"Plant sentience" and veganism

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by psyreporter »

NickGaspar wrote: May 20th, 2021, 5:08 pm-You are confusing Conscious experience and reality. You need to distinguish those two concepts in order to have a meaningful conversation.
On what ground do you consider 'objective reality' to be 'real' when it is not conscious experience?

The idea that an 'existent' is real (and thus a start point for explaining the fundamental nature of reality) is based on the belief that underlays ontological realism. It is the belief that objective reality is ultimately something non-disputable within any context of thinking.

The idea that facts are outside the scope of a perspective (i.e., that facts are valid without philosophy) necessarily lays at the basis of the idea that reality is 'real'. At question would be if the 'magical' belief that lays at the basis of that idea can possibly be valid. If it is proven otherwise then ontological realism would lose its ground.

NickGaspar wrote: May 20th, 2021, 5:08 pmPls demonstrate why we should accept the claim "plants experience suffering". Present the facts that make mind properties necessary and sufficient to explain plants' behavior.
This topic intends to make a case for the plausibility of the consideration that plants are sentient, with the primary argument being that the emergence of a science field in general named "Plant Neurobiology" is a pretty strong foundation for such a consideration.

The root system of plants contains many neurotransmitters that are also present in the human brain, including dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin and histamine. Recent discoveries indicate that the root system of plants can grow many billions of cells at the tips of the roots that function in a similar way as brain neurons. For some plants, it would result in a number of neurons that rival those of the human brain.

Recently surprising similarities between plant cells and neurons
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884105/

When plants scream in ultrasound in the face of stress, then, one would be required to make a special (opiniated) argument to claim that such activity is meaningless. I do not believe that it is just to do so, considering the above mentioned evidence that plants may physically have what is required for higher level conscious experience.
NickGaspar wrote: May 20th, 2021, 5:08 pm know that you don't but it is BY DEFINITION.
i.e. you are aware of my position because it objectively exist and you can read all about it on your screen. If this text didn't exist, you wouldn't be aware of my position. i.e. what is my position on cell phones? As you can see you won't be able to know my position until it exists on a physical medium and it is made available to you.

(The primacy of consciousness theory asserts that consciousness somehow creates reality. Sometimes it takes the form of a divine consciousness that creates reality, and sometimes it takes the form of each individual consciousness creating their own personal reality.

In either case, there is a contradiction. To be conscious is to be aware (of something.) One can not be aware without something to be aware of. In other words, a consciousness without anything to be conscious of is not a consciousness. Nor can a consciousness be aware of itself and claim to be independent of existence, because if a consciousness is aware of itself, then it must itself exist and be an existent.

The truth is that Existence is primary. )
There is no empirical evidence for the idea that an existent is anything by itself beyond the bounds of a pattern. It is not possible to claim that an existent is 'real'. Therefor, the claim that an existent would need to have existed before it could have been observed, is baseless.

When one considers the quality patternness (value) by itself, then it is logical that the observer (consciousness) precedes reality. A pattern is bound by observation and cannot precede observation. A pattern is no more than meaning (value) and not something 'real', i.e. an 'existent' that requires a cause within a limited frame of thinking.
NickGaspar wrote: May 20th, 2021, 5:08 pm-I don't know what that means or how you can argue against existence by using that statement. I don't know what the concept of nothing or always existing has to do with the fact that in order to be aware of anything something must first exist.
Well, one will logically ask: where did that existent come from? It either magically 'always existed' or it magically 'came from nothing'.

The third option: the existent isn't real and doesn't need such an explanation.
NickGaspar wrote: May 20th, 2021, 5:08 pm -No, random chemical responses that turned out to be beneficial for the specific plant, survive in its dna and its offsprings display the same chemically blind behavior. Again have you ever had a course on evolution?
The idea that evolution is driven by random chance is a contentious idea.

Albert Einstein: "The idea that this universe in all its million-fold order and precision is the result of blind chance is as credible as the idea that if a print shop blew up all the type would fall down again in the finished and faultless form of the dictionary."
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by NickGaspar »

arjand wrote: May 20th, 2021, 8:14 pm
On what ground do you consider 'objective reality' to be 'real' when it is not conscious experience?
- How did we get from discussing the unfounded claim on "plants' suffering" to Philosophy of Absurdism?
The idea that an 'existent' is real (and thus a start point for explaining the fundamental nature of reality) is based on the belief that underlays ontological realism.
-Well no, "real" is nothing more than a label we put on claims that have successfully being checked the criterion of Objectivity. Our Cataleptic Impression register and inform us on what exists around us. If those registrations are independently verified by other people's Cataleptic Impressions then we accept them as "real". If our Impressions don't agree with other people's then we end up in Institutions designed to protect us from harming our self due to our inability to register reality correctly.
So we don't need any of those ideas to evaluate the picture we get from our impressions.
It is the belief that objective reality is ultimately something non-disputable within any context of thinking.
-that is a strawman. Objective reality is something that is empirically verified again and again no matter the methodology or the ideology we use. Reality tends to display different faces in different scales. Just because one scale displays different characteristics from an other, that doesn't mean that reality is subjective.
The idea that facts are outside the scope of a perspective (i.e., that facts are valid without philosophy) necessarily lays at the basis of the idea that reality is 'real'.
-Again you are abusing the words in order to make room for the pseudo philosophy of idealism.One thing is certain. Our cataleptic impressions register a realm that displays Empirical Regularities and External Limitations . This is what we label Physical Reality and we need zero "ideas" about its ontology to confirm its existence. Our Impressions also register Mental Impressions (thoughts, ideas, dreams) which lack the objectivity and the rest of the qualities I mentioned above.
We can not go beyond our impressions and evaluate their differences in their ontology. Our distinction is clearly based on their characteristics and qualities along.
So your objections are rendered useless under this Descriptive Framework.
At question would be if the 'magical' belief that lays at the basis of that idea can possibly be valid. If it is proven otherwise then ontological realism would lose its ground.
-You just avoid testing "ontological realism" methodically. Again take some friend of yours and have a go on a brick wall and then compare the objective facts you get from your crashes. Then we can discuss how philosophically and epistemically informative all this "idealistic woo" can be.
This topic intends to make a case for the plausibility of the consideration that plants are sentient, with the primary argument being that the emergence of a science field in general named "Plant Neurobiology" is a pretty strong foundation for such a consideration.
-No it isn't. The filed of Plant Neurobiology just studies the mechanisms responsible for plant signaling. The initial papers even identify the problem of "wording" by stating :"If the reader wishes to keep those terms for animals exclusively, so be it".
i.e your guts have neurons but they don't process feelings....specific parts of the brains does and specialized nerve endings are needed to process lets say pain. Plants lack the apparatus for such types of properties, so just the label of a field of study can not be used to promote speculative assumptions.
The root system of plants contains many neurotransmitters that are also present in the human brain, including dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin and histamine. Recent discoveries indicate that the root system of plants can grow many billions of cells at the tips of the roots that function in a similar way as brain neurons. For some plants, it would result in a number of neurons that rival those of the human brain.
-Yes, plants synthesize such molecules. So you are cherry picking by pointing out the similarities in the production of molecules but you just decide to ignore the dissimilarities between those systems like the absence of a central processing unit like the brain in plants.
Up to this day we know that a healthy and functioning brain is necessary and sufficient for mind properties to emerge. Pls present the facts that render a brain unnecessary and insufficient to the emergence of the mind....


Recently surprising similarities between plant cells and neurons
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884105/
-Neurons alone are not sufficient to produce mind properties..........that is a scientific fact
When plants scream in ultrasound in the face of stress, then, one would be required to make a special (opiniated) argument to claim that such activity is meaningless. I do not believe that it is just to do so, considering the above mentioned evidence that plants may physically have what is required for higher level conscious experience.
-Plants don't have mouths, they don't scream. Again you need to study Evolution in order to learn how this traits and tactics develop.
There is no empirical evidence for the idea that an existent is anything by itself beyond the bounds of a pattern. It is not possible to claim that an existent is 'real'.
-I don't know what this vague deepity means. Either way patterns emerge through the organization of fundamental elements that in turn give rise to structures...so existence is an essential quality of any pattern. You can not keep existence out from this.

-"Therefor, the claim that an existent would need to have existed before it could have been observed, is baseless."
-Do you even read what you write? So if I deprive you of all your sensory inputs....will you be able to pass through a brick wall? Lets say I put plugs in your eyes, nose, ears and feed you tones of antihistamines in order to blunt your sense of touch...do you really think if I shoot you against a brick wall you will pass through? Reality doesn't give a damn about our observations. OUr observations inform us about reality. Why is this so difficult for you?

Now why do you accept the fact that plants produce neurotransmitters when you constantly object to objective empirical observation and reality???
Why do you use the same tools you just rejected from being real to make claims about reality? You make no sense.
When one considers the quality patternness (value) by itself, then it is logical that the observer (consciousness) precedes reality. A pattern is bound by observation and cannot precede observation. A pattern is no more than meaning (value) and not something 'real', i.e. an 'existent' that requires a cause within a limited frame of thinking.
-A independent physical stimuli needs to exist in order for a pattern to be recognized by an observer. You can not go around that, sorry.
You don't see patterns that do not have an underlying physical ontology, and if you do...you end up in an institution for mental health care...right?
Well, one will logically ask: where did that existent come from? It either magically 'always existed' or it magically 'came from nothing'.
-"Magically"? How do you know that magic is needed for something to always exist? lol Poisoning the well fallacy.

The third option: the existent isn't real and doesn't need such an explanation.
-What does that even means? Again you are confusing the actual meaning and usage of the terms. Real is nothing more than an evaluation term. We identify something as real when it meets specific objective criteria of existence. i.e When trying to walk through a wall and we both open our skulls by trying then we objectively have verified the existence of that wall....end of story.
You only have to work with that impression and any ontological beyond that experience is IRRATIONAL by definition.
Again you can not avoid "existence". It is how we identify something that is registered by our Cataleptic Impressions from something that isn't.
Hidding from that fact won't render your pseudo philosophy real philosophy.
The idea that evolution is driven by random chance is a contentious idea
.
-well one more individual who criticize evolution without knowing what evolution actually says. IN EVOLUTION, CHANGES ARE NOT RANDOM!. MUTATIONS ARE RANDOM ....MUTATIONS FUEL CHANGES WHICH IN TURN THEY FOLLOW SPECIFIC RULES. i.e. NATURAL AND SEXUAL SELECTIONS are two frameworks that DESCRIBE THOSE RULES.
Albert Einstein: "The idea that this universe in all its million-fold order and precision is the result of blind chance is as credible as the idea that if a print shop blew up all the type would fall down again in the finished and faultless form of the dictionary."
-Great fallacy from false authority!
and Captain Kirk said:"“A balance of power — the trickiest, most difficult, dirtiest game of them all, but the only one that preserves both sides.”
So both quotes are irrelevant to how we evaluate,recognize and accept KNOWLEDGE.
So we now know that you can not build a credible case for your belief (plants can suffer). Is pseudo philosophy (idealism) necessary?

Lets agree that in the future science might prove that plants experience suffering through specific biological systems. If it does then we should seriously consider producing lab food so that we can avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering on plants.
Until then your claim is unfounded and your belief irrational.
The moment to accept an extraordinary claim is only after it has being objectively verified, not a second sooner.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Steve3007 »

arjand wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:Why would you conclude that it's more morally right for fruit to be eaten by some creatures than by others?
Well, for one, the seeds in the fruit are likely to be dispersed by an animal, so the plant would be more happy when an animal would eat it.
You're referring to a mechanism for plant reproduction whereby the seeds of the plant are carried in an animal's gut. So you seem to be saying that plants are happy when they reproduce successfully and there is moral merit in promoting that happiness, therefore if a human animal eats the fruit of a plant that's morally preferably to eating some other part of the plant, which perhaps isn't so conducive to the plant's reproduction.

OK. So how about if I plant (or have somebody else plant) a whole load of replacements for the plants I eat? That'll work just as well right? The plants will be happy in the thought that being eaten by me promotes the arable farming industry and thereby promotes the proliferation of their species, won't they?
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by psyreporter »

NickGaspar wrote: May 21st, 2021, 2:52 am-that is a strawman. Objective reality is something that is empirically verified again and again no matter the methodology or the ideology we use. Reality tends to display different faces in different scales. Just because one scale displays different characteristics from an other, that doesn't mean that reality is subjective.
The argument is primarily that reality may not be 'real' on a fundamental level, in the sense that what is termed 'reality' is independent from a perspective. It is not to deny the ulitarian reality in which humans have discovered themselves, in which a brick wall is simply to be avoided.

NickGaspar wrote: May 21st, 2021, 2:52 amOne thing is certain. Our cataleptic impressions register a realm that displays Empirical Regularities and External Limitations . This is what we label Physical Reality and we need zero "ideas" about its ontology to confirm its existence.
That certainty is based on a belief that the facts of science remain the same in time, i.e. a belief in uniformitarianism, which may be invalid.

While repeatability provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question would be if the idea that facts obtain outside the scope of a perspective is accurate on a fundamental level. If the idea is not valid, then that could have profound implications.

An example is the belief that natural selection is driven by random chance. Without the idea that facts obtain outside the scope of a perspective, such a belief would not be possible.

The simplest departure from pure randomness implies value. This is evidence that all that can be seen in the world - from the simplest pattern onward - is value (meaning).

While as seen from the utilitarian value perspective one could argue that a 'certainty factor' isn't at question, when it concerns the potential usage of the idea as a guiding principle, e.g. for eugenics, it could become important.

Usefulness of a model of the world is merely utilitarian value and cannot be a basis for a guiding principle since a guiding principle would concern what is essential for value to be possible (a priori or "before value").

NickGaspar wrote: May 21st, 2021, 2:52 am-I don't know what this vague deepity means. Either way patterns emerge through the organization of fundamental elements that in turn give rise to structures...so existence is an essential quality of any pattern. You can not keep existence out from this.
A pattern is the origin or essence of existence. In that sense, it precedes existence. What precedes a pattern is meaning.

NickGaspar wrote: May 21st, 2021, 2:52 amRecently surprising similarities between plant cells and neurons
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884105/
-Neurons alone are not sufficient to produce mind properties..........that is a scientific fact
The discovery - which is fairly recent - is indicative that plants could potentially physiologically posses of what is required for conscious experience or sentience.

Again: you would need to make a special (opinionated) argument to claim that the discovered 'neurons' are meaningless (i.e. not evidence for sentience).

The topic on philosophicalvegan.com was intended to discover the motive to do so, and its potential implications for plant well-being, just in case that ultimately will be proven that plants have been sentient.

What type of care would plants have required, if humans would know about its sentience?

A task of philosophy may be to explore passable roads in front of the tide.

As mentioned, the topic intends to make a case for the plausibility of the consideration that plants are sentient, with the primary argument being that the emergence of a science field in general named "Plant Neurobiology" is a pretty strong foundation for such a consideration. It provides a reason to evaluate whether plant morality may be applicable.

With regard what plant morality may entail. The provision of respect for the plant that is eaten may already be a leap forward. A bit of extra care for its being, and its future, so that it may prosper and be happy together with the human.

The concept 'plant happiness' may be a place to start when the intention is to address plant morality.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by psyreporter »

Steve3007 wrote: May 21st, 2021, 5:11 amOK. So how about if I plant (or have somebody else plant) a whole load of replacements for the plants I eat? That'll work just as well right? The plants will be happy in the thought that being eaten by me promotes the arable farming industry and thereby promotes the proliferation of their species, won't they?
Yes, some plants may be happy with that. A blade of grass is likely to have different interests than a 1,000 year old tree, similar to a 1-day fly and a horse have different interests. An insect - as a specie - may not mind to be eaten by a bird (it will reproduce in million fold to overcome predatation), while a horse, from the essence of its specie, will intend to preserve its majestic being, for its 20+ year life span, and have just a few children, that are nurtured and cared for, so that they may grow old like their parents.

Plants may already be happy with a certain extra care or respect from animals for their 'being'. Perhaps plants are very happy with prosperity of animals, and want to contribute to its success to fulfill the higher purpose of earth life (Gaia Philosophy).

My primary concern and motive to address the subject is synthetic biology (eugenics on Nature) in which plants and animals are reduced to meaningless beyond the value that a company (a short term self-interest perspective) can see in them.

If plants are sentient and have certain interests to be happy, synthetic biology may be one of the worst disasters possible for them.

And the interest of this for humans is the fact that 'vitality of Nature' may be essential for plants and humans to prosper. If plants are sentient and as such part of 'vitality of Nature' then synthetic biology may destroy what is required for Nature to prosper.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Consul »

Psychologism in botany/phytology is leading us up the garden path!
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by NickGaspar »

arjand wrote: May 21st, 2021, 1:00 pm
The argument is primarily that reality may not be 'real' on a fundamental level
-What does that even means. What does it mean for reality not to be real on a fundamental level?????? and how can you verify that?
in the sense that what is termed 'reality' is independent from a perspective.
-But reality is independent from a perspective. Perspectives can be subjective but the feedback we get from reality can be objectively verified.
Reality is independent from our subjective perspective.
It is not to deny the ulitarian reality in which humans have discovered themselves, in which a brick wall is simply to be avoided.
-So you are just promoting an argument from ignorance fallacy. The Utilitarian reality is the only thing that you can test and verify. I don't know how can you make the claim that "absolute reality" is or isn't in agreement with our picture of reality. How can you verify that?

That certainty is based on a belief that the facts of science remain the same in time, i.e. a belief in uniformitarianism, which may be invalid.
-Oh, another argument from ignorance fallacy. The truth is that the uniformity of nature is not a faith based belief but a Knowledge based belief. This is what our cosmological observations tell us. Our ability to observe ancient photons carrying information about the early universe and the accuracy of our predictions provide an epistemic justification to that belief and render it a Pragmatic Necessity.
While repeatability provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question would be if the idea that facts obtain outside the scope of a perspective is accurate on a fundamental level. If the idea is not valid, then that could have profound implications.
-You keep making those arguments from ignorance, which are fallacies. Unfortunately our human perspective and our methodologies are all that we have to work with. Criteria and standards like Objectivity , repeatability, falsifiability are the backbone of our epistemic success and descriptive credibility of our methodologies.
The moment to reject them is only after we have challenge their ability to describe and provide knowledge.
Unfounded "ifs" are not how we do philosophy......its how we have conversations in pubs after having a dozen of beers.
An example is the belief that natural selection is driven by random chance. Without the idea that facts obtain outside the scope of a perspective, such a belief would not be possible.
-Unfortunately for you, natural selection is not driven by random chance. Natural Selection is the framework that describes and identifies the factors that produce and favor changes. Again, genetic mutations can be random, not Natural Selection.
I am starting to believe that you just don't read my posts. You are restating the same mistake opinion you have on Evolution....
The simplest departure from pure randomness implies value. This is evidence that all that can be seen in the world - from the simplest pattern onward - is value (meaning).
This makes no sense and it is irrelevant to our topic of Natural selection. Randomness implies value? lol what does that even means!!Randomness is an observer relative term. If we have no access to hidden variables,then everything could appear as random. You need to understand the difference between observer relative terms and intrinsic feature of reality!
While as seen from the utilitarian value perspective one could argue that a 'certainty factor' isn't at question, when it concerns the potential usage of the idea as a guiding principle, e.g. for eugenics, it could become important.
-Again irrelevant statement.
Usefulness of a model of the world is merely utilitarian value and cannot be a basis for a guiding principle since a guiding principle would concern what is essential for value to be possible (a priori or "before value").
-Again argument from ignorance fallacy. You can not know how accurate a descriptive model of the world can be...so you need to stop using this fallacy as a Segway for your preferred absolute version of reality.


A pattern is the origin or essence of existence. In that sense, it precedes existence. What precedes a pattern is meaning.
-That is a useless pseudo philosophical statement. You need to define the term pattern before you use it as the ontological explanation of existence.
Existence enables patterns to emerge, by definition. Without existing "entities" holding a specific position in relation to other entities..there can not be a pattern...sorry.

The discovery - which is fairly recent - is indicative that plants could potentially physiologically posses of what is required for conscious experience or sentience.
- The discovery isn't there. That is just a claim. You will need to provide evidence on the mechanisms responsible for such states in plants.
Again: you would need to make a special (opinionated) argument to claim that the discovered 'neurons' are meaningless (i.e. not evidence for sentience).
-I don't know what that sentence means. I don't have to make anything. Those who make the claim need to provide the evidence. If you are interested in philosophical discussions you really need to learn how the burden of proof works.
The topic on philosophicalvegan.com was intended to discover the motive to do so, and its potential implications for plant well-being, just in case that ultimately will be proven that plants have been sentient.
-Again the time to address "potential implications" of a speculative position is after you have objectively verified it.
What type of care would plants have required, if humans would know about its sentience?
-That is not relevant to our discussion. We are addressing your irrational belief that plants are sentient. Pls provide evidence that render your claim sufficient and necessary. (no a paper that says "plants scream"is not evidence.)
A task of philosophy may be to explore passable roads in front of the tide.
-The main goal of Philosophy is to produce WISE claims about the world by using our current verified epistemology. By using pseudo scientific interpretations that renders your conclusions pseudo philosophical.
As mentioned, the topic intends to make a case for the plausibility of the consideration that plants are sentient, with the primary argument being that the emergence of a science field in general named "Plant Neurobiology" is a pretty strong foundation for such a consideration. It provides a reason to evaluate whether plant morality may be applicable.
-You are confused. Just because the word "neuro" is used in a field of study for Plants, that doesn't mean anything. Again your whole problem is Bad Language mode(Argument from Ambiguity fallacy). The moment to suggest such a possibility is after we have mapped plants' signaling and can establish Strong Correlations between Neuronal patterns and agency in plants.(like we do in humans and animals). Then we need to observe and identify substitutional structures that could be able to carry signals like pain, thoughts with intention, purpose and meaning, able to convert neuronal activity in to emotions and then to reason them in to feelings. Plants do have such neuro-structures or the necessary complexity in those systems.
You will need to take some Academic courses on the Biology of Plants, understand the actual meaning of those words when we use them to describe plant behavior and you need to avoid using fallacies in your arguments.
With regard what plant morality may entail. The provision of respect for the plant that is eaten may already be a leap forward. A bit of extra care for its being, and its future, so that it may prosper and be happy together with the human.
The concept 'plant happiness' may be a place to start when the intention is to address plant morality.
-Do you know anything about an overactive Anterior Cingulate ?
As Robert Sapolsky has explained in his lectures at Stanford, an overactive Anterior Cingulates display strong correlations with conditions of major depressions. Those people who have overactive Anterior Cingulates tend to accept irrational comforting ideas (convince themselves that nothing is random, there is order and purpose, the hard reality we experience is not real etc) and of course they tend to "feel the pains of everything".
All your arguments, from your denial of the harsh objective nature of reality to the "pains" of plants, point to an overactive Anterior Cingulate cortex.
This seems to make you ignore logic, facts and steer your syllogisms to conclusions that allow you to validate your feelings and ease your anxieties.

I am open to accept the possibility of Plants being sentient, but you will need more than a "neuro" in a scientific field of study. You will need objective empirical evidence.
I am all ears.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by psyreporter »

NickGaspar wrote: May 21st, 2021, 4:52 pmWhat does that even means. What does it mean for reality not to be real on a fundamental level?????? and how can you verify that?
'real' as in 'independent from a perspective' which means something empirically worthy of consideration to explain the fundamental nature of reality.

No-one will argue that mathematics is the origin of existence because mathematics is obviously a mental construct. My argument is that 'reality' on a fundamental level is similarly a mental construct with the evidence being that the 'begin' that is introduced by the observing mind is logically the begin of reality.

A 'begin' implies the start of a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation (mind).

When it is denoted that reality cannot be independent from a perspective, it is meant that it is so on a fundamental level and not that subjective experience precedes reality.

Objective reality may merely be an utilitarian value perspective and thus, within the context of time, not something 'real' (i.e. not something of a nature that can be comprehended using empirical science).

NickGaspar wrote: May 21st, 2021, 4:52 pmThe Utilitarian reality is the only thing that you can test and verify. I don't know how can you make the claim that "absolute reality" is or isn't in agreement with our picture of reality. How can you verify that?
Utilitarian reality + science may not be the only option available to explain the fundamental nature of reality, and may not even be a plausible option.

The outcome of 'test and verify' resides in a historical context by definition. As a retro-perspective, it would exclude the potential to explain 'meaning' or the origin of value, since what precedes value logically lays beyond the empirically comprehensible reality.

There are some indications that scientific evidence is possible to show that objective reality may not be 'real' (as in 'independent of a perspective').

(2019) Quantum physics: objective reality doesn't exist
Clearly these are all deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality. Whatever the answer, an interesting future awaits.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-p ... oesnt.html

NickGaspar wrote: May 21st, 2021, 4:52 pmThe truth is that the uniformity of nature is not a faith based belief but a Knowledge based belief. This is what our cosmological observations tell us. Our ability to observe ancient photons carrying information about the early universe and the accuracy of our predictions provide an epistemic justification to that belief and render it a Pragmatic Necessity.
What is indicated, is that empirical science is a retro-perspective and that the result of such is history which implies that it would require a faith based belief to argue that the facts of science remain the same in time (a 'belief' in uniformitarianism).

The idea that a photon has traveled for billions of years and that it would provide evidence for consistency of Nature (laws of physics) in time, may be wrong. At light speed, a photon does not experience time, for example. The photon would arive at earth instantly the moment that it was emitted, no matter the distance.

A recent study suggested that all particles in the Universe are entangled by kind which implies that non-locality is applicable to reality itself. From such a perspective, it cannot be said that a photon that traveled for billions of years (from earth's perspective) would provide evidence for consistency of Nature in time, since with non-locality, Nature can change in time independent from possible observations.

All Particles in the Universe Non-Unique: Evidence for an Infinite Universe
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 12&t=17207

As can be seen, there is reasonable ground to question the idea that a belief in uniformitarianism is justified and that simply implies that it is to be considered a faith based belief.

NickGaspar wrote: May 21st, 2021, 4:52 pmNatural Selection is the framework that describes and identifies the factors that produce and favor changes. Again, genetic mutations can be random, not Natural Selection.
'can' be random? What would be a possible alternative? And if there is none, how can one argue that Natural Selection is not driven by random chance?

NickGaspar wrote: May 21st, 2021, 4:52 pmRandomness implies value?
Departure from 'pure randomness' implies value (meaning). It indicates that 'meaning' (as in 'the meaning of life') is applicable on a fundamental level.

NickGaspar wrote: May 21st, 2021, 4:52 pm
A pattern is the origin or essence of existence. In that sense, it precedes existence. What precedes a pattern is meaning.
-That is a useless pseudo philosophical statement. You need to define the term pattern before you use it as the ontological explanation of existence.
Existence enables patterns to emerge, by definition. Without existing "entities" holding a specific position in relation to other entities..there can not be a pattern...sorry.
Essentially, it is the concept 'begin' that determines the essence of a pattern.

A pattern is bound by observation and that provides evidence that the observing mind must precede reality and that reality cannot be anything 'real' outside the scope of a perspective on a fundamental level.

The 'emerging' that is mentioned in your argument that existence must precede a pattern denotes a 'begin' and thus a pattern. The simple logical truth that something cannot be the origin of itself implies that it is not possible for an 'existing entity' (existent) to be the origin of a pattern.

NickGaspar wrote: May 21st, 2021, 4:52 pmThe discovery isn't there. That is just a claim. You will need to provide evidence on the mechanisms responsible for such states in plants.
The discovery of cells in the root system of plants that function similar to brain neurons in animals, is a fact. It is also a fact that many neurotransmitters that are found in the human brain, and of which it is assumed that they are crucial for conscious experience in animals, are present in the root system of plants. And it is a fact that some bigger trees have more 'neuron'-like cells than a human brain.

At question would be: why would one consider the discovered physiology in plants meaningless and consider it justified to maintain a view that plants are machine like automata that cannot possibly be sentient?

I do not see a ground to argue that plants are not likely to posses of meaningful experience when considering the recent discoveries of plant physiology that may potentially facilitate such an experience.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Steve3007 »

arjand wrote:Yes, some plants may be happy with that. A blade of grass is likely to have different interests than a 1,000 year old tree, similar to a 1-day fly and a horse have different interests. An insect - as a specie - may not mind to be eaten by a bird (it will reproduce in million fold to overcome predatation), while a horse, from the essence of its specie, will intend to preserve its majestic being, for its 20+ year life span, and have just a few children, that are nurtured and cared for, so that they may grow old like their parents.
OK. These are serious propositions are they? You don't think you're anthropomorphizing? Projecting your own human thoughts onto non-human things? You seriously entertain the idea that a horse considers its own "majestic being" or that a blade of grass concerns itself with human farming practices?
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by psyreporter »

My argument was intended to consider the interests on a specie level. A one-day fly or a blade of grass that reproduces in millionfold in a matter of days or weeks time may accept being eaten by animals more easily than for example a horse that has developed itself into a majestic animal that raises just a few children that require to live at least 10 years for evolution of its specie to become successful.

A blade of grass, being a plant, may even intend to be eaten by animals as part of a evolutionary strategy. What is atop a plant may be like hairs on an animal for some plants.

Some flowers only bloom after a forest fire. They actually count on being burned away to reproduce. The 'spirit' of plants may reside in their root system.

These flowers only bloom after forest fires
https://eu.redding.com/story/life/home- ... 364114001/

When it concerns plant happiness, one could consider that when one eats a plant and nurtures its specie, that the plant as a specie may be happy with that. As can be seen with humans, purposeful living can enhance long term performance, health and prosperity.

It is merely an idea.

At the core, the argument that this topic intends to address is primarily that the idea that plants cannot logically posses of meaningful experience (sentience) may not be justified.

The recent discoveries of plant physiology, such as neuron-like cells and neurotransmitters that in animal brains are considered to be essential for conscious experience, is indicative that plants may physically posses of what is required for sentience.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by NickGaspar »

arjand wrote: May 24th, 2021, 6:02 pm
Again, too many problems in the ideas you are trying to communicate! Lets get down to them.
'real' as in 'independent from a perspective' which means something empirically worthy of consideration to explain the fundamental nature of reality.
- I asked "What does it mean for reality not to be real on a fundamental level?" and you defined "real" as "independent from a perspective.
That is my and science opinion. Independent of our subjective perspective reality has an objective nature.
Then you say "which means something empirically worthy of consideration to explain the fundamental nature of reality.............!!!!!!! Again this is what science does! Independent from our personal, subjective impressions of reality, we use methods that remove subjectivity and personal interpretations and leave objective data to evaluate and analyze.
I don't know what is your goal with this statement.
No-one will argue that mathematics is the origin of existence because mathematics is obviously a mental construct.
-Why one should ever make that irrational statement. Math is a tool of logic which allow us to predict things by describing and comparing relations differences and analogies in nature. How math can ever be relevant or relative to the "origins of existence" ...whatever that means!
My argument is that 'reality' on a fundamental level is similarly a mental construct with the evidence being that the 'begin' that is introduced by the observing mind is logically the begin of reality.
-That 's really bad semantics not to mention epistemically useless.
Lets see your claim. "Reality on a fundamental level is similarly a mental construct".... You are confusing our theoretical narrative (mental construct) with what that narrative actually describes!(Ambiguity fallacy)
Math and all our frameworks fare mental constructs, but they describe the Objective, Empirically Regular and with External limitations "world".
By comparing them with the rest of our mental constructs (myths, fairy tails, dreams, riddles,idealistic concept etc) we find two main differences. The latter don't share the same qualities with the former.
That fact alone forces us to distinguish those two main types of impressions. So the only thing those impressions have in common is that our mental abilities allow us to be aware of both types. Our mental abilities also allow us to identify their different( in how we register them, their different qualities etc)...but some of you just ignore them.
So its not enough to identify how we are aware of out constructs and arbitrarily force an general ontology. You need to analyze the content of those input. The whole distinction is about their differences in their qualities. Specific impressions reveal objectivity, regularity and external limitations while other mental impressions like ideas and dreams do NOT.
A 'begin' implies the start of a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation (mind).
-that doesn't really make any senses. A beginning can only imply that a process responsible for a pattern can be observed by a thinking agent with mind properties. We are pattern seeking animals and it was an evolutionary advantage to identify patterns in a noisy environment. So much that pattern seeking brains (like yours) were favored and promoted their genes , allowing the following generations to see patterns where no patterns exist. This is what you are doing right now. You see patterns in a noisy world and try to convince others that they are there!
When it is denoted that reality cannot be independent from a perspective, it is meant that it is so on a fundamental level and not that subjective experience precedes reality.
-Reality is independent from any subjective perspective.You and I need to follow and obey rules (avoid cars, brick walls,keep our forks away from our eyes, use the quantum formulations for our devices to work) if our goal is to survive and see our loved ones one more day.
Objective reality may merely be an utilitarian value perspective and thus, within the context of time, not something 'real' (i.e. not something of a nature that can be comprehended using empirical science).
-Again you can easily test that. Take your friends and test the objective nature of a busy speedway by crossing it...and share your subjective experiences.
Utilitarian reality + science may not be the only option available to explain the fundamental nature of reality, and may not even be a plausible option.
-They are the only way to describe nature and the qualities we observe and define as reality.
The outcome of 'test and verify' resides in a historical context by definition.
-Test and verify the outcome of the objective reality of speeding cars....and you can become history your self.
You know that your pseudo philosophy has no place or epistemic value in explaining this world. If your subjective idea about reality was true, you would be in a deadly traffic accident in the morning and having a lunch some hours later. Reality doesn't work like our thoughts and dreams. It feeds the our mind with objective rules by which it puts together the model of reality.
As a retro-perspective, it would exclude the potential to explain 'meaning' or the origin of value, since what precedes value logically lays beyond the empirically comprehensible reality.
-Again those are vague deepities in sentences that are unable to describe reality and its objective rules. Meaning and value are abstract contracts we came up with to help us construct a meaningful and precious model of the daily conditions we experience in our lives.
There are some indications that scientific evidence is possible to show that objective reality may not be 'real' (as in 'independent of a perspective').
-Not really. That is new age para-philosophy. Scientific evidence by definition is objective...so that is a self refuting claim.
(2019) Quantum physics: objective reality doesn't exist
Clearly these are all deeply philosophical questions about the fundamental nature of reality. Whatever the answer, an interesting future awaits.
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-p ... oesnt.html
-Your device and internet connection enable you to share your ideology BECAUSE their function is based on objective facts of the quantum world.
Whatever the underlying nature of a particle is, that doesn't change the fact that the classical world where our biology exists and thrives has to deal with objective facts about reality.
What is indicated, is that empirical science is a retro-perspective and that the result of such is history which implies that it would require a faith based belief to argue that the facts of science remain the same in time (a 'belief' in uniformitarianism).
-Of course not. You seem to not read my posts. Its an evidence/knowledge based belief. Again telescopes and photons carry information about the past. Our theories make predictions and they are verified by the information provided by our telescopes and the carriers of that information ( photons and other wave lengths of electromagnetism). So our current evidence render the rejection of "uniformity" irrational and an act of faith or an argument from ignorance fallacy! We don't know so we can't use it as an argument. We can only based our arguments on our current verified premises.
The idea that a photon has traveled for billions of years and that it would provide evidence for consistency of Nature (laws of physics) in time, may be wrong.
-It could be, but as long as this idea agrees and confirms the rest of our frameworks (which in turn provide technical applications that we daily use.i.e. GPS) your argument is reduced to a fallacious from Ignorance .
At light speed, a photon does not experience time, for example. The photon would arrive at earth instantly the moment that it was emitted, no matter the distance.
-Of course not. You are factually wrong. We know that at speed light the photon i.e. from the sun needs 8 minutes to hit our retinas. Every process , fast or slow demands time in order to unroll.
A recent study suggested that all particles in the Universe are entangled by kind which implies that non-locality is applicable to reality itself. From such a perspective, it cannot be said that a photon that traveled for billions of years (from earth's perspective) would provide evidence for consistency of Nature in time, since with non-locality, Nature can change in time independent from possible observations.
-Well its one thing to suggest something, an other to prove it and a completely different for our interpretation to accurately reflect the real implications of a phenomenon. So the moment to accept a "suggestion" as a fact and use the data to inform our daily life is only after it has been empirically and objectively verified. You only have a bunch of interpretations based on philosophical assumptions of what that phenomenon means!
As can be seen, there is reasonable ground to question the idea that a belief in uniformitarianism is justified and that simply implies that it is to be considered a faith based belief.
-Based on the available evidence...it isn't reasonable at all. We don't even know if it is possible for natural laws to change over time. First we need to verify a single sample in order to accept the possibility of the claim and then compare that sample to the total number of cases in order to talk about probability. We are not there yet.

'can' be random? What would be a possible alternative? And if there is none, how can one argue that Natural Selection is not driven by random chance?
I am not sure you understand what "Natural Selection"is. NS is the natural processes where RANDOM mutations beneficial or not detrimental to the survival of a species allow specific changes in allele frequencies to accumulate. Again Genetic mutations are random, the process of Natural Selection is NOT.
Departure from 'pure randomness' implies value (meaning). It indicates that 'meaning' (as in 'the meaning of life') is applicable on a fundamental level.
-Of course not. Only thinking agents see value(meaning) in physical processes. i.e. we may value a rain fall because we depend on water, but the natural process of rain fall is neutral. 99% of the species have being extinct in the past....so things just happen without any meaning or value or purpose or goal. Again you are seeing ''patterns" where there aren't' any.
The opposite of randomness is not "value or meaning". i.e. you can throw colored magnets in a tight space and they will always be forced to interact with each other and form a specific pattern . That doesn't mean that there is meaning or value behind it.
The same is true with chemicals in nature. They blindly are forced, due to their properties, to interact with other chems according to a specific pattern and their available space.

Essentially, it is the concept 'begin' that determines the essence of a pattern.
-or the concept of the ever changing patterns is product of specific properties blindly interacting to a specific way.
A pattern is bound by observation and that provides evidence that the observing mind must precede reality and that reality cannot be anything 'real' outside the scope of a perspective on a fundamental level.
-A pattern is available for observation. A process must first produce a pattern for an observing mind to identify the motif. The pattern of a brick wall will leave "impressions" when interacting with your body whether you are conscious (able to observe the wall) or not....
The 'emerging' that is mentioned in your argument that existence must precede a pattern denotes a 'begin' and thus a pattern.
-Correct emerging phenomena are caused by specific low level mechanisms /interactions. they begin to emerge with those interactions.

-" The simple logical truth that something cannot be the origin of itself implies that it is not possible for an 'existing entity' (existent) to be the origin of a pattern."
-Way too vague to be meaningful! What that even means and how it is relevant to anything? It appears to be a vague argument from ignorance, but it would be helpful to give a real life example on what do you mean by saying "an 'existing entity' (existent) can not be the origin of a pattern."
Does sand and dunes formations count? what about molecule structure? I don't know...again too vague.
The discovery of cells in the root system of plants that function similar to brain neurons in animals, is a fact.
-SUre, the problem is that we have not found complex structures in plants like we find in animal's brains..................
We know that our guts have tones of neurons by we don't experience their conscious thoughts....right?
It is also a fact that many neurotransmitters that are found in the human brain, and of which it is assumed that they are crucial for conscious experience in animals, are present in the root system of plants.
-Again a protein can enable our brains to "see" a real life object, that doesn't mean that the same protein in a plant does the same work! Again its the complex structure that allows an advanced emergent property to emerge...not the protein or the "neurotransmitter". Neurotransmitter is not a work for "magic". Our biological apparatus just use those molecules in a completely different way than plants do.
And it is a fact that some bigger trees have more 'neuron'-like cells than a human brain.
-More neurons doesn't mean mean anything. The key word is "Complex Function.". Neanderthals had bigger skulls and brains, that didn't help them when dealing with the Cro magnons in Europoe.
At question would be: why would one consider the discovered physiology in plants meaningless and consider it justified to maintain a view that plants are machine like automata that cannot possibly be sentient?
-Because extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. You first need to prove that organisms lacking organs with complex function can produce mind properties.
A mechanical signal invoking a local chemical reaction without having any clusters of cells with a complex function taking part in the process... doesn't justify your belief.
I do not see a ground to argue that plants are not likely to posses of meaningful experience when considering the recent discoveries of plant physiology that may potentially facilitate such an experience.
-Again you have a burden. You need to prove the current Scientific Paradigm wrong and explain how mind properties can exist outside a complex biological function like the brain of animals...and not only that.... you will need to identify the neuron-correlates in plants that allow that . You are introducing mind properties in to nature without pointing to a capable biological apparatus and that is a supernatural and irrational position to hold.
I am not saying that you are wrong or your ideas are impossible.
I am only saying that you don't have the evidence or the epistemology to support such a claim and you are rushing irrational conclusions.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by psyreporter »

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm - I asked "What does it mean for reality not to be real on a fundamental level?" and you defined "real" as "independent from a perspective.
That is my and science opinion. Independent of our subjective perspective reality has an objective nature.
Then you say "which means something empirically worthy of consideration to explain the fundamental nature of reality.............!!!!!!! Again this is what science does! Independent from our personal, subjective impressions of reality, we use methods that remove subjectivity and personal interpretations and leave objective data to evaluate and analyze.
I don't know what is your goal with this statement.
"empirically worthy of consideration to explain the fundamental nature of reality" would apply to 'real' as a quality and wasn't intended as a consideration of what 'real' would actually be.

It was intended to indicate the unlikeliness that what is considered to be 'real' (physical or objective) is able to explain the fundamental nature of reality.

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
My argument is that 'reality' on a fundamental level is similarly a mental construct with the evidence being that the 'begin' that is introduced by the observing mind is logically the begin of reality.
The whole distinction is about their differences in their qualities. Specific impressions reveal objectivity, regularity and external limitations while other mental impressions like ideas and dreams do NOT.
My argument is that those perceived qualities can at most be considered utilitarian value and not something 'real' on a fundamental level, questioning the idea that what is indicated, despite its qualitative distinct-ability, differs from a mental construct.

While repeatability provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question would be if the idea that that perceived quality which is termed 'scientific fact' is valid outside the scope of a perspective (i.e., without philosophy and thus without it being a mental construct) is accurate on a fundamental level.

Conscious experience essentially expresses itself by means of pattern recognition. Since a pattern is bound by observation, the observer or 'mind' necessarily precedes reality.

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
A 'begin' implies the start of a pattern and a pattern is bound by observation (mind).
-that doesn't really make any senses. A beginning can only imply that a process responsible for a pattern can be observed by a thinking agent with mind properties. We are pattern seeking animals and it was an evolutionary advantage to identify patterns in a noisy environment. So much that pattern seeking brains (like yours) were favored and promoted their genes , allowing the following generations to see patterns where no patterns exist. This is what you are doing right now. You see patterns in a noisy world and try to convince others that they are there!
A 'process' would already imply a pattern thus when one evaluates the concept pattern per se, one is to explain the quality pattern-ness which is 'value'.

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
Objective reality may merely be an utilitarian value perspective and thus, within the context of time, not something 'real' (i.e. not something of a nature that can be comprehended using empirical science).
-Again you can easily test that. Take your friends and test the objective nature of a busy speedway by crossing it...and share your subjective experiences.
When one intends to explain the fundamental nature of reality, one is not to explore subjective experience to learn how that can have utilitarian subjective consequences. When it concerns the fundamental nature of reality, it would concern theory.

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
Utilitarian reality + science may not be the only option available to explain the fundamental nature of reality, and may not even be a plausible option.
-They are the only way to describe nature and the qualities we observe and define as reality.
No, they are the only means that are considered 'plausible' within a specific context of thinking to describe subjective experience in a qualitative distinctive way. It remains just an 'option' (e.g. a choice to assign a certain qualitative distinct-ability to the indicated means).

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
As a retro-perspective, it would exclude the potential to explain 'meaning' or the origin of value, since what precedes value logically lays beyond the empirically comprehensible reality.
-Again those are vague deepities in sentences that are unable to describe reality and its objective rules. Meaning and value are abstract contracts we came up with to help us construct a meaningful and precious model of the daily conditions we experience in our lives.
(2019) Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
The issue should have been settled by David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation.
https://sites.duke.edu/behavior/2019/04 ... f-science/

The idea that facts obtain outside the scope of a perspective has profound implications, the natural tendency to abolish morality completely being one of them.

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
At light speed, a photon does not experience time, for example. The photon would arrive at earth instantly the moment that it was emitted, no matter the distance.
-Of course not. You are factually wrong. We know that at speed light the photon i.e. from the sun needs 8 minutes to hit our retinas. Every process , fast or slow demands time in order to unroll.
From the perspective of the photon, the photon would not experience time at light speed. Thus, when it is emitted from a Galaxy billions of earth-light years away, from the perspective of the photon, it will instantly hit earth the moment that it was emitted.

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
As can be seen, there is reasonable ground to question the idea that a belief in uniformitarianism is justified and that simply implies that it is to be considered a faith based belief.
-Based on the available evidence...it isn't reasonable at all. We don't even know if it is possible for natural laws to change over time. First we need to verify a single sample in order to accept the possibility of the claim and then compare that sample to the total number of cases in order to talk about probability. We are not there yet.
From the perspective of time on a human-solar-system scale, humans would have only a fraction available in even a few hundred years time and besides that, what humans experience as 'their time' may be bound to relevancy on a level that would make it difficult to acquire an outside perspective (i.e. a human life may be served within a sort of cocoon of Nature, not physical but relative, thus outside the scope of what one could consider actual time or evolution of the whole (or fundament) of the Universe).

When it concerns the 'belief' in uniformitarianism, one could of course argue that one cannot claim that such is not legitimized without evidence, but it would be similar to philosopher Bertrand Russells magical teapot argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The concern is primarily that in modern human reality, the belief in uniformitarianism is used as a guiding principle, for example as a basis for ideologies and practices such as eugenics.

Synthetic biology, GMO or 'eugenics on Nature' is considered to be the 'next big thing in science'. It is based on the idea that plant and animal life is meaningless, which theoretical foundation is the belief in uniformitarianism.

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
'can' be random? What would be a possible alternative? And if there is none, how can one argue that Natural Selection is not driven by random chance?
I am not sure you understand what "Natural Selection"is. NS is the natural processes where RANDOM mutations beneficial or not detrimental to the survival of a species allow specific changes in allele frequencies to accumulate. Again Genetic mutations are random, the process of Natural Selection is NOT.
You did not answer my question. What could be an alternative if it is not random chance? And if there is no alternative, how is it possible to argue that Natural Selection is ultimately not 'driven' by random chance?

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
Departure from 'pure randomness' implies value (meaning). It indicates that 'meaning' (as in 'the meaning of life') is applicable on a fundamental level.
-Of course not. Only thinking agents see value(meaning) in physical processes. i.e. we may value a rain fall because we depend on water, but the natural process of rain fall is neutral. 99% of the species have being extinct in the past....so things just happen without any meaning or value or purpose or goal. Again you are seeing ''patterns" where there aren't' any.
The "go lay down and die" argument is not evidence that life is meaningless. The species that went extinct may not have been meaningless for diverse reasons, including the ultimate evolution of the human being.

The human being could go extinct by an asteroid, or it could not go extinct. The human being could go extinct in 10,000 years, or it could live rightly today and live at least a billion years.

The path that is chosen, can make a difference. It is why I believe that philosophy may become essential to secure long term prosperity for human evolution.
NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm The opposite of randomness is not "value or meaning". i.e. you can throw colored magnets in a tight space and they will always be forced to interact with each other and form a specific pattern . That doesn't mean that there is meaning or value behind it.
The same is true with chemicals in nature. They blindly are forced, due to their properties, to interact with other chems according to a specific pattern and their available space.
Pure randomness is existence without meaning, it is nonsensical but it would indicate that the simplest departure thereof would imply value or meaning.

When it concerns subjective experience, random has a different meaning. It would imply meaning of which one would argue that one has had no 'control', which is not pure randomness.
NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pmit would be helpful to give a real life example on what do you mean by saying "an 'existing entity' (existent) can not be the origin of a pattern."
Does sand and dunes formations count? what about molecule structure? I don't know...again too vague.
The concept existent on a fundamental level would imply that the quality pattern-ness is applicable before it can be named an existent. Therefor, it cannot precede an existent. As such, a 'process' cannot precede a pattern.

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
The discovery of cells in the root system of plants that function similar to brain neurons in animals, is a fact.
-SUre, the problem is that we have not found complex structures in plants like we find in animal's brains..................
We know that our guts have tones of neurons by we don't experience their conscious thoughts....right?
(2016) Gut bacteria and the brain: Are we controlled by microbes?
Although the interaction between our brain and gut has been studied for years, its complexities run deeper than initially thought. It seems that our minds are, in some part, controlled by the bacteria in our bowels.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/312734

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
And it is a fact that some bigger trees have more 'neuron'-like cells than a human brain.
-More neurons doesn't mean mean anything. The key word is "Complex Function.". Neanderthals had bigger skulls and brains, that didn't help them when dealing with the Cro magnons in Europoe.
It is simply unknown what a tree would do with it. Wouldn't you want to know? And in order to do so, would you not have to wonder and consider that the tree might be sentient?

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
At question would be: why would one consider the discovered physiology in plants meaningless and consider it justified to maintain a view that plants are machine like automata that cannot possibly be sentient?
-Because extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. You first need to prove that organisms lacking organs with complex function can produce mind properties.
A mechanical signal invoking a local chemical reaction without having any clusters of cells with a complex function taking part in the process... doesn't justify your belief.
Similarly one could argue that one is to prove that consciousness or mind is 'caused' by complex organs, for which there is no evidence. The idea that consciousness originates in the human brain is contentious.

There are humans who live a normal life (with job, marriage and children) with merely 5-10% brain tissue. A student with merely 5% brain tissue completed an academic degree in mathematics.

Consciousness without a brain?
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 12&t=16742

NickGaspar wrote: May 25th, 2021, 6:58 pm
I do not see a ground to argue that plants are not likely to posses of meaningful experience when considering the recent discoveries of plant physiology that may potentially facilitate such an experience.
-Again you have a burden. You need to prove the current Scientific Paradigm wrong and explain how mind properties can exist outside a complex biological function like the brain of animals...and not only that.... you will need to identify the neuron-correlates in plants that allow that . You are introducing mind properties in to nature without pointing to a capable biological apparatus and that is a supernatural and irrational position to hold.
I am not saying that you are wrong or your ideas are impossible.
I am only saying that you don't have the evidence or the epistemology to support such a claim and you are rushing irrational conclusions.
The issue isn't about shifting a burden to anyone. What is indicated is merely that the consideration that plants could be sentient is applicable. The discovered plant physiology may be meaningless, but it is not evident by the mere notion of the discoveries. Your assumption that it is meaningless would be based on the potentially false idea that consciousness or mind is 'caused' within a brain.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by NickGaspar »

arjand wrote: May 28th, 2021, 4:30 pm
arjand wrote: May 28th, 2021, 4:30 pm
empirically worthy of consideration to explain the fundamental nature of reality would apply to 'real' as a quality and wasn't intended as a consideration of what 'real' would actually be.
-Non sequitur. "empirically worthy of consideration"? as if we,as empirical thinking agents, have other ways to objectively verify any ontological claim .
(They are explanations about some phenomena that are worthy of consideration in our attempt to understand the fundamental nature of reality. Either way all our considerations will need to be empirically verified in order to be accepted as knowledge claims).
That is the only way those three words can be used in a meaningful paragraph.
- It was intended to indicate the unlikeliness that what is considered to be 'real' (physical or objective) is able to explain the fundamental nature of reality.
-Ok, so lets just stick to the descriptive part (like science does), where we observe and describe what we see in the real world at a deeper level and avoid assuming things that we don't (i.e. plants with mind properties)....
My argument is that those perceived qualities can at most be considered utilitarian value and not something 'real' on a fundamental level, questioning the idea that what is indicated, despite its qualitative distinct-ability, differs from a mental construct.
-And that is a bad argument from "word - salad bar" fallacy. You can "consider" whatever you want about i.e. a diamond the size of a freezer in your dreams or the building at the end of your road. What counts is the objective empirical validations of your impressions by your peers. These qualities creates the distinction between reality and wishful thoughts/dreams.
Whether you consider that dream diamond "more real" or "equally real" to your golden ring...well that is not a philosophical conversation(Ad Absurdum). The building at the end of your road will "stop" the car no matter what you consider.
We don't have any data to hold a meaningful discussion between the ontology of the objective things we perceive and the ontology of our mental representations of ideas. We can only point out their differences and their implications in our lives.
While repeatability provides one with what can be considered certainty within the scope of a human perspective which value can be made evident by the success of science, at question would be if the idea that that perceived quality which is termed 'scientific fact' is valid outside the scope of a perspective (i.e., without philosophy and thus without it being a mental construct) is accurate on a fundamental level.
-No one talked about certainty. Certainty (absolute certainty=red herring) can not be achieved. We are referring to reasonable knowledge base beliefs founded on current available facts.
Sure our technology improves, our observations change, new facts come in to light and our knowledge improves or changes.
BUT AGAIN, the rational thing to do is to base your beliefs on current knowledge....not on a possible shift of knowledge in the future......
We don't know which of our knowledge claims will change and which will stay the same in the future.....so that alone renders your claim an Argument from ignorance fallacy.
Conscious experience essentially expresses itself by means of pattern recognition. Since a pattern is bound by observation, the observer or 'mind' necessarily precedes reality.
-"Conscious experiences" do not have a "self" or express it. Conscious experiences are the result of a thinking being interacting with its environment and organism. We as thinking agents have a sensory system which allow us to gather information about processes in existence and produce a mental representation based on our previous experiences our emotions and the new data we receive. Our experiences are shaped by our previous experiences which have being shaped by our empirical interactions with the world.
For a mental agent to be conscious about anything, SOMETHING must first EXIST.
If not, then everything would have the same qualities with a "dream diamond".

A 'process' would already imply a pattern thus when one evaluates the concept pattern per se, one is to explain the quality pattern-ness which is 'value'.
-A process is what creates a pattern. Every pattern around you is the result of a processes. interrupt that process and the pattern "dissolves" or stops being reproduced and it weathers out.
Something exists (cosmos) that gives rise to patterns and we as observers can observe the physical processes and understand the evolution of those patterns through time. But again, without something existing we would be unable to observe anything. This is what "to be aware of" means....to be aware OF SOMETHING!

When one intends to explain the fundamental nature of reality, one is not to explore subjective experience to learn how that can have utilitarian subjective consequences. When it concerns the fundamental nature of reality, it would concern theory.
-Like it or not, if you want to explain the fundamental nature of reality, you need to study the empirical world objectively. Making up theoretical speculations without being able to test them, compare them ,verify or falsify them, you are dealing with useless pseudo philosophical stories that have zero relation to the reality we can experience and verify. Philosophy is the intellectual effort of understanding reality through wise claims about it...not to make up theories that ignore the available facts we have of the world.
BTW The test I suggested would inform you about the "Objective Consequences" that you dismiss as "not real".

-They are the only way to describe nature and the qualities we observe and define as reality.
-No, they are the only means that are considered 'plausible' within a specific context of thinking to describe subjective experience in a qualitative distinctive way. It remains just an 'option' (e.g. a choice to assign a certain qualitative distinct-ability to the indicated means).
-Again its the only way we currently got and the only one that enabled such an epistemic success. None of our previous "methods' (religion, magic, Pseudo Philosophy) managed to go so deep in the fabric of reality and provide meaningful explanations, testable predictions and technical applications. And of course science doesn't describe subjective experiences but objective facts that can be verified independently.


(2019) Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
The issue should have been settled by David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation.
https://sites.duke.edu/behavior/2019/04 ... f-science/
The idea that facts obtain outside the scope of a perspective has profound implications, the natural tendency to abolish morality completely being one of them.
-"The idea that facts obtain outside the scope of a perspective". You keep using this vague language based on abstracts to make your arguments. If you put them in real life perspective (actual examples) you wont have any arguments.
Science has informed our Ethics for years. We no longer accept divine morality or absolute morality. We now know there aren't intrinsic bad acts but the situation it self defines an act as such or not. Science gave us the knowledge to include all human races as equals in our circle of morality. Science pointed out the animal suffering, so science doesn't "deduce" morality. It informs our Philosophy in many ways so that it becomes better.
The facts can be obtain inside or outside someones perspective. Science is the method that help us do the latter. Science has the power to collect data independent of people's subjective perspective.
Pls don't share ideas of old philosophers. That is an argument from false authority. No one has the ultimate authority on metaphysical opinions, plus chronicling is NOT philosophy. Ok, we get it you agree with some his ideas...good for you.
From the perspective of the photon, the photon would not experience time at light speed. Thus, when it is emitted from a Galaxy billions of earth-light years away, from the perspective of the photon, it will instantly hit earth the moment that it was emitted.
....photons don't have a perspective.....................thinking agents have and it is irrelevant when it conflicts with observable facts.
From the perspective of time on a human-solar-system scale, humans would have only a fraction available in even a few hundred years time and besides that, what humans experience as 'their time' may be bound to relevancy on a level that would make it difficult to acquire an outside perspective (i.e. a human life may be served within a sort of cocoon of Nature, not physical but relative, thus outside the scope of what one could consider actual time or evolution of the whole (or fundament) of the Universe).
-I am not interested in useless perspectives or "mays". I am interested in real Philosophy, this means wise theories that can expand our understanding, help us produce knowledge, inform our lives (like we did in ethics) and use it to produce further knowledge(feed our ideas in to science). All those imaginary "perspectives" and "mays" only serve as Arguments from ignorance .
Yes we are not absolutely sure about anything, even if we reach the position of staring ultimate reality in the "face" we will never know it because we don't have a way to be sure that no more layers are available. This is why , in science, we try to falsify our current frameworks, not to accept them as proven absolute truth.
When it concerns the 'belief' in uniformitarianism, one could of course argue that one cannot claim that such is not legitimized without evidence, but it would be similar to philosopher Bertrand Russells magical teapot argument.
-Well in our case the magical teapot is "your" non-uniformitarianism. We don't know if an orbiting teapot exists and we don't know if non uniformity is possible.
The concern is primarily that in modern human reality, the belief in uniformitarianism is used as a guiding principle, for example as a basis for ideologies and practices such as eugenics.
-Uniformitarianism is verified by our current limited observations and available facts. The moments we have evidence against uniformity of reality ...then will be the time to challenge it....not sooner.
Synthetic biology, GMO or 'eugenics on Nature' is considered to be the 'next big thing in science'. It is based on the idea that plant and animal life is meaningless, which theoretical foundation is the belief in uniformitarianism.
-No...................lol. Its a ridicules set of accusations so I will ignore them
You did not answer my question. What could be an alternative if it is not random chance? And if there is no alternative, how is it possible to argue that Natural Selection is ultimately not 'driven' by random chance?
- I answered your question with a simple example. The poles of the magnets define how the magnets will bind. The conditions of the ecosystem "guide" which organism will be naturally selected...its in the word itself. So you can call it whatever you want. Its a process "guided" by natural conditions. i.e its not random that rivers flow down the hills or the path of their river beds is defined by natural obstacles and soil hardness. Processes follow the rules of their environment. So don't use false dichotomies to steer your conclusions..its a fallacy.

The "go lay down and die" argument is not evidence that life is meaningless. The species that went extinct may not have been meaningless for diverse reasons, including the ultimate evolution of the human being.
-We as agents find meaning in our lives. Nature doesn't find any meaning in any animal life. You as a thinking agent see survival and extinction "meaningful" and you assume a goal. This is what agents do...identify patterns and meaning in nature.
The truth is that meaning is not an intrinsic value of life(only of our lives and those we care/animals). You need to prove that such a value exists in nature..not just assumed it to be the case. We construct our own meanings in life. You may find our life meaningful, but the next earthquake might disagree with us...lol
The human being could go extinct by an asteroid, or it could not go extinct. The human being could go extinct in 10,000 years, or it could live rightly today and live at least a billion years.
-Or maybe a more intelligent, more kind more caring mammal could have been extincted before taking over the planet and had not allowed humans to develop catastrophic economical systems for the planet. You never know. You need to stop finding meaning , purpose and goal in nature.
Maybe homo sapiens was not the best thing to survive and dominate on this planet. But again as I said Natural Selection favored a naked chimp with a big brain...no purpose, plan or meaning behind it...it just happened.
The path that is chosen, can make a difference. It is why I believe that philosophy may become essential to secure long term prosperity for human evolution.
That is the goal of philosophy, but not in the way you use it. YOu need to base your philosophy on knowledge(current, established), not to find imaginary values in the world and believe in ineffable abstract ideas.
Pure randomness is existence without meaning, it is nonsensical but it would indicate that the simplest departure thereof would imply value or meaning.
-Again abstract concepts will never help you understand how nature works. Existence has meaning to those who exist and plan to stay alive for a while.
When it concerns subjective experience, random has a different meaning. It would imply meaning of which one would argue that one has had no 'control', which is not pure randomness.
-Again your concepts are not helpful. You are immersing your self in idealistic concepts and that blinds you from seeing that they do not exist in nature
The concept existent on a fundamental level would imply that the quality pattern-ness is applicable before it can be named an existent. Therefor, it cannot precede an existent. As such, a 'process' cannot precede a pattern.
-No it wouldn't imply that.Pattern is not a "thing" that exists....its a characteristic thinking agents identify at things in existence. REAlly bad language mode there.

(2016) Gut bacteria and the brain: Are we controlled by microbes?
Although the interaction between our brain and gut has been studied for years, its complexities run deeper than initially thought. It seems that our minds are, in some part, controlled by the bacteria in our bowels.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/312734
- this article doesn't say what you think it does....haha.

It is simply unknown what a tree would do with it. Wouldn't you want to know? And in order to do so, would you not have to wonder and consider that the tree might be sentient?
-lol no this is not how we find out things....we don't wonder and consider. We examine the evidence!
Similarly one could argue that one is to prove that consciousness or mind is 'caused' by complex organs, for which there is no evidence.
-Consciousness is a state of the brain that enables a specific behavior (to be aware of environmental and organic stimuli(thoughts, drives etc)).
Mesh up the functions of the brain and the individual no longer has the ability to develop such states. So there is evidence that biological brains are necessary and sufficient for our conscious states(well only outside science people struggle with that simple fact).
The idea that consciousness originates in the human brain is contentious.
-Again its not an idea, its a description of facts. But...if for you the brain is just a mental "thing" why are you so obsessed with this scientific finding. After all this finding is withing the distinction of physical and mental impressions and its not an ontological claim!!!!? Sciencedescribes facts registered by our Impressions within the so called "physical world". Science doesn't say that the underlying reality of both types of our impressions (physical and mental) is not the result of a magical conscious substrate or whatever woo is in favor in our days..
There are humans who live a normal life (with job, marriage and children) with merely 5-10% brain tissue. A student with merely 5% brain tissue completed an academic degree in mathematics.
-And...are you an expert on how much brain tissue renders a normal life impossible???. We know that complex function NOT size (relevant to other samples) is important for mind properties to emerge. i.e Neanderthals had bigger brains but obviously the functions was not at par
-Well we don't have a simple example of human without a brain being able to be aware of his environment, thoughts and urges. This is more of a pseudo philosophical discussion (Poisoning the well /begging the question fallacy)


The issue isn't about shifting a burden to anyone.
If you use it to force an unfounded position then it is an issue .
What is indicated is merely that the consideration that plants could be sentient is applicable.
That is an irrational consideration. Evidence is needed for the consideration to be justified....Interpretations of what some chemical similarities in living beings might mean is not evidence.

The discovered plant physiology may be meaningless, but it is not evident by the mere notion of the discoveries.
-It has meaning to the biologists who made the discovery. They can map the mechanics of plants.
Your assumption that it is meaningless would be based on the potentially false idea that consciousness or mind is 'caused' within a brain.
-I don't assume anything....meaning needs to be demonstrated objectively and empirically, not assumed. This is what humans did for ~2000 years.
Only by removing teleology,agency, intention and purpose in nature science experienced a long run away success in epistemology.
User avatar
Bigstew
Posts: 63
Joined: November 16th, 2011, 6:52 pm

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Bigstew »

Plants do not experience the world like phenomenally conscious creatures do. Claims of plant 'consciousnesses' is often functionally defined in a very broad sense, but never are key words like phenomenal experience ever referenced because it's crazy to claim such. Plants do not phenomenally experience the world like conscious animals do. Different definitions of what it means to be conscious essentially.

I try to avoid using animal products derived from horrific practices e.g. food production, animal testing etc. The agony of animals gives you a reason to avoid causing it, or to stop it all things being equal. But our moral obligations to one another are also formed by reasons other than pain. Respect for persons is a important part of our considered moral thinking and with regards to non human animals, they are persons in an extended sense. These two considerations are more than enough to persuade me that we do in fact have moral obligations to animals.
Neil Wallace
Posts: 58
Joined: December 15th, 2020, 5:03 pm

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Neil Wallace »

psyreporter wrote: May 18th, 2021, 8:34 am I recently registered as 'plant' on veganforum.org to ask a philosophical question and was quickly banned. I learned that the subject "plant sentience" is one of the most sensitive topics within the vegan community. Plant sentience appears to be seen as one of the main anti-veganism arguments, or at least as an argument that is used by 'anti-vegans' to attack vegans.

Subsequently on the forum philosophicalvegan.com I was promised that no user was ever banned on that forum, and that I would be safe, but in the topic the subject was quickly turned into argumentum ad hominem attempts to discredit my motive to start the topic, and the shared information. The accusations included the suggestion that I was deceiving users by posting as a philosophy professor with the motive of self-promotion, which was disallowed on the forum. The topic ended with the accusation that I was ignoring questions, which from my view, was untrue. My posts then were being edited and information was deleted, which ended the discussion.

https://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7298

I understand that the question is sensitive for vegans but it may also be important that the question is addressed.

The ban on veganforum.org for asking a honest philosophical question does not appear to be an incident. Academic philosophers are reporting about the occurrence of the issue in which vegans and animal right activists actually become aggressive against people who intend to argue on behalf of plant well being.

Philosopher Michael Marder, a research professor at the University of the Basque Country, mentioned the following response from animal rights activists to his argument that plants are sentient beings.

Philosopher: Plants are sentient beings that should be eaten with respect
His claim that a plant is an “intelligent, social, complex being” (i.e. sentient) has been contested by some biologists, but a stronger reaction has come from animal-rights activists and vegans who fear their cause is undermined by extending a duty of respect to plants.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980

When one wants to protect animal well being, how can one feel the urge to agitate against someone who intends to protect the well being of other types of creatures? How can there be a distinction?

Vegans are seen as a group of humans that have attention for ethics, more so than others. In essence, they fulfill a certain guiding role for humanity as a whole. Therefor, if for some reason attention for the well-being of plants is excluded with vegans and animal rights activists, who will be capable of taking it up for plants?

Protection would need to come from a lower level, e.g. philosophers and people with a generic perspective on ethics / protection of the environment. Lacking an ideological motive, what could make them results-oriented?

When one learns that vegans and animal-rights activists may be ignoring the well being of plants, one wonders: who remains that could potentially protect plants if that would ultimately prove to have been essential?

Quesiton 1: What is the origin of the motive to become a vegan (in general)? Is it primarily emotional or is there a sound theoretical basis?

Philosopher Henry David Thoreau once said the following about the enhancement of human ethical practice in general in relation to eating animals:

"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."

It appears that he was right. Millennials (Gen Y) have been driving a global shift away from eating animals and Gen Z is accelerating that shift to veganism.

(2018) Millennials Are Driving The Worldwide Shift Away From Meat
A global reduction in meat consumption between 2016 and 2050 could save up to eight million lives per year and $31 trillion in reduced costs from health care and climate change. (National Academy of Sciences).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpel ... from-meat/

This may be indicative that there is a sound ethical foundation for reducing violence towards animals.

Question 2: How can there be a distinction between animal life and plant life when it concerns attention for their 'well-being'?
At the moment there is more evidence that animal slaughter creates genuine suffering than plant slaughter. There is also a fair amount of scientific evidence that plant slaughter causes a plant no suffering whatsoever. Human beings are now free to adopt the following strategies.
a) Err on the side of caution and not eat anything causing your death from Starvation.
b) Assign a probability heuristic and weigh up the likelihood of harm to plants.
c) Simply ignore the suffering of both animals and plants and just eat them anyway.

I existentially believe b to be the best choice on the basis that I believe no harm is caused to plants. I could be wrong, but as I eat meat at the moment Im already in the wrong along with plenty others.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021