this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2026
411 points (99.3% liked)

Science Memes

19804 readers
2816 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Terms like "sense" and "tell" are a bit misleading. It's very much a chemical/mechanical interaction that's automatic. Rather like soap bubbles "sensing" when they've reached the surface of the water.

Plants contain a protein called phototropin, which is activated by light. When it's activated, it changes the shape and alignment of the "skeleton" of the cell, making it more cube-shaped as opposed to long and skinny.

That means the light side of a plant gets shorter, while the dark side remains long. The dark side also grows slightly faster, on a count of having more cells there (you can fit more skinny cells side-by-side than wide cells), and so the plant angles and grows toward the light.

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean, so are our sense before being processed by the brain.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What's a tree's brain in this analogy?

[–] zea_64@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Nothing, but I'd argue you don't need a brain for the sensory parts doing sensing to count as senses.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

I'd disagree with that argument and draw an analogy with the short reactive pathways triggered by e.g. that thing where you tap a knee with a hammer and it jerks; I don't think the reaction loop there counts as a sense, and only when you add in the CNS and perception of it does it even connect to one. But it's hardly a cut'n'dried argument and I'm sure there's a lot left to plausibly disagree on here

[–] Slatlun@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Tell me you don't communicate science often without saying it. Know the audience is rule 1.

But ok, 'tell' is useful anthropormophism to get an idea across. Sensing though? In what way is reacting to a stimuli not sensing? It is the word scientific papers use. What would you say instead?