←back to thread

75 points Bluestein | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
spacephysics ◴[] No.44504416[source]
At what point will we see that plants are conscious, just in a different manner than animals colloquially?
replies(9): >>44504454 #>>44505099 #>>44505104 #>>44505386 #>>44505451 #>>44506052 #>>44506530 #>>44506551 #>>44506981 #
bullfightonmars ◴[] No.44504454[source]
Stimulus-response is not consciousness. There is nothing subjective about this mechanical and chemical response to injury.
replies(4): >>44504520 #>>44505086 #>>44505741 #>>44509008 #
londons_explore ◴[] No.44504520[source]
Science hasn't really understood consciousness.

If you don't understand consciousness, how to make it from first principles and how it works, then I don't think you can confidently say "this isn't conscious" about much.

replies(3): >>44504651 #>>44505094 #>>44506256 #
hombre_fatal ◴[] No.44504651[source]
We can explain plant behavior through known physical processes though.

We don't need to lean on consciousness nor other mysteries at all. Nor we do have to when a rock changes color as it gets wet.

And without this parsimony, then we could claim that any unexplained mystery underlies any well-understood phenomenon which doesn't sound like much of an epistemic standard.

replies(2): >>44504705 #>>44505182 #
bongodongobob ◴[] No.44505182{3}[source]
Brains work with chemical gradients and hormones. There's no magic involved, we just don't understand the meta, and are probably incapable of doing so.
replies(1): >>44505406 #
Bluestein ◴[] No.44505406{4}[source]
> and are probably incapable of doing so.

You mean, incapable of understanding? Why would this be so?

replies(1): >>44505940 #
1. mikestaas ◴[] No.44505940{5}[source]
"If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't." - Emerson M. Pugh