Register to reply

Plant sentience

by elwestrand
Tags: plant, sentience
Share this thread:
elwestrand
#1
Feb22-04, 12:47 AM
P: 84
No one hears this.

They go on and on about evolution, oblivious to the fact that evolutionary theory does not deal with consciousness one way or another. If the conclusion is that plants can be fully explained in evolutionary terms and therfore are mere "automations," then why does that not apply to human beings who can also be fully explained in similar terms? Of course evolutionary theory itself is flawed. I have not been able to get a anyone to explain how plants have unconsiously developed poisions, thorns and other mechanisms to avoid being eaten. Or how fruit bearing plants have designed an ingenious way to spread their seeds and survive. The evolutionary answer is "accidentally" over millions of years of random mutations. If true, why do we not observe failures in this pattern? For example, according to evolutionists, the venus fly trap "accidentally" mutated into an insect devouring plant, apparently it is a stroke of luck for it that "flys" even exist! All evolutionists avoid tacking these questions and refer me to someone else or merely say "read Darwin." Apparently they have not read Darwin; in "Origin of species," he has an entire chapter devoted to problems in his theory. We must accept t that the Orchid flowers know what their polinating insects look like, and they know what scents and colors appeal to the insects, simply because they have a wide range of senses by which to know and insight into insects, which obviously requires sentience.

Evolutionary theory is like Newtonian physics. It apparently explains life, but it has no idea why or how life exists. What physical property distinguishes a dead cell from a living cell? Science does not know, yet it maintains that it is reduceable to physical properties. If the "life force" is reduceable to chemical properties, then it should be a very simple matter to take dead cells and make then alive again. This is common sense. Science must answer these basic questions before tackling sentience.

Furthermore, We know plants have senses. It is a biological fact. There is no physical law that dictates that the plant's root will grown down and its leaves will follow sunlight. It is not magnetism at work! Moreover, the "common sense" argument that plants have no mind because they have no brain is fundamentally flawed. For one reason, our precious "Science" has no explanation why HUMANS are conscious. Science pinpoints it to the brain, but has no speculation for why or how a brain generates consciousness at all. Science does not deal in consciousness because it is a mystery to it. It has left it to philosophy.

In truth, Consciousness does not originate in the brain, the brain is not the CAUSE for consciousness, it is merely an interface for it. If life cannot be explained physically, then why should consciousness? Animals need hearts to live. Plants have no heart, yet they are alive through different principles. Similarly, why should an absence of a brain imply that a plant has no mind? What reason is there against the explanation that plants have a mind through different principles? I have never recieved an answer to this, and I never will from someone who doubts plant sentience. We know that plants have senses. In animals, senses do not work without being connected to a neurological system. The fact that plants have senses is evidence of a "mind" that operates though differernt principles.

I postulated that a seedling knows which direction to grow its root, by sensing gravity. I planted some Mung beans and placed a fine nylon net over the soil (the kind that Oranges come in), then I inverted the pot and hung it. The roots should grown down right? (even though to survive they should grown up). I telepathically communicated to the seeds, telling them how to grown. Each seed reacted differently, as an individual. One started to grow down, then immediately turned and grew upwards. The second seed grew horrizontally. The third root was the slowest to grow and it just grew down. I then planted a seed normally, not inverting the pot. (this seed was among one that I telepathically told to grow up). This seed grew its root up from the start, completely oblivious to gravity; It grew for about three forths of an inch, then it immediately turned, made a hook and started growing downward! But it didn't get very far. It soon died.
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
What lit up the universe?
Sheepdogs use just two simple rules to round up large herds of sheep
Animals first flex their muscles
Deeviant
#2
Mar5-04, 12:13 PM
P: 284
Originally posted by elwestrand
No one hears this.

They go on and on about evolution, oblivious to the fact that evolutionary theory does not deal with consciousness one way or another. If the conclusion is that plants can be fully explained in evolutionary terms and therfore are mere "automations," then why does that not apply to human beings who can also be fully explained in similar terms? Of course evolutionary theory itself is flawed. I have not been able to get a anyone to explain how plants have unconsiously developed poisions, thorns and other mechanisms to avoid being eaten. Or how fruit bearing plants have designed an ingenious way to spread their seeds and survive. The evolutionary answer is "accidentally" over millions of years of random mutations. If true, why do we not observe failures in this pattern? For example, according to evolutionists, the venus fly trap "accidentally" mutated into an insect devouring plant, apparently it is a stroke of luck for it that "flys" even exist! All evolutionists avoid tacking these questions and refer me to someone else or merely say "read Darwin." Apparently they have not read Darwin; in "Origin of species," he has an entire chapter devoted to problems in his theory. We must accept t that the Orchid flowers know what their polinating insects look like, and they know what scents and colors appeal to the insects, simply because they have a wide range of senses by which to know and insight into insects, which obviously requires sentience.

Evolutionary theory is like Newtonian physics. It apparently explains life, but it has no idea why or how life exists. What physical property distinguishes a dead cell from a living cell? Science does not know, yet it maintains that it is reduceable to physical properties. If the "life force" is reduceable to chemical properties, then it should be a very simple matter to take dead cells and make then alive again. This is common sense. Science must answer these basic questions before tackling sentience.

Furthermore, We know plants have senses. It is a biological fact. There is no physical law that dictates that the plant's root will grown down and its leaves will follow sunlight. It is not magnetism at work! Moreover, the "common sense" argument that plants have no mind because they have no brain is fundamentally flawed. For one reason, our precious "Science" has no explanation why HUMANS are conscious. Science pinpoints it to the brain, but has no speculation for why or how a brain generates consciousness at all. Science does not deal in consciousness because it is a mystery to it. It has left it to philosophy.

In truth, Consciousness does not originate in the brain, the brain is not the CAUSE for consciousness, it is merely an interface for it. If life cannot be explained physically, then why should consciousness? Animals need hearts to live. Plants have no heart, yet they are alive through different principles. Similarly, why should an absence of a brain imply that a plant has no mind? What reason is there against the explanation that plants have a mind through different principles? I have never recieved an answer to this, and I never will from someone who doubts plant sentience. We know that plants have senses. In animals, senses do not work without being connected to a neurological system. The fact that plants have senses is evidence of a "mind" that operates though differernt principles.

I postulated that a seedling knows which direction to grow its root, by sensing gravity. I planted some Mung beans and placed a fine nylon net over the soil (the kind that Oranges come in), then I inverted the pot and hung it. The roots should grown down right? (even though to survive they should grown up). I telepathically communicated to the seeds, telling them how to grown. Each seed reacted differently, as an individual. One started to grow down, then immediately turned and grew upwards. The second seed grew horrizontally. The third root was the slowest to grow and it just grew down. I then planted a seed normally, not inverting the pot. (this seed was among one that I telepathically told to grow up). This seed grew its root up from the start, completely oblivious to gravity; It grew for about three forths of an inch, then it immediately turned, made a hook and started growing downward! But it didn't get very far. It soon died.

^
|
Yellow and blue may make green but drugs and theology do not make reality.
FZ+
#3
Mar5-04, 06:18 PM
FZ+'s Avatar
P: 1,954
If the conclusion is that plants can be fully explained in evolutionary terms and therfore are mere "automations," then why does that not apply to human beings who can also be fully explained in similar terms?
Because humans are not plants. And there is no sharp line, as far as we can see, between automaton and sentient. Plants may indeed have a degree of consciousness. Can you prove otherwise?

It is the converse that appears illogical. How can we say that any other human is conscious, as I am, without pointing to physical similarity? How can we account for plant unconsciousness, without pointing to physical dissimilarity?

Nobody understands consciousness. We simply made models.

If true, why do we not observe failures in this pattern?
Failures don't live very long. And some of our genetic diseases are failures.

(It is interesting that creationists don't seem to talk to each other. There was another one the other day telling me that the effects of failure means evolution cannot occur. Shame we can't get the two to cancel out...)

he has an entire chapter devoted to problems in his theory.
Evolution has gone waaay past Darwin. Look up co-evolution for the solution to the bees + orchids problem.

It apparently explains life, but it has no idea why or how life exists.
And something does? What may I ask is that?

If the "life force" is reduceable to chemical properties, then it should be a very simple matter to take dead cells and make then alive again.
It is hard to specify a point at which a cell is dead. Cell dead is exceedingly messy - it doesn't just switch off, it often self-destructs, making you have to recreate alot of structures. But yes, "dead" things can be made into what we think of as life. Bacteria can exist for a long time in an effectively dead state.

Science doesn't presume life to be chemical. It may be chemical, or it may be subjective, or it may be an unique entity. Science tells us that we can understand it.

There is no physical law that dictates that the plant's root will grown down and its leaves will follow sunlight.
Er... yes there is. Look up plant growth hormones (eg. auxins - its a basic biology experiment), and the way they react to light, or gravity.

I telepathically communicated to the seeds, telling them how to grown.
Ok, so this is satire. For a moment I thought you were serious. Heh.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Hedonism defined in terms of sentience. General Discussion 2
Sentience, flaw in scientific method General Discussion 23
God a multiplistic sentience General Discussion 3
Data, and the nature of sentience General Discussion 4
Deconstructing Human Sentience General Discussion 1