
Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious? - IntronExon
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/science/plants-consciousness-anesthesia.html
======
taneq
> “Plants are not just robotic, stimulus-response devices,” said Frantisek
> Baluska

I don't see how this follows from the finding that sedatives can prevent
plants from responding to stimuli. It just means that there's a shared
mechanism behind plants' responses and animals' responses, which wouldn't be
overly surprising.

Of course, that doesn't mean that plants don't have a lot more going on than
we usually realise, just because it happens at timescales so much longer than
ours. There's all sorts of cool stuff happening in rainforests with
cooperation/competition between plants.

~~~
nezzle
Yet this is the same type of work people are using to argue that that
crabs/fish can feel/experience pain. Proving or disproving consciousness is
basically impossible.

E.g. I feel like a lot of people aren't conscious :) Prove me right or wrong?

~~~
akvadrako
The best explanation demystifying consciousness I've found comes from a claim
it's a social phenomena that only arose around 3000 years ago:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_\(psychology\))

These days most people are conscious because you need it to function in
society; there is a good deal of evidence in the book.

~~~
fsloth
"It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of
consummate genius, nothing in between! Probably the former, but I'm hedging my
bets." \- Richard Dawkins

------
murukesh_s
Remembering reading about the work done by Jagadish Chandra Bose:

"He researched the mechanism of the seasonal effect on plants, the effect of
chemical inhibitors on plant stimuli and the effect of temperature. From the
analysis of the variation of the cell membrane potential of plants under
different circumstances, he hypothesised that plants can "feel pain,
understand affection etc."

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose)

~~~
drieddust
Yeah its amazing that his research is completely forgotten perhaps too
conveniently.

~~~
dTal
Not that amazing, given that it's never been successfully been replicated and
quite likely to be bunk.

~~~
drieddust
Do you have any references? Wikipedia suggests the opposite. I do not find
anything wrong with new research but presenting it as groundbreaking is
laughable.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose)
[2] [https://doi.org/10.1038%2F360062a0](https://doi.org/10.1038%2F360062a0)

------
glenstein
Complex exchange of information and response to your environment is
fascinating, and should be appreciated. But if we're calling that
consciousness, we've watered down the term to the point that it's just a loose
metaphor for virtually any kind of complex biological mechanisms.

This really shouldn't even be a debate. It's the special kind of wrong that
ought to be embarrassing, like when people equate consciousness to quantum
weirdness.

~~~
pygy_
Provided there are single cell organisms with eyes[1], and transcription
factors form DNA-based activation/inhibition networks conceptually
indistinguishable from neuronal networks, debating whether plants have
subjective experience ("a view from the inside" doesn't necessarily implies
visual information) is totally on the table.

Whether those organisms experience anything we can relate to is another matter
though.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocelloid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocelloid)

~~~
glenstein
Photoreceptivity isn't consciousness. "View from the inside" wasn't a mere
reference to vision. And I would hope that the structural differences between
DNA and brains are clear enough that they wouldn't have to be debated in a
serious conversation.

~~~
pygy_
Please stop with the "serious convesation" FUD.

Structural differences are no barrier to functional equivalence. Transcription
factors are proteins that activate or inhibit the transcription rate of other
genes, including those of other transcription factors.

They do form complex regulation networks that are isomorphic to neural
circuitry.

Edit: re. ocelloid, I know you didn't literally mean vision.

The structure of the retinal body and adjacent organelles suggests that it is
more than a focused, single pixel cam that would be used for simple
phototropism, which implies that it is tied to a more complex processing
apparatus.

------
rotrux
K sooo to (kinda) answer the question: depends. What's your definition of
consciousness?

Now as for the implication that anesthetics sedating plants has ANYTHING to do
with this/whether or not they are conscious: no. No sorry, not buying it. Need
more science.

This just suggests we may have similar inhibitory biochemical responses to
certain organic compounds.

That's not surprising since were all made out of hydrocarbons & many
anesthetics have relatively simple structures.

~~~
visarga
> What's your definition of consciousness?

How about - ability to adapt to environment and select good actions depending
on situation, learning from reward/loss signals.

~~~
PinkMilkshake
That seems more like a definition for intelligence or learning.

My favourite definition for consciousness is the following:

If it is something to be like a particular thing, then that thing is
conscious.

If it is something to be like a bat, then a bat is conscious. If it isn’t
something to be like a bat - the “lights are off” so to speak - then it’s not
conscious.

Edit: clarity

~~~
red75prime
You probably couldn't use this definition even if you had a magical device
which transforms you into a bat and then back again.

After you are yourself again you'll need to interpret the acquired memories.
You remember echolocview of the room (bats have memory, it's testable),
hunger, disorientation and some other sensations. Does it mean that bat is
conscious? What will you remember differently if bat wasn't conscious? You'll
remember nothing? But memories are there and you should have access to them.
The lack of self-awareness? But you don't know how you would remember the
presence of self-awareness in a bat.

~~~
PinkMilkshake
But the definition isn’t _if it is like something for a human to be a bat_.
Human experience doesn’t really come into it.

It is like something to be a human. But the conscious experience of a bat (if
it exists) may be completely alien to us in every way. That’s not relevant to
what it is to be like a bat. The only important thing is if it is like
something to be a bat.

~~~
red75prime
What's good in a definition you have no conceivable way of applying? How would
you go about testing whether a bat is conscious according to this definition?

It is based on our illusion of understanding what it is like to be a human,
but upon closer inspection it bears no real content.

------
randomdrake
Study: Anaesthetics stop diverse plant organ movements, affect endocytic
vesicle recycling and ROS homeostasis, and block action potentials in Venus
flytraps

Citation: K Yokawa, T Kagenishi, A Pavlovič, S Gall, M Weiland, S Mancuso, F
Baluška; Annals of Botany, mcx155.

Link: [https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcx155](https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcx155)

DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcx155

Abstract:

Background and Aims

Anaesthesia for medical purposes was introduced in the 19th century. However,
the physiological mode of anaesthetic drug actions on the nervous system
remains unclear. One of the remaining questions is how these different
compounds, with no structural similarities and even chemically inert elements
such as the noble gas xenon, act as anaesthetic agents inducing loss of
consciousness. The main goal here was to determine if anaesthetics affect the
same or similar processes in plants as in animals and humans.

Methods

A single-lens reflex camera was used to follow organ movements in plants
before, during and after recovery from exposure to diverse anaesthetics.
Confocal microscopy was used to analyse endocytic vesicle trafficking.
Electrical signals were recorded using a surface AgCl electrode.

Key Results

Mimosa leaves, pea tendrils, Venus flytraps and sundew traps all lost both
their autonomous and touch-induced movements after exposure to anaesthetics.
In Venus flytrap, this was shown to be due to the loss of action potentials
under diethyl ether anaesthesia. The same concentration of diethyl ether
immobilized pea tendrils. Anaesthetics also impeded seed germination and
chlorophyll accumulation in cress seedlings. Endocytic vesicle recycling and
reactive oxygen species (ROS) balance, as observed in intact Arabidopsis root
apex cells, were also affected by all anaesthetics tested.

Conclusions

Plants are sensitive to several anaesthetics that have no structural
similarities. As in animals and humans, anaesthetics used at appropriate
concentrations block action potentials and immobilize organs via effects on
action potentials, endocytic vesicle recycling and ROS homeostasis. Plants
emerge as ideal model objects to study general questions related to
anaesthesia, as well as to serve as a suitable test system for human
anaesthesia.

~~~
singularity2001
whether you are a robot or a person I appreciate your effort

------
rubyfan
Great, they’ve ruined vegetarianism.

~~~
DoreenMichele
We have known for years that plants give off a pulse ("scream") when
assaulted, communicate chemically etc. I have said for years that the idea
that eating plants is morally superior because they aren't sentient is
basically speciesist, for lack of a better word.

~~~
jopsen
Well, I would argue that eating animals is morally superior to cannibalism :)

So why can't eating plants be morally superior to eat animals.

~~~
DoreenMichele
I would argue that there are lots of valid reasons to eat lower on the food
chain, many of which can be framed as having a moral impetus. But the idea
that it is morally superior based on plants being stupid is repugnant to me.
It opens the door on questions like "So, is it okay to eat mentally retarded
people?"

Some moral arguments I can agree with:

A mostly plant based diet is less resource intensive. Since most wars are
about scarcity of resources, eating less meat is voting against war in a
tangible way. It is about promoting peace globally.

There are health benefits to eating less meat.

Meat is very water intensive. Water shortages are a big deal globally at the
moment.

There are no doubt others. Just quick and dirty off the cuff thoughts.

~~~
oh_sigh
Is war really about scarcity of resources or about conflict over resources,
regardless of scarcity?

~~~
lsc
>Is war really about scarcity of resources or about conflict over resources,
regardless of scarcity?

I think there is a huge difference between the world before the green
revolution and after, and I personally think that this difference is a big
part of why we haven't seen major power wars after the middle of the 20th
century.

World war two was the last major power war, and it was also the last major
power war fought when there were not enough calories for everyone to eat their
fill. Coincidence?

After world war two (well, after the 'green revolution' that happened in the
mid 20th century) there was enough food, and... you could argue that we
haven't had a direct major power war since then.

I personally think that the fact that getting enough calories is generally not
a problem anymore has a lot to do with the fact that we haven't seen any major
power wars lately.

------
lisper
The thermostat in my house responds to stimuli, unless I sedate it by taking
out the batteries. Is it conscious? No, of course not. In an era where charges
of "fake news" are flying thick and fast, the NYT, of all venues, really
should not publishing this sort of pseudo-scientific rubbish.

~~~
ph4
Do you have a working definition of consciousness?

~~~
lisper
I do, but I'm not going to play this game unless you seriously want to argue
that a thermostat is conscious, in which case you have to go first.

~~~
ph4
Seems to me that consciousness is a matter of degree, with devices like
thermostats at one pole, and self-reflective neocortex-style consciousness at
the other.

Not that I have a strong desire to defend the consciousness of thermostats. I
just wouldn't consider the article pseudo-scientific rubbish, and I definitely
wouldn't just write off this type of inquiry or discussion as some kind of
harmful fake news.

~~~
lisper
> consciousness is a matter of degree

That's true, but that doesn't mean that thermostats are conscious. Shortness
is "a matter of degree" too. Nonetheless, Danny Devito is short (4'10"), and
Michael Jordan (6'6") is not. We can argue about Tom Cruise (5'7") and Johnny
Depp (5'10"), and with regards to consciousness, we can argue about dolphins
and dogs and maybe even cockroaches. But not plants and not thermostats.

~~~
ph4
You're drawing arbitrary cutoffs in your height example. Which brings back the
original question, what's your selection criteria for consciousness?

~~~
lisper
No, they are not arbitrary cutoffs. They are universally agreed upon
conventions among speakers of English, and they give effective meaning to the
words "short" and "tall". Quibbling over that is pure pedantry.

~~~
ph4
Convention = arbitary. It's conventional. For convenience. Relative. Not
absolute. Same as your lines defining what is and isn't conscious.

~~~
lisper
[http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/569/2/Stoppard.pdf](http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/569/2/Stoppard.pdf)

------
Ascetik
Not in the same sense that we are. If you go by the Aristotelian and Platonic
hierarchy of nature then we know that they are life forms by the fact that
they are animated insofar as the metabolic process is concerned. They sedated
the metabolic process. It's sort of like when you are hopped up on drugs in
the hospital and not moving, you require much less caloric intake because
you're expending less energy, similar to that I would suspect.

------
goldenkey
Is the planet conscious but on a time scale that we are out-of-touch with?
Plants are just an order of magnitude quicker to react but still much slower
than needed to make us care. The truth is, we associate speed with
intelligence, it's natural for us. We even have the word "slow" to mean
stupid. It's possible we will eventually have a super intelligence able to
craftily manipulate matter at the highest ability -- but will still be as slow
as a turtle. If it builds shields and preventative measures to compensate for
its' slowness, I think we'd consider it a superintelligent species -- slow or
not.

~~~
whatshisface
I think we might just have to, out of philosophical desperation, define
"murder" as a set containing A. the irreversible termination of any
economically useful self-directing information processor and B. acts that
desensitize our inborn resistance to doing A. The first covers not killing
other healthy adults/sentient robots, and the second covers not abusing
animals or euthanizing anybody. As far as my gut says that's all you really
need out of an ethical system, right?

If I had to assign an evolutionary purpose to why we hate animal abuse so
much, it would probably be that whenever the "don't torture squirrels" circuit
fails homicide is not far behind.

------
codeisawesome
They mention that sedating bacteria can cause them to “pause” as well. Are
bacteria considered conscious?

~~~
taneq
Putting a strong magnet next to my old mechanical watch causes it to "pause"
too. Clearly I'm sedating it.

------
ppbutt
Does everybody on HackerNews have a subscription to the New York Times or
something?

~~~
nordsieck
Use incognito.

~~~
iainmerrick
Or skip the article and just read the comments! :)

------
colanderman
I can anesthetize large parts of my body, losing all responsiveness, yet
_remain conscious_.

Moreover, if I had no head (and presumably no consciousness), I would still
respond to stimuli via the spinal cord, and could still be anesthetized.

That plants become unresponsive when anesthetized in no way imples that they
have some consciousness that they are losing. Why does the article make this
bizarre logical leap.

------
sebringj
Remove the hat from the dog and it seems to lose its sense of style. Is the
dog a fashionista?

This is anthropomorphism while being unconscious of it.

------
JonnyNova
Alan Watts has talked about something very similar with regard to what is
intelligence and how exactly do we measure and define it. Here is a short
(1m20s) youtube clip of it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgZ73Lc5VS8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgZ73Lc5VS8)

------
bitL
Hmm, I am not sure how would I live with the thought that every single step in
nature I do brutally kills/damages conscious beings. Fun! Theodicy would
suddenly seem a small problem...

------
rdlecler1
That biological systems have a low power mode and that this can be chemically
induced is not suprising. Suggesting that the presence of a low power mode in
biological systems equates to evidence of consciousness is a big stretch.

------
creep
I'm a hobbyist gardener. I've always suspected these guys have something else
going on.

------
peter303
Some wise hunters dont kill out of spite but necessity. They say a prayer
celebrating the circle of life and thanking the caught animal. And dont take
more than necessary.

------
appleflaxen
when you cut the legs of the frog and yell "jump", it does not.

could the ears of the frog be in the legs?

this article is inane.

------
basicplus2
Vegetarianism is murder

~~~
stagas
My first thought. Though not appropriate for sharing in HN discussions, little
toleration for humor.

