Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Anyway, persons who are experientially/mentally severely impaired can still be conscious, can't they?

Yes indeed. It could be that they have a still-functioning circulatory, digestive and endocrine systems and most of the brain, but the higher order filtering done by the brain of raw consciousness/impressions is damaged.

I think our main difference is that you agree with the orthodox view that consciousness to be indivisible while whereas I see consciousness as modular, consisting of trillions of tiny reflexes (shaped by both historical environments [genetics] and current ones), just as our bodies consist of trillions of cells.

One of us had probably better start a thread at some stage about that so that we can leave plants to be considered in their own right again :)

[Pattern-chaser]

One of us had probably better start a thread at some stage about that so that we can leave plants to be considered in their own right again

...or perhaps we could or should consider whether plants are conscious, and if so, how that consciousness might manifest? One thing's for sure: it can hardly resemble human consciousness, can it?

[Sy Borg]

One of us had probably better start a thread at some stage about that so that we can leave plants to be considered in their own right again :)

...or perhaps we could or should consider whether plants are conscious, and if so, how that consciousness might manifest? One thing's for sure: it can hardly resemble human consciousness, can it?

Yet being conscious - even in a sophisticated way like pigs, cows, sheep, goats and chickens - is no guarantee of civil treatment. So, if we routinely brutalise mammals, whatever consciousness that planets may or may not have will not confer any moral status.

As to how plant consciousness manifests, it would appear to be slower than that of animals.

[Consul]

As to how plant consciousness manifests, it would appear to be slower than that of animals.

What do you mean by "speed of consciousness"?

[Sy Borg]

As to how plant consciousness manifests, it would appear to be slower than that of animals.

What do you mean by "speed of consciousness"?

They have slower responses than animals, such as the turning of a flower towards the Sun.

To be fair, it can be argued that they have some fast responses, such as Venus fly traps closing on prey or acacias sending tannins to their leaves when they are eaten. Interestingly, this tannins response makes subtle changes in fungal mycelia that run between the roots of neighbouring trees, triggering the tannins response in them.

Some like to romanticise this as a conscious warning, but it's easy to see how this dynamic would have been shaped by natural selection, that the neighbouring trees that responded to the fungal "signal" would have lost fewer leaves to herbivores than those that did not.

As you know, I am open to the idea of very simple forms of consciousness existing without brains, and we have long differed on this.

[Consul]

What do you mean by "speed of consciousness"?

They have slower responses than animals, such as the turning of a flower towards the Sun.

To be fair, it can be argued that they have some fast responses, such as Venus fly traps closing on prey or acacias sending tannins to their leaves when they are eaten. Interestingly, this tannins response makes subtle changes in fungal mycelia that run between the roots of neighbouring trees, triggering the tannins response in them.

Some like to romanticise this as a conscious warning, but it's easy to see how this dynamic would have been shaped by natural selection, that the neighbouring trees that responded to the fungal "signal" would have lost fewer leaves to herbivores than those that did not.

As you know, I am open to the idea of very simple forms of consciousness existing without brains, and we have long differed on this.

Okay, but your problem is that physiological responsiveness isn't the same as and doesn't even entail (phenomenal) consciousness. There is no doubt that plants display information-driven responsive and adaptive behavior that doesn't require a (central) nervous system; but you can have that without any sort of subjective sentience.

[Sy Borg]

What do you mean by "speed of consciousness"?

They have slower responses than animals, such as the turning of a flower towards the Sun.

To be fair, it can be argued that they have some fast responses, such as Venus fly traps closing on prey or acacias sending tannins to their leaves when they are eaten. Interestingly, this tannins response makes subtle changes in fungal mycelia that run between the roots of neighbouring trees, triggering the tannins response in them.

Some like to romanticise this as a conscious warning, but it's easy to see how this dynamic would have been shaped by natural selection, that the neighbouring trees that responded to the fungal "signal" would have lost fewer leaves to herbivores than those that did not.

As you know, I am open to the idea of very simple forms of consciousness existing without brains, and we have long differed on this.

Okay, but your problem is that physiological responsiveness isn't the same as and doesn't even entail (phenomenal) consciousness. There is no doubt that plants display information-driven responsive and adaptive behavior that doesn't require a (central) nervous system; but you can have that without any sort of subjective sentience.

Where we differ is the possibility of a grey area, proto-consciousness. My guess is that, for very simple life forms, consciousness is not continuous but occurs in flashes under certain conditions - moments of the very most rudimentary awareness that bridge the gap between what we call reflexes and what we think of as consciousness. This notion assumes that humanlike consciousness is vastly different to the most basic sense of being of simple organisms, virtually unrecognisable. The assumption here is that consciousness does not only differ as matters of degree or lucidity, but in basic structure and function.

I say "structure" because I see consciousness as modular, a collection of reflexes - large and minuscule. Patients with various brain disorders show how consciousness can be split into different parts, with different hemispheres functioning independently, just as dolphins can sleep with one hemisphere and maintain basic consciousness in the other. Take away parts of a person's brain and you take away parts of their consciousness, another suggestion that consciousness is modular rather than indivisible. In fact, the brain's structure, makes the mind's modular nature explicit IMO.

Simply, I see reflexes as part of a responsiveness spectrum that includes consciousness, that there is no hard barrier between reflexes and consciousness. Last time we chatted you felt animals with extremely simple brains too probably did not experience being, eg. C. elegans, that more neuron connectivity would be needed to generate a sense of being. As a matter of curiosity, would you say that your views are congruent with IIT? Just talking about your previously stated views brought it to mind.

[psyreporter]

...or perhaps we could or should consider whether plants are conscious, and if so, how that consciousness might manifest? One thing's for sure: it can hardly resemble human consciousness, can it?

It would revolve around the question whether the interaction of plants is meaningful. When that is established, then, one must consider plants to be conscious or sentient.

It is very simple to settle the debate whether plants are conscious.

As can be seen in the topic "Plant sentience" and veganism, meaning is the key to determine whether plants are to be considered sentient, instead of machine like automata.

Plants are as sentient as rocks. It's important to understand the difference between reactions and sentience.

consul mentioned the following:

It is highly doubtful that the information in question here is semantic information rather than mere signal-information. A genuine language essentially has a semantic dimension (meaning & reference).

From your reference:

σ is an instance of information, understood as semantic content, if and only if:

• (GDI.1) σ consists of one or more data;
• (GDI.2) the data in σ are well-formed;
• (GDI.3) the well-formed data in σ are meaningful.

As can be seen in the reference from Stanford, semantic content derives its quality from 'meaningfulness'.

With regard how plant consciousness might manifest. That would essentially be asking for empirical evidence for something that may not be empirical in nature (consciousness cannot be explained as of today using empirical science).

Would an act of kindness count? When one has established that plant interaction is to be considered meaningful, then, would the provision of delicious and nutritious food not be especially kind towards the animal? What the meaning of such a kindness would entail, would span into the essence of the prosperity of the animal, the highest purpose imaginable, including that of the human, whatever it may plan for its future.

When a plant is seen as a conscious being, and if it can be shown that animal-plant interaction is possible, then, there is a potential for a 'shared experience'.

An act of love/kindness can last into eternity for an animal, perhaps also for a plant. As a conscious being, it will have the potential to be 'happy', and perhaps it may be able to express its happiness when the animal notices it. What an expression of consciousness would entail would perhaps be empirically insignificant meaning, only noticeable by an individual animal, but from the perspective of the animal, it will provide purpose for its existence. It is like the magical experience of "Gaia" in Nature that people report about as being one of the most beautiful experiences possible, but than on a plant-animal level.

Plants grow better when they are nurtured by voice, especially by a female.

(2021) Talking to Plants Can Help Them Grow Faster
https://www.thespruce.com/should-you-ta ... ts-3972298

(2014) Your Houseplants Can Think, Talk, Read Your Mind: New Research Adds Evidence
https://www.theepochtimes.com/your-hous ... 60659.html

As to how plant consciousness manifests, it would appear to be slower than that of animals.

What is 'slow' when it concerns meaning? Speed is irellevant within the scope of meaningful interaction since it spans into infinity.

[Sy Borg]

As to how plant consciousness manifests, it would appear to be slower than that of animals.

What is 'slow' when it concerns meaning? Speed is irellevant within the scope of meaningful interaction since it spans into infinity.

Tempo means a great deal. A particularly slow tempo simply cannot have agency because that requires responses in real time. No point having awareness if you cannot respond.

[Pattern-chaser]

...or perhaps we could or should consider whether plants are conscious, and if so, how that consciousness might manifest? One thing's for sure: it can hardly resemble human consciousness, can it?

It would revolve around the question whether the interaction of plants is meaningful. When that is established, then, one must consider plants to be conscious or sentient.

It is very simple to settle the debate whether plants are conscious.

As can be seen in the topic "Plant sentience" and veganism, meaning is the key to determine whether plants are to be considered sentient, instead of machine like automata.

If meaning is the criterion, we will never decide if anything is conscious. We create and assign meaning. We humans. Meaning is not an attribute of the universe, it's a sort of tag that we attach to things. It is not inherent or intrinsic to the things, it's all about us. So if you say meaning is the criterion, you are saying that we decide - or choose - who/what is conscious and who/what is not.

In the context of this topic, then, plants are conscious if, and only if, we humans say they are. There: sorted.

[psyreporter]

Tempo means a great deal. A particularly slow tempo simply cannot have agency because that requires responses in real time. No point having awareness if you cannot respond.

Plants are physiologically very different from animals, however, since they are part of earth's biosphere, some of its capabilities and processes are on the same speed-level as that of animals.

A recent study has proven that neurochemical reactions in plants are faster than 'reactions', providing evidence for meaning (and thus: evidence for sentience).

(2019) Researchers: Yes, Plants Have Nervous Systems Too
“Faster than can be explained by diffusion” means that the transmission appears to be a meaningful signal rather than simply the normal course of diffusion in plants.
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/04/research ... stems-too/

Plants can communicate with insects in ultrasound. If it can be proven that such communication is 'meaningful' (instead of mere chemical reactions), then perhaps, on a certain level, plants have a faster physiological speed than humans (the semantic content in their ultrasound may be faster than what humans can produce with their voice).

(2015) Plants signal stress like animals do: with neurotransmitters
https://www.zmescience.com/science/biol ... r-0425634/

(2019) Plants scream in ultrasound when stressed
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180973716/

(2019) Plants 'Scream' in the Face of Stress
https://www.livescience.com/plants-sque ... essed.html

(2019) Shhhhh. Listen Closely. Your Plants Might Be Talking
Adar was fascinated with the idea that plants are sentient. In conceptualizing the exhibit, she says audio was the most effective way to get that idea across.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/25/75320870 ... be-talking

From the moment that the plant expresses its intention, e.g. communicate to an insect or animal, the meaning that is applicable spans into infinity. The meaning would be tied to the 'being' of both the plant and animal. The physiological means to communicate the meaning merely need to be sufficient and beyond that, speed would not matter.

At the core, potential mental processes (based on neurochemicals) are based on electricity, the physiological speed that provides the basis for mental conception (consciousness) may be similar to that of animals (light speed, as fast as possible).

[Consul]

If meaning is the criterion, we will never decide if anything is conscious. We create and assign meaning. We humans. Meaning is not an attribute of the universe, it's a sort of tag that we attach to things. It is not inherent or intrinsic to the things, it's all about us. So if you say meaning is the criterion, you are saying that we decide - or choose - who/what is conscious and who/what is not.

Meaning is always relative in the sense of being something for or to somebody; but there is a distinction between semantic meaning (the meaning of representations or signs, particularly linguistic ones) and nonsemantic meaning concerning ethical significance and importance (value, purpose) as in "the meaning of life".

[psyreporter]

If meaning is the criterion, we will never decide if anything is conscious. We create and assign meaning. We humans. Meaning is not an attribute of the universe, it's a sort of tag that we attach to things. It is not inherent or intrinsic to the things, it's all about us. So if you say meaning is the criterion, you are saying that we decide - or choose - who/what is conscious and who/what is not.

In the context of this topic, then, plants are conscious if, and only if, we humans say they are. There: sorted.

I do not agree with that. It would be a rather selfish perspective (as human), which I would not expect from a Gaian Daoist

The simple consideration that the quality patternness (value) cannot be the origin of itself implies that meaning is applicable on a fundamental level (a priori or "before value").

The origin of a pattern (value) is necessarily meaningful but cannot be a pattern.

It implies that in plants the aspect meaning, on the basis of which a human can decide whether plants are to be considered 'sentient', can be a factor completely independent of the human, and thus something that can be a basis for a demand for respect (for Nature/plants).

When it can be established that communication and behavior in plants is to be considered meaningful (independent from the human) it would have been established that plants are sentient.

[Consul]

(2019) Researchers: Yes, Plants Have Nervous Systems Too
“Faster than can be explained by diffusion” means that the transmission appears to be a meaningful signal rather than simply the normal course of diffusion in plants.
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/04/research ... stems-too/

No, plants do not have nervous systems! They are equipped with an electrochemical signaling system, and there are some analogies between such a system in a plant and a nervous system in an animal. However, the analogies are much too weak to justify the assertion that plants literally have nervous systems, because they are outweighed by relevant structural and functional differences. It is not the case that any old physiological signaling system or mechanism is a neurophysiological one!

Moreover, there is no justification for regarding the signal-information received and processed by plants as semantic information, because they lack the cognitive mechanisms required for a semantic interpretation of physical/chemical signals as meaningful signs.

[Consul]

Where we differ is the possibility of a grey area, proto-consciousness. My guess is that, for very simple life forms, consciousness is not continuous but occurs in flashes under certain conditions - moments of the very most rudimentary awareness that bridge the gap between what we call reflexes and what we think of as consciousness. This notion assumes that humanlike consciousness is vastly different to the most basic sense of being of simple organisms, virtually unrecognisable. The assumption here is that consciousness does not only differ as matters of degree or lucidity, but in basic structure and function.

I know I'm repeating myself, but (ontologically) there is no "possibility of a grey area", because phenomenal consciousness is an on-off affair, being either present or absent—no matter whether there are long continuous streams of experience or just discrete sequences of momentary "flashes" of experience.

There may be (and arguably are) huge differences—regarding the experiential/phenomenal content, the cognitive level ("lucidity"), and the spatiotemporal "form", order, or structure of consciousness—between human consciousness and the primitive consciousness of the first conscious species; but the conditio sine qua non of phenomenal consciousness is the presence of some experiential content or other.

QUOTE>
"…the three main dimensions of consciousness, their role in consciousness, their underlying neuronal mechanisms, and their alterations in corresponding disorders. The concept of content refers to the persons, objects and events in consciousness, the phenomenal contents as philosophers say. The contents are the main focus in the various neuroscientific suggestions for the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC). They imply stimulus-induced activity and are altered in patients with selective brain lesions. The concept of level refers to the different degrees of arousal and awakeness and thus to the state of consciousness. The level or state of consciousness is related to global metabolism and energy supply which are found to be impaired and highly reduced in disorders of consciousness like vegetative state and coma. Moreover, neural activity in brain stem and midbrain is supposed to play an essential role in maintaining arousal. This reflects what is described as “enabling conditions” or “neural prerequisites” of consciousness. The concept of form describes the spatiotemporal organization and structuring (“putting together”) of the contents in consciousness."

(Northoff, Georg. Unlocking the Brain, Vol. 2: Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. p. xlviii)
<QUOTE