• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Are plants conscious?

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Define "learning." A serious question.

This woman has found a lucrative grift.

It's illustrated in the article I linked on bacteria. I'm sure a more well-thought-out definition exists, but something along the lines of "responding to external stimuli on the basis of past external stimuli."

In other words, organism X's response to stimulus Y is dependant not only upon X and Y, but also upon previous stimulus Z.
 
OP
Cosmik

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
It's illustrated in the article I linked on bacteria. I'm sure a more well-thought-out definition exists, but something along the lines of "responding to external stimuli on the basis of past external stimuli."

In other words, organism X's response to stimulus Y is dependant not only upon X and Y, but also upon previous stimulus Z.
Does that mean Alexa might be conscious?
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,386
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
Well, consider a tree that has had its branches grow around an obstruction, so the direction of further growth is determined by that past event. That would fit the definition, which is why I think the definition given is trivial.

Alexa learns, which is different than being conscious.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
For example, this article yesterday:


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 cruel 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.

Need anyone on this site point out that that newspaper article is not science? ;)

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.

There is a more subtle point to be made here though, methinks. Science may not provide justification for an ethical goal, but it certainly should inform choices regarding what course of action to take to reach a goal.
 
OP
Cosmik

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Need anyone on this site point out that that newspaper article is not science? ;)
I only quoted the newspaper because it shows how 'science' bleeds into the real world, especially politics.
 
OP
Cosmik

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
My question was pointing out that every characteristic of a living thing you can measure can be duplicated with an electronic device. Learning, response to stimuli, etc. If consciousness is going to be identified by anything like that, I can show you a conscious phone. Or PC. Or central heating thermostat.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,386
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
I only quoted the newspaper because it shows how 'science' bleeds into the real world, especially politics.

When politics meets science, science is the one that gets t-boned.
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
Well, consider a tree that has had its branches grow around an obstruction, so the direction of further growth is determined by that past event. That would fit the definition, which is why I think the definition given is trivial.

If the tree's further growth differed from that of a tree starting from the same (post-obstruction) position but never having grown around said obstruction, then it would fit the definition.

But yes, I'm not suggesting this is anything more than trivial with respect to the question of consciousness.
 
Last edited:

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
My question was pointing out that every characteristic of a living thing you can measure can be duplicated with an electronic device. Learning, response to stimuli, etc. If consciousness is going to be identified by anything like that, I can show you a conscious phone. Or PC. Or central heating thermostat.

Of course, behaviour alone is far too limiting a criterion, clearly.
 
OP
Cosmik

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
2,180
Location
UK
Science may not provide justification for an ethical goal, but it certainly should inform choices regarding what course of action to take to reach a goal.
So make up an arbitrary ethical goal off the top of your head, and then use science to influence society to achieve that goal? This makes it sound as though science is a tool in the service of megalomaniacs. I could imagine some dictator thinking up some 'ethical goal' e.g. wipe a certain race off the earth for spurious reasons, and then using science to inform choices as how best to achieve that goal. People might miss the subtle distinction between science justifying the goal and informing choices to achieve the goal.

I don't like it. I think we are seeing small versions of this in our everyday lives. They're dressed up as 'virtuous', but virtue is 'in the eye of the beholder'.
 
Top Bottom