[glenstein]

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.

[therobots927]

Considering that we don’t even understand how consciousness works, I think it’s an open question. I’m also not sure why it’s so important for some to draw these distinctions.

[glenstein]

Making claims that aren't supported by evidence is bad for all kinds of ordinary reasons I'm sure you know. And this topic in particular generates a lot of those kinds of claims. The same reason you might put a warning sign up in front of a big pot hole.