80 pointsby paulpauper9 hours ago7 comments
  • glenstein5 hours ago
    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.

  • pazimzadeh8 hours ago
    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-...

    • unfitted25457 hours ago
      Could this not be the sublingual absorbtion of sugar rather than seemingly random "brain signals" the article suggests?
      • istjohn3 hours ago
        They did better drinking a placebo than swishing and spitting a beverage with real sugar, so no.
      • bandofthehawk7 hours ago
        I was thinking along similar lines. If this was purely due to brain signals, I would think the artificial sweetener would also work.
  • ghstinda7 hours ago
    A lot of people talk to their plants. I never judge them.
  • SpyCoder776 hours ago
    The amount of things that plants can sense without a brain or nervous system is incredible.
  • namegulf8 hours ago
    Plants are living things
  • 8 hours ago
    undefined
  • nradov3 hours ago
    I always find it hilarious how some people try to claim moral superiority because they don't eat animals. The reality is that there is no significant different between plant, animals, and fungi. Life is life.
    • OutOfHere3 hours ago
      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.
      • pazimzadeh2 hours ago
        > fungi, they may have a memory, but they are closer to bacteria than to plants

        ?????

        Fungi are closer to animals than plants or bacteria

      • nradov2 hours ago
        Bullshit, you're just making up arbitrary nonsense. Pain doesn't matter.
        • glensteinan hour ago
          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.
          • nradovan hour ago
            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.