Qualia and trees

[Dendrias]

Do trees feel pain? That's a question somewhere else.

A friend of mine, a philosopher and teacher, showed to me the problem of qualia by talking about the perception of colours. I was pretty amazed by that fact, that every single perception is said to be a mental state in the qualia-theory.
[quote="wikipedia]qualia [...] is a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience. Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the redness of an evening sky.[/quote]

First, could You check my interpretation of the qualia-problem? Second, can You say whether it can be applied to the question above?

Pain is an interpretation of, for example, a damage done to the skin, the bones or to the organs. Perhaps to feelings, as well. There is no thing as "pain" in the world, there is the damage and the bodily reactions to it. And there is this feeling, dependend on e.g. sex, gender, age, culture, situation, level of chemicals in the body, tolerance.
My theory is: No two people (human) have the same feeling (see above on dependency), and if they had they couldn't even compare it (sophists' argument). Am I right on that?

My second question is: If no two people (human) have the same feeling or are unable to determine if they have the same feeling, if, further, nobody can possibly say how it is (quale) to be not himself, i.e. how it is to be a bat (Nagel), a cat or a ... tree,

then: can the skeptical mind say anything about the "feelings" of trees but: "I don't know?" Can the qualia-problem lead to complete agnosticism in question of other persons' feelings, motives and thinking?

[lavouivre]

very interesting Dendrias!
Let me first do some research on qualia, it is the first time I hear about it (which is great!!).
Thanks for beginning this thread

[Attila]

Although a tree doesn’t have a nervous system, I feel that such things are the instrumentation of the senses though the senses themselves would be the subjective entity of mind. So we have to ask if trees and vegetation generally have subjective potential, I usually consider them more abstract or collective a bit like ants, such that all trees are one kind of, or one type of tree collectively is as if to be one. However it appears they can react to environmental conditions in specific ways, so I presume they have some manner of subjective capacity.

That said we mammals have to react to damage quickly or get devoured, hence we get the qualia of pain from the sensation of that. Trees don’t seam to care as they produce plenty of seeds, so I wouldn’t at first glance seam like they have any need to feel pain nor possibly the necessary instrumentation.

They seam to give off an aura of sadness - if you will, when for example a whole load of them have a disease or a woodland is being destroyed. We druids tend to feel for things when they may not actually be feeling for themselves perhaps, so that could simply be a response of universal spirit I am reading.

[Lily]

Do trees feel pain? That's a question somewhere else.


[quote="wikipedia]qualia [...] is a term used in philosophy to describe the subjective quality of conscious experience. Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the redness of an evening sky.[/quote]

then: can the skeptical mind say anything about the "feelings" of trees but: "I don't know?" Can the qualia-problem lead to complete agnosticism in question of other persons' feelings, motives and thinking?[/quote]

The biological skeptic says that trees have no nervous system. they also have no way to retract from noxious influences. They have some ways to deter predators (secondary metabolites that can be toxic to predators), and some ways to repair (sap, for example, to close up damage to the outer surface). They have no signalling pathways for "pain" although they might be considered to have them for "damage". So does a tree feel pain? like any other plant the biologist in me would say no.

but people have nervous systems and perceptions and emotions have their neural correlates. So people cannot be agnostic about person's feelings and thinking because we KNOW it happens. every feeling is subjective so we will never be able to understand another human 100%. Maybe the subjective even goes so far that some people experience "a headache, the taste of wine, or the redness of an evening sky" completely differently form another person

[DJ Droood]

but people have nervous systems

As do chickens, pigs and cows and dolphins.

[Attila]

Fascinating discussion!

The subjectivity has no other recourse than to accept info from the senses, most philosophers would agree with you but I feel the brain is little different to a computer, it takes frequencies and makes correlations turning them into information of the mind.

Info does not exist nor does the mind yet they are our only reality, one could go so far as to say that such things are real and universe is not [e.g. if we accept the holographic theory where the universe is informational and a projection of info somewhere out there].

Forgetting humans for a minute; I don’t know the biology but feelings are not biological, they are simply and subjectively influenced by that just as our senses are. Can we be sure that without a nervous system and brain, that other kind of life-forms cannot experience qualia? That said I would presume that qualia correlates with material input, yet just as we learn beyond that trees may do so, they may be kinda like big laid back Buddha’s lols.

Its an interesting experiment to try to see what qualia they would perceive from the world and how they would do that? Or indeed weather they perceive or have any manner of individualised minds at all. where they react to the environments in the way you say one would presume the equivalent qualia to be present in some way. Obviously we could say their entire reaction to things is chemical based, but that’s the same as saying we are purely physical ~ yet we know we have minds and qualia not of the material world.

What is there to say the whole of nature is any different to us in this respect?

[Attila]

As do chickens, pigs and cows and dolphins.

And jellyfish ~ have four tiny little ‘brains’ apparently, put a red rod in a tank with them and they will move away from it sensing danger, hence they clearly can observe the qualia of redness/colour. Our stomachs have brains of a sort apparently, it feeds info to the brain and mind telling us to feel sick if we eat something it feels is dodgy etc, strangely they don’t have consciousness ~ though that would be weird if they did lols

[Lily]

but people have nervous systems

As do chickens, pigs and cows and dolphins.

are you preaching to the choir, or what?

[lavouivre]

This is for the biologist, Lily.
I am not a scientist but I am thinking: trees don't have blood, don't have brain, don't have nervous system, don't have digestive tube, don't have a lot of thing we mammals do have. Does that mean they don't live, eat, grow, react to exterior harm in their own way, heal, find their own balance etc? No.
We, on the other hand, do not have photosynthesis, roots etc. So as a philosopher perhaps more than scientist, I am asking: why would it not be possible for a tree to feel pain in a different way than with a nervous system? Perhaps with chemical reactions or else?
We simply do not know how it feels to be a tree, how it feels to be a bat, or how it feels to be another human being. We can try and guess, we can meditate as druids, but that's it.
This os of course my point of view without any scientific background, even though scientific articles interest me highly!

[Huathe]

This is for the biologist, Lily.
I am not a scientist but I am thinking: trees don't have blood, don't have brain, don't have nervous system, don't have digestive tube, don't have a lot of thing we mammals do have. Does that mean they don't live, eat, grow, react to exterior harm in their own way, heal, find their own balance etc? No.
We, on the other hand, do not have photosynthesis, roots etc. So as a philosopher perhaps more than scientist, I am asking: why would it not be possible for a tree to feel pain in a different way than with a nervous system? Perhaps with chemical reactions or else?
We simply do not know how it feels to be a tree, how it feels to be a bat, or how it feels to be another human being. We can try and guess, we can meditate as druids, but that's it.
This os of course my point of view without any scientific background, even though scientific articles interest me highly!

You sum it up well. Trees and Mammals are different and the way they perceive their environment. Personally I feel trees do feel pain. Maybe not in the same way we do but they do neverthyless. Trees certainly react to their environment. Usually a bit slower than animals but still they do react.

[Merlyn]

It could be said that every living thing including trees, has a feeling or emotion we can sense by body as well as mind (combination of both).
We have these qualties too, just like anything else and a bit more.

Not sure the bit more (our minds etc.) is well defined by good or evil, awareness or reasoning.
Trees do very much express themselves in ways which move us.

Merlyn

[Ghostrider]

What would be the point of imposing 'human' characteristics on a tree. Or a dog. Or a worm?

The 'human' notion of 'pain' is not the same as that of another species. Be it animal or plant.
Even if a tree does feel or experiences or thinks, what's it going to do? Talk to us? 'Relate' to us? I should hope not...for the tree's sake.
What is the 'added value' of a tree 'feeling' or 'experiencing'? Should we not simply respect it for BEING what it IS, instead of trying to bring it down / up to OUR 'level'.

[DJ Droood]

The 'human' notion of 'pain' is not the same as that of another species. Be it animal or plant.

I agree with the plant part, but I have seen pain and fear in animals that seemed very much like the type of pain and fear I can relate to...if it is not exactly like human pain and fear, it seems very similar. Perhaps I am not empathetic enough to recognize pain and fear in plant matter.

[Ghostrider]

I agree with you DJ.. however, the pain an animal feels may MEAN something completely different to them, as it does to us.
Also, they don't seem to linger on it the way 'we' do. So in that sence they 'feel' differently, me thinks.

In regards to plants.. I agree it's quite a different thing wether a tree breaks a limb than when my cat would. As you say.. the cat seems to 'feel' in a way more similar to how 'we' feel and thus gets more empathy.
Doesn't mean it doesn't 'hurt' the tree though. We just don't know, it's an entirely different 'class' of existance when compared to us.

[Lily]

Because Plants are stationary, it makes no sense for them to have mechanisms of evasion. And that is what is the ultimate end of pain perception.

maybe one can say because plants are modular -they can make scions - and able to regenerate even substantial losses- some even need to be eaten to spread their seeds - pain is not a concept that is useful for a Plant?

[Attila]

maybe one can say because plants are modular -they can make scions - and able to regenerate even substantial losses- some even need to be eaten to spread their seeds - pain is not a concept that is useful for a Plant?

That makes perfect sense! Their physical input is not a nervous system designed for evasion etc. yet they do react to the environment, even the humble tomato plant is carnivorous ~ its stem traps insects which die and fall to the floor providing nutrients for the plant, not to mention the venus fly trap and similar which have a more immediate reaction to their environment.

We could possibly say that plants ‘know’ what’s going on around them? Sure is scientific terms that’s all chemically based reactions etc, just as our brains are ~ all we do is react to our environment, but because we are in here experiencing that and we know we are subjective living beings, we know there is something at the other end of the physical input experiencing everything.

The question thence becomes; what is their experience of the world? They are life just as animals are, sometimes it is quite hard to tell the difference between animal and plant especially the further down the microscopic scale we go. Perhaps empathy and similar ‘low level’ [as in base not lesser] ‘mental’ qualia are more appropriate for trees and vegetation, their experience of life is probably something near pure being [the oak like a big fat Buddha].

The term ‘mental’ seams extraordinary for a plant, as far as I know there is nothing remotely like neurons and similar that can ‘think’. I would argue that ultimately we don’t think with those too [on the most subjective level of experience], information and qualia do not exist physically and yet are the most fundamental level of our experience. Some philosophers say there is nothing other than qualia in the world, in fact reality is more an unreality ~ try describing a single thing about the world without coming to that conclusion!


Just for fun this is how I see describing the world and what the world then is.
The druids hierarchy
Out of 10
1. Fundamental universal consiousness, ceugant, Buddha being etc.
2. Base level thinking that even the most rudimentary creatures have [germs etc].
…
…
6. The human intellect.
7. Brilliant intellectuals.
8. Genius level thinking.
9. ‘god’ or the inability of reality to describe itself. …reality cannot be defined as infinite nor finite nor purely of info etc. …literally it is always liminal.
10. If you can think this you can change reality. The 'weatherman' etc.

[Explorer]

I think you need to define what you mean with 'feeling' and 'pain' first.
In that other thread that was mixed up in very confusing ways, sometimes meaning 'physical reaction to damage', sometimes 'emotional stress', and mostly something that that kept changing meaning. So, could you define as exactly as possible what you mean by those terms first?

[lavouivre]

Because Plants are stationary, it makes no sense for them to have mechanisms of evasion. And that is what is the ultimate end of pain perception.

maybe one can say because plants are modular -they can make scions - and able to regenerate even substantial losses- some even need to be eaten to spread their seeds - pain is not a concept that is useful for a Plant?

Pain not being useful is already a concept that is difficult to think of as a human being. I know that not feeling pain can be dangerous to us. It is true that if trees do experience pain, without the ability to move away from it, it is very cruel. But the fact that it wouldn't be useful to them because they can't move away from it would still make it dangerous for them not to have that warning, no? I am thinking maybe of some species that would be able to send out chemicals to protect themselves against harm beforehand? Like some insect deterrants of some kind? Becoming poisonous on the surface? Not sure if that exists.

[Lily]

Mechanisms of defense, deterrents, even mechanisms of sensing damage exist, Lavouire, but from a biological point of view that does not qualify as pain.
I also don't Agree with Attila that germs and other rudimentary creatures, and by extension, plants, have a "base level thinking".

The basic aim of any organism (all living entities but even including viruses which are technically not alive) is propagation of one's own genes to the next generation.
That does not imply they "want" that, or think of ways to achieve it. Bacteria even have sensory circuits to allow them to move away from noxious substances or move towards nutrient sources - if they are mobile. But they don't think.

Sorry, pain in plants just does not exist in my, scientific, book.

Somatogenic pain is divided into "nociceptive" and "neuropathic".
Nociceptive Pain
Nociceptive pain is caused by stimulation of peripheral nerve fibers that respond only to stimuli approaching or exceeding harmful intensity (nociceptors), and may be classified according to the mode of noxious stimulation; the most common categories being "thermal" (heat or cold), "mechanical" (crushing, tearing, etc.) and "chemical" (iodine in a cut, chili powder in the eyes).
Neuropathic pain
Neuropathic pain is caused by damage or disease affecting the central or peripheral portions of the nervous system involved in bodily feelings (the somatosensory system)

both of these forms have as a prerequisite the existence of a nervous system, which plants and organisms such as bacteria do not have.

Specialists currently believe that all vertebrates can feel pain, and that certain invertebrates, like the octopus, might too. As for other animals, plants, or other entities, their ability to feel physical pain is at present a question beyond scientific reach, since no mechanism is known by which they could have such a feeling. In particular, there are no known nociceptors in groups such as plants, fungi, and most insects, except for instance in fruit flies.

I admit I quote Wikipedia but I think it is more or less correct here.


You can ascribe it to anything, including a rock, if you absolutely want to, but then it becomes spirituality and in terms of philosophy, you are succumbing to the pathetic fallacy.

[DJ Droood]

You can ascribe it to anything, including a rock, if you absolutely want to, but then it becomes spirituality and in terms of philosophy, you are succumbing to the pathetic fallacy.

We will only say bad things about our car (Yarisa) if she is out of earshot. When we are driving her, we only say positive things, about how hard she is trying, etc.