may help us replicate. Like flight or teeth or roses. An unconscious organism is different than a conscious one but not necessarily lesser in the way that matters: genetic survival.
It may be that consciousness is a net positive to us in that it lets us adapt to conditions more quickly. Our genes may last longer than plant genes as a result. But it also burdens us with destructive tendencies that threaten our survival. The jury is out.
It may be that consciousness is a net positive to us in that it lets us adapt to conditions more quickly. Our genes may last longer than plant genes as a result. But it also burdens us with destructive tendencies that threaten our survival. The jury is out.
> "If plants have no consciousness, does that make them any less worthy of care?"
No it doesn't, but that's not what's at debate. The fact anyone needed to be told plants aren't conscious is kind of crazy.
There's an insinuation that level-of-consciousness is the measure by which we should judge the importance of organisms. This is an anthropocentric view of life, and a shallow one at that.
No it doesn't, but that's not what's at debate. The fact anyone needed to be told plants aren't conscious is kind of crazy.
There's an insinuation that level-of-consciousness is the measure by which we should judge the importance of organisms. This is an anthropocentric view of life, and a shallow one at that.
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 of one's surroundings." * awareness - "knowledge or perception of a situation or fact."
While a plants' consciousness may not be COMPLEX, it does not mean the absence of conscious. There are things such as cellular intelligence which we know is exhibited in even the smallest of prokaryotes and eukaryotes cells.
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.
There was a really interesting article the other day on here about how plants were more adaptive to radiation (specifically in Chernobyl) compared to the regions animal counterparts.
To this definition, I think plants exercise consciousness. When we look at life we have to analyze on both the fundamental and complex aspects.
Just my 2 cents.