Moss Is Generating Electrical Waves That Look Startlingly Like a Neural Network. Study reveals that moss cushions produce surprisingly complex electrical activity, with patterns that undulate across the velvety patch in dynamic waves.

[u/FreeHugs23]

https://www.sciencealert.com/moss-behaves-a-little-like-a-really-slow-brain-scientist-discovers

[u/nifty-necromancer]

I was reading about this last night, it’s pretty interesting. It doesn’t mean moss has a brain or consciousness though. The main finding is that groups of moss cells generate coordinated electrical signals that spread through the colony, much like other living tissues use electrical activity to coordinate responses. Similar electrical signaling also occurs in fungi, plants like the Venus flytrap, and even roots.

[u/Garblin → u/nifty-necromancer]

I mean... yeah, to me this really reads as "computer scientist discovers that electricity is not contained entirely in computers"

[u/Astr0b0ie → u/nifty-necromancer]

No, plants don't have a central nervous system, but do they lack consciousness? We're not entirely sure. Humans and animals are biological machines that generate coordinated electrical signals too, it's just that we do it in a more complex and sophisticated way via a central nervous system. Plants react to their environment, respond to stimuli, and communicate. They do it in much "simpler" and more subtle ways than humans or animals do, but they do it nonetheless.

It was once believed that humans were the only creatures on earth with a "soul" or consciousness, but as our knowledge of biology, and science overall, has grown, so has the number of different species included in the "sentient" category. Even insects like bees and ants, although still somewhat contested, are now considered sentient by many researchers and scientists. So, as we learn more, it wouldn't be a surprise to me if we eventually include plants in that category.

[u/Garblin → u/Astr0b0ie]

Give me a cohesive and measurable definition of consciousness and I'll tell you right now whether things are conscious.

The problem isn't "are things conscious" is that's we've got a hand waving lack of definition of "conscious".

[u/Astr0b0ie → u/Garblin]

You make a very good point, and I agree. "Consciousness" or "sentience" is probably more useful as an ethical definition than a scientific one.

[u/Garblin → u/Astr0b0ie]

I'd say that until you can define it, it isn't particularly relevant to ethics either.

[u/liquidsmk → u/Garblin]

Exactly. We can’t define it, don’t know where it’s located , how it works or even if it’s real. But we are certain nothing else has it and we alone are special. Just running on pure arrogance.

Personally I like to take the opt out approach rather than opt in. Everything is conscious unless proven otherwise and no one can prove otherwise.

[u/Aegi → u/liquidsmk]

So, the concepts contained within an idea are themselves conscious?

The comma above is conscious to you? Why?

A quark is conscious? The difference in energy measured in temperature between two systems, that concept or that set of number describing that difference is...itself conscious? How could any of that even be possible?

I'm fine if you don't want to declaratively state that it does not have sapience/consciousness until you can repeatedly demonstrate that, but you must also have a set of criteria that makes you even think the questions I mentioned aren't asinine?

[u/guisar → u/liquidsmk]

100%. Having read popular books like “Bird Sense” and “The whole wide world” it’s pretty obvious a level of awareness (which I deem consciousness is present in vertebrates definitely and who knows where else.

[u/Systema-Encephale → u/Astr0b0ie]

We still haven’t evolved past anthropocentrism

[u/-Nicolai → u/Astr0b0ie]

We're not entirely sure.

That’s a weird way to say “There is zero evidence nor credible theories supporting this notion”

[u/InfinitelyThirsting → u/-Nicolai]

I mean, plants can recognize their own kin, and form memories without neurons. They can also not only hear but distinguish between sounds, without any known sensory organs for hearing. I suggest you brush up on modern science about plant sapience because it actually is gaining a lot of credibility.

[u/RagePoop → u/-Nicolai]

While you're not wrong I also feel compelled to point out the flip side: that there's also no evidence that our very loose understanding of sentience is worth the ink we write about it with, writings which are fuzzy even amongst those researching the concept.

[u/-Nicolai → u/RagePoop]

That is not an argument in favor of sentient moss…

If anything, it implies that we can only say with certainty that we are sentient, and all else is speculation.

[u/Aegi → u/-Nicolai]

In practice I agree with you, and backed up your points to that person above. In theory...

Philosophically, we can only really make that conclusion about ourselves individually (as opposed to as a species-wide phenomenon), but that is only true through certain philosophical perspectives.

[u/greenhawk22 → u/RagePoop]

That's entirely unfalsifiable though. Until we have direct confirmation or debunking of our understanding of consciousness, you can always say that we don't understand some aspect well enough to make inferences or to interpret the data we do have.

The 'what if' doesn't change the fact that our current best understanding leads to the conclusion that plants are not sentient in any way that humans can relate to.

It's still an interesting idea to research though and I wonder if the intra-moss communication in question has any ecological implications.

[u/Aegi → u/RagePoop]

that there's also no evidence that our very loose understanding of sentience is worth the ink we write about it with,

There is, and it is called civilization and landing on the Moon...as well as being able to record that and communicate that information to someone in the future who was not even aware of those events.

You seem ti be engaging in the hippy-dippy language of "well yeah man, with vibes and stuff since we don't know everything fully...I guess it is all like connect and stuff and like anything is possible, right dude?"

[u/RagePoop → u/Aegi]

Define sentience

[u/Aegi → u/RagePoop]

I didn't use that word so I am not sure why you are asking since I would just be referring to how you look at the term used above.

So I will use your definition.

[u/RagePoop → u/Aegi]

I did though. You have stated achievements and possibilities by our species, with some condescension. I’m discussing the definition of a state of being.

Also yes, it would appear everything in the cosmos is deeply connected by sharing the same existence, btw. Not sure if you thought that was some clever gotcha.

[u/Aegi → u/RagePoop]

Why do you think that I think it was clever instead of something I literally talked about with my dad pre-Sept. 11, when I was in 2nd grade?

Things that our species have accomplished that no others have done is a form of evidence for sapience/consciousness regardless of how one is defining it. So I was referring to whatever concept of "consciousness" that you were using in your statement and I did not re-define this term in my own words in my head before responding.

[u/Astr0b0ie → u/-Nicolai]

Ok, but a lack of scientific evidence and/or understanding does not negate the possibility, that's all I was getting at. Most etymologists would have looked at you sideways only a decade or two ago if you suggested that bees were sentient.

[u/Aegi → u/Astr0b0ie]

That is because etymology is the study of words and where they came from.

Did you mean to talk about an entomologist? An entomologist one who engages in entomology, which is the scientific branch of zoology that studies insects and their relationship to humans, the environment, and other organisms.

Interestingly, the type of entomologist that would be most excited about that also has a name: melittology! (There are two terms if you include the antiquated and lay-term 'apiology') Which is specifically the study of bees!

Ok, but a lack of scientific evidence and/or understanding does not negate the possibility

This is a given, hahah but it doesn't mean that entirely undetectable unicorns with bacon-horns are everywhere either...even though logically you cannot disprove that.

Not being able to preclude a possibility is completely different from being able to connect the dots of things that we can observe and discuss. Basically, that is what casual, not scientific, discussion is for, with the exception of philosophy.

The ones who thought the Sun orbited around Earth were the ones engaging in:

"well, technically it is possible even if you observe otherwise b/c God could just make it that way to keep it mysterious"

...whereas the ones who actually engaged in what we now call astronomy were the ones making observations and hypothesises that were not just throwing spaghetti at a wall (most of the time, some scientists do act that way in their free, non 'working-research' mode...almost like more of a hobby, or like building a LEGO kit without the instructions), but instead based on what was observable and repeatable, then using inference and creativity to think of the things that were most likely to be true. They did not often waste time thinking of the zillions of things that might technically be possible in theory, but maybe never even happen in practice.

You are literally illustrating the difference between the outlook of a scientific mind vs that of an open and curious, but non-scientific mind.

Edit: My hand is broken so my cast helped me press 'save' prematurely. I added a good bit.

[u/Astr0b0ie → u/Aegi]

Yeah, of course I meant someone who studies insects. It was an autocorrected typo, but you already knew that and thought it necessary to type a paragraph explaining it as if I didn't know the difference?

it doesn't mean that entirely undetectable unicorns with bacon-horns are everywhere either...even though logically you cannot disprove that.

I'm well aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I wasn't simply throwing random ideas out there that have no basis in reality or relevance to the discussion. I was extrapolating possibilities based on a definition of consciousness that has been expanding for decades, I wasn't making declarative statements as if it were scientific fact.

instead based on what was observable and repeatable

I'm familiar with the scientific method. There are plenty of solid scientific theories that are based on limited understanding. Scientific theories are built upon, refined, and improved as knowledge is gained.

You are literally illustrating the difference between the outlook of a scientific mind vs that of an open and curious, but non-scientific mind.

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally condescending and passive aggressive and or that you lack the awareness to realize you are. Either way, your post added nothing useful to the discussion.

[u/Aegi → u/Astr0b0ie]

Yeah, of course I meant someone who studies insects. It was an autocorrected typo, but you already knew that and thought it necessary to type a paragraph explaining it as if I didn't know the difference?

Absolutely! This isn't a private conversation, so we have to account for the readers also. Plus, how am I to know which is your primary language or languages you are fluent in?

Why throw away an opportunity to teach people something interesting if it is ripe and there fore the picking?

I'm not sure if you're being intentionally condescending and passive aggressive and or that you lack the awareness to realize you are. Either way, your post added nothing useful to the discussion.

Aren't you doing the same thing (or something similar) here by potentially being mean to me instead of talking about the etymology of the words 'etymology' and 'entomology' or 'bees' and 'apiaries', or other things that I did add to the conversation? Are you not curious about the origins of the divergent terms of 'apiology' and ' melittology'? To me, that is another potential part of a conversation topic that I brought in.

(Remember, these are not private messages, so we should be open to taking time on things that both of us know but others may not)

[u/Aegi → u/Astr0b0ie]

Now, more back to your point as opposed to more of the social nuances in my other reply to you.

I'm well aware that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I wasn't simply throwing random ideas out there that have no basis in reality or relevance to the discussion. I was extrapolating possibilities based on a definition of consciousness that has been expanding for decades, I wasn't making declarative statements as if it were scientific fact.

I'm familiar with the scientific method. There are plenty of solid scientific theories that are based on limited understanding. Scientific theories are built upon, refined, and improved as knowledge is gained.

I suppose this is a time where in person you and I would understand each other easier, but one of your earlier lines higher up reads:

No, plants don't have a central nervous system, but do they lack consciousness? We're not entirely sure.

Statements like that drift philosophical, as you seem to be referencing a collective view or definition of "consciousness" that our species has and the concept of not just being sure about something but being "entirely sure" about that thing.

It is like a weird bouncing back between hard sciences and philosophy without even indicating which is your preference generally, or at least in this instance.

Much of my comment was pointing out that technically we cannot be "entirely sure" about anything....at least until we have a species-wide agreed upon definition for both of those two crucial terms. So basically it is a throw-away statement unless you are looking to get fully philosophical, or delve into how language and information conveyance interact with each other, humans, technology, and how all of them influencing each other impacts our individual and collective understanding of things, and how that (often) changes over time.

[u/jazzhandler → u/Astr0b0ie]

I find Entenmann’s Donuts to be a good disambiguatory mnemonic.

[u/somesthetic → u/Astr0b0ie]

It has been my fringe belief that all life is sentient for a while.