Comment by marojejian
6 months ago
I listened to that book and enjoyed it. But that said, I'm torn between friendliness to the general concept, and skepticism based in part on the bias of proponents to deeply desire plants to display something like intelligence (a bias I share).
For example the most amazing claims in the book were around the ability of Boquila trifoliolata to dynamically mimic other plants.
see this old HN thread: https://press.asimov.com/articles/plant-vision
i definitely agree that it would've been nice to have images in the book as it was hard to get a sense of exactly how well Boquila was mimicking neighbouring plants!
but in reference to the linked article, i will say that the researchers interviewed in the book (and i got that sense for Zoe as well) were in agreement with you that the research didn't support a vision-based mechanism. but everyone agrees that the imitation is going on. the researchers in the book suggest a gene transfer-based mechanism instead! (mentioned briefly in your linked article)
[flagged]
You seem to be on some campaign against atheists today, which needs to stop now. It breaks multiple guidelines and destroys what HN is for. It's great to ponder the big existential questions; I do plenty of it myself. But when discussing these topics here we need to find a way to do so without being derisive towards others.
That comment is actually pretty cool because it illustrates a thinking process that a lot of people that we share the world with have.
They split the world into two realms, the physical and the spiritual, and mental processes like hearing are the domain of the spiritual.
This can be dated back to Descartes who believed that body and soul are separate substances and even further back to antiquity.
In today’s world there’s mounting evidence for explaining all cognitive phenomena based on the physical world, so these people feel under assault all the time.
OP’s statement about „atheists” reveal his feelings towards them, and his way of trying to understand them.
It’s fascinating how these old ways of thinking manage to stick around despite all or advancement in science. And it’s crucial to be aware that they exist.
1 reply →
Do you think that if we simulated a bee, molecule for molecule, that this simulation would behave differently from the real thing because the simulation fails to replicate its soul?
What kind of behaviors in animals/humans does this soul affect? How do you believe does it interface with nervous systems in general?
what a strange set of conclusions to draw