Does this come up often?
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
231 points (96.4% liked)
Science Memes
17695 readers
1712 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
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- 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
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes.
Groot
It all depends on what you mean by "conscious", which IMO doesn't fall under "Maybe everything is conscious" because that's wrongly assuming that "conscious" is a binary property instead of a spectrum that humans and plants are both on while clearly being at vastly different levels. Maybe I just have a much looser definition of "conscious" than most people, but why don't tropisms count as a very primitive form of consciousness?
I think the big dividing line between what many animals do and what cells or plants do is the ability to react in different ways by considering stimuli in conjunction with memory, and then the next big divide is metacognition. I feel like there should be concrete words for these categories. "Sentient" and "conscious" have pretty much lost meaning at this point, as demonstrated by this discussion's existence.
I will call them reactive awareness, decisive awareness, and reflective awareness in the absence of a better idea.
Cells are very diverse, though. Some can get over your first divide.
That's not a problem. The idea is to define practical categories along the spectrum of consciousness so that they can be discussed without having to re-define terms prior to every discussion. There's no reason any given organism should or shouldn't fall into a particular category except for its properties directly regarding that category.
"Conscious" means being aware of oneself, one's surroundings, thoughts, or feelings, being awake, or acting with deliberate intention, like a "conscious effort". It refers to subjective experience and internal knowledge, differentiating from unconsciousness (sleep, coma).
It’s a spectrum, sure. But the spectrum is between ants and humans; not animals and plants.
What does "aware" mean, or "knowledge"? I think those are going to be circular definitions, maybe filtered through a few other words like "comprehend" or "perceive".
Does a plant act with deliberate intention when it starts growing from a seed?
To be clear, my beef is more with the definition of "conscious" being useless and/or circular in most cases. I'm not saying "woah, what if plants have thoughts dude" as in the meme, but whatever definition you come up with, you have to evaluate why it does or doesn't include plants, simple animals, or AI.
load more comments
(8 replies)
The foundational idea behind what the user is talking about is called panpsychism, it's the idea that consciousness or awareness is actually a fundamental quality of the universe like fields or forces, in that it's in everything, but only complex systems have actual thoughts.
The theory(?) states that even a single electron or proton has a state of awareness, but without any functional way to remember any information or think it's just like some kind of flash of experience like if you suddenly developed perpetual amnesia about literally everything... while you were hurtling through the universe at high speed. You would still have a conscious experience, it would just be radically limited in what that "means."
I get the concept, but I don't get the usefulness of it. It feels too close to people wishing The Force was real.
Guys. You are not getting your light sabers this way.
I'm not advocating for consciousness as a fundamental quality of the universe. I think that lacks explanatory power and isn't really in the realm of science. I'm kind of coming at it the opposite way and pushing for a more concrete and empirical definition of consciousness.
So basically everything is tripping and only a few things can be legit sober?
Sounds like anthropomorphism to me.
Not sure if you know that what you're describing has a name it's called Panpsychism and it is gaining some popularity but that's not because there's any reason to believe in it or any evidence, it's a fanciful idea about the universe that doesn't really help or connect anything. IE: panpsychism doesn't make for a better explanation for anything than the idea that you are just a singular consciousness living in it's most probable state to be able to observe or experience anything.
I'm not shooting it down, it's one of those things we just will never know, but that's a pretty huge list of things and possibilities so I just don't know if it's more or less useful than any other philosophical view.
Panpsychism seems logically more possible than the alternative. If consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, the universe is probably conscious because it's the most complex system there is.
It depends on if you think consciousness is something that emerges from information exchange systems or some higher level "thing" we don't understand yet, and I lean towards the idea that consciousness emerges from information exchange systems. If that's the case, then the universe, while containing massive areas of complexity, isn't entirely exchanging information, only in isolated areas that are borrowing energy even as entropy broadly increases. I would be more open the idea of some possibility of consciousness occurring in the hyper-low entropy state of the very early universe when everything was much closer together and there was enough energy to connect a whole universe worth of information in localized states.
Who knows what energetic structures exist within galactic super clusters? Energy is constantly exchanged in the universe.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Since you so clearly elucidated it, you may know this is actually a thing called panprotopsychism. I'm fully on board with it but of course, the Internet knows with absolute certainty it's complete and utter bullshit, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Edit: apparently so does at least one downvoter.
load more comments
(22 replies)
It's also worth noting that science can't prove humans are conscious.
There's a reason it's called "the hard problem."
It's all a figment of my imagination after all
I will admit I get enjoyment from guiding pseudo intelligent down the path of discovering that absolutely nothing is real and for as far as we are able to detect everything may as well be the fever dream of a turtle.
Gish gallop
A rhetorical technique in which a dishonest speaker lists a string of falsehoods or misleading items so that their opponent will be unable to counter each one and still be able to make their own counterpoints.