entheogenic cannabis

[travsha]

After I started working with Ayahuasca and Mapacho my relationship with cannabis changed greatly. Ayahuasca showed me how to use cannabis more ceremonially and Mapacho also showed me how to talk to the smoke a bit... I can share some brief examples.

Maybe you are familiar with "shamanic journey" where people use a drum to enter trance and have a visionary experience? Well I sometimes do the same thing, but instead of a drum I use a little bit of cannabis mixed with mapacho. I sit somewhere without distractions - usually in nature when possible. Then I hold a spliff of cannabis and mapacho blended together in my hand while I pray for guidance for a while. Once I feel like I have prayed good I will sing or whistle into the spliff, then light it up, take just 1-4 puffs and soon I can leave my body and drift on the smoke to talk to my spirit guides. Works very well. (can work well with just mapacho or just cannabis, but I get best results with them mixed together)

Another way to do ceremony with cannabis is more based on Ayahuasca ceremony. Dark room and silence just like with Aya, but instead of drinking Ayahuasca you ingest a large amount of cannabis and get really stoned - eat, smoke, or however you like as long as it's a lot. Then I sing icaros just like an Ayahuasca ceremony and call in the energies I want. This method works best when you know how to sing icaros and when you get really stoned - you may even purge from being so stoned. It can be very powerful though - surprisingly similar to Ayahuasca ceremony, though of course still unique in many ways. After learning this method I found out that the owner of Blue Morpho in Iquitos does group ceremonies with cannabis in a similar fashion so I guess I am not the only one onto this idea.

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

I remember my first few experiences felt very psychedelic, on the verge of being genuinely spiritual. The second time I ever got high, I ended up lying in a friends back yard, listening to music and watching spectacular CEVs dance behind my eyelids. It felt almost like hyperspace, I was looking into some other, timeless dimension of color, sound, and pleasure.

All that went away after a while. I'm not a heavy or frequent smoker, and no amount of tolerance breaks seems to bring it back. Either I just got used to it, or something in my brain changed, but now it just makes me feel happy and hungry.

Blessings
~ND

I could not agree more, I have a thread about fitz ludlow and hash eating where Mr. Ludlow describes all these wonderful effects, which when I first started I could achieve, but have not been able to.Again sense...

Though happy and hungry is Entheogenic in my opinion as well, when you are happy you are more prone to compassionate behavior and wanting others to be happy, your less likely to promote negative actions, and are blessed with freedom from stress and negative thoughts...and when your hungry you are reminded to keep your body nourished and fed.

Once I was involved in a conflict, I was angry and ready for revenge, but before I acted I decided to meditate with a spliff, at which point I was able to calm down and reassess the situation, and it stopped me from behaving in a manner that would have been detrimental to myself and the party I was in conflict with...when your angry like this it's hard for another person to talk you out of it, but one spliff and my entire perspective on the situation had changed, and in the end I ended up making a positive decision, I acted as jah, or Buddha, or Jesus or whoever would have suggested, in this way marijuana is an entheogen...

It's able to neutralize stress and anger, it induces happiness and laughter, it induces calm, peace, and a meditative state of mind, these are all holy mindstates.

It makes daily life easier, and promotes, peace, calm, and happiness.







-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

After I started working with Ayahuasca and Mapacho my relationship with cannabis changed greatly. Ayahuasca showed me how to use cannabis more ceremonially and Mapacho also showed me how to talk to the smoke a bit... I can share some brief examples.

Maybe you are familiar with "shamanic journey" where people use a drum to enter trance and have a visionary experience? Well I sometimes do the same thing, but instead of a drum I use a little bit of cannabis mixed with mapacho. I sit somewhere without distractions - usually in nature when possible. Then I hold a spliff of cannabis and mapacho blended together in my hand while I pray for guidance for a while. Once I feel like I have prayed good I will sing or whistle into the spliff, then light it up, take just 1-4 puffs and soon I can leave my body and drift on the smoke to talk to my spirit guides. Works very well. (can work well with just mapacho or just cannabis, but I get best results with them mixed together)

Another way to do ceremony with cannabis is more based on Ayahuasca ceremony. Dark room and silence just like with Aya, but instead of drinking Ayahuasca you ingest a large amount of cannabis and get really stoned - eat, smoke, or however you like as long as it's a lot. Then I sing icaros just like an Ayahuasca ceremony and call in the energies I want. This method works best when you know how to sing icaros and when you get really stoned - you may even purge from being so stoned. It can be very powerful though - surprisingly similar to Ayahuasca ceremony, though of course still unique in many ways. After learning this method I found out that the owner of Blue Morpho in Iquitos does group ceremonies with cannabis in a similar fashion so I guess I am not the only one onto this idea.

Thanks for sharing, interesting stuff, I have not ventured into the ceremony aspect of cannabis, rather I feel it's effects itself are the spiritually beneficial practice, though I would not be opposed to ceremony.

I think prior knowledge and intention may also increase the efficacy of cannabis as a spiritual tool, when one is well experienced in the art of using plants as entheogens and has knowledge of spiritual experiences and practices combined with spiritual intentions, it becomes fairly easy to see the potential entheogenic applications of cannabis.

For cultures where cannabis has been connected to religion for thousands of years, such as in the cannabis using Hindu sects, it's completely obvious as to how and why cannabis can be an amazing tool to incorporate into spiritual practice...

...for people like myself who were raised in the west it may not be so overtly obvious, many westerners struggle with the notion, but again they were raised in a culture teaching them that cannabis is a party, escapist, hedonistic, illegal and immoral as well as an unhealthy vice, so regardless of what the situation may actually be its very hard for people raised in this atmosphere to let go of these notions, or be able to grasp notions of how it may very effectively be used otherwise...

Though cannabis has culturally been viewed as an entheogen for far longer than its been viewed as a "drug". They found a 2,700 year old grave of a gushi shaman burried with a few pounds of cannabis, which was determined to be psychoactive and cultivated for this purpose...they view that cannabis is an illegal drug with no religious or medical value is the newer concept, and as the science continues to confirm that cannabis is not the "devils weed" of reefer madness, but rather a benign plant with many medical benefits these absurd notions will eventually fade into the dust-bin of history and cannabis will likely resume it's place as a medicine, an entheogen, and a tool to make life just a little bit easier for everybody else.

When used properly cannabis can be as intense as any other psychedelic. I'm of the opinion that set, setting, prior knowledge, intention, and tradition can make the difference between a fairly moderate experience and a connection to the spiritual...

Though I enjoy the mild effects which allow me to incorporate cannabis into my daily life, I like that it gives me a slice of the psychedelic without hindering my daily function, for the deep.work there is yagé, DMT, mescaline, etc...fir the daily work there is cannabis...which can be used for work beyond the "daily" as well.

I think that as more states legalize and more people are presented the opportunity to use cannabis completely disconnected from the criminal element and the stigma of doing something against the law, that more and more people will discover cannabis as normal part of their life, as an entheogen, a medicine, and a tool to get through daily life while remaining as stress free, calm, and happy as possible.

It does put you in a peaceful, meditative, inspirational, happy, and holy state...now when you learn how this relates to spiritual practice you can more effectively use it as a tool for spiritual practice.



-eg

 

[3rdI]

Yes, there are huge differences - .......which is a shame because it has a lot of purported health benefits.

cheers Psybin.

ive never had the opportunityto try concentrates so i cant really comment on those but when ive been in Amsterdam i didnt notice the difference either i can tell the difference is look taste and flavour but when it came to effect they all seem the same beside strength.

for me, so far, weed is weed, but maybe im just a heathen

 

[Psybin]

Yes, there are huge differences - .......which is a shame because it has a lot of purported health benefits.

cheers Psybin.

ive never had the opportunityto try concentrates so i cant really comment on those but when ive been in Amsterdam i didnt notice the difference either i can tell the difference is look taste and flavour but when it came to effect they all seem the same beside strength.

for me, so far, weed is weed, but maybe im just a heathen

Yeah, I feel mostly the same regarding flower. Bud is bud, as far as effects (with the exception of white widow and one or two other specialty strains that for some reason get me a different sort of lifted :?: ). Concentrates are like a different substance as far as effects, though - especially in high doses. The terpenes are in much higher concentration in waxes and oils, so they play a much larger role in modulating the psychoactive effects, as well as having their own psychoactive effects.

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

For me THC is THC...

.. but there are other terpenes and cannabinoids contained in the flower as well as the hasheesh / extract that may contribute to the psychoactivity the user experiances.

THC, CBD, CBN, these are all odorless and tasteless comoounds, so even with good BHO extract these other compounds still exist, and likely are responsible for cannabis's variable subjective experiences.



-eg

 

[Psybin]

For me THC is THC...

.. but there are other terpenes and cannabinoids contained in the flower as well as the hasheesh / extract that may contribute to the psychoactivity the user experiances.

THC, CBD, CBN, these are all odorless and tasteless comoounds, so even with good BHO extract these other compounds still exist, and likely are responsible for cannabis's variable subjective experiences.



-eg

I would be willing to bet that this is why most people don't really notice much or any subjective difference in effect from different strains of flower. I suspect the terpenes and minor cannabinoids are just too low in concentration to be as significant in modulating psychoactive effects (in addition to their own psychoactive effects, in greater concentration) in flower, as compared to extracts.

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

The strains do matter but it's only half the battle.

Say you are growing a strain produces lots/little oils, that takes longer/shorter to flower, requires slightly more/less water, and is known to reach a larger/smaller size, and prefers this or that soil or nutrients...all if this matters...these factors are determined by the genetics the plant evolved in relation to its environment, marijuana growing in the Amazon has different characteristics from marijuana growing in north Africa...and if your seeking specific characteristics to meet your specific needs knowing the "strains" makes a huge difference.

These plants also contain unique ratios of terpenes, cannabinoids, lipids, etc. Based on their genetics or what "strains" it is..all of which are said to effect the subjective experience...as well as the taste and smell.

Strains do matter, good genetics do matter, but as far as smokers are concerned, unless you prefer a specific flavor, you should be more concerned with how well it was grown rather than the name that's on the jar...look for nutrient and light deficiencies, look for male flowers and signs of hermaphrodation, look for seeding, both seeding caused by pollination from another plant, and seeding caused by hermaphadation, look for molds, fungi, signs of parasites, then check bud density, smell, taste, and so on...

If you choose the marijuana was was grown the best, you can't go wrong.

Something can be "white window" (which I think is terrible, difficult to grow, always low yields) and have bad genetics, you can have real "white window" that's also genetically weak, low compound production, small buds, etc...

So in that sense the name or strain means nothing, again unless you prefer a certain flavor, like, I love sour diesel for its unique taste and general high potency, but if it's not well grown ill pass it for something that is.

The strain hunters guys act like all the growers I know, when I'm in a grow house I even examine the plants in a similar fashion...

I keep forgetting most the country is living in a different world when it comes to marijuana and have far different attitudes towards it....

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

For me THC is THC...

.. but there are other terpenes and cannabinoids contained in the flower as well as the hasheesh / extract that may contribute to the psychoactivity the user experiances.

THC, CBD, CBN, these are all odorless and tasteless comoounds, so even with good BHO extract these other compounds still exist, and likely are responsible for cannabis's variable subjective experiences.



-eg

I would be willing to bet that this is why most people don't really notice much or any subjective difference in effect from different strains of flower. I suspect the terpenes and minor cannabinoids are just too low in concentration to be as significant in modulating psychoactive effects (in addition to their own psychoactive effects, in greater concentration) in flower, as compared to extracts.

I respectfully disagree, I feel the terpenes and other cannabinoids are present in sufficient amounts in both extract and flower to be considered significant and a contributing factor to subjective effects, THC, CBD, CBN, all are tasteless and odorless, so even really good extract contains them, I'm of the opinion they are signifigant

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

Here's a theory that may be of interest.

Was cannabis furnished by nature to provide for human beings a medication for the restoration of a neuronal biochemical environment that emulates that of our ancient ancestors on which whose brains evolved and reached their peak 200,000 years ago? If that ancient diet was a diet related to daily intake of bioflavonoids, various MAO inhibitors, resulting in increased pineal activity resulting in increased melatonin production, perhaps prerequisite for the production of DMT or some other type of psychoactive compound that facilitates dreaming during sleep, the certain concentration of which may relate to a certain intensity of awareness of both waking and sleeping worlds of consciousness. Having lost the diet we lost the original fruit that helped us to grow the only tree of knowledge there is, which is your brain, so nature furnishes compounds designed to emulate the biochemical structural effects of that ancient diet on our brains in a hypothesized effort to restore to us back to sanity before we destroy the whole ecosystem, which includes ourselves. So, cannabis comes along. Cannabis plugs incredibly neatly into our systems. Increasing melatonin production by 4000%, also having some effect on the shifting of left hemisphere dominance to right hemisphere dominance. What cannabis may be doing neurologically is helping us to restore a certain balance to our brains that existed a very long time ago. All our attempts to find the perfect high may be just this effort to medicate a 200,000 year long descent to a degenerate condition of unbalanced brains.

Can you believe that 200,000 years ago, there existed people just like you and me, allegedly without language, that had not only bigger brains (by about 120 cc or so) but also no hemisphere dominance? Recall that LSD apparently has no effect on the left hemisphere. I can't help but be bugged by the question, when I wonder about how great our brains were and what the corresponding state of consciousness would have been like, that if we had such incredible brains with all the obvious potential that goes along with balanced brains, on a plant diet, how can it be that we were stupid enough to lose contact with the very diet that fed the evolution of our consciousness? Don't we know our cake when we are eating it?Perhaps we are in a more incredible situation than we realize. If our perhaps limitless potential as a collective were realized species-wide today, we would very soon be living on a planet where everyone is as evolved as Jesus.

Could it be that Cannabis, or any of the psychedelics, evolved for the purpose by some magical means to bring human beings back into alignment with nature?

I'm sure terence mckenna would think so...

Do plants have intentions?

I remember terence mckenna telling a story, he said in his greenhouse a caapi vine had coveted an entire tree, except for a single branch, he said this offended his sense of symmetric image, he even contemplated moving the vine onto the branch, and as he was having that thought, the branch broke off the tree, dead.
The plant was able to sense that the branch was unstable and thus did not grow there...it displayed conscious intentions...

In this clip we see the "daughter vine" choose it's prey, it seems to be able to consciously choose the plant host which would benefit it the most...

There are even plants that will secrete a substance, when this plants parasite consumes the substance, it causes the parasites to emit a smell that attracts their predator species...

Plants will also offer substances to attract symbiotes...

There is a fungus, it takes plant matter and secrets a material which is perfect ant food, so leaf cutter ants will cut leaf to feed to their fungus...

Or consider Solanum lycocarpum, this trees seeds must be processed through a mammals digestive track to germinate, so the plant offers the manned wolf a fruit full of toxins that kill the wolf's stomach parasites...

It's obvious that plants have intentions and relationships with other living beings...

-eg

 

[steppa]

It's obvious that plants have intentions and relationships with other living beings...

Relationship is obvious, yes. But intention...? No.

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

It's obvious that plants have intentions and relationships with other living beings...

Relationship is obvious, yes. But intention...? No.

You must have intention to form relationships, they are forming these relationships for very clear and defined reasons.

To me it's clear that there is in fact intention behind plant behavior.

The examples in my last post make this clear.

Interconnected by Plant Consciousness
This was an interesting read touching on "plant intelligence"

What Plants Talk About ~ About | Nature | PBS

When we think about plants, we don’t often associate a term like “behavior” with them, but experimental plant ecologist JC Cahill wants to change that.

www.pbs.org

In this link you can watch the full PBS documentary "what plants talk about" again, this confirms intention behind plant behaviour.

Nature is not mute. This is what Satre said, nature is mute. He was another one of these people who pushed this existential line in one form or another.

Nature is not mute. Nature is full of affection and intentionality toward humankind. -terence mckenna

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

I was only able to skim through as I'm on my way out the door, I'll get to the rest of your post on my break...

Keep in mind that flowering plants arose out of the last extinction, we share their origins, and have unknowingly been under an enormous deal of their influence...

Animals are something invented by plants to move seeds around. An extremely yang solution to a peculiar problem which they faced.” Terrance McKenna

Though terence may have sold short the plants intentions for us in that quote...

When exploring for plant food early man must have been exposed to a wide range of chemical compounds, some which may have allowed for higher neurotransmitter formation and the generation of our present conscious state...

Across nearly seven million years, the human brain has tripled in size, with most of this growth occurring in the past two million years. -scientific American

I'm not certain it was psilocybin in particular, so much as it was plant chemistry in our diet as a whole...

Consider L-tryptophan, we must obtain this amino acid from our diet, which makes it "essential" our bodies use tryptophan to produce 5-ho-tryptamine which it then converts to n-acetyl-5-methoxy-tryptamine which is then converted to 6-methoxy-tetrahydro-beta-carboline...

So with out the ingestion of tryptophan our brain chemistry would lack serotonin, DMT, meletonin, pinoline, and so on...This would be a mass of missing essential chemistry if tryptophan was not incorporated in our diet...

Now, psilocin is 4-hydroxy-dimethyltryptamine, if you moved the hydroxy group from 4 to 5 and removed the CH3 (methyl) groups from the amine nitrogen, you would have serotonin, these are very minor changes that take you from a powerful psychedelic to an essential neurotransmitter...

The psychedelics are "external neurotransmitters" offered by plant symbiotes to steer our evolution one way or another...

I'll get back to this topic as soon as I'm at a break, I for sure did not get to fully read/respond to your post, but wanted to get out this little bit of information as I was walking out the door...

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

What you mentioned is within the pages of this book I was speaking of!
What keeps bugging me is just why on earth these things are out there.
From an artist's point of view of how the universe works, perhaps they are there to accelerate novelty, and no other creature on this planet is as much a novelty engine than our brains, and so through some sort of magical mysterious intentionality on the part of the intelligence implicit in nature, in plants themselves, by combining ourselves with plants, we become completed. Somehow.
From an engineer's point of view of how the universe works, nothing happens on accident. Yes, there may be accidents such as mutations and this kind of thing, but these are still within nature's umbrella of purpose to evolve itself to higher and higher levels as a strategy to conquer space time, according to Terence. All mistakes are within the designing process, in other words.
I just find it exceedingly odd that I can smoke a plant like cannabis, and quite literally experience a shift in frequency, a shift in perception that really does add a dimension of seeing to my vision as a whole. I wonder if this could be accidental. I wonder if this is designed. Were human beings meant to smoke cannabis? revere different kinds of vegetal gnosis?
Rightly so, we say, this is where religion begins.
But isn't that weird that that is the way it is?

Further, a simple alteration of the psilocin molecule resulting in serotonin? These psychedelics as external neurotransmitters? I mean wow! My brain is not inside my head! My brain is the entire plant kingdom!
Where does the edge of human intentionality begin?
Where does the edge of vegetal intentionality end?

I wonder if this is designed. Were human beings meant to smoke cannabis? revere different kinds of vegetal gnosis?
Rightly so, we say, this is where religion begins.
But isn't that weird that that is the way it is?

I think plant life guides biology...yet biology doesn't really seem to notice...

I'm reminded of the plant from the pbs video I posted, which offers its parasite
A trichome, this trichome will cause this parasite to emit a scent which attracts its preditor once eaten, the plant is manipulating the life around it chemically...

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...

Serotonin is 5-hydroxy-tryptamine, meletonin is n-acetyl-5-methoxy-tryptamine, dimethyltryptamine is endogenously produced, 6-methoxy-tetrahydro-beta-carboline also know as "pinoline" is an endogenous beta-carboline, a cyclised tryptamine similar to the harmala alkaloids found in banisteriopsis caapi and peganum harmala...

Then there's phenethylamine neurotransmitters, dopamine is 3,4-dihydroxy-phenethylamine, mescaline is 3,4,5-trimethoxy-phenethylamine) (epinephrine, norepinephrine, are other major phenethylamines)

So these plants are essentially offering us modified neurotransmitters, which we have the receptors for as these compounds resemble our endogenous neurochemistry...

arachidonoylethanolamine or anandamide, is a fatty acid neurotransmitter, it's one of the reason why the endocannabinoid system exists, cannabis effects us because it's cannabinoid compounds exploit the system in place for our endogenous cannabinoids, such as anandamide.

"Endorphins" is a term derived from "endogenous morphines"

Most people forget the oxygen we breathe, the food we eat, the cloths we wear, the medicines we use and the neurotransmitters in our heads which allow higher brain functioning such as serotonin all come from plants...

Plants have intentions, and appear to manipulate biology...


I'm reminded again of the leaf cutter ants, who are in a sense being manipulated by a fungus, the fungus can't get up and go in search of food, so it manipulated insects into marching through the Forrest and cutting fresh leaf to feed it, n return the fungus offers a food source to the ants, it's symbiotic, so it's not total manipulation, but it is amusing to think that when you see the ants marching with leaf, they are working for a fungus...

Fungi are strange, they breathe oxygen, unlike plants, they don't use light to produce their food, unlike plants, fungi are far more animal than plant...

Ok, I'm getting off topic, and again, I'm running out the door, though I'm actually going to come back to this topic today, I feel I barley had time to get any ideas out...

-eg

 

[pitubo]

Plants have intentions, and appear to manipulate biology...

Even as a "Spirituality & Mysticism" thread, this thread is devolving into nonsensical and baseless speculation. Plugging it up with tons of unconnected factoid tidbits doesn't make it any less pseudoscientific.

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

Plants have intentions, and appear to manipulate biology...

Even as a "Spirituality & Mysticism" thread, this thread is devolving into nonsensical and baseless speculation. Plugging it up with tons of unconnected factoid tidbits doesn't make it any less pseudoscientific.

Please watch this film.

Plants don't have behavior and intentions?

Plants do not produce chemicals to manipulate biology?

So what are the possible implications of this?

Science has no answers, so educated speculation is appropriate.

There's nothing spiritual here, or nonsense, the speculation is well informed, and many in the field of science would share my opinions...

If I'm wrong, please provide the evidence, I think I have done well enough in that area.

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.

From the pbs film we see a plant offer its parasite insect a trichome, when this insect eats the trichome it then emits a compound which attracts a bird to eat it...the plants chemicals are clearly aware of the biology it is manipulating, it has intention to remove its parasites, and one of the ways this occurs is chemical manipulation of biology.

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.

My conclusions:

·Plants are conscious and have intention
·Plants use chemicals to communicate with living creatures

Where's the spirituality? And pseudoscience?

The speculation is educated and revolves around the areas where science is void of answers what so ever.

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

be intelligent? Some plant scientists insist they are — since they can sense, learn, remember and even react in ways that would be familiar to humans.

Michael Pollan, author of such books as "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "The Botany of Desire," wrote the New Yorker piece about the developments in plant science. He says for the longest time, even mentioning the idea that plants could be intelligent was a quick way to being labeled "a whacko." But no more, which might be comforting to people who have long talked to their plants or played music for them.

New research on plant intelligence may forever change how you think about plants

I'm not surprised I received a similar response...

That article isn't that good, but it does make the point the science is changing its views in this area as more evidence arrives.

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

Do Plants Have Brains? | Natural History Magazine

www.naturalhistorymag.com

Another interesting article on plant consciousness titled "do plants have brains"

-eg

 

[pitubo]

Please watch this film.

Please make a clear argument yourself.

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.

Plants don't have behavior and intentions?

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.

Plants do not produce chemicals to manipulate biology?

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.

So what are the possible implications of this?

None so far, since there is no point made from which inferences can be drawn.

Science has no answers, so educated speculation is appropriate.

Science has plenty of answers to well-formulated questions, and to even more well-formulated questions it has no answers.

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.

There's nothing spiritual here, or nonsense, the speculation is well informed, and many in the field of science would share my opinions...

Here's a quote from your "do plants have brains?" popular science article (I've added some emphasis):

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.

If I'm wrong, please provide the evidence, I think I have done well enough in that area.

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?

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.

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.

Again, I'm fine with musings and metaphors, just don't confuse that with factual scientific accuracy. It's not the same thing.

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.

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.

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.

 

[pitubo]

Pitubo, this I don't think is nonsensical and baseless speculation.

Well and I am so glad you explained to me so clearly why not.

I hate to disagree with you.

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!

We may not even agree on what "science" and "proof" entails. Not so long ago, you claimed in a post (emphasis mine):

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.

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:

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.