entheogenic-gnosis
Rising Star
Do Plants Have Brains? | Natural History Magazine
www.naturalhistorymag.com
-eg
Please make a clear argument yourself.entheogenic-gnosis said:Please watch this film.
There is no reason at all to assume they do, nor is there a factual basis to support that supposition. All the experts on the matter that you can line up will put "behaviour" in quotes and will rush to add that the word is used only metaphorically.entheogenic-gnosis said:Plants don't have behavior and intentions?
Again, there is no reason to assume plants do so with intent. Instead of the word "manipulate", "influence" would be more neutral and appropriate. That is, if you want to remain factual to the matter. If you want to sound sensational, then yeah, I can see how a different choice of words could be useful.entheogenic-gnosis said:Plants do not produce chemicals to manipulate biology?
None so far, since there is no point made from which inferences can be drawn.entheogenic-gnosis said:So what are the possible implications of this?
Science has plenty of answers to well-formulated questions, and to even more well-formulated questions it has no answers.entheogenic-gnosis said:Science has no answers, so educated speculation is appropriate.
Here's a quote from your "do plants have brains?" popular science article (I've added some emphasis):entheogenic-gnosis said:There's nothing spiritual here, or nonsense, the speculation is well informed, and many in the field of science would share my opinions...
So what do we conclude?
The notion that plants have brains in some sense is both interesting and thought-provoking. So provocative, indeed, that in 2007 thirty-six investigators from thirty-three institutions published an open letter in the journal Trends in Plant Science maintaining “that plant neurobiology does not add to our understanding of plant physiology, plant cell biology or signaling,” and imploring the proponents of the initiative to “to reevaluate critically the concept and to develop an intellectually rigorous foundation for it”—a nice way of saying, “just cut it out.”
Overall, the response from the plant neurobiologists on the matter of plant “brains” has been rather conflicted. Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh suggested that “plant neurobiology is a metaphor”—and nothing more. His focus was on the term itself, and his interest was principally in its importance in driving science to understand the cell biology of plants and the mysteries of plant cell-to-cell communication and signaling. But the biologists Franti.sek Balu.ska of the University of Bonn and Stefano Mancuso of the University of Florence strenuously argued for the literal existence of nervous systems in plants, suggesting that “removing the old Aristotelian schism between plants and animals will unify all multicellular organisms under one conceptual ‘umbrella.’”
Obviously, both perspectives cannot be right. Trewavas seems to us to call it what it is: simply a case of discussing similarities. It is the metaphor itself that makes statements about the similarity of plant and animal systems so interesting. But to make it useful, you have to acknowledge that it is metaphor. To unify plants and animals under a single “conceptual umbrella” when there really isn’t one, creates a genuine problem. For one thing, there is good evidence that plants and animals do not share a common ancestor to the exclusion of all other organisms on the planet. Fungi and the many single-celled organisms that have nuclei get in the way. A unifying umbrella would both disguise this reality and undermine the utility of the metaphor. When a metaphor is no longer recognized as such, fallacy becomes the rule of the day.
How about providing at least some fact-based reasoning that you are right, instead of hand-waving metaphors about and reversing the burden of proof?entheogenic-gnosis said:If I'm wrong, please provide the evidence, I think I have done well enough in that area.
No, all you point out is just a mechanism. Nature has "created" many mechanisms, complex and intricate, many even beyond our understanding. In a way our very own understanding and our intent are examples of such mechanisms. So far I see no reason to attribute the mechanisms of intent in a strict and literal sense to any members of the plant kingdom.entheogenic-gnosis said:This vine has no roots and can't produce its own food, it has 72 hours to find a host, and yet it can still select it's "favorite" plants
A clear display of behavior and intention.
I don't have to say "you're wrong" when I can say "you're not right". And you have not provided evidence at all.entheogenic-gnosis said:Again, I provided evidence and examples to back my opinions and speculations, when you can do the same to prove me wrong I'll consider your opinion on the matter, but simply saying "your wrong" won't be enough.
Well and I am so glad you explained to me so clearly why not.Anamnesia said:Pitubo, this I don't think is nonsensical and baseless speculation.
I wouldn't know how to disagree with you. How can I agree or disagree with associative poetry? IMHO you are basically hurrah'-ing your own set convictions. No need for critical evaluations of mutually observable objective facts!Anamnesia said:I hate to disagree with you.
So, with my curiosity peaked, I tried to verify that claim of scientific proof. It turns out that "Raymond Bernard" was actually Walter Siegmeister. It seems he was quite a productive writer, according to this page: The Hollow Earth. Some examples of his highly original writings:Anamnesia said:It follows that through the conservation and resorption of semen back into the body, which has scientifically been proven to be the case (see books written by Raymond Bernard on the subject) when semen is conserved and the sexual sense is not stimulated, that the pineal gland should be provided the optimum environment for regeneration and activation.
Too much continence couldn't cause a dangerous buildup of semen in the brain, could it?Anamnesia said:But physiology is physiology. The same material that makes up semen makes up the brain, basically.
pitubo said:Please make a clear argument yourself.entheogenic-gnosis said:Please watch this film.
At least point out concisely when, where and how the video supports your suppositions. Making me watch an hour of video instead of taking 3 minutes yourself to point out what you are claiming is IMHO not just lazy, it is improper discussion ethics.
There is no reason at all to assume they do, nor is there a factual basis to support that supposition. All the experts on the matter that you can line up will put "behaviour" in quotes and will rush to add that the word is used only metaphorically.entheogenic-gnosis said:Plants don't have behavior and intentions?
Again, there is no reason to assume plants do so with intent. Instead of the word "manipulate", "influence" would be more neutral and appropriate. That is, if you want to remain factual to the matter. If you want to sound sensational, then yeah, I can see how a different choice of words could be useful.entheogenic-gnosis said:Plants do not produce chemicals to manipulate biology?
None so far, since there is no point made from which inferences can be drawn.entheogenic-gnosis said:So what are the possible implications of this?
Science has plenty of answers to well-formulated questions, and to even more well-formulated questions it has no answers.entheogenic-gnosis said:Science has no answers, so educated speculation is appropriate.
But here it does not matter, because there is no science in your speculation, it's just musings mixed with prose, spiced up with unrelated factoids. It's fine with me if you want to do that, I even like some of it, I find some of it inspiring and occasionally even informing, but please stay clear from confusing it with science and reasonably ascertainable facts, and making claims to that end.
Here's a quote from your "do plants have brains?" popular science article (I've added some emphasis):entheogenic-gnosis said:There's nothing spiritual here, or nonsense, the speculation is well informed, and many in the field of science would share my opinions...
So what do we conclude?
The notion that plants have brains in some sense is both interesting and thought-provoking. So provocative, indeed, that in 2007 thirty-six investigators from thirty-three institutions published an open letter in the journal Trends in Plant Science maintaining “that plant neurobiology does not add to our understanding of plant physiology, plant cell biology or signaling,” and imploring the proponents of the initiative to “to reevaluate critically the concept and to develop an intellectually rigorous foundation for it”—a nice way of saying, “just cut it out.”
Overall, the response from the plant neurobiologists on the matter of plant “brains” has been rather conflicted. Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh suggested that “plant neurobiology is a metaphor”—and nothing more. His focus was on the term itself, and his interest was principally in its importance in driving science to understand the cell biology of plants and the mysteries of plant cell-to-cell communication and signaling. But the biologists Franti.sek Balu.ska of the University of Bonn and Stefano Mancuso of the University of Florence strenuously argued for the literal existence of nervous systems in plants, suggesting that “removing the old Aristotelian schism between plants and animals will unify all multicellular organisms under one conceptual ‘umbrella.’”
Obviously, both perspectives cannot be right. Trewavas seems to us to call it what it is: simply a case of discussing similarities. It is the metaphor itself that makes statements about the similarity of plant and animal systems so interesting. But to make it useful, you have to acknowledge that it is metaphor. To unify plants and animals under a single “conceptual umbrella” when there really isn’t one, creates a genuine problem. For one thing, there is good evidence that plants and animals do not share a common ancestor to the exclusion of all other organisms on the planet. Fungi and the many single-celled organisms that have nuclei get in the way. A unifying umbrella would both disguise this reality and undermine the utility of the metaphor. When a metaphor is no longer recognized as such, fallacy becomes the rule of the day.
How about providing at least some fact-based reasoning that you are right, instead of hand-waving metaphors about and reversing the burden of proof?entheogenic-gnosis said:If I'm wrong, please provide the evidence, I think I have done well enough in that area.
No, all you point out is just a mechanism. Nature has "created" many mechanisms, complex and intricate, many even beyond our understanding. In a way our very own understanding and our intent are examples of such mechanisms. So far I see no reason to attribute the mechanisms of intent in a strict and literal sense to any members of the plant kingdom.entheogenic-gnosis said:This vine has no roots and can't produce its own food, it has 72 hours to find a host, and yet it can still select it's "favorite" plants
A clear display of behavior and intention.
Again, I'm fine with musings and metaphors, just don't confuse that with factual scientific accuracy. It's not the same thing.
I don't have to say "you're wrong" when I can say "you're not right". And you have not provided evidence at all.entheogenic-gnosis said:Again, I provided evidence and examples to back my opinions and speculations, when you can do the same to prove me wrong I'll consider your opinion on the matter, but simply saying "your wrong" won't be enough.
You add your own unproven interpretations to your examples, examples that upon further investigation do not support your interpretation at all. There is no reasonable basis for the supposition of intent in your examples, only anthropomorphic wishful thinking. There is no scientist backing up your interpretations and claims, and the videos and articles you point to are in fact quick to declare the metaphorical nature of any and all plant "intelligence" descriptions.
You quote a Michael Pollan, who is not a plant biologist, but a journalist, with a side business of writing books about food morality. But even he does not back up or support your interpretations: read the actual article that is the basis of the one you pointed to. It clearly does not back up your position and your far-reaching suppositions.
Overall, the response from the plant neurobiologists on the matter of plant “brains” has been rather conflicted. Anthony Trewavas of the University of Edinburgh suggested that “plant neurobiology is a metaphor”—and nothing more. His focus was on the term itself, and his interest was principally in its importance in driving science to understand the cell biology of plants and the mysteries of plant cell-to-cell communication and signaling. But the biologists Franti.sek Balu.ska of the University of Bonn and Stefano Mancuso of the University of Florence strenuously argued for the literal existence of nervous systems in plants, suggesting that “removing the old Aristotelian schism between plants and animals will unify all multicellular organisms under one conceptual ‘umbrella.’”
Anamnesia said:When these psychedelic plants produce these neurotransmitter similar molecules, it's not as a waste product, these are not the waste products of metabolic process, rather these plants are dedicating good deals of energy and effort to produce these compounds, now, these compounds don't aide the plant in any way, that is unless these compounds found their way into the nervous system of a symbiote functioning on higher neurochemistry, an animal whose conscious baseline is generated by similar compounds...
Exactly!!! Yes yes yes! Man isn't that odd?!
Talk about information download, thank you! I am really enjoying reading all of this. Most of what you said I already knew, but only in fragmented parts. You just wrapped it all up nice and neat into one very cool and sensible picture. Thank you!
So, basically it's obvious our brains are actually in the plants.
What does this mean to me?
It means to me we were never at war with nature.
We Are nature. We are not it's caretakers, guardians, or stewards and stewardesses.
We are Nature. We are the rocks the rivers the trees the clouds the mushrooms the stars the universe. We are It.
So we see that plants have intentions. That means something else has intentionality also.
If we are be-caused by plants, as the ants marching along are caused by a fungi's intentionality, (aka intelligence), then on what do depend the plants for purpose, their intentionality?
Well, the rocks. A giant rock swinging through space. That rock a long time ago would have been observed to be just a lump of rock with no life on it. I dare we suppose that rock was alive, as life didn't begin anywhere else but here in primordial seas. I see intentionality there. I see the birth of biology from the mother of geology. And the mother of geology is physics, which is supposed to be the sum of all the forces at dance in the universe. Do those forces, rigid-law or change-habit in nature, have intentionality?
I suppose what we're saying is, if we can agree that plants have intentionality, or more basically, that we as human beings can be said to have intentionality, than by inference and obvious relationship to that on which we depend, everything around us also has intentionality.
Intentionality does not begin in biology it seems.
Pitubo, this I don't think is nonsensical and baseless speculation. I hate to disagree with you.
If we can understand an order of intelligence implicit in plants, this overthrows the momentously destructive attitude that we are somehow outside of nature, and can therefore exploit it and rearrange it as if it were lifeless formless clay, which it isn't. I think it's helpful to be cognizant of our place in nature, not as something outside of it, but as something acting with it for we are It.
Plants brains are their roots! Trees heads in other words are in the ground, while their asses are in the air, functionally speaking. We are the other way around.
Entheogenic cannabis, if you've anymore to say regarding possible relationships of external neurotransmitters to ancient diet on which our brains evolved, I'd be very interested. It really seems that everything we need is already inside our selves, or at least the propensity neurostructurally and chemically. Perhaps all we need to do is shift our focus to proper diet, which is none other than the closest we can realistically get to eating in the way we did 200,000 years ago, as argued by Tony Wright in "Left in the Dark". That diet, which is argued to have been the raw material required to evolve our brains so rapidly, included plant chemicals such as bioflavonoids, MAO inhibitors, and other compounds that directly reenforced the positive feedback loop between the neurological, immune, and endocrine systems. Because we are a part of nature, and therefore included within the net of her global intelligence, the intentionality of One, perhaps the psychedelics, including cannabis, are produced by the biosphere in order to correct the condition of disease caused by yes, bad diet, leading to the degeneration at differential paces of the hemispheres of our brain. This degradation of the left hemisphere is argued to have happened concomitant with our departure from the very diet that exploded our brain size and complexity. And now today, the world is being raped by a species that has gone seriously mad through an addiction to thought, or words, happening always inside our heads, and we, having identified ourselves with what we think about ourselves, have lost contact with who we really are one with nature. Notice how when people shift there diet from omnivore to vegetarianism, and then from vegetarianism to veganism, or raw foodism, never cooking food because it destroys the life within it, how they generally become more at ease, more calm, much less quick to anger, more gentle, softer in attitude, more apt to forgive and forget. This is because consciousness always depends on diet, so much so that we would say diet quite literally is consciousness. Diet doesn't just mean food in the ordinary sense. What is the difference between the serotonin in a banana and the THC in a cannabis sativa plant?
I think the reality is obvious: our phase-state of consciousness depends entirely upon our diet. Consciousness is a spectrum which encloses in a circle, and we slide around this spectrum experiencing different points of view through rotating the dial of our diet. This is the secret to understanding human evolution, so far as I have been able to discern.
Nicotinia attenuata, a type of wild US tobacco, is usually pollinated by hawkmoths. To lure them in, it opens its flowers at night and releases alluring chemicals. But pollinating hawkmoths often lay their eggs on the plants they visit and the voracious caterpillars start eating the plants. Fortunately for the plant, it has a back-up plan. It stops producing its moth-attracting chemicals and starts opening its flowers during the day instead. This simple change of timing opens its nectar stores to a very different pollinator that has no interest in eating it – the black-chinned hummingbird.
Tobacco plants foil very hungry caterpillars by switching pollinators to hummingbirds
I highly recommend review of the link
Entheogenic cannabis, if you've anymore to say regarding possible relationships of external neurotransmitters to ancient diet on which our brains evolved, I'd be very interested. It really seems that everything we need is already inside our selves, or at least the propensity neurostructurally and chemically. Perhaps all we need to do is shift our focus to proper diet, which is none other than the closest we can realistically get to eating in the way we did 200,000 years ago, as argued by Tony Wright in "Left in the Dark". That diet, which is argued to have been the raw material required to evolve our brains so rapidly, included plant chemicals such as bioflavonoids, MAO inhibitors, and other compounds that directly reenforced the positive feedback loop between the neurological, immune, and endocrine systems. Because we are a part of nature, and therefore included within the net of her global intelligence, the intentionality of One, perhaps the psychedelics, including cannabis, are produced by the biosphere in order to correct the condition of disease caused by yes, bad diet, leading to the degeneration at differential paces of the hemispheres of our brain. This degradation of the left hemisphere is argued to have happened concomitant with our departure from the very diet that exploded our brain size and complexity. And now today, the world is being raped by a species that has gone seriously mad through an addiction to thought, or words, happening always inside our heads, and we, having identified ourselves with what we think about ourselves, have lost contact with who we really are one with nature. Notice how when people shift there diet from omnivore to vegetarianism, and then from vegetarianism to veganism, or raw foodism, never cooking food because it destroys the life within it, how they generally become more at ease, more calm, much less quick to anger, more gentle, softer in attitude, more apt to forgive and forget. This is because consciousness always depends on diet, so much so that we would say diet quite literally is consciousness. Diet doesn't just mean food in the ordinary sense. What is the difference between the serotonin in a banana and the THC in a cannabis sativa plant?
What is the difference between the serotonin in a banana and the THC in a cannabis sativa plant?
pitubo said:Well and I am so glad you explained to me so clearly why not.Anamnesia said:Pitubo, this I don't think is nonsensical and baseless speculation.
I wouldn't know how to disagree with you. How can I agree or disagree with associative poetry? IMHO you are basically hurrah'-ing your own set convictions. No need for critical evaluations of mutually observable objective facts!Anamnesia said:I hate to disagree with you.
We may not even agree on what "science" and "proof" entails. Not so long ago, you claimed in a post (emphasis mine):
So, with my curiosity peaked, I tried to verify that claim of scientific proof. It turns out that "Raymond Bernard" was actually Walter Siegmeister. It seems he was quite a productive writer, according to this page: The Hollow Earth. Some examples of his highly original writings:Anamnesia said:It follows that through the conservation and resorption of semen back into the body, which has scientifically been proven to be the case (see books written by Raymond Bernard on the subject) when semen is conserved and the sexual sense is not stimulated, that the pineal gland should be provided the optimum environment for regeneration and activation.
SCIENCE DISCOVERS THE PHYSIOLOGICAL VALUE OF CONTINENCE - By Dr. Bernard. The author claims that the internal secretions of the sex glands stand at the basis of the individual's physical and mental vitality, and that sex hormones are present in the external as well as in the internal secretions of the gonads., etc.
MYSTERIES OF HUMAN REPRODUCTION- By Dr. Bernard. Scientific Evidence that a Higher Parthenogentic Method of Human Fertilization Exists by which a Super Race may be created - a Method Distinct from and Superior to the Animal Method, by which Nineteen Virgin Mothers in England produced children a few years ago, as confirmed by investigations by a group of English physicians and accepted by the British Medical Association as authentic cases of Human Parthenogenesis or Virgin Birth. ... so says the author. He claims what these women can do - any woman can do.
FLYING SAUCERS FROM THE EARTH'S INTERIOR- Dr. Raymond Bernard. This is the sequel to the other volume, AGHARTA. This volume has a condensation of the rare books - "A Journey to the Earth's Interior" - Gardner's 450 page book- and from the rare book, "The Smoky God" by Emerson.
Esoteric biology, virgin birth, flying saucers from the hollow earth.. perhaps entertaining, but not scientifically proven fact.
Please elaborate how it points out, or even proves, intent. This specifically has been the object of contention all along. You keep restating your belief, but never actually provide reasonably argued evidence, nor do you respond to the objections and arguments against "plant intent".entheogenic-gnosis said:Yes, there are conflicting opinions, you have to weigh the evidence, James (JC) Cahill makes a great case with wild tobacco. (I already made my plants manipulating life through chemistry argument using jc Cahill' s wild tobacco research as an example...
If you won't review jc cahill and his wild tobacco plant/parasite/chemical work, how can you effectively debate against it.
Did you even read the above Newyorker article by Michael Pollen yourself? It does mention your examples, but it does not support your suppositions of intent at all.pitubo said:No, all you point out is just a mechanism. Nature has "created" many mechanisms, complex and intricate, many even beyond our understanding. In a way our very own understanding and our intent are examples of such mechanisms. So far I see no reason to attribute the mechanisms of intent in a strict and literal sense to any members of the plant kingdom.
You add your own unproven interpretations to your examples, examples that upon further investigation do not support your interpretation at all. There is no reasonable basis for the supposition of intent in your examples, only anthropomorphic wishful thinking. There is no scientist backing up your interpretations and claims, and the videos and articles you point to are in fact quick to declare the metaphorical nature of any and all plant "intelligence" descriptions.
You quote a Michael Pollan, who is not a plant biologist, but a journalist, with a side business of writing books about food morality. But even he does not back up or support your interpretations: read the actual article that is the basis of the one you pointed to. It clearly does not back up your position and your far-reaching suppositions.
Nobody is asking you to transcribe the whole film. Instead, you are being asked to point out at which point in the video (min:sec) you presumption of intent is proven or even argued. It would obviously be very nice if you could transcribe that part in a few sentences, but the main requirement is to point out where the video conclusively proves your point. If you will not, but instead insist that I have to watch the whole video, it makes me doubt severely that there is any such conclusive proof in the video at all.entheogenic-gnosis said:Please watch the film, I've already articulated the experiments, I'm not transcribing the whole film here...
The first video you linked already puts "behavior" in quotes, that to me is already a pretty strong indication of the filmmaker's position. Even if the film claims "plant intentions" to be real, it is still a pbs documentary, created to entertain, not to publish science.entheogenic-gnosis said:The fact that you have not watched the film, but then will criticize the science says a good deal, you didn't believe me when I said it, so I provided a film full of people with PHD' s botany, if you don't accept their evidence, than I don't know what to tell you...
It is pretty clear what Cahill's position is with reagard to "plant intentions", isn't it?James F. Cahill Jr. said:This Special Issue focuses on how application of principles from animal behaviour can improve our ability to understand plant biology and ecology. The goal is not to draw false parallels, nor to anthropomorphize plant biology, but instead to demonstrate how existing and robust theory based upon fundamental principles can provide novel understanding for plants.
I just did.entheogenic-gnosis said:If you want the evidence behind what I'm saying, do some independent research into the area.
I have yet to come across a scientific publication (with doi index number, no less) in film format. A teaching tool or a popularizing format does not make a scientific publication. Nor is it proper etiquette to respond to a request for proof or arguments by posting youtube links to undifferentiated hours of videos - even if these were purely scientific.entheogenic-gnosis said:I could spend 10 pages articulating out these experiments, or you could simply watch the film being discussed, there's no shame in using learning aides, teachers show films to teach students and prove points all the time...
I'd say that your thread was going fine for a while.entheogenic-gnosis said:Anamnesia understood the points just fine, and contributed, Anamnesia understood and threw back some really amazing ideas in response, gave me some great taking off points for good discussion...
I don't mind creative speculation at all. It is only when speculation and facts are getting mixed up that I raise an issue. If you are unable to back off and admit that speculation is only speculation and not scientifically established fact, then don't blame others for the discussions that ensue.entheogenic-gnosis said:I mean to you want to argue and fight? Or do you want blow each other's minds? Who cares if there's speculation, it's entertaining, and it's a workout for the intellect, good mental hygiene, ya know? I'd have discussions with Anamnesia all day before I would watch tv, even if they do get subjective.
Strictly speaking, it's completely off-topic. But it served well as an illustration in a discussion with Anamnesia about my interpretation versus Anamnesia's of "scientific proof".entheogenic-gnosis said:What does Raymond Bernard or anything associated with him have to do with this? Or anything?
Well I wasn't. I was lumping in all of the above as being "scientifically proven" according to Anamnesia (okay this is worded slightly disingeniously).entheogenic-gnosis said:If you choose to put "plant consciousness" in the same category as hollow earth and UFOs, that's fine, but it's a major error.
And, apparent from his recent publications, HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU.entheogenic-gnosis said:Dr. James Cahill works for the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta...
Terence McKenna's "stoned ape theory" is not a theory. It is a bunch of stoner musings. When will you learn the difference?entheogenic-gnosis said:If you review these people's work, combined with some Alexander shulgin, then mix in terence mckenna' s "stoned ape theory" you should understand me perfectly...
pitubo said:Please elaborate how it points out, or even proves, intent. This specifically has been the object of contention all along. You keep restating your belief, but never actually provide reasonably argued evidence, nor do you respond to the objections and arguments against "plant intent".entheogenic-gnosis said:Yes, there are conflicting opinions, you have to weigh the evidence, James (JC) Cahill makes a great case with wild tobacco. (I already made my plants manipulating life through chemistry argument using jc Cahill' s wild tobacco research as an example...
If you won't review jc cahill and his wild tobacco plant/parasite/chemical work, how can you effectively debate against it.
I'll restate my earlier objections, to which you do not respond at all, not even superficially:
Did you even read the above Newyorker article by Michael Pollen yourself? It does mention your examples, but it does not support your suppositions of intent at all.pitubo said:No, all you point out is just a mechanism. Nature has "created" many mechanisms, complex and intricate, many even beyond our understanding. In a way our very own understanding and our intent are examples of such mechanisms. So far I see no reason to attribute the mechanisms of intent in a strict and literal sense to any members of the plant kingdom.
You add your own unproven interpretations to your examples, examples that upon further investigation do not support your interpretation at all. There is no reasonable basis for the supposition of intent in your examples, only anthropomorphic wishful thinking. There is no scientist backing up your interpretations and claims, and the videos and articles you point to are in fact quick to declare the metaphorical nature of any and all plant "intelligence" descriptions.
You quote a Michael Pollan, who is not a plant biologist, but a journalist, with a side business of writing books about food morality. But even he does not back up or support your interpretations: read the actual article that is the basis of the one you pointed to. It clearly does not back up your position and your far-reaching suppositions.
Nobody is asking you to transcribe the whole film. Instead, you are being asked to point out at which point in the video (min:sec) you presumption of intent is proven or even argued. It would obviously be very nice if you could transcribe that part in a few sentences, but the main requirement is to point out where the video conclusively proves your point. If you will not, but instead insist that I have to watch the whole video, it makes me doubt severely that there is any such conclusive proof in the video at all.entheogenic-gnosis said:Please watch the film, I've already articulated the experiments, I'm not transcribing the whole film here...
The first video you linked already puts "behavior" in quotes, that to me is already a pretty strong indication of the filmmaker's position. Even if the film claims "plant intentions" to be real, it is still a pbs documentary, created to entertain, not to publish science.entheogenic-gnosis said:The fact that you have not watched the film, but then will criticize the science says a good deal, you didn't believe me when I said it, so I provided a film full of people with PHD' s botany, if you don't accept their evidence, than I don't know what to tell you...
But let's cut short all the needless arguing about the merits of using hours of video in place of concise arguments, that is a meta-discussion and only further derails the thread.
Lets instead simply go to the horse's mouth and see what J.C. Cahill has to say for himself on the matter. Please follow me to his professional website http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/cahill_lab/. Well, what a surprise, it currently features prominently the following pdf: http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/cahi...015/02/Behavioural-Ecology-SI-flyer_final.pdf, which contains the following, rather unambiguous text:
It is pretty clear what Cahill's position is with reagard to "plant intentions", isn't it?R.C. Cahill said:This Special Issue focuses on how application of principles from animal behaviour can improve our ability to understand plant biology and ecology. The goal is not to draw false parallels, nor to anthropomorphize plant biology, but instead to demonstrate how existing and robust theory based upon fundamental principles can provide novel understanding for plants.
The full article can be had here, but I'll attach it for reference.
I just did.entheogenic-gnosis said:If you want the evidence behind what I'm saying, do some independent research into the area.
I have yet to come across a scientific publication (with doi index number, no less) in film format. A teaching tool or a popularizing format does not make a scientific publication. Nor is it proper etiquette to respond to a request for proof or arguments by posting youtube links to undifferentiated hours of videos - even if these were purely scientific.entheogenic-gnosis said:I could spend 10 pages articulating out these experiments, or you could simply watch the film being discussed, there's no shame in using learning aides, teachers show films to teach students and prove points all the time...
I'd say that your thread was going fine for a while.entheogenic-gnosis said:Anamnesia understood the points just fine, and contributed, Anamnesia understood and threw back some really amazing ideas in response, gave me some great taking off points for good discussion...
It stayed on topic for a while, but starting here Anamnesia wanders off into speculation about the intent of nature and you run with it.
Someone tries to point out gently that you may have stopped making sense, but you persist and start arguing your convictions about plants' intentions in a duet with Anamnesia.
After a few iterations of increasingly wild speculation, I step in to point out a second time the lack of apparent sense. Admitted, I did so in a less gentle way than the earlier voiced objection, but then again, the speculation had also wildly increased (and also strayed off-topic to an equal extent).
This only causes you to dig your heels in deeper into the sand, to which I respond by addressing the lack of any reasonable indication of factual substance of your claims, the fact that the "evidence" you put forward actually mostly negates your claims, and the IMHO lame way of "youtube"-style arguing you practice.
Anamnesia is first to respond and has a little, partially off-topic, debate with me.
Then you respond, in which you:
- needlessly quote the entire post you are responding to;
- misattribute parts of the side debate with Anamnesia (the indignation you express applies entirely to your own misattribution);
- completely ignore my core point that you misunderstand the metaphorical character of "intent";
- express further indignation that I am not instantly prepared to sit and watch many hours of video that would presumptively prove your point.
I don't mind creative speculation at all. It is only when speculation and facts are getting mixed up that I raise an issue. If you are unable to back off and admit that speculation is only speculation and not scientifically established fact, then don't blame others for the discussions that ensue.entheogenic-gnosis said:I mean to you want to argue and fight? Or do you want blow each other's minds? Who cares if there's speculation, it's entertaining, and it's a workout for the intellect, good mental hygiene, ya know? I'd have discussions with Anamnesia all day before I would watch tv, even if they do get subjective.
A workout for the intellect should IMHO include at least a decent amount of critical thinking. Merely surfing in a bubble of associative flow may lead to intellectual sloppiness instead.
PS: bonus material!
That special issue of 'AoB Plants', with the above quoted introduction by professor Cahill, also contains an article of interest to some of the speculation earlier in the thread, about plants and neurotransmitters. The authors make tha case that plants produce these chemicals as a result of the interaction with ants.
Curious isn't it? The plants care not at all about "elevating the human ape to global consciousness", they are really interested in ants instead. Well, that ought to tone down our elevated self-importance a bit.
Extrafloral-nectar-based partner manipulation in plant–ant relationships
Extrafloral-nectar-based partner manipulation in plant–ant relationships
D. A. Grasso, C. Pandolfi, N. Bazihizina, D. Nocentini, M. Nepi and S. Mancuso
AoB PLANTS (2015) 7 : plv002
doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plv002
Abstract
Plant–ant interactions are generally considered as mutualisms, with both parties gaining benefits from the association. It has recently emerged that some of these mutualistic associations have, however, evolved towards other forms of relationships and, in particular, that plants may manipulate their partner ants to make reciprocation more beneficial, thereby stabilizing the mutualism. Focusing on plants bearing extrafloral nectaries, we review recent studies and address three key questions: (i) how can plants attract potential partners and maintain their services; (ii) are there compounds in extrafloral nectar that could mediate partner manipulation; and (iii) are ants susceptible to such compounds? After reviewing the current knowledge on plant–ant associations, we propose a possible scenario where plant-derived chemicals, such as secondary metabolites, known to have an impact on animal brain, could have evolved in plants to attract and manipulate ant behaviour. This new viewpoint would place plant–animal interaction in a different ecological context, opening new ecological and neurobiological perspectives of drug seeking and use.
Please elaborate how it points out, or even proves, intent. This specifically has been the object of contention all along. You keep restating your belief, but never actually provide reasonably argued evidence, nor do you respond to the objections and arguments against "plant intent".
PS: bonus material!
That special issue of 'AoB Plants', with the above quoted introduction by professor Cahill, also contains an article of interest to some of the speculation earlier in the thread, about plants and neurotransmitters. The authors make tha case that plants produce these chemicals as a result of the interaction with ants.
Curious isn't it? The plants care not at all about "elevating the human ape to global consciousness", they are really interested in ants instead. Well, that ought to tone down our elevated self-importance a bit.
Extrafloral-nectar-based partner manipulation in plant–ant relationships
Many plant-derived chemicals may have an impact on the functioning of the animal brain. The mechanisms by which the psychoactive components of these variouaobpla.oxfordjournals.org
Extrafloral-nectar-based partner manipulation in plant–ant relationships
D. A. Grasso, C. Pandolfi, N. Bazihizina, D. Nocentini, M. Nepi and S. Mancuso
AoB PLANTS (2015) 7 : plv002
doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plv002
Abstract
Plant–ant interactions are generally considered as mutualisms, with both parties gaining benefits from the association. It has recently emerged that some of these mutualistic associations have, however, evolved towards other forms of relationships and, in particular, that plants may manipulate their partner ants to make reciprocation more beneficial, thereby stabilizing the mutualism. Focusing on plants bearing extrafloral nectaries, we review recent studies and address three key questions: (i) how can plants attract potential partners and maintain their services; (ii) are there compounds in extrafloral nectar that could mediate partner manipulation; and (iii) are ants susceptible to such compounds? After reviewing the current knowledge on plant–ant associations, we propose a possible scenario where plant-derived chemicals, such as secondary metabolites, known to have an impact on animal brain, could have evolved in plants to attract and manipulate ant behaviour. This new viewpoint would place plant–animal interaction in a different ecological context, opening new ecological and neurobiological perspectives of drug seeking and use.
has nothing to do with anything that I've said, that was a bit of speculation on the part of terence, but the core of the theory simply states that compounds in our diet allowed us to evolve higher neurochemistry and our present conscious state.elevating the human ape to global consciousness
The first video you linked already puts "behavior" in quotes, that to me is already a pretty strong indication of the filmmaker's position. Even if the film claims "plant intentions" to be real, it is still a pbs documentary, created to entertain, not to publish science.
But let's cut short all the needless arguing about the merits of using hours of video in place of concise arguments, that is a meta-discussion and only further derails the thread.
Lets instead simply go to the horse's mouth and see what J.C. Cahill has to say for himself on the matter. Please follow me to his professional website http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/cahill_lab/. Well, what a surprise, it currently features prominently the following pdf: http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/...ology-SI-flyer_final.pdf, which contains the following, rather unambiguous text:
elevating the human ape to global consciousness