Newly Developing Philosophy

[Malintent]

So this here is the subjective part, I guess... and the part I need the most help with...

born to die versus grown to die. saying that plants somehow have less to live for than animals is the offensive bit (not saying you are saying that).
this philosophy is suggesting that plants should get more consideration than animals, because... (help). It just feel right to me, is the best I can say right now.

I don't have that same feeling as you. You have to try to figure out what is causing this feeling and then examine it.

That is fair. Plants don't have the same feelings as you either, so should we disrespect your feelings then? Why are your feelings more important then theirs? they have been around here longer than us and have evolved far longer than us. Maybe their feelings matter more then?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You repeating your racist statements that the lives of plants (the Plant race) matter just as much as an inanimate object (a rock) further proves my point that people are just too racist against plants to even consider their feelings. Plants respond to music, rocks don't.
You ask how I think feelings work.. well how does race 'work'.. how do 'feelings' work in people versus animals? how do you know this is any different in plants (who lack the ability to bite you or run away)

Well, feelings work in people and animals because of electrical impluses running through our nervous systems and brains. When I or a cow feels joy or sadness, it is because of electrical stimulation in various parts of our brain in response to a stimulus. If I cut off the leg of a sheep, it has nerves in that leg which send an electrical impulse to its brain and activates the pain sensors there to produce a negative reaction.

You seem to be saying that there is something analogous to these things in plants which allow them to experience similar sensations so that they are more comparable to animals on this matter than rocks. What is that something?

 

[ryan]

I don't have that same feeling as you. You have to try to figure out what is causing this feeling and then examine it.

That is fair. Plants don't have the same feelings as you either, so should we disrespect your feelings then? Why are your feelings more important then theirs? they have been around here longer than us and have evolved far longer than us. Maybe their feelings matter more then?

You are assuming that plants have feelings. Why do you believe this?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Plants respond to music, rocks don't.

'Respond?' Kinda generic, what?

I mean, violin strings 'respond' to music. vibrating violin strings will produce sound waves. Sound waves hitting an untouched violin's strings will cause those strings to vibrate.

How would you go about determining or demonstrating that the plant's response to music involves the plant's 'feelings? Not something more mechanical or something?

 

[Malintent]

That is fair. Plants don't have the same feelings as you either, so should we disrespect your feelings then? Why are your feelings more important then theirs? they have been around here longer than us and have evolved far longer than us. Maybe their feelings matter more then?

You are assuming that plants have feelings. Why do you believe this?

this is a philosophy, not a science.. I should be allowed some leeway with the woo, no?

 

[Malintent]

Plants respond to music, rocks don't.

'Respond?' Kinda generic, what?

I mean, violin strings 'respond' to music. vibrating violin strings will produce sound waves. Sound waves hitting an untouched violin's strings will cause those strings to vibrate.

How would you go about determining or demonstrating that the plant's response to music involves the plant's 'feelings? Not something more mechanical or something?

lots of studies have shown that plants respond to external stimuli (apart from sun position and water location)..

I am not looking for conclusive scientific evidence that Ketonism is a proven necessity of human existence... one can believe and follow the philosophy or not.
I was a little more interested in feedback on the feasibility of following the philosophy, and also these types of arguments on foundation... to some extent

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You are assuming that plants have feelings. Why do you believe this?

this is a philosophy, not a science.. I should be allowed some leeway with the woo, no?

Well ya, but you do need to ascribe a basis to your claims beyond "because of woo". Philosophical positions are built off of the logic used to make them and if your premises are invalid then the conclusions deriving from those premises are equally invalid.

Animals have certain internal structures which allow them to feel and plants lack these. That means that if you're going to say that they have feelings anyways, despite the lack of the anatomy which allows for feelings, the onus is on you to decribe how this is possible. Without that, your philosophy lacks a foundation.

 

[ryan]

You are assuming that plants have feelings. Why do you believe this?

this is a philosophy, not a science.. I should be allowed some leeway with the woo, no?

Your claim just seems too bold and too specific to be philosophy. Philosophy generally uses other philosophical ideas and/or logic to construct new philosophies. And philosophy usually is not testable or not verifiable by testing, and thus it is outside of the domain of science.

However, I actually believe that plants have an awareness like humans, except it would be more subtle and simple than the variety of the extremely complex inner working of the human consciousness. But all of that is based on panpsychism where everything may be aware to some extent.

So, I have taken a philosophy and applied it to something specific like a plant.

Try to get to the root of why you believe this, and who knows, it might be some unconscious understanding trying to get out. Or, it might collapse in on itself. Don't be bumbed if it's the latter; just remember to have fun thinking of this stuff.

 

[Malintent]

this is a philosophy, not a science.. I should be allowed some leeway with the woo, no?

Well ya, but you do need to ascribe a basis to your claims beyond "because of woo". Philosophical positions are built off of the logic used to make them and if your premises are invalid then the conclusions deriving from those premises are equally invalid.

Animals have certain internal structures which allow them to feel and plants lack these. That means that if you're going to say that they have feelings anyways, despite the lack of the anatomy which allows for feelings, the onus is on you to decribe how this is possible. Without that, your philosophy lacks a foundation.

OK, I accept that. The internal structures in plants that relay 'feelings' is called their Vascular System. The equivalent of neurotransmitters are passed throughout the plant's cells which creates their 'perceptions' and 'emotions'. We lack a non-biased language to describe non-human experiences, thus the quotes around everything.

Plants compete with each other via their root system, they emit gasses though their respiration that can be detected by other plants (they 'socialize').

I think all of that is adequate to make the philosophy valid.

 

[Malintent]

this is a philosophy, not a science.. I should be allowed some leeway with the woo, no?

Your claim just seems too bold and too specific to be philosophy. Philosophy generally uses other philosophical ideas and/or logic to construct new philosophies. And philosophy usually is not testable or not verifiable by testing, and thus it is outside of the domain of science.

I am of the opinion that there is nothing bold about my statement... perhaps it is just too inconvenient to accept.. like global warming.

However, I actually believe that plants have an awareness like humans, except it would be more subtle and simple than the variety of the extremely complex inner working of the human consciousness. But all of that is based on panpsychism where everything may be aware to some extent.

so the philosophy is valid, to that extent... now how can we make it 'practical'?

Try to get to the root of why you believe this...

It is offensive (racist) langue like this that I am trying to stop. How would you feel if plants were all like, "lets chop the penis off of this problem to get some clarity on it"

just remember to have fun thinking of this stuff.

That's why we're all here

 

[ryan]

Try to get to the root of why you believe this...

It is offensive (racist) langue like this that I am trying to stop. How would you feel if plants were all like, "lets chop the penis off of this problem to get some clarity on it"

Okay, okay, I think this whole thing is some kind of satire directed towards philosophy. If so, I must admit that this is very funny.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well ya, but you do need to ascribe a basis to your claims beyond "because of woo". Philosophical positions are built off of the logic used to make them and if your premises are invalid then the conclusions deriving from those premises are equally invalid.

Animals have certain internal structures which allow them to feel and plants lack these. That means that if you're going to say that they have feelings anyways, despite the lack of the anatomy which allows for feelings, the onus is on you to decribe how this is possible. Without that, your philosophy lacks a foundation.

OK, I accept that. The internal structures in plants that relay 'feelings' is called their Vascular System. The equivalent of neurotransmitters are passed throughout the plant's cells which creates their 'perceptions' and 'emotions'. We lack a non-biased language to describe non-human experiences, thus the quotes around everything.

Plants compete with each other via their root system, they emit gasses though their respiration that can be detected by other plants (they 'socialize').

I think all of that is adequate to make the philosophy valid.

That's like saying that if I cut my finger off, my finger still has feelings because there are nerves there and they can be stimulated with electrical impulses. Without a brain to translate and process the inputs, there's no real difference between that response to electrical impulses and the one that happens when I flip on a light switch. It's not that what's happening in plants is some sort of "non-human experience", it's that what's happening is not an experience to begin with.

I agree with ryan that you're just going for satire here.

 

[fromderinside]

Maybe testing against what is leads to principles for that which is testing. (association, grouping, boundaries, etc.)

I have no idea what this means.

It means, in at least evolution of sensory processes, evolution going in a particular direction tends to get more closely aligned to optimums when there is competition along those lines. Human hearing has evolved from noctuid moth hearing and bony fish lateral line hearing, which we find there are common underlying genetic bases, from detection of pulses (bats and predator movement patterns) toward a more or less complete array of capabilities which approach optimum exploitation of the dimension for those capabilities. Doesn't have to be true for which there are multiple examples, but, in this case it appears to be so.

Agree with no purpose to process, but, competition moves us toward thermodynamic optimums.

 

[ryan]

I agree with ryan that you're just going for satire here.

We had an argument a few days ago about a nonscientific belief I have, and he/she scorned it for a lack of evidence.

 

[another1]

Malintent you are no the only one laughing. This is so weird and great. I don't have any smart talk to add but I'll say that I think some plants are not of our world. Are you referring to all vegetation, fungi and the like? Some plants were supposedly introduced to our world by intelligent foreign agents. They were put here to aid animals in some way. That was in a book, I didn't imagine it. The book said that plants make tryptaminal signals that we can't detect with modern instruments. If we're surrounded by enough of the right plants they can balance our brains and heal us. I was wondering if you read that book. God I have to look something up brb.
Okay one book is Food of the Gods by the dead McKenna. Remember the drug crusading author who thought mushrooms were the best thing since bread? That guy's brother knows a lot about plants. He does ethnobotany and studies ethnopharmacology. If you plan to take this further you should look into those authors, especially Dennis McKenna, who is not hard to contact btw. He will probably answer you if you send him some stuff at mcken031@umn.edu . He has never answered me, but this has some smart sheen to it and it is in line with what he does. I remember a lot of similar themes in his lecture tapes from the 90s. He had some weird ideas about plants. This thing you're talking about is a very weird idea but I like how you laid it out.

 

[Malintent]

Malintent you are no the only one laughing. This is so weird and great. I don't have any smart talk to add but I'll say that I think some plants are not of our world. Are you referring to all vegetation, fungi and the like? Some plants were supposedly introduced to our world by intelligent foreign agents. They were put here to aid animals in some way. That was in a book, I didn't imagine it. The book said that plants make tryptaminal signals that we can't detect with modern instruments. If we're surrounded by enough of the right plants they can balance our brains and heal us. I was wondering if you read that book. God I have to look something up brb.
Okay one book is Food of the Gods by the dead McKenna. Remember the drug crusading author who thought mushrooms were the best thing since bread? That guy's brother knows a lot about plants. He does ethnobotany and studies ethnopharmacology. If you plan to take this further you should look into those authors, especially Dennis McKenna, who is not hard to contact btw. He will probably answer you if you send him some stuff at mcken031@umn.edu . He has never answered me, but this has some smart sheen to it and it is in line with what he does. I remember a lot of similar themes in his lecture tapes from the 90s. He had some weird ideas about plants. This thing you're talking about is a very weird idea but I like how you laid it out.

This is exactly along the lines of my thinking here... There is so much more to plants that does not meat the eye. Thank you for contributing.. I will look into some of those things.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with ryan that you're just going for satire here.

We had an argument a few days ago about a nonscientific belief I have, and he/she scorned it for a lack of evidence.

Well in all fairness, I admit this is not science... it is philosophy. My arguments need only be logical (as others pointed out to me here), not necessarily objectively true.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well in all fairness, I admit this is not science... it is philosophy. My arguments need only be logical (as others pointed out to me here), not necessarily objectively true.

While that's somewhat the case, when you take the next step and say that people should change their actions based on your philosophy (as you are doing when you say that this is a reason for people to stop eating plants) you need to also take the additional step of showing that there's an objective basis to the premises of your philosophy.

As I read it, your philosophy is basically this:

P1) Plants have feelings
P2) Plants did not "choose" to evolve into a food source for humans
P3) It is wrong to eat something with feelings if they did not choose to allow this
C) Therefore, eating plants is wrong

You're correct that the internal logic of the philosophy is perfectly valid. If you want to apply it to the real world, however, as opposed to it simply being an isolated piece of navel gazing, then the external validity of those premises is important. Your first premise is invalid, so while the philosophy has an internal validity, it doesn't have an external validity and it's therefore invalid to use it as a basis for anyone's actions.

 

[ryan]

We had an argument a few days ago about a nonscientific belief I have, and he/she scorned it for a lack of evidence.

Well in all fairness, I admit this is not science... it is philosophy. My arguments need only be logical (as others pointed out to me here), not necessarily objectively true.

Okay, then I will assume that you are serious about all of this.

I ask myself why there is still a part of me that believes in the God of the Christian faith. My answer is that the first thing I was taught was that there is a God, and God will test my faith. Then science came into my life. Also, it actually makes just as much sense to me as an existence with God than an existence without God.

Now, why do you believe that plants have feelings? I am not trying to be facetious; I really want to know.

 

[skepticalbip]

Well in all fairness, I admit this is not science... it is philosophy. My arguments need only be logical (as others pointed out to me here), not necessarily objectively true.

While that's somewhat the case, when you take the next step and say that people should change their actions based on your philosophy (as you are doing when you say that this is a reason for people to stop eating plants) you need to also take the additional step of showing that there's an objective basis to the premises of your philosophy.

As I read it, your philosophy is basically this:

P1) Plants have feelings
P2) Plants did not "choose" to evolve into a food source for humans
P3) It is wrong to eat something with feelings if they did not choose to allow this
C) Therefore, eating plants is wrong

You're correct that the internal logic of the philosophy is perfectly valid. If you want to apply it to the real world, however, as opposed to it simply being an isolated piece of navel gazing, then the external validity of those premises is important. Your first premise is invalid, so while the philosophy has an internal validity, it doesn't have an external validity and it's therefore invalid to use it as a basis for anyone's actions.

But even if humanity only ate meat and no plants then we would eat a lot more plants indirectly by feeding them to our live stock so we could eat the livestock. We would be responsible for a lot more plants being eaten.

 

[Malintent]

While that's somewhat the case, when you take the next step and say that people should change their actions based on your philosophy (as you are doing when you say that this is a reason for people to stop eating plants) you need to also take the additional step of showing that there's an objective basis to the premises of your philosophy.

As I read it, your philosophy is basically this:

P1) Plants have feelings
P2) Plants did not "choose" to evolve into a food source for humans
P3) It is wrong to eat something with feelings if they did not choose to allow this
C) Therefore, eating plants is wrong

You're correct that the internal logic of the philosophy is perfectly valid. If you want to apply it to the real world, however, as opposed to it simply being an isolated piece of navel gazing, then the external validity of those premises is important. Your first premise is invalid, so while the philosophy has an internal validity, it doesn't have an external validity and it's therefore invalid to use it as a basis for anyone's actions.

But even if humanity only ate meat and no plants then we would eat a lot more plants indirectly by feeding them to our live stock so we could eat the livestock. We would be responsible for a lot more plants being eaten.

A (Vegan) colleague of mine just brought that up to me today. The best I could do for a response to that is that it is too removed from my own actions. It would be like a Vegan not wanting to shake hands with a person that came to meet them via a car that had leather seats. You can choose not to ride in that car, but you cannot control what others do.

- - - Updated - - -

Well in all fairness, I admit this is not science... it is philosophy. My arguments need only be logical (as others pointed out to me here), not necessarily objectively true.

Okay, then I will assume that you are serious about all of this.

I ask myself why there is still a part of me that believes in the God of the Christian faith. My answer is that the first thing I was taught was that there is a God, and God will test my faith. Then science came into my life. Also, it actually makes just as much sense to me as an existence with God than an existence without God.

Now, why do you believe that plants have feelings? I am not trying to be facetious; I really want to know.

I don't have a very good answer for you.

I admit that my position is equally as good as the god-believing position.