The Plant Consciousness Wars

[Laird]

For very similar reasons I would say plants should be regarded as conscious [...] Whether plants are sentient is trickier...

Just curious how you're distinguishing between consciousness and sentience - in my understanding the words are (roughly/essentially) synonyms. Perhaps you were thinking of sapience rather than sentience?

[Laird]

though I could see a version of Idealism (or Neutral Monism) that grants some consciousness to programs.

Interesting. I hadn't considered idealism (or neutral monism). That, perhaps, is the closest to what Chris has been getting at with his idea of a close affinity between consciousness and processing. On reflection, though, I still think that the same anti-epiphenomenalist argument-from-inability-of-"physical"-substrate-to-reflect-on-consciousness would apply (perhaps with some reframing), so I don't think simply switching the ontological system really helps. [Edit: though I am thinking specifically of human-type consciousness which is capable of reflecting on itself in the first place - there might as you say be the possibility of some (non-self-reflective) consciousness in programs under some version of idealism or neutral monism]

[Laird]

I'm sorry I did raise it, as it's only resulted in another fruitless (and off-topic) dance around the mulberry bush.

I'm sorry you feel it's been fruitless - to me the argument is clear and compelling; I wish I'd been able to convey it such in a way that you came to the same conclusion.

Do plants have souls as well as bodies?

This is why I'm a monist (idealist) rather than a dualist. For me the body is a manifestation or, to use an even more clumsy term, an arrangement of soul energy. Soul, spirit, mind, consciousness ... all interchangeable terms for me. Perhaps a projection might be a better word than arrangement? From this point we could easily divert the discussion into virtual realities, the simulation hypothesis, Tom Campbell's Big TOE, etc., etc. Personally, I prefer Bernardo Kastrup's idealism (or maybe that typo I almost missed: ideal sim).

It feels to me as though consciousness should be indissolubly bound up with the processing of the information, ...[omitted]

But why? You have a feeling. It doesn't seem to have any foundation in anything other than contemporary fashion. Fashions come and go. We need something more substantial than a hoody or a straw hat on which to base a serious subject.

What feels wrong to me is the separation of consciousness from computation. If the computation is producing the consciousness, I don't think it makes sense that the computation could be identical in two cases - one with and one without consciousness. I think if the computation were the same, the consciousness would necessarily also be the same.

It seems our views are worlds apart.

What seems wrong to me is the unjustified introduction of the concept of computation into this topic. Having worked with computers for years, I'm well aware that they are simply machines. If we are to begin with machines as a basis of consciousness, then even a see-saw or a swing in a children's playground is conscious. Ultimately this approach leads into a blank space. It doesn't have any substance.

[Laird]

There is a fascinating article on the science of this controversy in Trends in Plant Science. One idea on how to get around the lack in plants of any of the neurological structures known to be necessary for consciousness in animals is "swarm intelligence", but it is attacked as having a lot of problems.

Thanks for the article though it just seems very odd that we could even be in the position to deny Consciousness to plants, when we cannot even account for why we have it.

Agreed. I find after reading the article that its main argument is based on the claim that consciousness requires an animal brain, and hence that since plants lack one, they can't be conscious. I don't see why we should accept this claim. As you say, we don't know why we have consciousness and whether it really does require a brain.

It dismisses the evidence for plant consciousness based on the effectiveness of anaesthetics by asserting that anaesthetics "inhibit a broad spectrum of cellular and biochemical processes, including germination, chlorophyll accumulation, and endocytic vesicle recycling" but that they don't have any subjective effect on plants - again, basically because plants lack an animal brain, so this dismissal is really just an extension of the "consciousness requires an animal brain" argument, which, again, I don't think we should accept.

Regarding movement, the authors write:

"Time-lapse videos of growing roots or twining stems, which have been speeded up to make them look more animal-like, do not constitute evidence for consciousness or intentionality. Animals can move about quickly because they possess motor systems composed of muscles and the neurons that control them. The slow growth movements of plants are caused by entirely different mechanisms involving cell wall expansion and water uptake, while rapid leaf movements, as in the case of M. pudica, are mediated by rapid changes in cell turgor pressure."

The argument seems essentially to be that only mechanisms of motion which stem from animal brains count as evidence for consciousness, and so, again, this reduces to the "consciousness requires an animal brain" argument.

Interestingly, whilst the paper criticises a couple of experiments that have been done on plant habituation and associative learning, it doesn't dismiss them outright, and leaves open the possibility that their findings are correct.

I'd be curious what mystical experience has said about plant consciousness, though there might not be enough references to plant mentality to be persuasive even for the mystic-friendly proponent...

Check out the thread that Valmar linked to - it's fascinating. Stuff like that is in part what motivates me to guess that plants have souls:

I feel this deserves referencing again, regarding the intelligence of plants as known via the deeply spiritual worldview of the Amazonian Shamans:

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-p...-worldview

But why? You have a feeling. It doesn't seem to have any foundation in anything other than contemporary fashion. Fashions come and go. We need something more substantial than a hoody or a straw hat on which to base a serious subject.

It seems our views are worlds apart.

What seems wrong to me is the unjustified introduction of the concept of computation into this topic. Having worked with computers for years, I'm well aware that they are simply machines. If we are to begin with machines as a basis of consciousness, then even a see-saw or a swing in a children's playground is conscious. Ultimately this approach leads into a blank space. It doesn't have any substance.

Well, I am going to try to be more disciplined about staying out of these discussions from now on. I realise I've said that several times before, but maybe I'll learn eventually.

I have to say I think it's funny that you criticise me for expressing a feeling rather than a substantial argument, and then come out with one of the most extreme straw-man arguments imaginable against computer consciousness.

I have to say I think it's funny that you criticise me for expressing a feeling rather than a substantial argument, and then come out with one of the most extreme straw-man arguments imaginable against computer consciousness.

The argument Typoz made may not be stated with exact-ness but it doesn't seem like a straw-man to me? Perhaps better to ask the difference between an abacus, a calculator, and a Turing Machine.

The argument Typoz made may not be stated with exact-ness but it doesn't seem like a straw-man to me? Perhaps better to ask the difference between an abacus, a calculator, and a Turing Machine.

If you can submit that question using a playground see-saw, rather than your usual device, it may be worth discussing.