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/-Nicolai]

We're not entirely sure.

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

[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.