A flytrap closes in response to tactile stimuli. Meaning that it has a sense of touch.

The word "feel" is nebulous, but at least one meaning would include that.

It definitely has a sensor-like mechanism, but is it qualitatively different to some plants growing to face the sun, or a climbing plant climbing up a wall?

I've had flytraps and they are fascinating, though I've found them to be very fragile, at least in the conditions I can provide in my balcony. Their traps often turn black and rot after trying to digest a single fly, and I had one Venus flytrap die after flowering (the advice I found online was: don't let it flower, under most less than ideal conditions, the effort of producing the flower will spend the plant's energy reserves and kill it, and the single flower it can produce is not pretty anyway. I should have followed this advice, but curiosity got the better of me).

It’s more complex than simple sensor, it’s effectively counting numbers of impacts before it responds. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2074582-venus-flytrap-c...

Yes, the counting part is mentioned in the brief summary at Wikipedia, and I find it fascinating. I wonder if it's some kind of cummulative chemical effect that wears off in a short time, but if it passes a threshold it triggers something.

> It definitely has a sensor-like mechanism, but is it qualitatively different to some plants growing to face the sun, or a climbing plant climbing up a wall?

Are you able to prove that your behavior is qualitatively different? That you are not merely a sufficiently complex chain of reactions to stimuli?

I'm of course unable to prove anything about my behavior.

That, however, is besides the point in my opinion. All taxonomy is arbitrary; there aren't "races" or "species" or even distinctions between "mineral" and "organic". All that matters is that those artificial distinctions are meaningful to us, humans.

In that sense, we consider we humans are qualitatively different than plants, and a Venus flytrap is closer to a plant than to an animal.

A mouse trap also responds to tactile stimuli.

A mousetrap doesn't live and grow though. So what's your point ?

But it's not repeatable.

A solar-powered one with an actuator to reset itself probably isn’t too difficult to build.

but how does it get rid of the corpses. I think mice might get suspicious by all the skeletons lying around.

Incorporate the bones into new mousetraps that smell like cheese.

I can program a video game character to respond to getting shot. Does it feel?

If I said yes, how would you prove me wrong?

If it said yes, how would you prove it wrong? How convincing must the on-screen suffering become for us to start wondering whether there is something there that actually feels pain?

Just ask yourself - what's the difference between a map and a landscape.

That's the core of the question, isn't it? When does the map become the landscape?

Size, mostly, I guess?

Do my thoughts have feelings? If I imagine someone being torture to death, has someone actually just been tortured to death, all the while feeling excruciating pain? Crazy implications if true!

> has someone actually just been tortured to death

I can't rule out the possibility that there are some qualia associated specifically with the neuronal activity corresponding to your mental simulation, but I can say that the leap to the "someone actually being tortured" interpretation isn't warranted. It's clearly not a "someone" in the sense of a human person, and so all bets are off when it comes to interpreting what it's like to be that thing.

> Crazy implications if true!

Well, the implications are most likely delayed until someone invents a qualia detector.

Whoa, even trippier, things don't exist until we detect them! That is quantum physics uncertainty taken to a whole new level!

When did I say that?

I thought that's what you meant by this.

> Crazy implications if true!

Well, the implications are most likely delayed until someone invents a qualia detector

Oh. I meant that we can't run this code:

  if (yourCondition) {
    crazyImplications()
  }

until we know the truth value of yourCondition.

I see, but if the condition is true, won't crazyImplications() run regardless of whether we know the truth value of the condition? I am assuming the conditional logic is running in reality instead of in my head.

If you see someone tortured to death, your mirror neuron might experience torture, so does it mean it that a neuron has feelings? Off course not, you're more than the parts of yourself.