entheogenic cannabis

[pitubo]

Anamnesia, I love your enthusiasm in working through all the information. But I also think that a bit more critical analysis would not hurt your efforts. If you keep tossing up "information that more or less suspiciously looks suspect of being related", you risk ending up with a big unstructured heap that at some point falls over or collapses under its own weight.

With regard to Walter Siegmeister: you can't just pick a bunch of scientific data and start drawing conclusions of your liking and still call the end result scientific. Also I find it hard to see his other books and ideas entirely unconnected to the parts that you do happen to like.

I wouldn't go telling people suffering from alzheimer's disease that it is their own fault and that they shouldn't have been masturbating so much. Especially if you don't have a lot of fact-based science to back up such medical claims.

But physiology is physiology. The same material that makes up semen makes up the brain, basically.

Too much continence couldn't cause a dangerous buildup of semen in the brain, could it?

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

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.

Please don't attribute things to me that I have no connection to...

You said I said something here? http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/m/features/experts-from-the-film I'm not even in that thread and never brought up Raymond Bernard, not on this forum or any other.

Your other examples regarding Raymond Bernard don't apply, anybody can write a book, and I never cited this individual ever, in any thread...

However every experiment in everyone of my examples was preformed by a PHD holding botanist...

--------

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.’”

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.

Please watch the film, I've already articulated the experiments, I'm not transcribing the whole film here...


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...


If you want the evidence behind what I'm saying, do some independent research into the area.
I feel I made a great case.

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...

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 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.


-eg




-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

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.

Like fireworks you quickly illuminate so many good areas for discussion, then stop, I want to reply to every piece, but there's so much to say! I want to hit all these topics, and always end up leaving something out...

Sorry it's chaotic, and sorry if I'm unable to get to everything!

I enjoy speaking with you, and I really dig that you get what I'm saying, it's obvious that your putting thought into these areas, and honestly I would rather talk "nonsense" with you than argue over my views, because honestly, a hostile review of evidence doesn't sound very appealing...

...here is where science is baffled, "how are these plants displaying clear consciousness and intention without a nervous system or a brain?

I've always said a physical body is not a prerequisite for consciousness...

Could it be this same consciousness driving plant awareness and behavior?

I feel if more people were aware of plant behavior, and how plants use chemistry to manipulate biology, then it would not come as a shock that psychedelic plants are offering us external modified neurotransmitters...

Again, it's not just psychedelic plants, consider tryptophan, this essential amino acid must be derived from our diet, if it was not, our bodies could not produce serotonin, meletonin, DMT, pinoline, etc...

My position on the true plant psychedelics as being external modified neurotransmitters is obvious, one must only compare dopamine to mescaline*

Dopamine is 3,4-dihydroxy-phenethylamine, mescaline is 3,4,5-trimethoxy-phenethylamine, so if you add methyl groups to 3 and 4 and a methoxy to 5, you go from dopamine to mescaline...

I described the structural changes between psilocin and serotonin in a previous post...

A neurotransmitter is a "messenger" molecule...

So, these molecules do nothing for plants, so why are these plants producing them? Remember are not metabolic waste, or chemical accidents, these plants are dedicating a good deal of energy into producing compounds that are only useful if you have a nervous system running on higher neurotransmitters...

In the pbs film I posted, you see the wild tobacco, you see that it's able to recognize what predictor is feeding on it and act accordingly, in the case of a certain moth which lays eggs on the plant, the plant will offer a toxic trichome, the caterpillar parasite eats it, and then emits a smell that causes the caterpillars predictors to eat it

this one minute film explains
The plant is pollinated by the moth this caterpillar turns into, but it can also switch pollinators if the caterpillars get out of hand, it switches it's strategy and chemistry to.attract humming birds...

These plants are obviously aware of the creatures around them, and produce chemicals to communicate with them...

So why are plants producing neurotransmitters?

What did the human brain look like before tryptophan? It would be unable to produce higher tryptamine neurotransmitters...then tryptophan shows up on in our diet via plants, and our bodies begin producing novel neurotransmitters like serotonin, the plant introduced tryptophan created our tryptamine neurotransmitters and thus our modern conscious state...

And I'm sure this is on going, are the plants offering us modified neurotransmitters to further our neurochemical evolution?

Based on the evidence, I don't doubt they are capable...

Here's where "what's his name" missed the point, ok, so take all the conclusions from the film, and then apply what you know about psychedelics, and neurotransmitters to it...

If plants are conscious, have intention, and are capable of manipulating and communicating with biology, what are the implications of these conclusions?

Does it really seem so strange that plants would produce neurotransmitters (dopamine and serotonin are common in plants) as well as modified neurotransmitters like psilocin and mescaline?

...to me it all makes perfect sense

There's a four-way symbiotic relationship between the manned wolf, the Solanum lycocarpum tree, the leaf cutter ants, and an underground fungus...

This displays plants ability to to be aware of the creatures around it, and it's abilities to produce compounds to interact with those creatures...

This is a one minute clip, but if you had watched the film you would see the amazing and diverse ways plants do this

The wild tobacco seeds only germinate after wildfire, so it may be dormant for hundreds of years, the plant doesn't know what it will encounter when it comes up, so it can recognize its parasites, and act accordingly...

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

Flowering plants arose out of the Cretaceous, at the same time that the dinosaurs left and mammals took the planet...they essentially evolved with us and have evolved to work with us (or controlled us into working for them...
...when I see lines of cannabis growers going into the grow strore, and buying lights and nutrients and soil for their plants, I'm reminded of the leaf cutter ants marching through the Forrest, gather ants to feed to their fungus...

When it comes to the cannabis piece


-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

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?

Since THC isn't involved with any serotonin receptor agonism, and it exploits the endocannabinoid system, it would be more benneficial to compare THC to our endogenous cannabinoids, N-arachidonoylethanolamide, also called anandaminde and 2-arachidonoylglycerol

Structurally these endogenous compounds do not resemble THC or any active cannabinoid, however the psychoactive cannabinoids are taking advantage of a system which is already in place, called the endocannabnoid system...

THC is an odd-ball compound, it's a diterpenoid hydrocarbon, it's not an alkaloid, it's not an amine, it contains no nitrogen, it can not be reacted with an acid to form a salt, and it does not resemble endogenous neurotransmitters...so it's not an area where I'm an expert, (tryptamine and phenethylamine compounds are my specialty) I still know a good deal, and I still use cannabis daily, but it's never been an interest of mine in the way that the tryptamine and phenethylamine compounds have...

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

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.

What does Raymond Bernard or anything associated with him have to do with this? Or anything?



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.

Dr. James Cahill works for the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta...

actually everybody I have mentioned who shares my oppinion also holds a PHD...

This is far from "hollow earth" or your "semen man"....

Plant Consciousness | SHIFT

www.shift.is

Do Plants Think?

Scientist Daniel Chamovitz unveils the surprising world of plants that see, feel, smell—and remember

www.scientificamerican.com

More papers...

In the paper you brought up that had the negative comments in it, I said this paper touches on the topic, not that it proves my point, though a good deal of it did...

You must weigh the evidence and judge for yourself.

You take the position that plants are not aware of their surroundings, that they are not aware of the life around them, and that they do not communicate, or form stratgies to solve problems no?

This seems absurd to me...

Where's your evidence that this does not happen?

Here's mine, every point I've made through out this thread is gone over in this film.

How can you watch that film, and then tell me plants are not conscious?

-eg

 

[pitubo]

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.

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".

I'll restate my earlier objections, to which you do not respond at all, not even superficially:

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.

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.

Please watch the film, I've already articulated the experiments, I'm not transcribing the whole film here...

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.

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...

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 professor 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:

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.

It is pretty clear what Cahill's position is with reagard to "plant intentions", isn't it?

The full article can be had here, but I'll attach it for reference.

If you want the evidence behind what I'm saying, do some independent research into the area.

I just did.

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 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.

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'd say that your thread was going fine for a while.

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 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.

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.

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.

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

We (Anamnesia and myself) actually have some very different ideas on the topic, and I may not be able to endorse or fully agree with all these ideas, but I appreciate your thoughts on the topic, it gives me many starting points for good discussion...


Suzanne Simard did some amazing work regarding plant networks and communication...

Suzanne Simard, Ph.D
Jc Cahill, PhD
Kat Harrison (ethnobotanical, head of botanical dimensions)
Denis mckenna PhD
Ralph Metzner PhD (is a psychologist, but has amazing notions regarding plants and plant consciousness.
Etc...

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...

Diet had to have been huge in human evolution, and it is compounds from our environment which shape us and drive our evolution...

Again, without tryptophan we would not be able to produce serotonin, meletonin, DMT, pinoline, etc...

-eg

 

[pitubo]

What does Raymond Bernard or anything associated with him have to do with this? Or anything?

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".

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.

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).

Please actually try to read the posts you are responding to. I understand how watching so many youtube videos can put a strain on the eyes, but please make an effort to also practice comprehensive text reading a bit now and then.

Dr. James Cahill works for the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta...

And, apparent from his recent publications, HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU.

 

[pitubo]

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...

Terence McKenna's "stoned ape theory" is not a theory. It is a bunch of stoner musings. When will you learn the difference?

If you take anything sensible and mix in obvious nonsense, it becomes all nonsense.

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

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.

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".

I'll restate my earlier objections, to which you do not respond at all, not even superficially:

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.

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.

Please watch the film, I've already articulated the experiments, I'm not transcribing the whole film here...

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.

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...

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/cahi...015/02/Behavioural-Ecology-SI-flyer_final.pdf, which contains the following, rather unambiguous text:

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.

It is pretty clear what Cahill's position is with reagard to "plant intentions", isn't it?

The full article can be had here, but I'll attach it for reference.

If you want the evidence behind what I'm saying, do some independent research into the area.

I just did.

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 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.

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'd say that your thread was going fine for a while.

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 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.

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.

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".

The wild tobacco evidence demonstrated that this plant was fully aware of its surroundings, as well as who was feeding on it, it also showed the plant could "choose" to switch pollinators, it would stop producing compounds for hawkmoth caterpillar, and begin producing compounds to attract humming birds, it would also change the time it's flowers opened, and their shape to suit the humming bird, displaying awareness of its pollinators as well as the ability to choose between chemicals to communicate with those specific pollinators...

Even stranger, it knows that the compounds in its "poison trichomes" will react with the biology of the hawk-moth caterpillar in way that will cause it to emit a compound, let's call it a smell, this compound works with the predators ability to sense the hawk moth caterpillars, so it's signaling the predators with a chemical through the hawk-moth catspillars biology...

This displays the plant has deep awareness of the life around it, which it has devised chemical means to manipulate...

Ok, here's the "nonsense":

Take terence mckenna's "stoned ape theory" and combine it with the implications presented by the the film "what plants talk about", as well as all the other research involving plant communication, plant behavior, plant consciousness, that was presented in the other articles and links.

It may not be wholly scientific, and my posts do get long, chaotic, disorganized, etc...but the ideas are there

Re-reading some of amanesias posts it's clear I may have been misunderstood a few times, but it was still a decent conversation, and some of what I said does get across, the facts are all There, I guess it's up to you to decide what it all means...

And that's the subjective and fun part where science is mute, what does it all mean? What are some of the possibilities fully knowing the implications of some of this research...

I end up trying to post on 30 different things at once and my posts turn into a mess, it's impossible to maintain any communication with these long and chaotic strings of mixed information...so yes, some of my posts got incoherent, or were never edited, or were cut off in the middle, etc...but the ideas were all well founded, and formed off off experiment, observation, and research, most of it preformed by others, but that's the basis none the less.

There's really no point in continuing this, an educated debate is fine, but this is ridiculous, exposure to negative people or attitudes is bad mental hygene, and should avoided.

Moving on....

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

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 variou

aobpla.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.

This confirms everything I have been arguing to you!

Plants are conscious, they intentionally form relationships with the life around them through chemicals.

elevating the human ape to global consciousness

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.

Look at tryptophan, without this essential amino acid we have no higher tryptamine neurotransmitters, serotonin is essential to our brain function, it's essential to generating our conscious state...without tryptophan from diet we never would have evolved our present conscious state...

So who is to say that other modified neurotransmitters found in plants won't eventually result in a similar jump in evolution...

And seeing as how plants manipulate biology with chemicals, and have intentions, and form.relationships, and are conscious in every way, this doesn't seem that far fetched...

Plants give us oxygen to breathe, food to eat, chemical precursors to our essential neurotransmitters, they give us clothing and shelter, they give us medicine...we are so deeply connected to plants...we are interconnected with them in every way, they create our conscious state chemically through diet...

You provided evidence that further proves all of my points!

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

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:

Jc Cahill is a key speaker in the documentary I posted, I did listen to him tell me these things, directly from his mouth...

You have not watched the film, you tried to bring some crazy sperm man into your arguement, your posting links which confirm everything I've said...

The "let's go to jc cahills mouth" was pretty funny, but it's obvious your just trying to argue and fight for the sake of arguing and fighting, you have not made a single coherent argument, you refuse to watch the film which contains at least 5 PHD holding botanists opinions, it also shows, on film, their experiments, and gives reference to their publications.

You would also realize your scientific bonus "evidence" confirmed everything that I had said, and was also outlined in the film.

The stoned ape theory claims that proto-humans came out of the trees into the grasslands where they encountered chemicals in their diet which trigger the evolution of higher biochemistry and are present conscious and physical state, mckenna contests that psilocybe fungi were heavily involved, though simply claiming chemicals from plants in our diet triggered evolution to our present state has nothing to do with

elevating the human ape to global consciousness

Cahill was the botanist in study of the wild tobacco for this film, he also dies at length interviews in the film...

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

Here I cut it down to a 12 minute clip, I'm sure you can handle that.

By the way, that's jc cahill in the clip!

-eg

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

He also * does* at length interviews...

Correction for the post above my last regarding Cahill

-eg

 

[pitubo]

So I watched the last video that you posted. Even though after repeated requests, you fail to point out where in the video the argument or the proof is.

The word "intention" is not used once. So where is your point?

May I remind you again how the whole altercation started by your use of the word "intention". I do not know nor understand why you are in denial about that. I have made an explicit argument about it in the preceding discussion.

If you read the scientific publication by Cahill that I referenced earlier, you can see for yourself how the term "behaviour" is used with lots of cautions. He explicitly states that ".. The goal is not to draw false parallels, nor to anthropomorphize plant biology .."

Perhaps you really do not understand the difference between "conscious intention" and "mechanism". I bet that professor Cahill does, though. He probably doesn't smoke a lot of weed either.

PS: I have slightly edited this post to correct professor Cahill's name. It should read "James F. Cahill, Jr.", not "James (JC) Cahill" as you wrote. I should know better to check peoples assumptions for factual correctness...

 

[Psybin]

"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall on the floor."

Eg, I enjoy your threads but pitubo is right. More importantly, you've been very disrespectful toward him. Sometimes you need to take a step back and seriously examine your own point of view before you instinctively respond to get the intellectual upper hand, which is itself an exercise in ego (hypocritical coming from me, I know). I think you've made a lot of claims and sweeping statements, and you should listen to what pitubo is saying because it is rooted in fact and detail, which your posts so desperately lack.

 

[pitubo]

More importantly, you've been very disrespectful toward him.

I don't really feel offended, to be honest. And I can take a beating too, if needed.

Mostly, I have been quite surprized by entheogenic-gnosis' stubbornness. He's been disrespectful to himself the most, IMHO.

As I stated before, entheogenic-gnosis, I have no problem with your musings and actually like some of it. But when you lose sight of the line between fact and fiction and even seem to get personally worked up about it, it may be time to investigate the emotions that make you involved a little too much with the narratives of your musings.

Psychedelic luminaries are mostly just ordinary people caught in a snapshot of time. Their word is not the gospel. Don't get caught up in it.

Be well.

 

[entheogenic-gnosis]

So I watched the last video that you posted. Even though after repeated requests, you fail to point out where in the video the argument or the proof is.

The word "intention" is not used once. So where is your point?

May I remind you again how the whole altercation started by your use of the word "intention". I do not know nor understand why you are in denial about that. I have made an explicit argument about it in the preceding discussion.

If you read the scientific publication by Cahill that I referenced earlier, you can see for yourself how the term "behaviour" is used with lots of cautions. He explicitly states that ".. The goal is not to draw false parallels, nor to anthropomorphize plant biology .."

Perhaps you really do not understand the difference between "conscious intention" and "mechanism". I bet that professor Cahill does, though. He probably doesn't smoke a lot of weed either.

PS: I have slightly edited this post to correct professor Cahill's name. It should read "James F. Cahill, Jr.", not "James (JC) Cahill" as you wrote. I should know better to check peoples assumptions for factual correctness...

I get the feeling I said something that got to you in another thread, so you insist on filling my unrelated threads with contentious sophomoric palaver as a childish attempt at "pay back"...

All your arguments have been nonsense, your talking about your "sperm men" and space apes and disregarding anything valid...

You tried to say I brought up this sperm man, you gave a link to a thread I never posted in...

You will argue every valid point I make, and with nonsense, it's pretty obvious that no matter how good of a case I make ill be met with this time wasting crap...

When you intentionally tell others I quoted your "sperm man" in another thread, you disregard all major conversation points, which I had to post a film on, which you didn't watch, and if you did you just going to start brining up something off topic and unrelated anyway, so what's the deal?...

You can't possibly think plants are not aware of their environments, that they are not aware of the species in those environments, and that they don't communicate and manipulate biology (living creatures) through chemistry...you even posted an article proving all my points.

I honestly don't have the energy to care any more, this is not a real conversation, it seems more like an attempt to disrupt legitimate conversation with as many childish tactics that one could muster...

I'm out, it is whatever you say it is dude, you obviously know what your talking about.

-eg

 

[pitubo]

You tried to say I brought up this sperm man, you gave a link to a thread I never posted in...

Just for the sake of clarity: this was in reply to Anamnesia. I never wrote that in relation to you.

 

[Psybin]

So I watched the last video that you posted. Even though after repeated requests, you fail to point out where in the video the argument or the proof is.

The word "intention" is not used once. So where is your point?

May I remind you again how the whole altercation started by your use of the word "intention". I do not know nor understand why you are in denial about that. I have made an explicit argument about it in the preceding discussion.

If you read the scientific publication by Cahill that I referenced earlier, you can see for yourself how the term "behaviour" is used with lots of cautions. He explicitly states that ".. The goal is not to draw false parallels, nor to anthropomorphize plant biology .."

Perhaps you really do not understand the difference between "conscious intention" and "mechanism". I bet that professor Cahill does, though. He probably doesn't smoke a lot of weed either.

PS: I have slightly edited this post to correct professor Cahill's name. It should read "James F. Cahill, Jr.", not "James (JC) Cahill" as you wrote. I should know better to check peoples assumptions for factual correctness...

I get the feeling I said something that got to you in another thread, so you insist on filling my unrelated threads with contentious sophomoric palaver as a childish attempt at "pay back"...

All your arguments have been nonsense, your talking about your "sperm men" and space apes and disregarding anything valid...

You tried to say I brought up this sperm man, you gave a link to a thread I never posted in...

You will argue every valid point I make, and with nonsense, it's pretty obvious that no matter how good of a case I make ill be met with this time wasting crap...

When you intentionally tell others I quoted your "sperm man" in another thread, you disregard all major conversation points, which I had to post a film on, which you didn't watch, and if you did you just going to start brining up something off topic and unrelated anyway, so what's the deal?...

You can't possibly think plants are not aware of their environments, that they are not aware of the species in those environments, and that they don't communicate and manipulate biology (living creatures) through chemistry...you even posted an article proving all my points.

I honestly don't have the energy to care any more, this is not a real conversation, it seems more like an attempt to disrupt legitimate conversation with as many childish tactics that one could muster...

I'm out, it is whatever you say it is dude, you obviously know what your talking about.

-eg

This entire post is driven by ego, by the desire to be the one who gets the final say, the one who is right. Ponder that. If you'd taken a moment, a breath for air, before getting emotional and offended; you'd see that pitubo was talking to Anamnesia - not you. He's said that multiple times, but you refuse to listen to anything that doesn't confirm your preconceived beliefs.