It's awesome, but usual caveats apply that what sense means in the context of plants is something more like automatic biological reflexes, whereas the same language in the context of creatures with subjectivity has connotations that imply consciousness.
We're learning everyday that the complexity of plants is spectacular and it only deepens our appreciation for them and rightly so. But it's easy to get lost in language and think appreciating plants necessitates attributing consciousness to them, or attributing an open-ended possibility, which even in it's more measured form still dramatically overshoots what can responsibly be said about their capabilities.
Biomimicry is amazing, canopy patterns are amazing, optimizations to take advantage of water are amazing, signal exchanging in the face of disease or fire are amazing, and should be celebrated, and surely there is more we will yet learn. But nothing we have yet learned points to anything like consciousness, either in our form or in some possible alternative form.
Considering that we don’t even understand how consciousness works, I think it’s an open question. I’m also not sure why it’s so important for some to draw these distinctions.
"vibrations can be strong enough to dislodge a seed’s 'statoliths,' which are tiny gravity-sensing organelles within certain cells of a seed."
"Statoliths are denser than a cell’s cytoplasm and can drift and sink through the cell, like a bit of sand in a jar of water. When a statolith finally settles to the bottom, its resting place on the cell’s membrane is a reflection of gravity’s direction and a signal for where a seed’s root or shoot should grow."
I would frame this completely differently: plants evolved around sensing the low level vibration created by rain as a signaling technique for the timing of sprouting.
:shrug: Makes sense to me and doesn't try to turn this into some baffling mystery.
That's complete nonsense, considering plants sense damage, but do not feel pain the way humans do. Animals are in large part conscious as they have a brain capable of consciousness. You cannot excuse your way out of eating animals just because plants also sense things. As for fungi, they may have a memory, but they are closer to bacteria than to plants.
Why doesn't pain matter? It's almost the canonical example of a valenced state that practically any moral theory is tasked with making sense of on moral terms.
Plants most definitely do not have different but equivalent mechanisms. They don't have subjectivity. Moral theory is about, among other things, explaining the meaning of moral behavior and language as it manifests in real people, and well-being is just as real as health. At least it is on moral realism which is a perfectly mainstream view in moral philosophy.
You are not making any sense, and literally won't understand if you never got beat-up physically in life, perhaps as a kid, and preferably more than once. One has to experience pain first-hand to empathize with it. You must have lived an extremely sheltered life for this to not happen to you, and so you don't understand. Your nihilism doesn't relate with people.
Yes, plants react functionally to damage, but in no way has any shred of consciousness been demonstrated in plants. You are just out to seek any excuse necessary to kill animals and perhaps humans too, with no difference.
You are not making any sense. Perhaps consciousness hasn't been demonstrated in plants because we don't have the correct definition of consciousness or are looking for the wrong things. Why do you have this arbitrary bias towards animals? Perhaps it's time to re-examine your fundamental assumptions.
It's awesome, but usual caveats apply that what sense means in the context of plants is something more like automatic biological reflexes, whereas the same language in the context of creatures with subjectivity has connotations that imply consciousness.
We're learning everyday that the complexity of plants is spectacular and it only deepens our appreciation for them and rightly so. But it's easy to get lost in language and think appreciating plants necessitates attributing consciousness to them, or attributing an open-ended possibility, which even in it's more measured form still dramatically overshoots what can responsibly be said about their capabilities.
Biomimicry is amazing, canopy patterns are amazing, optimizations to take advantage of water are amazing, signal exchanging in the face of disease or fire are amazing, and should be celebrated, and surely there is more we will yet learn. But nothing we have yet learned points to anything like consciousness, either in our form or in some possible alternative form.
Considering that we don’t even understand how consciousness works, I think it’s an open question. I’m also not sure why it’s so important for some to draw these distinctions.
Cool study. Not too surprising though given how much time plants have had to optimize growth.
Kind of similarly, you don't need to swallow high energy drinks to get the performance benefits.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/apr/15/high-energy-...
Could this not be the sublingual absorbtion of sugar rather than seemingly random "brain signals" the article suggests?
I was thinking along similar lines. If this was purely due to brain signals, I would think the artificial sweetener would also work.
They did better drinking a placebo than swishing and spitting a beverage with real sugar, so no.
A lot of people talk to their plants. I never judge them.
The amount of things that plants can sense without a brain or nervous system is incredible.
Plants are living things
funding revoked
Downvoted by incel doge bros
"vibrations can be strong enough to dislodge a seed’s 'statoliths,' which are tiny gravity-sensing organelles within certain cells of a seed."
"Statoliths are denser than a cell’s cytoplasm and can drift and sink through the cell, like a bit of sand in a jar of water. When a statolith finally settles to the bottom, its resting place on the cell’s membrane is a reflection of gravity’s direction and a signal for where a seed’s root or shoot should grow."
I would frame this completely differently: plants evolved around sensing the low level vibration created by rain as a signaling technique for the timing of sprouting.
:shrug: Makes sense to me and doesn't try to turn this into some baffling mystery.
[flagged]
That's complete nonsense, considering plants sense damage, but do not feel pain the way humans do. Animals are in large part conscious as they have a brain capable of consciousness. You cannot excuse your way out of eating animals just because plants also sense things. As for fungi, they may have a memory, but they are closer to bacteria than to plants.
> fungi, they may have a memory, but they are closer to bacteria than to plants
?????
Fungi are closer to animals than plants or bacteria
I mean only from a pain and consciousness pov.
And you’re basing this on what?
What do you mean -- are you asserting that fungi are conscious or feel pain?
I’m not asserting anything, I’m asking how you know what you’re claiming
[flagged]
Why doesn't pain matter? It's almost the canonical example of a valenced state that practically any moral theory is tasked with making sense of on moral terms.
It's just neural impulses. So what. Why should we care? Plants have different but equivalent mechanisms.
Moral theory is bullshit. It's just made up.
Plants most definitely do not have different but equivalent mechanisms. They don't have subjectivity. Moral theory is about, among other things, explaining the meaning of moral behavior and language as it manifests in real people, and well-being is just as real as health. At least it is on moral realism which is a perfectly mainstream view in moral philosophy.
You are not making any sense, and literally won't understand if you never got beat-up physically in life, perhaps as a kid, and preferably more than once. One has to experience pain first-hand to empathize with it. You must have lived an extremely sheltered life for this to not happen to you, and so you don't understand. Your nihilism doesn't relate with people.
Yes, plants react functionally to damage, but in no way has any shred of consciousness been demonstrated in plants. You are just out to seek any excuse necessary to kill animals and perhaps humans too, with no difference.
You are not making any sense. Perhaps consciousness hasn't been demonstrated in plants because we don't have the correct definition of consciousness or are looking for the wrong things. Why do you have this arbitrary bias towards animals? Perhaps it's time to re-examine your fundamental assumptions.