[HN Gopher] The philosophical and spiritual views of Barbara McC...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The philosophical and spiritual views of Barbara McClintock
        
       Author : superb-owl
       Score  : 42 points
       Date   : 2023-02-26 15:12 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (superbowl.substack.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (superbowl.substack.com)
        
       | jalk wrote:
       | I have said it for many years: At some point there will be people
       | who will only eat synthetic food, because they don't want to harm
       | plants/fungus etc. - working title is "Syntheanians"
        
         | DemocracyFTW2 wrote:
         | So... rather than eating food made from plants they'd eat food
         | made in a plant?
        
         | jacquesm wrote:
         | The machinery used to create that food will be just as
         | conscious as the plants we're eating today.
        
       | modzu wrote:
       | for a deeper dive into this sort of idea i recommend reading
       | "mind in life" by evan thompson
        
       | superkuh wrote:
       | Conciousness and language in animals is a form of abstracted
       | motor action planning*. If it turns out some plants are sentient
       | (or even sapient) their "consciousness" will likely be different
       | enough to deserve a new word.
       | 
       | * see the book Rodolfo R Llinas wrote, "I of the Vortex: From
       | Neurons to Self". Llinas was the discoverer of the mechanism by
       | which myelinated axons conduct action potentials among a dozen
       | other fundemental neural processes or neuroscience techniques.
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodolfo_Llin%C3%A1s
        
         | edgyquant wrote:
         | Language is sure, but consciousness itself is a big [citation
         | needed]. I also don't think it needs a new word. If trees are
         | aware of themselves and their surrounding then they are
         | consciousness even if they aren't sentient.
        
       | sourcecodeplz wrote:
       | Try missing to water your plants for a week or two and then spend
       | some quiet time around them, as an experiment.
        
         | tastyfreeze wrote:
         | With the intuition I have built up over decades of caring for
         | plants, I can "feel" them crying out for water. But that
         | feeling is more a combination of observation and learned
         | outcomes. A dry plant shows, through its color and appearance,
         | that it is thirsty. The same goes for many plant ailments.
         | 
         | As a side note, I live in a rainforest. Just after a rain when
         | the clouds break, the forest is the "happiest". I am sure part
         | of that feeling is happiness I myself feel at the beauty of
         | glittering raindrops on plants and crepuscular rays in the
         | mist. But, the forest feels happy too. The birds are singing
         | and the animals emerge to play in the sun. Truly an amazing
         | feeling.
        
       | slibhb wrote:
       | > I found that the more I worked with [the chromosomes] the
       | bigger and bigger [they] got, and when I was really working with
       | them I wasn't outside, I was down there. I was part of the
       | system. I was right down there with them, and everything got big.
       | I even was able to see the internal parts of the chromosomes--
       | actually everything was there. It surprised me because I actually
       | felt as if I were right down there and these were my friends.
       | 
       | Sounds remarkably similar to controversial Canadian pyschologist
       | Jordan Peterson talking to Richard Dawkins about how a mushroom
       | trip allowed him to experience DNA:
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbGoUwmqIEQ&t=2473s
        
       | resource0x wrote:
       | If plants are conscious, then it stands to reason to assume every
       | life form is conscious -> a bacterium is conscious -> any cell in
       | our body is conscious. I tried to google "single cell
       | consciousness" and found a few articles that briefly touch on the
       | idea. But then it doesn't take a leap of imagination to
       | conjecture that my own consciousness is in fact the consciousness
       | of a single "special" cell. It might be located in the brain, but
       | not necessarily.
        
         | skybrian wrote:
         | It seems awfully fragile. What happens if that cell dies? Do
         | you turn into a p-zombie? :)
         | 
         | Scientists have been studying brain damage for a long time, and
         | it seems pretty clear that minds are more distributed than
         | that. Oliver Sacks wrote a lot about this sort of thing.
        
           | resource0x wrote:
           | I don't know what happens if that cell dies. The person may
           | die. Or another neuron may take over (e.g. after coma). But
           | under the new management, the person won't be the same as
           | before. This is not something unheard-of. There are
           | precedents. There are some neurons that control muscles. If
           | the neuron dies, the brain loses control over this muscle.
           | There's no regeneration, and no other neuron takes over.
        
         | broast wrote:
         | I'm a fan of the thousand brain theory of consciousness.
         | Something like our consciousness is the experience of a
         | democratic voting process involving all the cells in our body.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | edgyquant wrote:
         | Yea cells probably do know they are a thing but is that really
         | consciousness or should we call it "awareness." Your own
         | consciousness is likely a combination of this or even what you
         | experience as sentience is the swapping of attention between
         | these different cells that point to trees of thought.
         | 
         | This is at least what I've come to believe after meditation.
        
           | resource0x wrote:
           | Suppose my consciousness is localized in a single neuron.
           | This neuron is connected to thousands of other neurons, each
           | of which is connected to... etc, so the "me"-cell indirectly
           | receives inputs from the entire body. The swapping of
           | attention, as well as any other effect you can think of,
           | could conceivably be implemented by a "me"-cell alone, just
           | based on the interplay of inputs.
        
         | superb-owl wrote:
         | I've never fully understood his thinking, but I think that's
         | basically Daniel Dennett's argument in From Bacteria to Bach
         | and Back [1]. He makes it while somehow simultaneously denying
         | panpsychism and the reality of consciousness itself.
         | 
         | [1]
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Bacteria_to_Bach_and_Back
        
         | TrispusAttucks wrote:
         | If you find this fascinating then [1] Panpsychis may be a fun
         | hole for you to go down.
         | 
         | Basically consciousness is a fundamental property of the
         | universe.
         | 
         | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism
        
           | edgyquant wrote:
           | I think that scientifically speaking this is a step too far.
           | It makes sense for a cell to have developed awareness, it
           | doesn't make sense for a rock to be consciousness
           | fundamentally speaking; or at least doesn't seem falsifiable
           | ever.
        
           | resource0x wrote:
           | I know, panpsychism is a logical next step, but we are very
           | far away from being able to study the consciousness of the
           | atom. A bacterium could be a simpler target of practical
           | research. There's a lot of "intelligence" in the living
           | organisms, which potentially can be utilized and eventually
           | lead to a real AGI.
        
             | akomtu wrote:
             | Today, the science practices double-think: on the one hand
             | it claims that the entire universe is one big wave function
             | that evolves as one and can't be split into parts, but on
             | the other hand it would call you a heretic if you use this
             | wave function reasoning to claim a connection to a plant
             | or, worse, to a rock.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-02-26 23:01 UTC)