• 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️
    link
    fedilink
    English
    25
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    We don’t know how consciousness works enough to say they don’t. Having a brain and/or nervous system might not be necessary.

    They don’t have muscles either, but some plants are known to uproot themselves and fucking move.

    • @strawberrysocial@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      93 months ago

      Yeah, plants aren’t stationary. All plants move, just very, very slowly compared to animals. Looking at time lapse videos of vines growing, reaching out for something to grab on to and stuff is pretty neat. They kind of whip around in circles until they feel they’ve hit something worth grabbing onto.

    • nifty
      link
      fedilink
      43 months ago

      We don’t know how consciousness works enough to say they don’t. Having a brain and/or nervous system might not be necessary.

      Hmm sorry but no, there are traits exhibited by conscious entities which we don’t observe in those which lack consciousness. This is a nice explainer on consciousness, note that it’s not saying anything about needing a brain to exhibit those traits

      https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#DesQueWhaFeaCon

      correct me if I am misremembering sth

      • @howrar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        113 months ago

        there are traits exhibited by conscious entities which we don’t observe in those which lack consciousness.

        Implying we have a way of determining whether an entity is conscious or not. That’s the entire point of contention here.

      • kronisk
        link
        fedilink
        73 months ago

        which we don’t observe in those which lack consciousness.

        See what you did there? You assume a priori which entities lack consciousness, and then motivate this by claiming they lack traits that can be observed in conscious entities. That is very neatly circular.

        • nifty
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          What you and other people who’re objecting to my comment are saying is that there is no way to define consciousness because we don’t know all the different ways something can be conscious. But that doesn’t matter because these organisms lack the properties which we see in other conscious organisms, ie proprieties we do know about

          Here’s what I am saying: consciousness is an emergent property of some discrete biological processes, and we have developed some idea of what consciousness looks like when exhibited by an organism.

          So that means that all organisms which are conscious have to exhibit the same properties. You cannot pick and choose which properties to exhibit because then what you’re doing is something else, and not exhibiting consciousness.

          Like, if you’re a heart of some sort, you have to exhibit the same activity as a heart in general across all different organisms to be classified as a heart.

          It’s possible that same organisms exhibit some parts of consciousness as we have noticed till now, but if those organisms do not exhibit all parts of consciousness then they’re not conscious.

          • kronisk
            link
            fedilink
            13 months ago

            So, I’m guessing everyone in this thread has a different conception of what “consciousness” actually is and what we’re talking about here, which makes it difficult to discuss casually like this. You seem to have a very exclusive definition of consciousness, which only serves to avoid the argument, really. “It’s possible that same organisms exhibit some parts of consciousness as we have noticed till now, but if those organisms do not exhibit all parts of consciousness then they’re not conscious”…you’re splitting hairs. If plants could be proven to be aware, have subjective experience, a sense of self, it would be reasonable to change our definition of consciousness to be more inclusive - simply because such a concept of consciousness would be a lot more useful then.

            Emergentism is a popular hypothesis, not a fact. Christof Koch lost the bet, remember? The idea that “all organisms which are conscious have to exhibit the same properties” and “you cannot pick and choose” does not logically follow from anything you’ve said. These are criteria that you set up yourself. Take the idea of qualia as an example, how could we ever observe that an animal or a plant does or does not experience qualia? Nobody solved the problem of other minds.

            Consciousness is nothing like a heart; the function of the heart can be observed and measured. How do you know that you possess awareness? You can only experience it. (Actually, that we are aware is the only thing we can know with complete certainty.)

            • nifty
              link
              fedilink
              13 months ago

              Er, that’s what I am saying however is that you can observe and measure consciousness.

              You seem to have a very exclusive definition of consciousness, which only serves to avoid the argument, really.

              I don’t, I am just going based on current findings.

              I am not sure why it’s hard to accept that some living things may not be conscious. Viruses propagate “mindlessly”, they’re neither living nor conscious.

              I also don’t understand why you think emergent properties are a hypothesis. Emergent properties of biological processes are fact, look at any cell of any major organ in the body. Why do we treat the brain differently? Because I think we get irrational.

              • kronisk
                link
                fedilink
                13 months ago

                Er, that’s what I am saying however is that you can observe and measure consciousness.

                Going with any definition of consciousness relevant to this discussion, say phenomenality and/or awareness, no.

                I am not sure why it’s hard to accept that some living things may not be conscious. Viruses propagate “mindlessly”, they’re neither living nor conscious.

                That’s not really the point - I don’t claim to know what entities possess consciousness. The point is that you don’t either.

                I also don’t understand why you think emergent properties are a hypothesis. Emergent properties of biological processes are fact

                Obviously I’m talking about Emergentism as it relates to consciousness, and the idea that consciousness is an emergent property is not a fact, no. And there are perfectly valid reasons - for example, the “explanatory gap” - why someone might find it unsatisfactory.

                • nifty
                  link
                  fedilink
                  13 months ago

                  Okay, I hope you go forth and research these ideas

                  • kronisk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    13 months ago

                    I have done plenty of research, thank you. Of course even more research never hurts.

      • @strawberrysocial@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        73 months ago

        How will we ever know for sure if plants have their own form of consciousness that doesn’t follow a list of requirements that’s based on animals, or can feel pain.

        • nifty
          link
          fedilink
          13 months ago

          But why do you think plants should have some own form of consciousness? All organism which have circulatory systems have generally similarly behaving circulatory systems. So why should consciousness be different?

          No, if an organism does not exhibit all properties of consciousness that we see in all other organisms, then it’s not conscious

          • @strawberrysocial@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            12 months ago

            I see what you are saying, but maybe you’re looking at it from an animal perspective instead of a plant one. They could have consciousness in their own way that’s not similar to ours, so we think they are “brainless” or not aware of what’s going on. I’m not a scientist but I do wonder about plants. They are living creatures.