4 ms·

I don't see how your link supports trees potentially being sentient.

bardworx 5y ago
Disclaimer: i don’t have a dog in the fight…or a branch on a tree, in this context. Sentient is defined as able to perceive or feel things. The paper linked discusses how trees can “communicate” and “feel” based on release of specific chemicals. An exert from the introduction: “Recent research has revealed that plants can sense their neighbours without direct physical contact; mechanisms for this include detection of a reduced ratio of red to far-red in light reflected from neighbouring foliage…” This was also a plot of a terrible M. Night Shyamalan movie. That’s the connection the poster suggested, as the bar for sentience is quite low.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  I feel like Star Trek handled the question much better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol2WP0hc0NY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol2WP0hc0NY Intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness seem like three reasonable requirements. I don't really buy the "consciousness" requirement, but it's a stab at what most people associate with sentience. Calling trees sentient is just nonsense. And I mean that literally. I try not to dismiss people's work out of hand, but there's a certain line of philosophical thought whose best rebuttal is to ignore it.
  - lbotos 5y ago
    > "Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience There are many plants that clearly respond to stimuli (Mimosa pudica(shy plant) as well as the Venus flytrap). As well as almost any plant following the light to grow, as well as plants that send out tendrils to anchor. > "The subjective awareness of experiences by a conscious individual are known as qualia in Western philosophy" I'll agree with you that we have no knowledge of plants being conscious. > "sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which otherwise commonly and collectively describes sentience plus further features of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts about something). These further features of consciousness may not be necessary for sentience, which is the capacity to feel sensations and emotions."
  - shakna 5y ago
    > Intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness seem like three reasonable requirements. I don't really buy the "consciousness" requirement, but it's a stab at what most people associate with sentience. That would be _sapience_, not _sentience_. Which is the point. Sentience is a ridiculously low bar to clear.
  - plorkyeran 5y ago
    It is very common for Science Fiction to use "sentient" where "sapient" is the correct word. Star Trek is no exception. Calling trees sentient isn't nonsense; your understanding of what the word means is simply incorrect.
    - 1_player 5y ago
      In fact in Italian, which is close to Latin, "sentire", the root of sentient, means to feel. "Sapere", the root of sapient, means to know. There's a higher level of intelligence required to "know", rather than to just "feel".
    - usrusr 5y ago
      Is it really incorrect or does the term just happen to be a homonymous collision of more than one semantic concept? I don't know (it's an actual question I ask myself, not some rhetoric vehicle), but the concept you declare as incorrect is so widespread it makes me wonder... (obviously, the meaning in the legal context we are talking about it's clearly on one side)
      - plorkyeran 5y ago
        Incorrect in the specific context of a scientific or legal discussion which operates using a formalized definition. In normal conversation it is sort of nonsensical to say that the widespread usage of a word is incorrect, as correctness is defined by widespread usage. The usage in SF stories stands out because often the writer was _intending_ for the word to be using the formalized definition used in science.
    - jhbadger 5y ago
      Traditionally, "sentience" includes consciousness, though. The OED defines it as "The condition or quality of being sentient, consciousness, susceptibility to sensation". It's actually science fiction that invented the concept of "sapient" in the sense you mean it -- the OED just refers to it as an old word for "wise" like Milton writing of "a sapient prince"
      - 5y ago
  - pdpi 5y ago
    As I understand it, the problem is that you need to define “sentient” somehow, and whatever definition you come up with should be applied consistently to all organisms. If you want to capture all the organisms you think should be called sentient, trees are sentient according to that definition.
shakna 5y ago
I can't really answer you clearly without knowing what definition of sentience you expect to be correct. Especially as I've already noted most people think of sentience as sapience, which it isn't. Trees respond to both negative and positive stimuli, and relay that information to other plants around them, exchanging information about them. They take both reactive and proactive stances in regards to both negative and positive stimuli - which may be sentience.
- jkepler 5y ago
  Couldn't a robot be programmed to respond to stimuli, and to communicate with other robots? Would that then be a form of sentience?
  - simiones 5y ago
    Yes, they could be, though the question usually arises about whether a living thing is sentient, and it's fairly natural and easy to define life such that robots are not living beings. Overall the point here is that sentience isn't a very useful measure of anything. If there were an explicit law recognizing the rights of all living things to a decent death, we would essentially be forced to become exclusive carnivores, as its almost impossible to euthanize a plant or fungus.
    - ninjanomnom 5y ago
      Fruits (as in from fruiting plants, not fruits in the culinary sense) I assume would still be fair game as they are designed to separate from the parent plant, often falling off without any intervention even.
      - simiones 5y ago
        Well, given that seeds inside the fruit sense their environment and start germinating only in specific conditions, even this would be debatable. Hopefully, if the cells of the fruit body itself are not sentient (if they do not react to their environment in some meaningful way), then eating the fruiting body is probably ok, provided you euthanize the seeds or let them live on.

Disclaimer: i don’t have a dog in the fight…or a branch on a tree, in this context. Sentient is defined as able to perceive or feel things. The paper linked discusses how trees can “communicate” and “feel” based on release of specific chemicals. An exert from the introduction: “Recent research has revealed that plants can sense their neighbours without direct physical contact; mechanisms for this include detection of a reduced ratio of red to far-red in light reflected from neighbouring foliage…” This was also a plot of a terrible M. Night Shyamalan movie. That’s the connection the poster suggested, as the bar for sentience is quite low.

sillysaurusx 5y ago
I feel like Star Trek handled the question much better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol2WP0hc0NY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol2WP0hc0NY Intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness seem like three reasonable requirements. I don't really buy the "consciousness" requirement, but it's a stab at what most people associate with sentience. Calling trees sentient is just nonsense. And I mean that literally. I try not to dismiss people's work out of hand, but there's a certain line of philosophical thought whose best rebuttal is to ignore it.
- lbotos 5y ago
  > "Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience There are many plants that clearly respond to stimuli (Mimosa pudica(shy plant) as well as the Venus flytrap). As well as almost any plant following the light to grow, as well as plants that send out tendrils to anchor. > "The subjective awareness of experiences by a conscious individual are known as qualia in Western philosophy" I'll agree with you that we have no knowledge of plants being conscious. > "sentience is a minimalistic way of defining consciousness, which otherwise commonly and collectively describes sentience plus further features of the mind and consciousness, such as creativity, intelligence, sapience, self-awareness, and intentionality (the ability to have thoughts about something). These further features of consciousness may not be necessary for sentience, which is the capacity to feel sensations and emotions."
- shakna 5y ago
  > Intelligence, self-awareness, and consciousness seem like three reasonable requirements. I don't really buy the "consciousness" requirement, but it's a stab at what most people associate with sentience. That would be _sapience_, not _sentience_. Which is the point. Sentience is a ridiculously low bar to clear.
- plorkyeran 5y ago
  It is very common for Science Fiction to use "sentient" where "sapient" is the correct word. Star Trek is no exception. Calling trees sentient isn't nonsense; your understanding of what the word means is simply incorrect.
  - 1_player 5y ago
    In fact in Italian, which is close to Latin, "sentire", the root of sentient, means to feel. "Sapere", the root of sapient, means to know. There's a higher level of intelligence required to "know", rather than to just "feel".
  - usrusr 5y ago
    Is it really incorrect or does the term just happen to be a homonymous collision of more than one semantic concept? I don't know (it's an actual question I ask myself, not some rhetoric vehicle), but the concept you declare as incorrect is so widespread it makes me wonder... (obviously, the meaning in the legal context we are talking about it's clearly on one side)
    - plorkyeran 5y ago
      Incorrect in the specific context of a scientific or legal discussion which operates using a formalized definition. In normal conversation it is sort of nonsensical to say that the widespread usage of a word is incorrect, as correctness is defined by widespread usage. The usage in SF stories stands out because often the writer was _intending_ for the word to be using the formalized definition used in science.
  - jhbadger 5y ago
    Traditionally, "sentience" includes consciousness, though. The OED defines it as "The condition or quality of being sentient, consciousness, susceptibility to sensation". It's actually science fiction that invented the concept of "sapient" in the sense you mean it -- the OED just refers to it as an old word for "wise" like Milton writing of "a sapient prince"
    - 5y ago
- pdpi 5y ago
  As I understand it, the problem is that you need to define “sentient” somehow, and whatever definition you come up with should be applied consistently to all organisms. If you want to capture all the organisms you think should be called sentient, trees are sentient according to that definition.

shakna 5y ago

I can't really answer you clearly without knowing what definition of sentience you expect to be correct. Especially as I've already noted most people think of sentience as sapience, which it isn't. Trees respond to both negative and positive stimuli, and relay that information to other plants around them, exchanging information about them. They take both reactive and proactive stances in regards to both negative and positive stimuli - which may be sentience.

jkepler 5y ago
Couldn't a robot be programmed to respond to stimuli, and to communicate with other robots? Would that then be a form of sentience?
- simiones 5y ago
  Yes, they could be, though the question usually arises about whether a living thing is sentient, and it's fairly natural and easy to define life such that robots are not living beings. Overall the point here is that sentience isn't a very useful measure of anything. If there were an explicit law recognizing the rights of all living things to a decent death, we would essentially be forced to become exclusive carnivores, as its almost impossible to euthanize a plant or fungus.
  - ninjanomnom 5y ago
    Fruits (as in from fruiting plants, not fruits in the culinary sense) I assume would still be fair game as they are designed to separate from the parent plant, often falling off without any intervention even.
    - simiones 5y ago
      Well, given that seeds inside the fruit sense their environment and start germinating only in specific conditions, even this would be debatable. Hopefully, if the cells of the fruit body itself are not sentient (if they do not react to their environment in some meaningful way), then eating the fruiting body is probably ok, provided you euthanize the seeds or let them live on.