Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is scientific evidence that plants (and all living organisms) are aware so you are suggesting that some level of plant consciousness, unique to their species, exists.
Science can't explain consiousness despite trying for decades. It's not a scientific term. It's an elusive concept and its meaning is still highly-debated.
Science has no idea how consciousness emerges, or if consciousness can emerge from even non-biological systems such as computers, but there is debate about this too.
But whatever folks need to tell themselves to ensure they have something to eat while self-identifying as moral superiors.
There is scientific evidence that plants (and all living organisms) are aware so you are suggesting that some level of plant consciousness, unique to their species, exists.
Science can't explain consiousness despite trying for decades. It's not a scientific term. It's an elusive concept and its meaning is still highly-debated.
Science has no idea how consciousness emerges, or if consciousness can emerge from even non-biological systems such as computers, but there is debate about this too.
But whatever folks need to tell themselves to ensure they have something to eat while self-identifying as moral superiors.
Awareness requires consciousness. Awareness isn't merely responding to input from the environment. It is a conscious knowledge of the environment. So, no, there is no scientific evidence that plants are aware because there's no scientific evidence that plants are conscious.
We know that animals are conscious and have capacity to undergo extreme suffering, which they do in most meat-producing processes. We have no evidence that plants are conscious, and we do know that they lack the biological structures (a CNS or functional equivalent) typically required for consciousness. Putting animals and plants on the same level in terms of moral harm isn't an honest reading of the likelihoods we have based on the evidence.
And consciousness is largely a philosophical problem, not a scientific problem. It's possible that philosophers, like David Chalmers, who are sympathetic to panpsychism are right, and that lettuce in front of you is every bit as conscious as the pig who we know to be as intelligent as a dog (but so is a rock or a table or a book as consciousness would be a trait of all matter). But there's not a scientific case to be made for this. Pointing to plant functions is completely irrelevant to panpsychism claims. Those who hold this kind of view do so because they think it's the best resolution to the philosophical arguments against both physicalism and dualism. But this is still a fringe view, and in terms of epistemic and moral risk, it seems a bit post hoc and self-serving to suddenly find this view compelling.
I should add that it's possible there will never be a satisfactory resolution to the hard problem of consciousness, and if that's the case, we many never have certainty about exactly what organisms are conscious and which aren't. The reasonable moral response to this is to make the best decision we can based on the best evidence we have, not cling to some possibility that wouldn't actually reduce moral harm even if it were true.
Edit to add: One argument I have against panpsychism claims (claims that all matter is conscious because it's a feature of all reality) is that we humans experience what's known as "binding." We experience the world as one entity. My foot doesn't have its own experience, just as my liver and earlobe don't experience their own version of reality. It is not clear to me from panpsychism claims what the unit of reality is that experiences consciousness -- is it the atom, subatomic particles, etc.? In any case, our experience is through a central nervous system that culminates in our brain producing experiences in the form of a singular entity, not countless atoms each having their own experiences. So it's hard for me to see how non-CNS matter can have the same type of consciousness I do, even if they are conscious in some sense.
Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 04-15-2024 at 10:24 AM..
Awareness requires consciousness. Awareness isn't merely responding to input from the environment. It is a conscious knowledge of the environment. So, no, there is no scientific evidence that plants are aware because there's no scientific evidence that plants are conscious.
The evidences I am referring to are not basic response mechanisms. There are evidences that plants have awareness beyond responses to stimuli.
Quote:
We know that animals are conscious and have capacity to undergo extreme suffering, which they do in most meat-producing processes. We have no evidence that plants are conscious, and we do know that they lack the biological structures (a CNS or functional equivalent) typically required for consciousness. Putting animals and plants on the same level in terms of moral harm isn't an honest reading of the likelihoods we have based on the evidence.
And consciousness is largely a philosophical problem, not a scientific problem. It's possible that philosophers, like David Chalmers, who are sympathetic to panpsychism are right, and that lettuce in front of you is every bit as conscious as the pig who we know to be as intelligent as a dog (but so is a rock or a table or a book as consciousness would be a trait of all matter). But there's not a scientific case to be made for this. Pointing to plant functions is completely irrelevant to panpsychism claims. Those who hold this kind of view do so because they think it's the best resolution to the philosophical arguments against both physicalism and dualism. But this is still a fringe view, and in terms of epistemic and moral risk, it seems a bit post hoc and self-serving to suddenly find this view compelling.
I should add that it's possible there will never be a satisfactory resolution to the hard problem of consciousness, and if that's the case, we many never have certainty about exactly what organisms are conscious and which aren't. The reasonable moral response to this is to make the best decision we can based on the best evidence we have, not cling to some possibility that wouldn't actually reduce moral harm even if it were true.
Edit to add: One argument I have against panpsychism claims (claims that all matter is conscious because it's a feature of all reality) is that we humans experience what's known as "binding." We experience the world as one entity. My foot doesn't have its own experience, just as my liver and earlobe don't experience their own version of reality. It is not clear to me from panpsychism claims what the unit of reality is that experiences consciousness -- is it the atom, subatomic particles, etc.? In any case, our experience is through a central nervous system that culminates in our brain producing experiences in the form of a singular entity, not countless atoms each having their own experiences. So it's hard for me to see how non-CNS matter can have the same type of consciousness I do, even if they are conscious in some sense.
Nonhuman animals don't experience consciousness the same as humans do. There is no consensus on how to define consciousness. Evidence shows consciousness to be unique to each species.
The evidences I am referring to are not basic response mechanisms. There are evidences that plants have awareness beyond responses to stimuli.
Nonhuman animals don't experience consciousness the same as humans do. There is no consensus on how to define consciousness. Evidence shows consciousness to be unique to each species.
the book The Secret Life of Plants by Thompson & Bird is a really good read and it demonstrates how conscious plants really are. Obviously, there is a difference between humans and plants but if you all believe that plants are dumb and stupid without many of the senses we humans have, then books like this will suggest that they are really very intelligent and require more respect than they are often given.
I have a text file which I downloaded which was posted on Keely.net which gives a first-hand account of a potato 'eye' which was used for research. I will try and find it and post it here as it is no longer available there.
The evidences I am referring to are not basic response mechanisms. There are evidences that plants have awareness beyond responses to stimuli.
No, there's no evidence that plants have awareness because there isn't evidence that plants are conscious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplySagacious
Nonhuman animals don't experience consciousness the same as humans do.
Not true. They may not experience second-order consciousness (consciousness of our own consciousness) like humans do, but they still experience consciousness in the morally-relevant sense, and this happens through a CNS or functional equivalent just like it does in us.
If you cut a pig's head off, it will very likely have the same negative experiences of suffering and fear that you would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplySagacious
There is no consensus on how to define consciousness. Evidence shows consciousness to be unique to each species.
Moral philosophers are in agreement, actually. Morally-relevant consciousness is the "what it is like" aspect of our experience. If you walk down the street on a sunny day and see a pretty flower or you stub your toe, what was it like to experience those events? That's consciousness, and we can have good conscious experiences or bad conscious experiences. They are the subjective experiences we undergo that add up to a life that went well or a life that went poorly. That's the only notion of consciousness being discussed here because that's the source of our moral obligations.
This happens through a CNS or functional equivalent because that is required to bring our sensory perceptions "together." If the nerves in my toe never run to my brain, it's hard to see how I can have this combined, inner experience of a hurting toe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
the book The Secret Life of Plants by Thompson & Bird is a really good read and it demonstrates how conscious plants really are. Obviously, there is a difference between humans and plants but if you all believe that plants are dumb and stupid without many of the senses we humans have, then books like this will suggest that they are really very intelligent and require more respect than they are often given.
This has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with consciousness.
Also, a blog posted on City Data (or posted on any other site) isn't a reliable source. That "article" has almost no real information on the methods of measurement, people conducting the experiment, etc. In my opinion, it doesn't pass the smell test. It makes some truly wild claims with almost no actual information, and the style of writing and word choice aren't fitting for anything approximating a scientific paper. There's a reason breakthrough claims -- which this would undoubtedly be -- get published in peer-reviewed journals. It allows others to know the details and replicate the experiment to see if they get the same results. Massive claims found in one single article on one obscure website is a whole basket of red flags.
Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 04-22-2024 at 08:48 AM..
It was hollering in pain all the way past my lips, to broken dreams of a quiet life in a peaceful asparagus retirement community. The poor dears.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
