@TerminalSulcus What you say is at the base of mindless and selfish nationalism... If he decided to express himself in English it's because he expressed have interest in the language, you see, he must have decided to cherish it himself.
The other question is, if he decided to speak plain italian, how many people would have been whining about that? And then asking, why should he care about people not understanding him? (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
Yeah, anthropomorphization is nearly as erroneous as intelligent design. It's an unfortunately appealing and poetic argument, which really is not scientific. Doesn't it just boil down to semantics -- how we define/redefine the word intelligence?
This guy has the best accent ever. I dont care for his constant anthropomorphication of plant life, but the idea of growing machines is an interesting one.
I would argue that nobody need feel guilty about eating any living organism. Especially with the intelligence of plants being called into question. The implication is that there would be little difference between choosing to eat one living thing with rudimentary intelligence over another. With no other alternatives, there is no moral dilemma.
@gspahr Well be fair to the guy. He spent his time in a botony lab and not a elocution lab. Brilliant mind. The quality of the thoughts and the passion for his work outweighed any small effort to understand him. There are a lot of native English speakers who're at the same level of diction but haven't near as many wonderful things to say.
@gspahr Yeah but I think it was to show how long human thought has excluded plants when it considers life. It was more in the way of a secular look at bronze age literature by the proxy of a picture in a magazine than a statement for or against religion, like his review of that renaissance chart or of Darwin's book in 1880.
plants may have systems similar to nerves but they probably work much much slower. maybe the more developed plants even have "thoughts" but again, each thought is created over a much longer period of time.
Sense and sentience are not the same thing. There have been pretty terrible videos recently, but this is pretty much disinformation. Noa's ark? Souls? Come on...
@JuriDee the ark and souls were simply to show that throughout human history and literature, we've assumed plants to be only somewhat alive, and only slightly above "rock" status
Wonder what the restrictions would be to scale these plant and technology integrations. unless i'm mistaken, theoretically we could give these root systems the ability to have controlled movements and this network that sends these electrical signals might be able to be grown to have more connections than the human brain....
I like his ideas and investigations. I think he probably jumps into conclusions and asserts certain things without a visible reasoning. The part that I think is the most relevant of the talk is that where he shows that there are action potentials in the tip of the root of plants. He does not show, however, how these action potentials make an actual network with the rest of the plant (how does the information form one tip reach another and for what use).
It turns towards the light as a result of positive phototropism. Google it. It's a basic chemical and biochemical process.
Think of it like a muscle. If you run an electrical current through a muscle it will contract. Does this mean that the muscle is "conscious" of the electrical current? This is a good analogy for firing sunlight at a photosynthesizing plant.
@Prytanus Actually, that isn't a good analogy. A muscle (such as an arm muscle) doesn't move unconsciously, although some muscle reactions happen faster than consciousness. However, the human heart does move unconsciously, but the heartbeat can be altered through conscious intent. Anyway, you were speaking of a muscle moving because of unnatural stimulus. A plant moves because of natural stimulus. Plants will chemically communicate with other plants such as when one plant is being eaten.
A muscle will move unconsciously when you run an electrical current through it.
Is a decaying body "communicating" to flies and to worms that dinner is served? It seems that to expand the definitions of awareness broadly enough to include plants in the consciousness club, the term becomes nearly meaningless.
I do not claim be familiar with the plant "communication" you are referring to. Do you have a name for the phenomenon or a link?
@Prytanus I don't know the name for the phenomenon. I was reading about it in a book about plant interaction. It's somewhere among my books, but I honestly don't know where it is. I have way too many books and they are presently in disarray. If I see the book, I'll try to find the section.
As for proving that I'm conscious, I can not ABSOLUTELY prove that I am conscious. However I can point to a great deal of evidence raising the probability of it.
You could even do an experiment to demonstrate it.
You could put me into an MRI, ask me me multi choice questions, and watch the effect on my neural net, for example.
Not ABSOLUTE proof, but the probability gets pretty close to 100%.
@Prytanus Plants communicate with other plants. This happens for example when one plant is being eaten. The plant will send chemicals into the soil where roots of other plants will pick up what is being communicated and will go in defense mode. This doesn't by itself prove intelligence or consciousness, but it makes it extremely more probable.
I agree, it does increase the probability. However, as per your own definition, it can be explained by purely chemical phenomena.
I will admit the possibility of plant consciousness, but the probability still seems very low. It still appears that these chemical processes mimic consciousness, without any qualia actually being present.
@Prytanus Almost everything can be explained by purely chemical phenomena. Probability may seem low according to your own subjective assessment, but there is no objective way to measure the probability of something so far outside of our mammalian and cultural biases. Qualia are only ever present in your own experience. There is no way to measure the qualia in another's experience (especially an entirely different life form) or even if there is conscious experience.
You have made an argument here that things are "unknowable". I do not share your commitment to ignorance.
I believe that the universe and many of the strange things in it such as qualia and the possibility of plant intelligence can be "known", in so far as we can make high probability statements. If you had said that there is "no objective way" to be absolutely sure, I would have agreed.
@Prytanus I'm relatively smart (depending who you compare me to). More importantly, I've done enough research on mind-body research and theory to know how complex it is and to know how little is known. There is just not enough known about this subject to fairly state accurate probabilities. I didn't make an argument that things are unknowable. My argument is simply that withholding conclusive opinion is the most intellectually honest position to take until further research clarifies it.
@MarmaladeINFP Your idea of what intelligence is seem flawed (but you are not at all alone in it), but correct me if I am wrong. But it seem that you assume that intelligence is the ability to be able to react to a changing environment. At least that seems what Mancuso is arguing.
But it is not the ability to react to a changing environment that constitute intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to know how to react/and plan for it in case a change happens. watch?v=G6CVj5IQkzk from 10.15
@Prytanus what do you understand under consciousness? are all animals (they are considerd to be alive by everyone) conscious? i would not say a fly is conscious, but a 'smart' plan could have a similar 'brain', its at least a possibility.
I believe that consciousness is not a binary condition. You are not either conscious or not.
Consciousness has its degrees. I would say that a human is more conscious than a chimp, than a dog, than a goldfish, than an ant.
I agree that plant consciousness is possible. However several other posters have confused possible with probable, or even think that possible means 50/50.
It just doesn't seem to me that the evidence is nearly that compelling (or even interesting).
Firstly, Consciousness is not intelligence. These two things are very different, and he never mentioned consciousness.
Secondly, something that was conscious but unable to communicate would look precisely like something that wasnt conscious. In fact, there is no way of determining if other humans even have consciousness, or are just very complex machines reacting according to complicated rules. You cant peak inside someone's mind and see their conscious experience.
Firstly, I think your quibbling a bit. It seemed to me that the speaker clearly implied that plants have things like consciousness and intention if not stating them outright.
Secondly, I am a physicalist. Like Descartes, I know that I am conscious. Given that other humans (and animals) have a brain similar to mine that behaves in ways similar to mine, it is probable that they have consciousness too. No, I can't ABSOLUTELY prove it, but that doesn't mean that its a 50/50 shot...
Descartes was actually a substance dualist, he was a physicalist only in regards to non-human things. But i know what you mean.
Consciousness is the 'you', that perceives things. You cannot prove that anything has or does not have this thing.
Intelligence is complex reactions in response to stimuli, it is compiling a large range of information and reacting dependent on that stimuli. A thing can be more or less intelligent. Plants are not -that- intelligent, but they are intelligent.
I think you need to let go of bias in the philosophical community, created by symbolic logic / logisticians, that argument needs to reach absolute certainty to be considered valid.
Instead, you should embrace view that states that knowledge is probabilistic.
I have given you and example of an experiment to demonstrate the existence of consciousness.
Mancuso, by contrast, is looking at phototropism and using it to anthropomorphize plants.
@Saktoth Consciousness is a higher level of intelligence. Still higher you find sentience, which is self-aware concious intelligence. Human beings are scentient, and so the 'you' that percieve things may or may not require scentience. What's your thoughts on that?
I agree btw on your point on intelligence and plants.
If one takes 'sentient' literally, it just means 'having the power to sense'. Every living thing does this.
If one takes 'Consciousness' literally, it just means self-awareness. It is just the sensing of senses themselves. But doesnt all reaction to stimuli require the sensing of a sense?
We are just an incredibly complex chain of chemical reactions. It is the complexity, and not the nature of the thing, that makes us different. I dont honestly think these kinds of terms are useful.
@Saktoth correct on the literal meanings, but i disagree that reaction to stimuli require a sensing of senses, and that the terms are not usefull. Also humans being only a complex chain of chemical reactions is a fallacy.
First; humans. We are made of of complex structures of chemicals, but the physical structure of the compounds play a major role. Also, our nervous system has an electrical component.
If you analyse it from a the perspective of reverse engineering, the terms are usefull IMO.
Physical structure is what determines chemical reactions. Structure is complexity. Chemical or electrochemical my point is that intelligence arises out of physical interactions.
Really though, what do 'consciousness' or 'sentience' mean? How do you know them when you see them? Even from a broader, structural perspective, define how we know an organism has them? How would one expect such a thing to behave, which isnt dependant on other functions, like language or communication?
@Saktoth Agreed, intelligence arises out of physical interactions, be they chemical, electrical, or mechanical.
Conciousness makes more sense in a physiological description of a biological entity, like differentiating between states of (sleep, awake), or thought location (concious or subconcious thought).
Sentience makes more sense as describing if an entity is self-aware, be it biological or mechanical (computer).
An example for observing self-awareness is behaviour when looking in a mirror.
Oh, and if you are a physicalist, you should have no problem with the notion that plants (and computers) might be intelligent, or even conscious. These traits arise purely out of complex information gathering, comparing, storage, retrieval, and reaction. There is nothing else to it than that. If a plant has more complexly connected parts tasked with the gathering and interpretation of sense data, by what standard is it less intelligent?
I have stated that plant intelligence is possible.
However, because Mancuso has merely anthropomorphized the well understood process of phototropism, I do not feel that he has even come close to meeting his burden of proof.
I find the idea of using plants like a computer processor quite interesting, and worth pursuing.
However, they are almost certainly less intelligent than people, by any demonstrable means. Say... object permanence (google it), for example.
You are right, Mancusco is certainly anthropomorphising. He often looks at evolved traits and attributes this to intent (though calling something a 'clever adaptation' is still fairly common in biology). But plants are underestimated and discounted: They do move, they do sense, they do communicate and monitor their environment and respond to it.
@Prytanus I might have misunderstood, but it didn't seem to me like he was making the case that plants were conscious. Or I guess it depends on what he means by intelligence, which is something that even psychologists disagree about.
The only one who can clarify the point is Mancuso. I may very well be attacking a straw man, but I don't think I am. He talks about building robots using plants to drive them.
While this is possible, he is implying that there is a thinking organism capable of making Tony Stark like discernments about the world while driving the Iron-Plant suit.
I must admit that I have been disappointed with several of the latest talks uploaded to this channel, but this talk is really interesting. :) Also, he has an awesome accent. :D
@sachamm I doubt that if he wanted to speak English with other Italians that his accent wouldn't be so thick. The only reason I can imagine someone speaking a second language with people that know their first language is to practice that second language. I guess if that's the case then he puts no emphasis on his accent, which is just laziness imo...
I quite like this, but we don't understand intelligence, what is intelligence? Creativity? Logic? Motor functions? What is it? I mean we only interpret what intelligence is. Here he interpreted those plant have intelligent behaviour, but to some people it's not intelligent, maybe just adaptation. The movement again can be interpreted as intelligence, but also just forces, like how we can move something with electrical impulse.
@nelsyeung We can test for intelligence such as to see if a plant can learn about and adapt to it's environment. That is how we'd test intelligence in humans or other animals. What we don't understand is consciousness which can't be measured. We can't even determine that another person is conscious. We just assume other humans and other higher animals are conscious because they have similar behavior as us.
Excellent :)
EverythingButThePorn 3 days ago
plants are gay, i love them
goodsirknight 1 week ago
@TerminalSulcus Well, you have a very valid point. Thank you.
gspahr 3 months ago
@TerminalSulcus What you say is at the base of mindless and selfish nationalism... If he decided to express himself in English it's because he expressed have interest in the language, you see, he must have decided to cherish it himself.
The other question is, if he decided to speak plain italian, how many people would have been whining about that? And then asking, why should he care about people not understanding him? (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)
gspahr 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wonderful, this is very interesting.
dayspeace 3 months ago
@TabuaGerenteDoItau no, hes a brilliance-ist
yuki953 7 months ago
hmm
TheLovesoul1 1 year ago
Great discussion!
iberiaazul 1 year ago
I´m vegan...Do I have to feel sorry for plants too?So I´ve been chewing plant´s brains for my whole life...
ameritz16 1 year ago
@ameritz16 yup
justinwhatley1 1 year ago
@ameritz16 - yes you do bose showed plants feel pain too - you are murderer
MrIzzyDizzy 1 year ago
His accent reminds me of those online text-to-voice readers. Not a bad thing. :p Great video.
MisterRyanW 1 year ago
Absolutely fascinating stuff. Excellent talk!
PhantomofFire 1 year ago 5
02:05 pyramaaaajd :D
Great video and great accent :D
MikeoWar 1 year ago
what an awesome accent
charmander4533 1 year ago
fascinating!
chantellesasha 1 year ago
Oh no, vegans and fruitarians are gonna go crazy about this one.. (flinches).
8DX 1 year ago
@8DX
thats a joke right?
mellamosean 1 year ago
Hahahahahaha I love his accent :D:D
tkherbi9a 1 year ago
ht tp://change.pennergame.de/change_please/5106133/
xxjumpjetxx 1 year ago
but why is it important to assess this?
SexyRaww 1 year ago
i remember thinking "how do trees feel, sitting there for thousands of years, doing nothing. Must be depressing to be a tree" XD
SexyRaww 1 year ago
Hehe, Sicilians
OverHedge99 1 year ago
Yeah, anthropomorphization is nearly as erroneous as intelligent design. It's an unfortunately appealing and poetic argument, which really is not scientific. Doesn't it just boil down to semantics -- how we define/redefine the word intelligence?
angularsofty 1 year ago 3
This guy has the best accent ever. I dont care for his constant anthropomorphication of plant life, but the idea of growing machines is an interesting one.
Khorien 1 year ago
audio transcription is friggin hilarious!
tempo3rd 1 year ago
LOL, WTF was that commercial about?
MeatLoafEnchilada 1 year ago
venus fly traps GROW closed, how cool is that!
KaylinJH 1 year ago
Great presentation!
xaleus 1 year ago
They still don't have a nervous system, meaning plants can't have a consciousness or experience happiness and suffering.
DrInfidel 1 year ago
SUBTITLES PLEASE.
Yaalah 1 year ago
@Yaalah ?? you deaf? :(
KaylinJH 1 year ago
I wish he would've showed us some of the work on the "plantoid hybrids". Doesn't seem like he has done much...
andresico2 1 year ago
does he know he sounds funny ?
yourtube20061 1 year ago
Nice presentation. There is however one flaw in his speech. The biggest creature on the planet is a fungus, which spans almost 9 square kilometres.
MrNarchya 1 year ago
This guy has the perfect accent! I love how i can understand him and i can laugh at his accent!!! Awesome vid. learned a lot!
aaroncbailey 1 year ago
This guy is awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
takethestreetcarhome 1 year ago
2:29 - 2:31 woman with epic face botom left of the screen.
thepianoaddict 1 year ago 3
@thepianoaddict haha she said 'oh shit is he talking bout me?'
98zyxw 1 year ago
@98zyxw lol xD
thepianoaddict 1 year ago
@thepianoaddict haha yeah i noticed that too
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago
He does forget the fact that plants are not "creatures",
so a whale can be the biggest kind of creature, but not thee biggest kind of living organism.
Also, there is a forest in northern america that is just one big tree, instead of allot of individual ones, which grows like mushrooms do.
So his example is flawed D:
Interesting TED nontheless :3
Filecreator 1 year ago
So.... Are we to start feeling guilty about eating plants now too?
steve0281 1 year ago
@steve0281
I would argue that nobody need feel guilty about eating any living organism. Especially with the intelligence of plants being called into question. The implication is that there would be little difference between choosing to eat one living thing with rudimentary intelligence over another. With no other alternatives, there is no moral dilemma.
Chimerathon 1 year ago 2
@Chimerathon I made my statement with a bit tongue in cheek. I agree with your assessment.
steve0281 1 year ago
brilliant
POLlyy23 1 year ago
I have to say I have a newfound respect for plants now
sidious501 1 year ago
Hyperbolic... but not inaccurate.
kinsmed 1 year ago
one of my favourite TED talks
paulosham1 1 year ago 2
2:30 look at the scary lady in the bottom left corner with her eyes wide open haha
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago 42
@TheLiberalSoup
I think the correct term is 'coked up to the eyeballs'
jimwal2008 1 year ago
@TheLiberalSoup I heard she killed him after the presentation
sukablianah2 1 year ago
@TheLiberalSoup
Haha wtf! :D
BFDK 1 year ago
@TheLiberalSoup HAHAHAH brilliant dude. I can't stop looking now.
beyondtheclouds 1 year ago
@beyondtheclouds
thanks
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago
@TheLiberalSoup : LOL - She looks mental.
Vortex42 1 year ago
@TheLiberalSoup she's so memeable. xD
SirPotrillo 6 months ago
yeah! exactly, I thought of this problem with the ark, that there sare no blats before. Damnit! I hate/love when people steal my thunder!
TheLiberalSoup 1 year ago
FUCK your Hybrid plants and your FALSE neter...you are not better then neter...neter will show you whos BOSS...and its NOT YOU WHITE MAN!
YoungRaWarrior 1 year ago
In the Bible there is a scripture that states the vegetation cried out to God...showing that there was life in plants.
lovelife02 1 year ago
I speak italian native-like, and I am embarrassed by his accent.
gspahr 1 year ago
@gspahr Well be fair to the guy. He spent his time in a botony lab and not a elocution lab. Brilliant mind. The quality of the thoughts and the passion for his work outweighed any small effort to understand him. There are a lot of native English speakers who're at the same level of diction but haven't near as many wonderful things to say.
ratholin 1 year ago 35
@ratholin You're right. Let me point out that I enjoyed the talk, even though quoting scripture troubled me.
gspahr 1 year ago
@gspahr Yeah but I think it was to show how long human thought has excluded plants when it considers life. It was more in the way of a secular look at bronze age literature by the proxy of a picture in a magazine than a statement for or against religion, like his review of that renaissance chart or of Darwin's book in 1880.
ratholin 1 year ago
@gspahr well you're an idiot then. His accent is amazing :D
tkherbi9a 1 year ago
"That iz wrong"
Is this the guy that does the Group X Hashmir lyrics?
MastersOfInfinity 1 year ago
@GrudgyDiablo 800,000 years old? Is that the one the trolls live under? Of yeh, sorry completely forgot about that one.
Brascofarian 1 year ago 2
BS... biggest living organism is a fugus in Germany... if you wanna split hairs.
Brascofarian 1 year ago
I knew it Jumanji is Real!
thockoro 1 year ago
epic religion talk fail
twistedbass15 1 year ago
plants may have systems similar to nerves but they probably work much much slower. maybe the more developed plants even have "thoughts" but again, each thought is created over a much longer period of time.
drorjs 1 year ago
This is a science talk,.. why is he quoting scripture?
HashDylan 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Vegetarians, it's time for you to starve to death!
RareAirSupply 1 year ago
JAG-SCHMAISH!
govcolin 1 year ago
PyraMAID? BERRY NICE!
Kirbynessness 1 year ago
"Where are the plants?" That made me laugh with embarrassement, not sure if I've ever done that before, lol. Why have I never thought about that?
akrulla 1 year ago
I think this guy might take up substantial part in planet terraformation with Plantoids.
SuperiorApostate 1 year ago
I think his accent is fake, it has to be!
squirreljester2 1 year ago
He forgot to mention that mushrooms are the only other living organism on the planet that can communicate with language.
HigherPlanes 1 year ago
best cartoon ever well atleast today
party489 1 year ago
Speak Queen's English, you Italo-American!
hyperseauton 1 year ago
Watch the short movie at the end it is cool I've seen it before somewhere tho.
SuperiorApostate 1 year ago
interesting mind, horrid audio
party489 1 year ago
Sense and sentience are not the same thing. There have been pretty terrible videos recently, but this is pretty much disinformation. Noa's ark? Souls? Come on...
JuriDee 1 year ago
@JuriDee the ark and souls were simply to show that throughout human history and literature, we've assumed plants to be only somewhat alive, and only slightly above "rock" status
puffaliaz 1 year ago
This is amazing! I never thought of this before in my life!
Kakarot21591 1 year ago
2:26 Women at the bottom left :D WTH!
damuschka 1 year ago
I want TED in HD :(
damuschka 1 year ago
it's avatar all over again!
MrOnairos 1 year ago
one of the best TED of late. Although, Paul Stamets made the connection between the internet and mycelia a while back
funnyguise 1 year ago
It's a me! mario!
k4kek4ke 1 year ago 10
@k4kek4ke hahahahaaaa
johsy 1 year ago
haha never thought about the plants...
take THAT creationists :P
ImperiousViking 1 year ago
peoples faces @2.30 !
mastertonberry 1 year ago
take that theists. science prevails yet again.
gatoradeee 1 year ago
he sounds like mario wif a PhD
retardmasta 1 year ago
I like his accent.
conoba 1 year ago
plants vs fucking zombies! fuck yeah!
hatarsgonnahate 1 year ago 2
Wonder what the restrictions would be to scale these plant and technology integrations. unless i'm mistaken, theoretically we could give these root systems the ability to have controlled movements and this network that sends these electrical signals might be able to be grown to have more connections than the human brain....
i'm excited for the future
PanzerN9Ne 1 year ago
Put my head in a hybrid after I die, than place it in a library and let me read everything and then let me die.
vraciudude 1 year ago
IT'SA ME! MARIO!
WeatherManToBe 1 year ago 43
@WeatherManToBe
you beat me to it
when he says; it'sa dwarfa!!! it made me rofl
mazdaplz 1 year ago
@WeatherManToBe oh im going to hell for thumbing this up :)
Haitahx 1 year ago
@WeatherManToBe I never knew Mario was a botanist too!
Imperiused 1 year ago 3
@WeatherManToBe lol
AllanSanches 1 year ago
I like his ideas and investigations. I think he probably jumps into conclusions and asserts certain things without a visible reasoning. The part that I think is the most relevant of the talk is that where he shows that there are action potentials in the tip of the root of plants. He does not show, however, how these action potentials make an actual network with the rest of the plant (how does the information form one tip reach another and for what use).
AlgeKalipso 1 year ago 2
Italian Accent! FTW... Nice Presentation!
graphattic 1 year ago 3
dude sounds like borat
djindox3 1 year ago
@djindox3 he is Borat ..No?
EnlightenedJourney 1 year ago
has this guy ever heard of seeds? I think they would have survived a flood. btw, his accent is heavier than Mariah Carey's tits.
tranceman14 1 year ago
@tranceman14 Some species of seeds can survive salt water; some cannot.
Gesmehod 1 year ago
this guy is pretty cool, and w00t for the slug!!
profjaykay 1 year ago
interesting... plantoids...
cheeseit126 1 year ago
Get it? "roots"?
Aresftfun 1 year ago
plants r smarta...atsa mata for u!!!
thoroughly enjoyed this...BTW...eating snails is good for preventing breast cancer
mike6459 1 year ago
Comment removed
mike6459 1 year ago
Who would have figured that the plant's brain was at its roots? That's science for you, counter-intuitive.
SikhiArt 1 year ago
One of the best TEDTalk I've listened recently... It was a true "consciousness riser". Thank you, Professor Mancuso!
oktaypocan 1 year ago 6
LOL check out the blonde at the bottom left of the screen at 2:30
artemovan86 1 year ago 3
@artemovan86 Mr burns daughter?
sirlanc 1 year ago
great, now i can't mow my lawn without feeling like an asshole
platlikepus 1 year ago 3
he is one wild and crazy guy
lukostello 1 year ago
Amazing....... now I look at plants in a different perspective... :-)
vijishellboy 1 year ago 2
The 'roots' haha.
venusasaboy 1 year ago
2:32 googly eyes
sparklymage 1 year ago 3
This just looks likes a metaphor taken too far. I don't see any evidence of consciousness here.
Just because something grows towards the sun does not mean that there is a conscious awareness of the sun.
Prytanus 1 year ago
@Prytanus
What, you think that it just magically divines the direction of the sun through some metaphysical means rather than being aware of it?
Good luck proving that YOU are conscious, by the way.
MrCattlehunter 1 year ago
@MrCattlehunter
It turns towards the light as a result of positive phototropism. Google it. It's a basic chemical and biochemical process.
Think of it like a muscle. If you run an electrical current through a muscle it will contract. Does this mean that the muscle is "conscious" of the electrical current? This is a good analogy for firing sunlight at a photosynthesizing plant.
Prytanus 1 year ago
@Prytanus Actually, that isn't a good analogy. A muscle (such as an arm muscle) doesn't move unconsciously, although some muscle reactions happen faster than consciousness. However, the human heart does move unconsciously, but the heartbeat can be altered through conscious intent. Anyway, you were speaking of a muscle moving because of unnatural stimulus. A plant moves because of natural stimulus. Plants will chemically communicate with other plants such as when one plant is being eaten.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
A muscle will move unconsciously when you run an electrical current through it.
Is a decaying body "communicating" to flies and to worms that dinner is served? It seems that to expand the definitions of awareness broadly enough to include plants in the consciousness club, the term becomes nearly meaningless.
I do not claim be familiar with the plant "communication" you are referring to. Do you have a name for the phenomenon or a link?
Prytanus 1 year ago
@Prytanus I don't know the name for the phenomenon. I was reading about it in a book about plant interaction. It's somewhere among my books, but I honestly don't know where it is. I have way too many books and they are presently in disarray. If I see the book, I'll try to find the section.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MrCattlehunter
As for proving that I'm conscious, I can not ABSOLUTELY prove that I am conscious. However I can point to a great deal of evidence raising the probability of it.
You could even do an experiment to demonstrate it.
You could put me into an MRI, ask me me multi choice questions, and watch the effect on my neural net, for example.
Not ABSOLUTE proof, but the probability gets pretty close to 100%.
Prytanus 1 year ago
@Prytanus Plants communicate with other plants. This happens for example when one plant is being eaten. The plant will send chemicals into the soil where roots of other plants will pick up what is being communicated and will go in defense mode. This doesn't by itself prove intelligence or consciousness, but it makes it extremely more probable.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
I agree, it does increase the probability. However, as per your own definition, it can be explained by purely chemical phenomena.
I will admit the possibility of plant consciousness, but the probability still seems very low. It still appears that these chemical processes mimic consciousness, without any qualia actually being present.
Prytanus 1 year ago
@Prytanus Almost everything can be explained by purely chemical phenomena. Probability may seem low according to your own subjective assessment, but there is no objective way to measure the probability of something so far outside of our mammalian and cultural biases. Qualia are only ever present in your own experience. There is no way to measure the qualia in another's experience (especially an entirely different life form) or even if there is conscious experience.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
You seem like a smart dude/dudette.
You have made an argument here that things are "unknowable". I do not share your commitment to ignorance.
I believe that the universe and many of the strange things in it such as qualia and the possibility of plant intelligence can be "known", in so far as we can make high probability statements. If you had said that there is "no objective way" to be absolutely sure, I would have agreed.
As it is, you are committed to ignorance.
Prytanus 1 year ago
@Prytanus I'm relatively smart (depending who you compare me to). More importantly, I've done enough research on mind-body research and theory to know how complex it is and to know how little is known. There is just not enough known about this subject to fairly state accurate probabilities. I didn't make an argument that things are unknowable. My argument is simply that withholding conclusive opinion is the most intellectually honest position to take until further research clarifies it.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Sounds like we are violently agreeing with one another, then.
Cheers to you.
Prytanus 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Your idea of what intelligence is seem flawed (but you are not at all alone in it), but correct me if I am wrong. But it seem that you assume that intelligence is the ability to be able to react to a changing environment. At least that seems what Mancuso is arguing.
But it is not the ability to react to a changing environment that constitute intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to know how to react/and plan for it in case a change happens. watch?v=G6CVj5IQkzk from 10.15
theiamania 1 year ago
@Prytanus what do you understand under consciousness? are all animals (they are considerd to be alive by everyone) conscious? i would not say a fly is conscious, but a 'smart' plan could have a similar 'brain', its at least a possibility.
stijnhaki 1 year ago
@stijnhaki
I believe that consciousness is not a binary condition. You are not either conscious or not.
Consciousness has its degrees. I would say that a human is more conscious than a chimp, than a dog, than a goldfish, than an ant.
I agree that plant consciousness is possible. However several other posters have confused possible with probable, or even think that possible means 50/50.
It just doesn't seem to me that the evidence is nearly that compelling (or even interesting).
Prytanus 1 year ago
@Prytanus
Firstly, Consciousness is not intelligence. These two things are very different, and he never mentioned consciousness.
Secondly, something that was conscious but unable to communicate would look precisely like something that wasnt conscious. In fact, there is no way of determining if other humans even have consciousness, or are just very complex machines reacting according to complicated rules. You cant peak inside someone's mind and see their conscious experience.
Saktoth 1 year ago
@Saktoth
Firstly, I think your quibbling a bit. It seemed to me that the speaker clearly implied that plants have things like consciousness and intention if not stating them outright.
Secondly, I am a physicalist. Like Descartes, I know that I am conscious. Given that other humans (and animals) have a brain similar to mine that behaves in ways similar to mine, it is probable that they have consciousness too. No, I can't ABSOLUTELY prove it, but that doesn't mean that its a 50/50 shot...
Prytanus 1 year ago
@Prytanus
Descartes was actually a substance dualist, he was a physicalist only in regards to non-human things. But i know what you mean.
Consciousness is the 'you', that perceives things. You cannot prove that anything has or does not have this thing.
Intelligence is complex reactions in response to stimuli, it is compiling a large range of information and reacting dependent on that stimuli. A thing can be more or less intelligent. Plants are not -that- intelligent, but they are intelligent.
Saktoth 1 year ago
@Saktoth
I think you need to let go of bias in the philosophical community, created by symbolic logic / logisticians, that argument needs to reach absolute certainty to be considered valid.
Instead, you should embrace view that states that knowledge is probabilistic.
I have given you and example of an experiment to demonstrate the existence of consciousness.
Mancuso, by contrast, is looking at phototropism and using it to anthropomorphize plants.
Prytanus 1 year ago
@Saktoth Consciousness is a higher level of intelligence. Still higher you find sentience, which is self-aware concious intelligence. Human beings are scentient, and so the 'you' that percieve things may or may not require scentience. What's your thoughts on that?
I agree btw on your point on intelligence and plants.
gulllars 1 year ago
@gulllars
If one takes 'sentient' literally, it just means 'having the power to sense'. Every living thing does this.
If one takes 'Consciousness' literally, it just means self-awareness. It is just the sensing of senses themselves. But doesnt all reaction to stimuli require the sensing of a sense?
We are just an incredibly complex chain of chemical reactions. It is the complexity, and not the nature of the thing, that makes us different. I dont honestly think these kinds of terms are useful.
Saktoth 1 year ago
@Saktoth correct on the literal meanings, but i disagree that reaction to stimuli require a sensing of senses, and that the terms are not usefull. Also humans being only a complex chain of chemical reactions is a fallacy.
First; humans. We are made of of complex structures of chemicals, but the physical structure of the compounds play a major role. Also, our nervous system has an electrical component.
If you analyse it from a the perspective of reverse engineering, the terms are usefull IMO.
gulllars 1 year ago
@gulllars
Physical structure is what determines chemical reactions. Structure is complexity. Chemical or electrochemical my point is that intelligence arises out of physical interactions.
Really though, what do 'consciousness' or 'sentience' mean? How do you know them when you see them? Even from a broader, structural perspective, define how we know an organism has them? How would one expect such a thing to behave, which isnt dependant on other functions, like language or communication?
Saktoth 1 year ago
@Saktoth Agreed, intelligence arises out of physical interactions, be they chemical, electrical, or mechanical.
Conciousness makes more sense in a physiological description of a biological entity, like differentiating between states of (sleep, awake), or thought location (concious or subconcious thought).
Sentience makes more sense as describing if an entity is self-aware, be it biological or mechanical (computer).
An example for observing self-awareness is behaviour when looking in a mirror.
gulllars 1 year ago
@Prytanus
Oh, and if you are a physicalist, you should have no problem with the notion that plants (and computers) might be intelligent, or even conscious. These traits arise purely out of complex information gathering, comparing, storage, retrieval, and reaction. There is nothing else to it than that. If a plant has more complexly connected parts tasked with the gathering and interpretation of sense data, by what standard is it less intelligent?
Saktoth 1 year ago
@Saktoth
I have stated that plant intelligence is possible.
However, because Mancuso has merely anthropomorphized the well understood process of phototropism, I do not feel that he has even come close to meeting his burden of proof.
I find the idea of using plants like a computer processor quite interesting, and worth pursuing.
However, they are almost certainly less intelligent than people, by any demonstrable means. Say... object permanence (google it), for example.
Prytanus 1 year ago
@Prytanus
You are right, Mancusco is certainly anthropomorphising. He often looks at evolved traits and attributes this to intent (though calling something a 'clever adaptation' is still fairly common in biology). But plants are underestimated and discounted: They do move, they do sense, they do communicate and monitor their environment and respond to it.
Saktoth 1 year ago
@Prytanus I might have misunderstood, but it didn't seem to me like he was making the case that plants were conscious. Or I guess it depends on what he means by intelligence, which is something that even psychologists disagree about.
Thales880 1 year ago
@Thales880
The only one who can clarify the point is Mancuso. I may very well be attacking a straw man, but I don't think I am. He talks about building robots using plants to drive them.
While this is possible, he is implying that there is a thinking organism capable of making Tony Stark like discernments about the world while driving the Iron-Plant suit.
Prytanus 1 year ago
I'm hearing Mario speak a lot... where's Luigi?
BriskAxe 1 year ago
I must admit that I have been disappointed with several of the latest talks uploaded to this channel, but this talk is really interesting. :) Also, he has an awesome accent. :D
DiabolicalGenius39 1 year ago
Kept thinking of old sci-fi movie, "Day of the Triffids".
MegF142857 1 year ago
I don't understand how someone can be fluent in a second language yet have such a strong accent...
Gameboob 1 year ago
@Gameboob Maybe he speaks English with other Italians.
sachamm 1 year ago
@sachamm I doubt that if he wanted to speak English with other Italians that his accent wouldn't be so thick. The only reason I can imagine someone speaking a second language with people that know their first language is to practice that second language. I guess if that's the case then he puts no emphasis on his accent, which is just laziness imo...
Gameboob 1 year ago
Genesis 9:3 (translated from Dutch) Everything that livesand moves will be your food this all i will give you...
Plants are their but not mentiond directly.
xzaz2 1 year ago
Cree-ay-ture.
Awesome!
chocomalk 1 year ago
Awesome!!
michaelmage 1 year ago
Comment removed
michaelmage 1 year ago
His accent is totally awesome.
iburnaga 1 year ago
finally some gud video on ted
ppnnlearning 1 year ago 2
Hybrids , 1/2 plant 1/2 computer = awesome .
Lets use them to attack the Taliban and Al queda !!!!
slLLyhumans 1 year ago 5
so youra favorita footaballa teama, theya maka a touch goal???
Nekomesha 1 year ago
I quite like this, but we don't understand intelligence, what is intelligence? Creativity? Logic? Motor functions? What is it? I mean we only interpret what intelligence is. Here he interpreted those plant have intelligent behaviour, but to some people it's not intelligent, maybe just adaptation. The movement again can be interpreted as intelligence, but also just forces, like how we can move something with electrical impulse.
nelsyeung 1 year ago
@nelsyeung We can test for intelligence such as to see if a plant can learn about and adapt to it's environment. That is how we'd test intelligence in humans or other animals. What we don't understand is consciousness which can't be measured. We can't even determine that another person is conscious. We just assume other humans and other higher animals are conscious because they have similar behavior as us.