Plant Sentience

[PakledHostage]

Oh, I'm bored now. But that you all think you can argue philosophy with "science" is amusing, if not ignorant. You really can't because "sentience" is not a scientific term, its a human term, and reflects upon our xenophobia, our need to distance ourselves from things that are not like us.

I think you are confusing sapience and sentience...

But isn't it? We haven't defined sentient in a concrete matter yet, now we're just using pathos attacks to claim superiority over our own body, but does your sentience beat your own heart? Does your sentience inform you when you are hungry, when your arm feels tired? Is your body what controls you, or are you controlling your body.

Sapience does allow you to control your body to an extent. Control of mind over body is central to a lot of sports like climbing, martial arts and even endurance sports like cycling and running. Persevering in the face of hunger, fear, thirst, pain etc are critical to doing well in those activities or even being able to do them at all.

[Fel]

I think you are confusing sapience and sentience...

Sapience does allow you to control your body to an extent. Control of mind over body is central to a lot of sports like climbing, martial arts and even endurance sports like cycling and running. Persevering in the face of hunger, fear, thirst, pain etc are critical to doing well in those activities or even being able to do them at all.

It's philosophy, I'm mixing topics (mind-body and sentience) to sort of talk about the idea that the body can have its own intelligence and hence question what intelligence really is. The topic gets complex really quickly as there is plenty that shows mind-body is imperative in the "native" development of intelligence (our ability to use and form tools, for instance, lead the the development of later technologies.) Rodney Brooks, famed roboticist, noted the impracticality of developing an AI without allowing it to perform actions in the world it is meant to interact in (http://people.csail.mit.edu/brooks/papers/representation.pdf).

Edited June 16, 2015 by Fel

[vger]

I'd say we can't fully gauge ourselves, but that doesn't mean we don't know a lot about ourselves.

If you take away the immortal-soul aspect, then soul simply doesn't exist. It's just replaced by biochemistry, and sentience is explained by that same biochemistry.

In how I have seen the word used, "soul" is equivalent to personality/consciousness or "the human condition." Soul has a secular definition and has had it for a long time. The only reason I can see for people to shy away from it so often now is anti-theists trying to make the world know just HOW anti-theistic they are.

But, no big deal in this case. Here's a better example, and one that a lot of us have probably seen done in books or movies. How would a computer that was sentient, be capable of proving itself to us? I can think of nothing that couldn't be attributed to "just following its programming," especially if the AI is capable of learning more by observing our behavior. If we created an AI with logic that was sufficient at emulating human behavior, it seems apparent to me that we wouldn't be able to say whether or not it was a real consciousness. It could go either way, just as with us. Are we just programmed for survival, emulating the most efficient method that evolution has reached so far? Observing and adapting to improve our odds? Or is there more to it?

As humans, we can beg for our lives, but even that wouldn't prove we're sentient. If a machine did that, we'd probably just assume that it had observed people doing this, calculated the odds, and realized that it would be less likely to be destroyed if it emulated that behavior.

Edited June 16, 2015 by vger

[lajoswinkler]

It's not philosophy. It's a conversation filled with semantic errors. If you all used well defined terms, it would quickly boil down to science.

[KerikBalm]

The question of where consciousness arises indeed is a difficult one for which there is no satisfactory answer.

We can talk about neural pathways that lead to responses... but we can talk about pathways in a calculator/computer.

Action -> reaction -> 2ndary reaction -> and so on... when does it become conscious?

This gets to descartes... I experience consciousness... I can verify that... the rest of you... just action and reaction... why should I assume consciousness for you, anymore than I think there is some sort of conscious process happening when I push down on a lever, and the other end goes up? when I turn a key and a door unlocks? and so on up to computers, etc

Well, I can see a lot of similarities between what other people/living things do, and myself, my only reference for consciousness.

It is plausible to guess that you also have the qualities that I do... everything else seems equal

On the basis of those behaviors that are shared with me... we can see what alters them... brain damage...

Allowing us to conclude the brain is somehow hosting a conscousness, that is somehow qualitatively different from what goes on in a calculator when I type 9x8.. or whatever...

Then we look to properties of the brain... integration and processing of various inputs.

We can verify that this sort of thing leads to complex behaviors... and build machines and systems with complex behavior - but yet that doesn't mean there's any consciousness behind a complex behavior. We assume such systems we build lack it comletely... why? the device I'm typing this on isn't sentient, is it?

All we can do is measure the complexity of the information processing, the speed, the capacity, etc.

Plants certainly take in many environmental cues, and those are integrated in various cells, which may release hormones to cause changes in the whole plant...

but that is orders of magnitude less than what it takes to simply process the information output of an eye...

An individual cell may even process more... cells have very complex pathways...

Surely there is a consciousness gradient... and plants must be pretty low on it.

Does a nation have a consciousness? Do interactions among humans give rise to a consciousness in the way that interactions among neurons do?

Could it be consciouss... but less so than the people that compose it? Could an organism be less consciouss than the cells that compose it?

Consciousness can't be defined or measured empirically.

You can't even prove to me that you are conscious/sentient/sapient.

Going beyond empirical proxies for sentience/consciousness, is simply going into an undefined realm where you can pretty much throw out any postulate without the possibility of it being proven wrong.

Its mental mastu...... well I think I can't complete that word because of the censors.

[vger]

It's not philosophy. It's a conversation filled with semantic errors. If you all used well defined terms, it would quickly boil down to science.

The topic is too greatly in flux to quantify it. You will find no less difficulty deciding how many cells a fetus needs before you can classify it as a human. Or for an example more relevant to KSP, Pluto being or NOT being a planet. There is no truth to it, beyond where people agree to draw the lines.

A lot of folks here are using the animal mind as a goal post, but we've barely scratched the surface of even understanding how the brain works.

[lajoswinkler]

The topic is too greatly in flux to quantify it. You will find no less difficulty deciding how many cells a fetus needs before you can classify it as a human. Or for an example more relevant to KSP, Pluto being or NOT being a planet. There is no truth to it, beyond where people agree to draw the lines.

A lot of folks here are using the animal mind as a goal post, but we've barely scratched the surface of even understanding how the brain works.

There you do it again. "A human". What does it mean? Scientifically, a human is Homo sapiens. Even a zygote is one.

[vger]

There you do it again. "A human". What does it mean? Scientifically, a human is Homo sapiens. Even a zygote is one.

You know EXACTLY what I meant. Alright then, smart-aleck. When do you think it should have human rights?

And just in case anyone thinks this is a derail attempt, it's not. "Right-to-life has always been intertwined with the vague definition of what classifies as a sentient being."

[Randazzo]

The fact that this is even a discussion is sad.

[LittleBlueGaming]

In how I have seen the word used, "soul" is equivalent to personality/consciousness or "the human condition." Soul has a secular definition and has had it for a long time. The only reason I can see for people to shy away from it so often now is anti-theists trying to make the world know just HOW anti-theistic they are.

It probably depends on your upbringing. In my case, 'soul' was never used in a secular sense, so that kind of meaning for it is foreign to me.

But, no big deal in this case. Here's a better example, and one that a lot of us have probably seen done in books or movies. How would a computer that was sentient, be capable of proving itself to us? I can think of nothing that couldn't be attributed to "just following its programming," especially if the AI is capable of learning more by observing our behavior. If we created an AI with logic that was sufficient at emulating human behavior, it seems apparent to me that we wouldn't be able to say whether or not it was a real consciousness. It could go either way, just as with us. Are we just programmed for survival, emulating the most efficient method that evolution has reached so far? Observing and adapting to improve our odds? Or is there more to it?

As humans, we can beg for our lives, but even that wouldn't prove we're sentient. If a machine did that, we'd probably just assume that it had observed people doing this, calculated the odds, and realized that it would be less likely to be destroyed if it emulated that behavior.

I would consider an AI that emulated human thought and emotion to be just as sentient as I am... the only way I can think about us that makes sense is that everything we do is just a reaction, although the system itself is very complicated. Essentially, biological artificial intelligence.

In that case, however, there is no such thing as 'artificial' intelligence. It would all be artificial in a sense, but only because the meaning of intelligence is slightly wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that this is even a discussion is sad.

Not at all. The hard topics being discussed is never sad, and challenging traditional thought is never sad either. Both are essential to our continued development.

[Randazzo]

Not at all. The hard topics being discussed is never sad, and challenging traditional thought is never sad either. Both are essential to our continued development.

It's not a hard topic.

[vger]

It probably depends on your upbringing. In my case, 'soul' was never used in a secular sense, so that kind of meaning for it is foreign to me.

I would consider an AI that emulated human thought and emotion to be just as sentient as I am... the only way I can think about us that makes sense is that everything we do is just a reaction, although the system itself is very complicated. Essentially, biological artificial intelligence.

In that case, however, there is no such thing as 'artificial' intelligence. It would all be artificial in a sense, but only because the meaning of intelligence is slightly wrong.

That's essentially the best answer I think that can be given, unless we stumble upon some incredible "seems like magic at first" element of how human thought works. And no, I don't think that's even remotely likely. Debating 'Artificial' is a bit like debating 'natural,' as it applies to the definition of industry. We're not the only animals who use tools or build structures and civilizations, but nobody argues that ants are unnatural.

It's not a hard topic.

If you've been thinking as critically about this one as you did about "buyer responsibility" before you formed your conclusion, I'm not surprised that you think so.

Edited June 16, 2015 by vger

[KerikBalm]

If you've been thinking as critically about this one as you did about "buyer responsibility" before you formed your conclusion, I'm not surprised that you think so.

Depends what he meant.

If he means a discussion on what it means to be sentient... that is fine to call him out.

But plant sentience, implicitely on a level close to that of vertebrates... yea... not a hard topic.

[Randazzo]

Depends what he meant.

If he means a discussion on what it means to be sentient... that is fine to call him out.

But plant sentience, implicitely on a level close to that of vertebrates... yea... not a hard topic.

There's only one topic here. Plants are not sentient. The rest is just a gaggle of sophomoric arguments attempting to pretend it's some grand important issue.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Randazzo

[KerikBalm]

Well, I largely agree with you, if I may quote myself:

Consciousness can't be defined or measured empirically.

You can't even prove to me that you are conscious/sentient/sapient.

Going beyond empirical proxies for sentience/consciousness, is simply going into an undefined realm where you can pretty much throw out any postulate without the possibility of it being proven wrong.

Its mental mastu...... well I think I can't complete that word because of the censors.

But if people want to engage in mental exercise (that doesn't actually benefit them) well, they can.

I certainly don't see it as some grand important issue.

But if something is impossible to answer... isn't that pretty much the hardest topic there is?

Or if its clearly futile, is it not hard, because easy and hard are meaningless in that case?

Edited June 17, 2015 by DuoDex
profanity

[Randazzo]

Well, I largely agree with you, if I may quote myself:

But if people want to engage in mental mastu.......... well, they can.

I certainly don't see it as some grand important issue.

But if something is impossible to answer... isn't that pretty much the hardest topic there is?

Or if its clearly futile, is it not hard, because easy and hard are meaningless in that case?

I don't see what makes it a hard issue.

Even the inevitable "But what is sentience?" argument does not actually address the topic and is just arguing over the definition of a word. That too is not a particularly hard topic, the only thing that makes it a difficult discussion is that it becomes an argument over opinions rather than actual definition. Eventually someone tries to stretch the meaning of the word to encompass so much that the word itself becomes irrelevant.

The spirit of the question remains, regardless of the rest, and the answer doesn't change; No.

And sure, everyone is entitled to some mutual mental massaging. I am also entitled to think it's ridiculous.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Randazzo

[LittleBlueGaming]

Everyone is entitled to respect, especially considering that's part of the rules of this community.

It's natural for a discussion to evolve. Does a plant have sentience? No, but going beyond that and exploring the gradient between them and us, and examining our own existing thoughts on the issue, is not sophomoric or sad.

We're not "pretending this is some grand important issue". We're having a discussion on a forum. Nobody needs you to come in and start demeaning everyone involved. If you think it's not a topic worth discussing, just stay out of it.

[Randazzo]

Everyone is entitled to respect, especially considering that's part of the rules of this community.

Incorrect. Everyone is entitled to civility. Had I personally attacked you, I would have broken this rule.

It's natural for a discussion to evolve. Does a plant have sentience? No, but going beyond that and exploring the gradient between them and us, and examining our own existing thoughts on the issue, is not sophomoric or sad. We're not "pretending this is some grand important issue". We're having a discussion on a forum.

I disagree with your assessment of the discussion taking place.

Nobody needs you to come in and start demeaning everyone involved. If you think it's not a topic worth discussing, just stay out of it.

A perfectly intelligent person can deliver a sophomoric argument. It's not a personal insult, unless you choose to take it as such. Had I not been engaged, I would have left it at the single post, and here I am being further engaged.

[LittleBlueGaming]

Incorrect.

Maybe you need a refresher? Not like it should be needed, respect really should just be the default...

1.3 Vision behind the rules

The rules are enforced to maintain order and respect among Squad, the KSP community and the gaming community as a whole. It is important to recognize the many differences in backgrounds and skills present within the community and to strive for the highest levels respect towards one another at all times.

[Randazzo]

Maybe you need a refresher? Not like it should be needed, respect really should just be the default...

You got me there, my citation wouldn't be "rules."

I am a perpetual rule-breaker in need of removal then, I suppose. Respect is earned and never given by default, though I suspect it is a semantic argument. If you think you have cause, report the posts. My opinion stands.

[DuoDex]

In the future, please attempt to keep threads such as this on topic - discussions of who and who was not breaking the rules, how the rules are meant to be construed, and whether an insult was, in fact, an insult are entirely inappropriate for a thread which has a subject of 'Plant Sentience'.

Therefore, the thread has been locked.