"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 »

Steve3007 wrote: May 18th, 2021, 9:59 am
Michael Marder wrote:Eating is not a very ethical activity in and of itself, because, in the process, the eater destroys the independence of whatever is eaten and literally incorporates it into her- or himself.
Eating is not the only way we do that. Breathing destroys the independence of oxygen by forcing it to combine with carbon (stolen from plants, which they stole from CO2) to make CO2. Oxygen is not sentient, but Michael Marder reminds us that sentience is not necessarily the key issue.

Oxygen rights? Sunlight rights? Should we be criticising plants for the barbaric process called photosynthesis? How far could this whole abuse of the concept of ethics be taken, I wonder.
On what basis do you consider it valid to extrapolate the applicability of ethical consideration on behalf of living creatures to non-organic matter? When one eats and considers the ethical validity of such an activity, does one consider such to be applicable to non-organic particles such as atoms or merely the living being of which it was a part?

Steve3007 wrote: May 19th, 2021, 4:27 am
arjand wrote:When one eats, one essentially consumes value.
I think it would be more accurate to say that one consumes negentropy. i.e. One takes in a quantity of low entropy chemical energy and gives out an equal quantity of high entropy heat energy and one does work, which also ends up as heat energy.
Do you believe that Nature is like a machine with simple input-output processes?

Steve3007 wrote: May 19th, 2021, 4:27 amTo make an ethical judgement about that process in itself, as does Michael Marder in the line that I quoted from one of your sources, makes no sense to me. A bit like saying the laws of thermodynamics are morally wrong.
When one formulates ethics one is to serve a principle in general, and when one considers the concept 'existence' and extrapolates the meaning of that concept from ones own conscious experience (ones will to stay alive), it is logical that one could consider the ethical sensitivity of the concept eating in general.

When it concerns a plant, a living creature of which it is argued that it is a sentient being, it is assumed that there is a 'subjective experience', which would be different from non-organic matter such as sunlight and oxygen.

In that sense, it seems valid to consider eating (of living creatures) 'not a very ethical activity' (as a consideration in general).

However, there are of course exceptions to be thought of. As can be seen with plants, they provide fruit and nuts and eatable materials to animals, for the purpose of being eaten. When that concept is considered in general, it appears logical that the provision of food, value that has the purpose to be consumed, is inherent in Nature. The matter that is part of the fruit and nuts, has the purpose to be consumed. From an ethical perspective, letting it rot away would be less ethical than it being eaten.

A recent scientific study showed that rocks on earth created the first photosynthesis that created oxygen on earth, that enabled organic life to arise. As it appears, the purpose of oxygen (and sunlight, its origin), is to be consumed, to enhance the life of living creatures, for a higher purpose, the prosperity of animals.

(2021) Non-classical photosynthesis by earth's inorganic semiconducting minerals
Our work in this new research field on the mechanisms of interaction between light, minerals, and life reveals that minerals and organisms are actually inseparable. ... producing hydrogen and oxygen from water
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-non-class ... cting.html

The basic disposition of life, the subjectedness to consummation of value from a position of lack of reason, implies that within the context of 'subjective experience', one assumes the value in the world as a 'given'. To overcome barbaric non-sensical eating would require reason beyond value, which requires a potential, the mere attempt to address the question "What is 'good'?", which could be demanded on behalf of human dignity.
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 »

NickGaspar wrote: May 19th, 2021, 11:18 am This OP is one more great example on why philosophy is useless without science (and the other way around).
First of all Plants are not sentient organisms. They do not function based on emotions so they are not aware of feelings and sensations.
Their interactions are pure chemically and mechanically(resulting to chemical responses).
Coursera has a two part course on Plants (Understanding Plants:What a Plant Knows and Understanding Plants - Part II: Fundamentals of Plant Biology).
Of course our current conclusion on plants is based on our Current Epistemology on their biology, but

...

So based on our current scientific knowledge the argument on"Plant sentience" is a poisoning the well and a begging the question fallacy. This assumption needs to be demonstrated objectively and empirically before it can be used in an argument.
What is clear from your response is that you consider that evidence for plant sentience is non existent and that the status quo of science is resolut in it's conviction that plants are not sentient, which is similar to the vision expressed on philosophicalvegan.com (the ban was on veganforum.org).

The sources that I shared in the OP on philosophicalvegan.com show that mainstream professors are increasingly raising awareness for the fact that plants are conscious, social and sensitive creatures that can be compared to animals. A professor who studied plant behaviour for 4 decades states that plants are essentially "slow animals". There is an emerging science field named Plant Neurobiology and scientists are starting organisations such as The Society for Plant Neurobiology and The Society of Plant Signaling and Behavior.

This simple fact could be a reason to consider that the presumed status quo of science by which is stated that plants are not sentient, is contentious, in which case openness for the possibility of plant sentience would be demanded by definition (for the purpose of maintaining an open mind for what may be possible, i.e. to prevent principled or dogmatic denial of an idea).

Argumentum ad hominem, e.g. arguing "those professors are crazy", as was done on philosophicalvegan.com, does not seem to be a justified defense.

An example:
🥗 brimstoneSalad wrote:
🌱 plant wrote:Those "few professors" cannot be tossed aside that easily as if they are some spiritually motivated individuals.
Most of them are, and it's bad science AKA pseudoscience.

Most people working under "plant neurobiology" are self evident quacks who are promoting spiritual beliefs and not doing science. You see a lot of work claiming plants are psychic and can read minds or have feelings. Yes there is some credible research in signaling that is being grouped under that, but doesn't apply to "neurobiology" because such does not exist in plants and those researchers know it.

...

Yellow journalism isn't evidence of anything. Do you believe everything you see on Fox news too?
The field plant neurobiology is driven by hundreds of professors and researchers. Many of the mentioned professors held TED talks et cetera. They are not all controversial. The fact that mainstream media provides those many independent professors and organisations with credible attention would require at least a basic level of consideration of the validity of the idea that plants are sentient (or: why not). One cannot hide behind the argument that the 'status quo of science' legitimizes the conviction that plants are not sentient because the emergence of a field named "Plant Neurobiology" + mainstream media attention clearly shows that such is not justified.

There is evidence of a serious movement under mainstream scientists. This is simply an argument by which can be stated that the consideration of plant morality is applicable.

An outsiders perspective does not need to provide evidence. It would be sufficient to make a case for the plausibility of the foundation of a consideration. The emergence of a science field in general is a pretty strong foundation.

NickGaspar wrote: May 19th, 2021, 11:18 am -"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?"
-You are keep making the same nonsensical statement. You need to define the phrase "well being of plants" and how do you quantify them. i.e. do we have painkillers or psychoactive drugs for plants...like we have on animals? What are you even talking about!
Animals are not plants, but from a philosophical perspective, the simple consideration that the question "What is 'good' for a plant?" is a valid question, is evidence that plant morality is applicable. From such a perspective, the concept plant well-being is valid.
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 19th, 2021, 3:18 pm
NickGaspar wrote: May 19th, 2021, 11:18 am
What is clear from your response is that you consider that evidence for plant sentience is non existent and that the status quo of science is resolut in it's conviction that plants are not sentient, which is similar to the vision expressed on philosophicalvegan.com (the ban was on veganforum.org).
-Of course not. What I personally consider is irrelevant. Again Our current Scientific knowledge can not verify your (or those philosophers')claim. Unfortunately the burden is on the side making that claim. The Null hypothesis of Logic protect us from accepting unfounded claims without objective evidence and it help us define the default position in ALL existential claims.
So the moment to accept a claim is ONLY after we have demonstrate that A(plants) and B(sentient) are connected. If that demonstration is missing the Default position is to reject the claim.
The sources that I shared in the OP on philosophicalvegan.com show that mainstream professors are increasingly raising awareness for the fact that plants are conscious, social and sensitive creatures that can be compared to animals. A professor who studied plant behaviour for 4 decades states that plants are essentially "slow animals". There is an emerging science field named Plant Neurobiology and scientists are starting organisations such as The Society for Plant Neurobiology and The Society of Plant Signaling and Behavior.
-That is a classic fallacy from false authority. Philosophical and metaphysical "opinions" are not how we evaluate our epistemology.
We need evidence that can be independently verified.(objective). Philosophical worldviews and subjective conclusions do not tick any of our "scientific" boxes.
This simple fact could be a reason to consider that the presumed status quo of science by which is stated that plants are not sentient, is contentious, in which case openness for the possibility of plant sentience would be demanded by definition (for the purpose of maintaining an open mind for what may be possible, i.e. to prevent principled or dogmatic denial of an idea).
-"presumed status quo of science"??? I am not sure you understand what science is or how it works. All scientific thesis and frameworks are TENTATIVE. This means that with new evidence ALL theoretical frameworks are vulnerable to be updated, changed or replaced.
Science and Biology to be more precise, do not hold that position based on a personal preference or bias. There are standards and criteria that need to be followed and met! Science accepts and rejects an idea based on the available evidence...not on a dogma or a philosophical view.
Open-mindedness is the willingness to consider evidence, not to accept a claim without any!!
Science WILL entertain this extraordinary claim when extraordinary evidence are offered.
Argumentum ad hominem, e.g. arguing "those professors are crazy", as was done on philosophicalvegan.com, does not seem to be a justified defense.
-No they don't need to be crazy. They are bad philosophers...that's all. They are claiming extraordinary things based on unfounded, unfalsifiable indemonstrable assumptions. They need to provide objective empirical evidence.

I skip your example because Iam not going to defend other people's positions.

The field plant neurobiology is driven by hundreds of professors and researchers. Many of the mentioned professors held TED talks et cetera. They are not all controversial. The fact that mainstream media provides those many independent professors and organisations with credible attention would require at least a basic level of consideration of the validity of the idea that plants are sentient (or: why not). One cannot hide behind the argument that the 'status quo of science' legitimizes the conviction that plants are not sentient because the emergence of a field named "Plant Neurobiology" + mainstream media attention clearly shows that such is not justified.
- I am starting to understand the reason behindr confusion about this field. As always we are dealing with Bad Language Mode. Words like "signaling" and "behavior", "stimulus perception" etc make you think that scientists believe that they talk about sentient beings.
That is not true. It's the same mistake most religious people do when they believe there must be a "divine programmer" just because scientists call the structure of a specific molecule "the DNA code".
You need to understand that our language is the product of thinking agents(us) and it was formed to describe the qualities displayed by them (intention, purpose etc). This is what we have to work with and describe the Natural world, so we need to understand the limitations of our vocabulary! So when we use the word behavior on plants we don't imply that a mind in the plant dictates this behavior.

There is evidence of a serious movement under mainstream scientists. This is simply an argument by which can be stated that the consideration of plant morality is applicable.
-Again no...its just bad interpretation of the language used by scientists to describe biological functions in plants.
An outsiders perspective does not need to provide evidence. It would be sufficient to make a case for the plausibility of the foundation of a consideration. The emergence of a science field in general is a pretty strong foundation.
-WHAT? No sir, all perspective come with a burden in science. They NOT only need to provide the evidence, they also have to suggest possible falsification methodologies. That is Special Pleading and it is an additional fallacy.

Animals are not plants, but from a philosophical perspective, the simple consideration that the question "What is 'good' for a plant?" is a valid question, is evidence that plant morality is applicable. From such a perspective, the concept plant well-being is valid.
- I (actually science) am not interested in any "philosophical perspective" that is epistemically disconnected from the established scientific body of knowledge.
"What is good for a plant" is a different question that has nothing to do with the claim of being sentient!!!!
You can ask the same thing about your car engine but that does mean morality is relevant to your engines condition.
Cutting down all the trees of your municipality park may rise moral issues since it involves the well being of human and animals (known for their ability to make moral evaluations) but the act it self has no ethical value in relation to the "well being" of plants. You are anthropomorphizing a biological organism that lacks mind properties, nociceptors, limbic system etc .
I believe your thoughts are all over the place and you need to stick to the key point.
Can you provide objective evidence that Plants' behavior is governed by emotions, feelings and sensations? IF you can then we can start from there and see what we can do to minimize their suffering and what we should do with our menu.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Consul »

arjand wrote: May 19th, 2021, 3:18 pmThere is an emerging science field named Plant Neurobiology and scientists are starting organisations such as The Society for Plant Neurobiology and The Society of Plant Signaling and Behavior.

This simple fact could be a reason to consider that the presumed status quo of science by which is stated that plants are not sentient, is contentious, in which case openness for the possibility of plant sentience would be demanded by definition (for the purpose of maintaining an open mind for what may be possible, i.e. to prevent principled or dogmatic denial of an idea).
There is a serious science called "plant electrophysiology", but "plant neurophysiology" or "plant neurobiology" is definitely a misnomer, because…

QUOTE>
"Plants are obviously organisms that lack both a nervous system and a brain."

(Trewavas, Anthony. Plant Behaviour and Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. P. 201)
———
"Plants continually gather information about their environment. Environmental changes elicit various biological responses. The cells, tissues, and organs of plants possess the ability to become excited under the influence of environmental factors. Plants synchronize their normal biological functions with their responses to the environment. The synchronization of internal functions, based on external events, is linked with the phenomenon of excitability in plant cells. The conduction of bioelectrochemical excitation is a fundamental property of living organisms.
The conduction of bioelectrochemical excitation is a rapid method of long distance signal transmission between plant tissues and organs. Plants promptly respond to changes in luminous intensity, osmotic pressure, temperature, cutting, mechanical stimulation, water availability, wounding, and chemical compounds such as herbicides, plant growth stimulants, salts, and water potential. Once initiated, electrical impulses can propagate to adjacent excitable cells. The bioelectrochemical system in plants not only regulates stress responses, but photosynthetic processes as well. The generation of electrical gradients is a fundamental aspect of signal transduction."

(Volkov, Alexander G. Plant Electrophysiology: Theory and Methods. Berlin: Springer, 2006. Preface)
———
"Electric Signaling: Ever since the discovery of electrical responses to stimulation in plants, obscure ideas about plants’ neurology were brought up (e.g., Tomkins and Bird 1973). This was always strongly provocative when one considers neurology as the study of nerve systems inferring foresight, intention, and consciousness to be restricted to the realm of cognitive behavior of (higher) animals. Astonishingly using such terminology plant neurobiology quite recently even comes up as a new move in plant biology (e.g., Trewavas 2003, 2005 ; Baluska et al. 2004, 2005; Brenner et al. 2006; Gurovich and Hermosilla 2009, with a rebuttal by Alpi et al. 2007). All kinds of interactions and communications involving plant cells are called “synapses” (Baluska et al. 2005). However, plants do not have neurons as specialized cells transmitting nerve impulses.

Reference is made to Charles and Francis Darwin. They discovered and in controversy with the dominating German plant physiologist Julius von Sachs, they rightly maintained that the kalyptra of the root tip is the site of perception of the gravitational stimulus eliciting gravitropical bending of roots (Darwin 1880, 1909). It is now known that electrical signaling is involved. The so-called geo-electric effect first described by Brauner and Bünning (1930) was confirmed by Stenz and Weisenseel (1991 , 1993). An electrical field is built up in the root under gravitational stimulation and the root is bending towards the lower physical side which is more positive. Very detailed studies by the group of Andreas Sievers (e.g., Behrens et al. 1985) then unraveled the interaction of cushions of endoplasmatic reticulum with the amyloplasts serving as statoliths in the cells of the kalyptra. This generates an asymmetric distribution of membrane potentials and a polarization forming electrical fields and eliciting electrical signals followed by gravitropical bending. While it is evident that perception and primary signaling reside in the kalyptra, it is much too far reaching to conclude that the root tip functions like a brain (Baluska et al. 2004) and to appeal to Charles Darwin for support of such a postulation. Charles Darwin tended to compare roots and also moving plant tendrils with earthworms having tiny brains in their tips. However, evidently the Darwins were not aware of the current progress in genuine neurobiology. Therefore it is not fair to quote them as authorities for plant neurobiology. Electrical phenomena are a basic and general property of all living proteo-lipid biomembranes. Clearly membrane-electrical properties evolved earlier than the organs of a nervous system (Volkov 2000). However, the crevasse between the functions of electrical signaling in plants and bona fide neuronal activities in (higher) animals is so deep that it is misleading to draw analogies (Alpi et al. 2007). Electrical signaling per se is not neurology.[my emphasis] On the other hand, by no means whatsoever this permits defending the error of taking plants as merely modular organisms with denying them the quality of being unitary individuals (Haukioja 1991). Rejecting the term “plant neurobiology” does not at all distract from the fascination inherent in much work that is currently performed on electrical signaling in plants and its importance for integrated whole-plant functioning."

(Lüttge, Ulrich. "Whole-Plant Physiology: Synergistic Emergence Rather Than Modularity." In Progress in Botany 74, edited by Ulrich Lüttge, Wolfram Beyschlag, Dennis Francis, and John Cushman, 165-190. Berlin: Springer, 2013. p. 170)
———
"Although there have recently been attempts to extend the terminology of animal neurobiology to plants, including the concept of 'the synapse' (Baluška et al. 2005), there is no evidence that synaptical transmission, involving the release of chemicals from synaptic vesicles at intercellular interfaces, is involved in the propagation of an action potential from cell-to-cell in plants.

(Spanswick, Roger M. "The Role of Plasmodesmata in the Electrotonic Transmission of Action Potentials." In Plant Electrophysiology: Signaling and Responses, edited by Alexander G. Volkov, 233-248. Berlin Springer, 2012. p. 241)
<QUOTE
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Consul »

arjand wrote: May 19th, 2021, 3:18 pmThis simple fact could be a reason to consider that the presumed status quo of science by which is stated that plants are not sentient, is contentious, in which case openness for the possibility of plant sentience would be demanded by definition (for the purpose of maintaining an open mind for what may be possible, i.e. to prevent principled or dogmatic denial of an idea).
Physiological sensitivity is one thing, and psychological sentience is another. There is no doubt that plants have the former, but the former isn't the same as and doesn't even entail the latter (even though the latter developed evolutionarily from the former). Our scientific observations and experiments clearly converge on the view that a nervous system and especially a centralized one (= brain) is necessary for psychological sentience (in the form of subjective sensations).
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by psyreporter »

NickGaspar wrote: May 19th, 2021, 5:44 pmWe need evidence that can be independently verified.(objective). Philosophical worldviews and subjective conclusions do not tick any of our "scientific" boxes.

Until now there is no empirical evidence for consciousness, does that mean that consciousness doesn't exist? Essentially, your conviction that consciousness exists is likely based on magical thinking based on your own subjective experience, which is shared between people by means of common sense.

There may be more to reality than the empirically comprehensible. In the case that Mind has a primary role in Nature, for example, it would open a new door for plant sentience.

There is mounting evidence that Mind has a primary role in Nature which implies that the idea that plants are sentient is plausible within the scope of what is possible by modern scientific research.

(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers

How observers create reality
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06774.pdf

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

(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 19th, 2021, 5:44 pmAs always we are dealing with Bad Language Mode. Words like "signaling" and "behavior", "stimulus perception" etc make you think that scientists believe that they talk about sentient beings.
One can merely argue that such terms are not evidence for sentience when one establishes that the information involved in those communication and interaction means is meaningless.

As has become clear in the topic on philosophicalvegan.com, meaning vs meaningless is the key to determine whether plants are to be considered sentient, instead of machine like automata.
thebestofenergy wrote:Plants are as sentient as rocks. It's important to understand the difference between reactions and sentience.
consul mentioned the following:
arjand wrote: May 2nd, 2021, 7:24 pm
Consul wrote: May 2nd, 2021, 1:41 pmIt is highly doubtful that the information in question here is semantic information rather than mere signal-information. A genuine language essentially has a semantic dimension (meaning & reference).
From your reference:

σ is an instance of information, understood as semantic content, if and only if:
  • (GDI.1) σ consists of one or more data;
  • (GDI.2) the data in σ are well-formed;
  • (GDI.3) the well-formed data in σ are meaningful.
As can be seen in the reference from Stanford, semantic content derives its quality from 'meaningfulness'.

When Mind is to be considered to have a primary role in Nature, then, plant behavior and communication with animals, and for example 'stress' and 'pain' reactions, are to be considered meaningful, and thus evidence for sentience.

Plants signal stress like animals do: with neurotransmitters
https://www.zmescience.com/science/biol ... r-0425634/

Plants scream in ultrasound when stressed
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180973716/
NickGaspar wrote: May 19th, 2021, 5:44 pm"What is good for a plant" is a different question that has nothing to do with the claim of being sentient!!!!
You can ask the same thing about your car engine but that does mean morality is relevant to your engines condition.

When one asks "What is good for a car engine?" one asks such a question on behalf of the human, of which the car engine is an extension.

When one asks "What is good for a plant?", one could ask such a question on behalf of the plant, a being separate from the human that somehow has an interest that lays beyond the human.

NickGaspar wrote: May 19th, 2021, 5:44 pmCan you provide objective evidence that Plants' behavior is governed by emotions, feelings and sensations? IF you can then we can start from there and see what we can do to minimize their suffering and what we should do with our menu.
With regard a change of menu. Such hasn't been suggested. Essentially, all that is suggested is that moral consideration on behalf of plant well-being may be applicable. Plants provide food for animals, so it is clear that they want to be eaten. Ethics could enhance human-plant interaction to secure long term prosperity for both.
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 »

Consul wrote: May 19th, 2021, 9:11 pmPhysiological sensitivity is one thing, and psychological sentience is another. There is no doubt that plants have the former, but the former isn't the same as and doesn't even entail the latter (even though the latter developed evolutionarily from the former). Our scientific observations and experiments clearly converge on the view that a nervous system and especially a centralized one (= brain) is necessary for psychological sentience (in the form of subjective sensations).
How centralized is a system that requires a Gut-Brain Axis to facilitate many of the emotions that are part of subjective sensations? From such knowledge, at question would be how it is possible that billions of tiny bacterial cells can 'control' complex human emotions, and the idea of plant sentience becomes more plausible.

(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

The term psychological sentience may not apply to plants, in the sense of 'human psyche' = psychology. Sentience that would apply to plants would reside within the scope of meaning relative to the plant.
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:
Steve3007 wrote:Eating is not the only way we do that. Breathing destroys the independence of oxygen by forcing it to combine with carbon (stolen from plants, which they stole from CO2) to make CO2. Oxygen is not sentient, but Michael Marder reminds us that sentience is not necessarily the key issue.

Oxygen rights? Sunlight rights? Should we be criticising plants for the barbaric process called photosynthesis? How far could this whole abuse of the concept of ethics be taken, I wonder.
On what basis do you consider it valid to extrapolate the applicability of ethical consideration on behalf of living creatures to non-organic matter?
I don't consider it valid. My comments were intended as a reductio ad absurdum.
When one eats and considers the ethical validity of such an activity, does one consider such to be applicable to non-organic particles such as atoms or merely the living being of which it was a part?
The living being of which it was a part. But not all living beings.

The extent to which I regard ethical considerations as applicable is not all or nothing, with a discrete dividing line at some particular division in the living world. This is because I base it on sentience and the ability to experience suffering, and I don't see any rational reason to draw a discrete dividing line and say "everything above this line is sentient to the same extent and everything below it is non-sentient to the same extent". The most reasonable position to take, in my view, is that sentience is a spectrum condition and that the spectrum spans creatures with nervous systems. i.e. animals. So plants, in my view, cannot rationally be described as sentient. Chimpanzees, for example, are, in my view, more sentient than, for example, fruit flies. Therefore I would apply the status of "ethical subject" to chimpanzees to a much greater extent than I would apply it to fruit flies. Whether the status of "ethical agent" could be applied to any non-human animal is, I think, debatable. But probably not.

To conclude from the fact that plants move that plants make decisions and have "debates" is, in my view, incorrect. Take, for example, phototropism. This is the tendency of plants to physically orient themselves towards light. I think it would be absurd if we concluded that plants make a decision, in the sense in which the word "decision" is normally used, to point towards light.
However, there are of course exceptions to be thought of. As can be seen with plants, they provide fruit and nuts and eatable materials to animals, for the purpose of being eaten. When that concept is considered in general, it appears logical that the provision of food, value that has the purpose to be consumed, is inherent in Nature. The matter that is part of the fruit and nuts, has the purpose to be consumed. From an ethical perspective, letting it rot away would be less ethical than it being eaten.
I think you're essentially repeating a form of the teleological fallacy. I don't agree that fruits and nuts (for example) are somehow created for the purpose of being eaten by animals and the conclusion that this somehow makes eating them more morally right than eating other parts of a plant. Since we're anthropomorphically imbuing all living creatures with our own thoughts and feelings here, I think the bacteria who are responsible for rotting those fallen fruits would disagree with you that it's unethical to let them fall, unconsumed by larger creatures. Why would you conclude that it's more morally right for fruit to be eaten by some creatures than by others?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Steve3007 »

Note: The views I've expressed above, based on sentience and the ability to experience suffering, are not the whole basis of my ethical views on the treatment of other living things. They're just the ones that I consider defensible by some kind of rational argument. I also have other views that I don't seek to defend like that. They're just standalone views.

For example, I tend to give greater "ethical subject" status to cute furry animals than to slimy ones. Likewise for animals that are my pets. For example, I have a pet cat. It may well be that she's no more sentient than some species of fish. But I'd object much more strongly to somebody killing her than to them killing some fish that I don't even know, and that isn't cute and furry.
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by NickGaspar »

NickGaspar wrote: May 19th, 2021, 5:44 pmWe need evidence that can be independently verified.(objective). Philosophical worldviews and subjective conclusions do not tick any of our "scientific" boxes.
Until now there is no empirical evidence for consciousness, does that mean that consciousness doesn't exist? Essentially, your conviction that consciousness exists is likely based on magical thinking based on your own subjective experience, which is shared between people by means of common sense.
- Let me get this straight! Are you claiming that there isn't any empirical evidence for the ability of beings with brains to have conscious states that allow them to be aware of their environment, there thoughts and self? Or are implying that the label "consciousness" refers to some kind of an invisible medium or entity or energy or substance? For the first case, YEs we have evidence for the phenomenon. For the second case, no we don't have any evidence for such substance/energy/entity etc and science doesn't make that claim.
We NO longer assume the existence of "magical substances". We are done with ideas like phlogiston, or miasma or Orgone energy or "consciousness". A label in science describes a phenomenon product of a process, not a belief in an invisible entity.
This means that labels like "gravity" or "consciousness" or "mitosis" or "digestions" or information are ABSTRACT Concepts that are used to describe observable quantifiable phenomena/processes with specific qualities.
So No "consciousness" doesn't exist as a substance or an entity but is is a real phenomenon. I think you are trying to strawman a position that I or science do not hold.

There may be more to reality than the empirically comprehensible.
-I don't deny that, but our conversation is not about "What might exists" or "what we might not understand"!
Our conversation is based on "What we can confirm as knowledge and based on that draw our conclusions"!!!!
Unfortunately we are trapped by our empirical nature to seek empirical verification. I would throw empiricism out of the window the moment one could offer a new methodology capable to produce objective evidence.
Until then empiricism defines our limits and it is NOT our arbitrary philosophical choice.
So with that in mind and with what we currently can verify as knowledge we can be sure that Animals experience suffering while plants,rocks,minerals etc DO NOT. The moment to accuse people for being unethical for crashing rocks and eating plants is ONLY after you have empirically and objectively demonstrated the ability of rocks and plants to suffer...Not a second sooner. This is Logic and this is what you need to do in order to remain rational.
In the case that Mind has a primary role in Nature, for example, it would open a new door for plant sentience.
-Again, you will need to Objectively verify that extraordinary statement before going on "opening" new imaginary doors.
You and ALl should inform our actions based on what we have verified to be the case....not with speculative cases.

There is mounting evidence that Mind has a primary role in Nature which implies that the idea that plants are sentient is plausible within the scope of what is possible by modern scientific research.
-Well that is a common belief in the new age/magical camp. Science doesn't verify that unfounded supernatural claim. Not only that, the Empirical regularity and External limitations displayed by nature build a strong case against the claim "the Mind has a primary role".
Existence is primary BY DEFINITION. In order to be aware of anything SOMETHING must first exist!. You are not aware of things that don't exist and if someone is....we have special institutions that deal with that!

You have bought the whole new age package of woo, I guess. I am not saying that those ideas are wrong. No, far from it. I am only pointing out that they are unfounded, unfalsifiable and this makes them IRRATIONAL (not wrong).
So you are promoting some pretty irrational claims here.


(2020) Do Quantum Phenomena Require Conscious Observers?
“Experiments indicate that the everyday world we perceive does not exist until observed,” writes scientist Bernardo Kastrup and colleagues earlier this year on Scientific American, adding that this suggests “a primary role for mind in nature.”
https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... -observers
-Kastrup? Really, you are using Kastrup's ideology?

How observers create reality
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.06774.pdf
-They don't....if by "reality" you mean our physical world.

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life
-No it isn't. Even on earth most seasons and most places are hostile to life. This is a cherry picking fallacy.

(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
-Make 10 attempts to run through a brick wall, head first. Then convince your loved ones to try the same thing. Pls share your results and inform us if what you observed was independently verified by everyone. If it was then the physical reality of the wall is objective independent of your wishful thoughts(i.e. passing through it)
You are confusing quantum scale with the classical world. There is am important reason why we still call the quantum interpretations...interpretations and not theories. We just don't know how the Quantum world and its properties relate to the classical world.
You are following pseudo philosophical ideas that aren't based on established scientific conclusions.

One can merely argue that such terms are not evidence for sentience when one establishes that the information involved in those communication and interaction means is meaningless.
-I don't know what that means.
As has become clear in the topic on philosophicalvegan.com, meaning vs meaningless is the key to determine whether plants are to be considered sentient, instead of machine like automata.
-False dichotomy. Meaning is not the only drive of sentience. For example animals can process their sensations and act to escape from noxious stimuli based on their primitive urges . On the other hand Mind theory in animals explain how more complex conscious thoughts can increase their success in finding food or escaping from dangers or have successful social interactions!
Plants have not use for such a mental property. They don't even have the biological apparatus to display such properties or the capability to avoid noxious stimuli.
As can be seen in the reference from Stanford, semantic content derives its quality from 'meaningfulness'.
-You are making irrelevant points.
So let leave all this useless argumentation aside and pls Describe the biological mechanism of plants which is responsible for receiving, evaluating, processing, finding meaning and acting and how we managed to verify its role. If you are able to do that, then we are ready to talk about how we can reduce plant's suffering.
When Mind is to be considered to have a primary role in Nature, then, plant behavior and communication with animals, and for example 'stress' and 'pain' reactions, are to be considered meaningful, and thus evidence for sentience.
-You need to demonstrate mind's primary role in nature before considering it and using to inform your philosophical implications. If your starting point is NOT founded on epistemology but on a mere speculation then you are guilty of pseudo philosophy.
And NO... You can not assume that plants can communicate by conveying ideas and meaning or that they have sentient behavior, or that their reactions are due to pain or stress. YOU need to demonstrate every single claim before you begin using them in your philosophical suggestions.

Plants signal stress like animals do: with neurotransmitters
https://www.zmescience.com/science/biol ... r-0425634/
-Again bad language mode.You can not post a guy's article and present it as evidence. You need to chose your sources more carefully. Try taking an academic course or two on the subject.
When one asks "What is good for a car engine?" one asks such a question on behalf of the human, of which the car engine is an extension.
When one asks "What is good for a plant?", one could ask such a question on behalf of the plant, a being separate from the human that somehow has an interest that lays beyond the human.
-Way to many fallacies to address this comment......

With regard a change of menu. Such hasn't been suggested. Essentially, all that is suggested is that moral consideration on behalf of plant well-being may be applicable. Plants provide food for animals, so it is clear that they want to be eaten. Ethics could enhance human-plant interaction to secure long term prosperity for both.
I think we have found the problem behind your ideas. You are using really bad language mode and as I pointed out, its not your fault. This is how our language evolved and we can avoid our abstract concepts from inducing "agency" in natural processes.

Here is a essay that outlines the problem of magical language and thinking
https://aeon.co/essays/magical-thinking ... urce=1-2-2
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by Consul »

arjand wrote: May 19th, 2021, 11:42 pmThe term psychological sentience may not apply to plants, in the sense of 'human psyche' = psychology. Sentience that would apply to plants would reside within the scope of meaning relative to the plant.
The plant-relative nonpsychological meaning of "sentience" is "physiological sensitivity (to physical or chemical stimuli)".
Psychology is the science of mind and consciousness—not only of the human mind and consciousness. There's an animal psychology (humans being animals too), but no plant psychology (properly so called).
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
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, 10:30 amLet me get this straight! Are you claiming that there isn't any empirical evidence for the ability of beings with brains to have conscious states that allow them to be aware of their environment, there thoughts and self? Or are implying that the label "consciousness" refers to some kind of an invisible medium or entity or energy or substance?
Both in a sense. The certainty that one assumes by means of conscious experience (e.g. the idea that 'objective reality' is nessesarily 'real') originates from perceived value (a pattern), which is a retro-perspective and cannot provide evidence of existence.

One has merely the begin of a pattern to ground the assumption that existence is a certainty, which is empirical (a retro-perspective) and not evidence of anything 'real'.
NickGaspar wrote: May 20th, 2021, 10:30 amUnfortunately we are trapped by our empirical nature to seek empirical verification. I would throw empiricism out of the window the moment one could offer a new methodology capable to produce objective evidence.
I do not believe that it is valid to consider that what humans can 'see' as a pain expression in plants, is merely a 'mechanism'. It would be similar to René Descartes's argument that pain expression in animals is merely a 'mechanism'.

René Descartes: "animals have no mind, torture them all you want"
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =3&t=16997

How is it possible that a profound philosopher (the father of 'modern philosophy') perceived pain expression in animals as a 'mechanism'? It may be evidence that an empirical perspective is not likely to be able to provide a valid ground for the determination of actual significance of pain expression.

From such a perspective, it may be invalid by definition to assume that pain expression in plants in meaningless, since emperical evidence is unlikely to be capable of providing an answer whether plants are sentient.
NickGaspar wrote: May 20th, 2021, 10:30 am-Well that is a common belief in the new age/magical camp. Science doesn't verify that unfounded supernatural claim. Not only that, the Empirical regularity and External limitations displayed by nature build a strong case against the claim "the Mind has a primary role".
Quantum physics cannot be termed 'new age/magical camp' in my opinion. The idea that mind precedes reality is essentially idealism, a centuries old philosophy, which may be valid.
idealism wrote:Within modern philosophy there are sometimes taken to be two fundamental conceptions of idealism:
  • something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality, and
  • although the existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative, formative, or constructive activities of the mind (of some kind or other) that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

NickGaspar wrote: May 20th, 2021, 10:30 amExistence is primary BY DEFINITION. In order to be aware of anything SOMETHING must first exist!. You are not aware of things that don't exist and if someone is....we have special institutions that deal with that!
I do not believe that your argument that existence must be primary BY DEFINITION is logical.

Is it not 'magical' to assume that an 'existent', which is to be considered of possessing a certain quality that justifies the idea 'objective reality', either always existed or "came from nothing"?

What exactly is the legitimization for the assumption that an existent is 'real' if it is not a belief or 'magical thinking'?

My argument is that the error is made to exclude the observer (mind) from the consideration. The idea that an 'existent' has a certain quality that requires a cause, is questionable.

One has merely the begin of a pattern as ground for the assumption that an 'existent' is real (a certainty), which is empirical (a retro-perspective).

A pattern (value) cannot be the origin of itself. The begin that is introduced by pattern recognition (the observing mind) is necessarily the begin of the world itself. Any inference within the scope of a pattern cannot be evidence of anything 'real'.

The error is perhaps to be found in the idea that causality ultimately applies to any attempt to explain the fundamental nature of reality. Many major philosophers have used causality to conclude that the Universe must have had a begin or "First Cause".

Simple logic shows that 'a pattern cannot be the origin of itself', thus, that the quality 'pattern-ness' (value) cannot be applicable to the origin of what can be named an existent. The nature of a pattern makes it obvious that the origin is conscious mind.

NickGaspar wrote: May 20th, 2021, 10:30 am
arjand wrote:One can merely argue that such terms are not evidence for sentience when one establishes that the information involved in those communication and interaction means is meaningless.
-I don't know what that means.
Well, when plants show responses to stress, such as screaming in ultrasound and neurochemical responses, then one can merely argue that such is not evidence for sentience by declaring those processes meaningless. That declaration must precede the idea that those processes are not evidence for sentience. It does not naturally follow from discovering those processes.

In short: one would need to apply a (opiniated) condition before one can argue that those processes are not evidence for sentience. It is not a natural assumption.

NickGaspar wrote: May 20th, 2021, 10:30 am -False dichotomy. Meaning is not the only drive of sentience. For example animals can process their sensations and act to escape from noxious stimuli based on their primitive urges . On the other hand Mind theory in animals explain how more complex conscious thoughts can increase their success in finding food or escaping from dangers or have successful social interactions!
Plants have not use for such a mental property. They don't even have the biological apparatus to display such properties or the capability to avoid noxious stimuli.
What about calling the enemy of an enemy when a plant is attacked? Plants also seem to be crying in ultrasound in the face of stress, perhaps to ask for help from friendly animals.

Plants Attract Enemy's Enemies To Survive
How do you overcome a strong enemy? Find an even stronger one of his. At least that's what some plants do when attacked by insects, according to a new study published in today's Science.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nemys-ene/

If a plant does not know what is good and bad beyond what it could potentially know already, then, how would it know how to attract a certain animal to protect against another type of animal?

It seems logical that the plant would need to be capable of experiencing something similar to the concept pain.
NickGaspar wrote: May 20th, 2021, 10:30 am Plants signal stress like animals do: with neurotransmitters
https://www.zmescience.com/science/biol ... r-0425634/

Again bad language mode.You can not post a guy's article and present it as evidence. You need to chose your sources more carefully. Try taking an academic course or two on the subject.
What exactly do you consider to be applicable to be termed 'Bad Language Mode'? When plants signal stress, i.e. respond to stress using neurochemicals, then, one would need to make a special argument to indicate why such a process is meaningless BEFORE one can argue that it is not evidence for sentience. It does not naturally follow from such a discovery. (the opposite neither, but you are stating that sentience is non-existent, while I have merely argued that that there are indications for its possibility).

What exactly is to be termed Bad Language Mode in the above?
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, 3:12 pm
Both in a sense.
-That is a nonsensical statement. The current scientific paradigm doesn't include magical invisible entities/substances in its descriptive frameworks
So "consciousness" as a label refers to the characteristic of a phenomenon...NOT to an ontological claim.
The certainty that one assumes by means of conscious experience (e.g. the idea that 'objective reality' is nessesarily 'real') originates from perceived value (a pattern), which is a retro-perspective and cannot provide evidence of existence
.
-You are confusing Conscious experience and reality. You need to distinguish those two concepts in order to have a meaningful conversation.
One has merely the begin of a pattern to ground the assumption that existence is a certainty, which is empirical (a retro-perspective) and not evidence of anything 'real'.
-Again this makes no sense. You as a human being need to obey to the empirical regularities of existence and reality. i.e. you need to use a device in order to send your fuzzy understanding on the topic to me. If you communicate with me by ignoring those limitations set by reality(i.e. send me a message without typing on a physical device) then you might have something to talk about. Your ideology should match your way of life. (practice what you preach).
You avoid speeding cars on streets and you don't question their existence for a good reason.
I do not believe that it is valid to consider that what humans can 'see' as a pain expression in plants, is merely a 'mechanism'. It would be similar to René Descartes's argument that pain expression in animals is merely a 'mechanism'.
-So you admit that your claim then is unfounded.

René Descartes: "animals have no mind, torture them all you want"
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =3&t=16997
-Yes Descartes had some disastrous ideas that mad a huge damage to western philosophy ...what is your point?
How is it possible that a profound philosopher (the father of 'modern philosophy') perceived pain expression in animals as a 'mechanism'? It may be evidence that an empirical perspective is not likely to be able to provide a valid ground for the determination of actual significance of pain expression.
-You are making an argument from false authority fallacy. Descartes was not the father of modern philosophy but the...uncle of a failed pseudo philosophical worldview(idealism). There is a really good reason why you will never find a simple input in our scientific epistemology based on idealistic principles.
From such a perspective, it may be invalid by definition to assume that pain expression in plants in meaningless, since emperical evidence is unlikely to be capable of providing an answer whether plants are sentient.
-All this is hot air. Pls demonstrate why we should accept the claim "plants experience suffering". Present the facts that make mind properties necessary and sufficient to explain plants' behavior.

Quantum physics cannot be termed 'new age/magical camp' in my opinion. The idea that mind precedes reality is essentially idealism, a centuries old philosophy, which may be valid.
-You didn't get my point. I didn't say that QM are termed 'new age/magical camp'. The new age/magical camp uses interpretations of QM as facts about reality. There are more than 10 different interpretations of QM. Choosing just one because it fits an ideology is cherry picking.
"idealism"]Within modern philosophy there are sometimes taken to be two fundamental conceptions of idealism:
  • something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality, and
  • although the existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative, formative, or constructive activities of the mind (of some kind or other) that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.
-Why should be care for an epistemically failed supernatural worldview? Idealism is recognized as pseudo philosophy in the Academia. It is based on unfounded assumptions and has zero epistemic contributions to our understanding of the world.

I do not believe that your argument that existence must be primary BY DEFINITION is logical.
I 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. )
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/M ... sness.html
Is it not 'magical' to assume that an 'existent', which is to be considered of possessing a certain quality that justifies the idea 'objective reality', either always existed or "came from nothing"?
-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.
What exactly is the legitimization for the assumption that an existent is 'real' if it is not a belief or 'magical thinking'?
-Again you make no sense. Something exists when it can interact with other things in existence. When we can verify its existence we then can say that "it is real".
My argument is that the error is made to exclude the observer (mind) from the consideration. The idea that an 'existent' has a certain quality that requires a cause, is questionable.
-That is a fallacious argument. You first need to provide verification to the premises of your argument BEFORE we can allow any consideration.
-Again the second sentence is irrelevant to our discussion. Pls stay on topic and try not to grow this conversation in an unmanageable size.
One has merely the begin of a pattern as ground for the assumption that an 'existent' is real (a certainty), which is empirical (a retro-perspective).
-You are using those words as if you don't really care about their common usages. WHEN we EMPIRICALLY VERIFY something we accept its existence and identify it as real. YOu can not escape from the empirical standard, logic can't escape from it. Its like you decided to close your eyes and ears and claim that nothing exists because we can not force you to look and hear......
A pattern (value) cannot be the origin of itself.
-What does that even means???
The begin that is introduced by pattern recognition (the observing mind) is necessarily the begin of the world itself.
-What?.....What are you talking about. Lets pretend that what you said make sense...how can you ever demonstrate those vague deepities?
Any inference within the scope of a pattern cannot be evidence of anything 'real'.
-A brick wall displays a pattern, test how real it is by running head first in its geometry and then we can debate the evidence that make it real lol...lets be serious, shall we?
The error is perhaps to be found in the idea that causality ultimately applies to any attempt to explain the fundamental nature of reality. Many major philosophers have used causality to conclude that the Universe must have had a begin or "First Cause
".
_causality is nothing more than our ability to directly observe the different stages and relations in the evolution of an unrolling physical process. I don't care about useless pseudo philosophical ideas. I only care on how other members of my society identify what is real and what is not. I care for rational peers.
Simple logic shows that 'a pattern cannot be the origin of itself', thus, that the quality 'pattern-ness' (value) cannot be applicable to the origin of what can be named an existent. The nature of a pattern makes it obvious that the origin is conscious mind.
-Again you are confused. Pattern is not a thing....Pattern is an emergent quality with specific characteristics cause by interactions in a process by things.
BUt again all those are known pseudo philosophical deepities have nothing to do with our inability to verify suffering in plants. Can you stick on the subject? Are you able to do Philosophy or are we going to be all over the place by using "mysteries" as excuses to believe in bigger mysteries?
Well, when plants show responses to stress, such as screaming in ultrasound and neurochemical responses, then one can merely argue that such is not evidence for sentience by declaring those processes meaningless. That declaration must precede the idea that those processes are not evidence for sentience. It does not naturally follow from discovering those processes.
- You see agency in nature. You are back in bed with Aristotle and Descartes without any evidence. Plants have sensors (mechanical and chemical) which trigger chemical and mechanical functions.Those stimuli received by their sensory system are not processed by a central processing unit (like animals do).
You are the one that introduces additional properties in a system that doesn't have the biological capacity to produce.
In short: one would need to apply a (opiniated) condition before one can argue that those processes are not evidence for sentience. It is not a natural assumption.
-You are making an extra claim on top of a system. Parsimony, Demarcation, The burden of proof and the Null Hypothesis demand from you to provide evidence for your claim. i.e just because a rock rolls downs a hill that doesn't mean that rocks have a hidden sensory system that sensed gravity and chose to act according to that stimuli. Lets be reasonable and serious in our claims and acknowledge our burden.

Its like me saying that the electromagnetic cohesion of molecules of a cup is necessary and sufficient to force the liquid inside that cup in a specific shape while you are claiming that a mind is needed for a liquid to take the shape of the cup.....

What about calling the enemy of an enemy when a plant is attacked? Plants also seem to be crying in ultrasound in the face of stress, perhaps to ask for help from friendly animals.
-Yes plants produces many cues that other plants pick up. That doesn't mean that they are actually "crying" or "communicating" or "intelligently processing". We as observers use those words to describe how this appear to our eyes. Again this is human language describing a phenomenon on observer relative terms. This doesn't mean that it is an intrinsic feature of the system!!!!
Plants Attract Enemy's Enemies To Survive
How do you overcome a strong enemy? Find an even stronger one of his. At least that's what some plants do when attacked by insects, according to a new study published in today's Science.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nemys-ene/
-Why do you keep posting articles that use similes and metaphors to describe a phenomenon? They do not prove your point sir! YOu need studies that demonstrate the mental abilities of plants and describe how it it achieved.
If a plant does not know what is good and bad beyond what it could potentially know already, then, how would it know how to attract a certain animal to protect against another type of animal?
-Do you know anything about evolution ????
It seems logical that the plant would need to be capable of experiencing something similar to the concept pain.
-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?

What exactly do you consider to be applicable to be termed 'Bad Language Mode'? When plants signal stress, i.e. respond to stress using neurochemicals, then, one would need to make a special argument to indicate why such a process is meaningless BEFORE one can argue that it is not evidence for sentience. It does not naturally follow from such a discovery. (the opposite neither, but you are stating that sentience is non-existent, while I have merely argued that that there are indications for its possibility).
-When you say that the plants seem to "know" what is beneficial to them..that is bad language mode. Again if you had studied evolution you would know that plants don't need to "know" anything in order to behave the way they do. A beneficial behavior increases the chances of survival allowing the survived organism to spread that specific beneficial behavior along with its genes!

So once more we found the same errors in the arguments of people that ignore basic Evolutionary Biology and the Main Philosophical Principles of science.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: "Plant sentience" and veganism

Post by psyreporter »

Consul wrote: May 20th, 2021, 10:36 amThe plant-relative nonpsychological meaning of "sentience" is "physiological sensitivity (to physical or chemical stimuli)".
Psychology is the science of mind and consciousness—not only of the human mind and consciousness. There's an animal psychology (humans being animals too), but no plant psychology (properly so called).
In that case, perhaps one day, plant psychology will be a real thing.

Plants grow better when they are nurtured by voice, especially by a female. They also appear to be able to read the mind of humans and react based on 'intention'.

(2021) Talking to Plants Can Help Them Grow Faster
https://www.thespruce.com/should-you-ta ... ts-3972298

(2014) Your Houseplants Can Think, Talk, Read Your Mind: New Research Adds Evidence
https://www.theepochtimes.com/your-hous ... 60659.html
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 20th, 2021, 6:01 amWhy 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.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
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