3 ms·
I think an important distinction is whether the response to stimulus is hardcoded or not, and the degree to which it's not. Saying simply 'stimulus-response' ma
by m12k 9y ago
I think an important distinction is whether the response to stimulus is hardcoded or not, and the degree to which it's not. Saying simply 'stimulus-response' makes it sound like a reflex like pulling back your hand when you accidentally touch a hot plate. There's a world of difference between an automaton that always reacts the same way to a given stimulus on one end and on the other end a deeply learning mind that can store memories, create internal models to predict stimuli, maybe even 'rewire' itself to change what effects future stimuli can have. Sure, you could say that the latter just reacts to stimuli over a greater period of time (e.g. experience is just old stimuli still being reacted to) but to do so would be to gloss over the enormous difference in nature and complexity of such systems. And unless you believe in a metaphysical definition of consciousness, then somewhere in that complexity gap is where consciousness arises, so it seems hardly like something to be glossed over.
- n17r4m 9y agoSuppose it is hardcoded? what difference does that make? edit: I know about hardware and software, but since we are all wetware, maybe we should think about it as its own class and/or function?
- drieddust 9y agoYou didn't read the article I guess? This paragraph provides answer to your objection. Plants learn to modify the response based on experience. > Under poor soil conditions, the pea seems to be able to assess risk. The sensitive plant can make memories and learn to stop recoiling if you mess with it enough. The Venus fly trap appears to count when insects trigger its trap. And plants can communicate with one another and with caterpillars.