You seem so sure! I’m not. Just a few decades ago, the consensus was that humans are the only conscious species.
Even if plants were proven to be conscious, I’m confident there is still an excellent case for vegetarianism/veganism that has to do with richness/complexity of consciousness. The choice to not eat anything would kill oneself after much suffering…so, eggs must be broken somewhere
“Falsely claims that plants are conscious, ignoring the mountains of evidence that they’re not. “
Excellent oportunity to promote my new post introducing my recent paper (Journal of NeuroPhilosophy) on the Mind Body Problem, that among other things suggest not to use “mountains of evidence” when speaking about consciousness of non humans:
I am not crítical with those conclusions, but with the wording: using “evidence” is excessive when consciousness attribution is allways extrapolation from an observable sample of size=1 (yourself)
Hitler's invasion of Russia achieved great success initially. I'm putting this with Bulgaria's launch of the Second Balkan War, a rapid and complete failure on every front, including some not initially envisaged. Or maybe it's Caligula's war against Neptune.
Thanks for the article. Do you think that there is a genetic reason why some people are about animal wellbeing and others do not? Or perhaps if it correlates strongly with other altruistic tendencies?
I believe your comments on consciousness are contentless, like your previous musings on shrimp pain.
>He:
>Falsely claims that plants are conscious, ignoring the mountains of evidence that they’re not.
To my knowledge, you have never cited this evidence, and I have not seen it in the Rethink Priorities report (although I haven't finished reading most of it).
>How do we know plants don’t feel pain? Well, they have none of the ingredients needed for pain. They have no brain, central nervous system, of nociceptors.
This is like saying that computers will never be able to add numbers because only human brains have done math. Not a serious contribution.
>Plants aren’t conscious, meaning that nothing can go well or badly for them.
You again provide no evidence for this claim. I can arbitrarily include and exclude species into my grouping of "conscious creatures" as well, but I see the role of philosophy/science to offer some sort of corrective role in this process. For example:
>They don’t even have the machinery to detect external damage, much less feel pain.
Why would I ever grant this? Plants have a circulatory system and can detect environmental circunstances through their photosensitive cells to modify their growth to avoid "painful" scenarios like being in the shade (https://phys.org/news/2012-04-scientists.html). What fact have you cited would make it mistaken to interpret this as "The plant experienced pain and modified its behavior?"
>The reason a snail matters less than a person is because they have less great of a capacity for welfare, rather than anything about their species.
Or I could use one of your undeveloped points against you here - the snail has less capacity for e.g. experiencing joy after watching a dramatic movie but has increased capacity for experiencing pain since that is more important and likely constitutes the majority of its felt experience. No biological, neurological, or philosophical evidence has been provided either way, we're both just storytelling and arbitrarily applying consciousness concepts.
>pleasure is good and pain is bad. So caring about animals is distinctly non-arbitrary.
What evidence have you provided that pain and pleasure are categorical rather than a spectrum like sentience, and why care about your categorical definition rather than another? Again, I see it as the role of philosophy/science to offer reasons for these things, but you have not provided your audience with any.
Good post. I hope you are OK with this: I've done a multi-voice AI reading of this, distinguishing quotes from main text, for those like me that find audio a more accessible format:
The greenhouse gas impact thing makes me genuinely mad. Like it's mind-blowing that a person that smart can be THAT wrong about something so well-understood.
Plants get their energy from light. Animals get their energy from ingesting things. That difference seems irrelevant as to how much we like or value or identify with other species. Sentience seems more important. His intelligent plant aliens would have a lot in common with humans, simply because we are sentient, more intelligent, and can communicate more complex ideas.
By analogy, how much do we identify with sea sponges, a non-sentient animal that gets nutrition from bits of organic matter in sea water?
Pretty sure taking fruit doesn’t kill most (if any) plants. Seems Tyson should be a fruitarian.
Can one survive on fruit only?
Maybe, if fortified with supplements.
Re plants have feelings.
Most plants that are being grown for food are actually fed to animals who are then slaughtered for their flesh.
I liked reading this, but you should proof-read more. There are several typos and some of them lead to real misunderstandings.
I still can't believe Tyson wrote such stupid arguments.
“Plants aren’t conscious”
You seem so sure! I’m not. Just a few decades ago, the consensus was that humans are the only conscious species.
Even if plants were proven to be conscious, I’m confident there is still an excellent case for vegetarianism/veganism that has to do with richness/complexity of consciousness. The choice to not eat anything would kill oneself after much suffering…so, eggs must be broken somewhere
Typo : "Falsely claims—totally without evidence—that more emissions are released by local animal products than non-local PLANTS."
“Falsely claims that plants are conscious, ignoring the mountains of evidence that they’re not. “
Excellent oportunity to promote my new post introducing my recent paper (Journal of NeuroPhilosophy) on the Mind Body Problem, that among other things suggest not to use “mountains of evidence” when speaking about consciousness of non humans:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/j9Jz7Je62kbGatsPc/naturalistic-dualism
:-)
https://fakenous.substack.com/p/dialogues-on-ethical-vegetarianism-5e6
I am not crítical with those conclusions, but with the wording: using “evidence” is excessive when consciousness attribution is allways extrapolation from an observable sample of size=1 (yourself)
Motivated reasoning makes smart people like Neil give retarded arguments.
Hitler's invasion of Russia achieved great success initially. I'm putting this with Bulgaria's launch of the Second Balkan War, a rapid and complete failure on every front, including some not initially envisaged. Or maybe it's Caligula's war against Neptune.
Neil lost badly on Celebrity Jeopardy! so your statement about 'smart' people stands.
Thanks for the article. Do you think that there is a genetic reason why some people are about animal wellbeing and others do not? Or perhaps if it correlates strongly with other altruistic tendencies?
I believe your comments on consciousness are contentless, like your previous musings on shrimp pain.
>He:
>Falsely claims that plants are conscious, ignoring the mountains of evidence that they’re not.
To my knowledge, you have never cited this evidence, and I have not seen it in the Rethink Priorities report (although I haven't finished reading most of it).
>How do we know plants don’t feel pain? Well, they have none of the ingredients needed for pain. They have no brain, central nervous system, of nociceptors.
This is like saying that computers will never be able to add numbers because only human brains have done math. Not a serious contribution.
>Plants aren’t conscious, meaning that nothing can go well or badly for them.
You again provide no evidence for this claim. I can arbitrarily include and exclude species into my grouping of "conscious creatures" as well, but I see the role of philosophy/science to offer some sort of corrective role in this process. For example:
>They don’t even have the machinery to detect external damage, much less feel pain.
Why would I ever grant this? Plants have a circulatory system and can detect environmental circunstances through their photosensitive cells to modify their growth to avoid "painful" scenarios like being in the shade (https://phys.org/news/2012-04-scientists.html). What fact have you cited would make it mistaken to interpret this as "The plant experienced pain and modified its behavior?"
>The reason a snail matters less than a person is because they have less great of a capacity for welfare, rather than anything about their species.
Or I could use one of your undeveloped points against you here - the snail has less capacity for e.g. experiencing joy after watching a dramatic movie but has increased capacity for experiencing pain since that is more important and likely constitutes the majority of its felt experience. No biological, neurological, or philosophical evidence has been provided either way, we're both just storytelling and arbitrarily applying consciousness concepts.
>pleasure is good and pain is bad. So caring about animals is distinctly non-arbitrary.
What evidence have you provided that pain and pleasure are categorical rather than a spectrum like sentience, and why care about your categorical definition rather than another? Again, I see it as the role of philosophy/science to offer reasons for these things, but you have not provided your audience with any.
Good post. I hope you are OK with this: I've done a multi-voice AI reading of this, distinguishing quotes from main text, for those like me that find audio a more accessible format:
https://askwhocastsai.substack.com/p/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-crazy-wrong
Since bivalves - oysters, mussels, clams, scallops.. - lack a central nervous system, eating them is okay.
The greenhouse gas impact thing makes me genuinely mad. Like it's mind-blowing that a person that smart can be THAT wrong about something so well-understood.
His alien plant analogy is bizarre.
Plants get their energy from light. Animals get their energy from ingesting things. That difference seems irrelevant as to how much we like or value or identify with other species. Sentience seems more important. His intelligent plant aliens would have a lot in common with humans, simply because we are sentient, more intelligent, and can communicate more complex ideas.
By analogy, how much do we identify with sea sponges, a non-sentient animal that gets nutrition from bits of organic matter in sea water?