Are plants conscious?

[Cosmik]

Some people think so:
https://www.theguardian.com/science...es-to-bury-the-idea-that-plants-are-conscious

This immediately reminds me of this:

 

[SIY]

Some people think so:

"Some people" think all kinds of stupid things.

 

[Cosmik]

"Some people" think all kinds of stupid things.

OK, I'll change it to "Some scientists...". These people are bona fide experts in their field. And we all know that we have to take notice when experts in their field tell us something.

 

[SIY]

These people are bona fide experts in their field.

For certain values of "expert."

Remember, Semyon Kirlian and Thelma Moss were also "bona fide experts in their field."

 

[andreasmaaan]

The article is extremely scant on scientific detail. I wonder if there are any plant biologists here who have an informed opinion to share?

 

[SIY]

The article is extremely scant on scientific detail. I wonder if there are any plant biologists here who have an informed opinion to share?

Here's the home page for the loon who is making the claims that plant biologists are finally getting fed up with. It's a pity that real researchers have to waste time with this, but sometimes the enstupidation of the public has to be stopped.

Her list of publications, the "journals" that run them, and her book promotion are... telling.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Here's the home page for the loon who is making the claims that plant biologists are finally getting fed up with. It's a pity that real researchers have to waste time with this, but sometimes the enstupidation of the public has to be stopped.

Her list of publications, the "journals" that run them, and her book promotion are... telling.

It’s not particularly heartening to see the phrases “shamanic approach” and “scientific understanding” in her website’s opening sentence.

 

[SIY]

I already snagged a copy of her paper on feminism among water lilies and have circulated it to a select group of particularly snarky scientists. My thanks to @Cosmik for turning me on to this goldmine of comedy.

 

[Thomas savage]

I'd take a herb garden over the fools arguing over who's going to be in charge in the UK at the moment.

We would at the very least be no worse off.

 

[mansr]

For certain values of "expert."

Remember, Semyon Kirlian and Thelma Moss were also "bona fide experts in their field."

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert." -- Arthur C. Clarke

 

[andreasmaaan]

The thing is - and this is based on my admittedly very rudimentary understanding of biology - I don’t think the idea that plants are capable of “learning” is far-fetched, or novel, at all. If I’m not mistaken, the same has been demonstrated in much simpler organisms, e.g. bacteria, which are known to work together cooperatively when mutually beneficial, and to base “decisions” on which foreign bacteria to cooperate with on tit-for-tat style “reasoning” informed by past experience. I am far, far from an expert obviously, but the issue here seems to be the jump from behavioural adaptation to claims of consciousness, as I understand it. I suppose we’d have to buy the book to see what the argument is.

EDIT: re bacteria, this is not the original article I read, but an interesting one on the topic if anyone cares to look into it.

 

[Cosmik]

Is the hypothesis falsifiable?

But we should also ask: is the argument for human consciousness falsifiable?

 

[svart-hvitt]

Some hard evidence, Avatar and Eywa:

 

[andreasmaaan]

Is the hypothesis falsifiable?

But we should also ask: is the argument for human consciousness falsifiable?

Or the claim "My dining table is conscious".

 

[Cosmik]

Or the claim "My dining table is conscious".

So science can't actually say whether vegetarianism/veganism is less cruel than meat eating?

 

[andreasmaaan]

So science can't actually say whether vegetarianism/veganism is less cruel than meat eating?

Quite aside from questions of consciousness, I would have thought science couldn't ever say what is "cruel", wouldn't you agree?

 

[andreasmaaan]

However, I think science can say quite clearly what physical/neurological systems in humans correspond to subjective reports of consciousness, and moreover that (1) the same or very similar systems exist in animals and (2) that they don't in plants.

 

[SIY]

The thing is - and this is based on my admittedly very rudimentary understanding of biology - I don’t think the idea that plants are capable of “learning” is far-fetched, or novel, at all.

Define "learning." A serious question.

This woman has found a lucrative grift.

 

[tr1ple6]

OK, I'll change it to "Some scientists...". These people are bona fide experts in their field. And we all know that we have to take notice when experts in their field tell us something.

Being a scientist doesn't preclude you from having some crazy non-scientific opinions and beliefs. Do these same scientists have peer reviewed papers (in a respected journal) to back up their assertion?

 

[Cosmik]

Quite aside from questions of consciousness, I would have thought science couldn't ever say what is "cruel", wouldn't you agree?

If you home in the precise definition of concepts like that, then science should not be used as a justification for anything to do with human society, it seems to me.

For example, this article yesterday:

Soho is the unhealthiest place to live in Britain, while the healthiest is a small market town in Devon, a study has concluded.
The central London area had the greatest access to takeaways, pubs and off-licences, combined with high levels of air pollution and low levels of parks and green spaces, the research found.
...Researchers analysed a range of lifestyle and environmental measures including levels of air pollution, access to amenities such as fast-food outletsor pubs, and proximity to health services including GPs, in addition to parks and recreational spaces.
...“The statistics reveal important insights about the concentration of certain amenities that may be damaging or promote health. For example, on average, individuals in Great Britain are just as close to a pub or bar as they are to their nearest GP, 1.1 km [0.68 miles].

Their definition of 'healthy' is no better than their definition of 'cruel' would be. Yet they make a definition up (I particularly like the ratio of distance to pub versus distance to doctor ) and from then on refer to it as though it is self-evidently sensible, rational and objective.

They could make up a definition of cruelty based on change of tissue resistance when pricked with a calibrated pin, or something like that, and justify it in exactly the same way. And it would be just as meaningless in reality.