What If It's All BS?

[edge2054]

Sorry these aren't peer reviewed studies but there are some people researching plant communication. Also sorry I know we're on a bit of a derail but I guess it's all applicable.

This Dreadful Video Shows How A Beef Burger Is Made In Reverse

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/

Also Paul Stamets, one of the worlds leading fungus researchers, believes that mycelium are very much like neural nets.

Are Fungi The Earth's Natural Internet?

I don't know how purely scientific all of this is. I'm not an expert.

However a friend of mine, real or imaginary, told me something along the lines of, "Hey man, we're all getting along here. Quit wrecking everything. You're killing us."

Now I had a bunch of plant molecules in my brain when this happened and had been doing a lot of reading on shamanism. Was it the spirit of P. Harmala like I thought at the time or was it just me talking to myself? Does it matter? The effect is the same.

He also said that plants talk all the time. We just don't listen.

 

[Warrior]

[...]

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that plants are trying to communicate with anything. Communication requires some minimum level of consciousness that plants do not have in any demonstrable capacity.

This isn't true. What we call consciousness in neuroscience terms is not necessary for communication, and we have lots of examples of communication between plants and varieties of plants, animals, and simple forms of life (like single celled organisms). Additionally, neurotransmitters are often tools for brain regions, or physiological tissues within one organism to communicate with other tissues or brain regions. For example, the gut has highly elaborate communication with the brain when hungry, fed, and so on. Most of this communication is done via messenger molecules. The human gut is a second brain with a collection of neurons that is not directly coupled to 'the (main) brain.' It's all dynamical systems involving highly complicated forms of communication.

We just don't know what the message is yet.

Fruit evolved to be colorful so animals can easily identify it. This is an example of coevolution through communication over time. This one is clear. We get food from the tree in exchange for moving and propagating its seed and lineage. Color is a form of visual communication.

 

[hardboiled]

This isn't true. What we call consciousness in neuroscience terms is not necessary for communication, and we have lots of examples of communication between plants and varieties of plants, animals, and simple forms of life (like single celled organisms). Additionally, neurotransmitters are often tools for brain regions, or physiological tissues within one organism to communicate with other tissues or brain regions. For example, the gut has highly elaborate communication with the brain when hungry, fed, and so on. Most of this communication is done via messenger molecules. The human gut is a second brain with a collection of neurons that is not directly coupled to 'the (main) brain.' It's all dynamical systems involving highly complicated forms of communication.

We just don't know what the message is yet.

Fruit evolved to be colorful so animals can easily identify it. This is an example of coevolution through communication over time. This one is clear. We get food from the tree in exchange for moving and propagating its seed and lineage. Color is a form of visual communication.

Infinite is the wisdom, love and creativity of the Source!

 

[Global]

So from a purely scientific viewpoint, these are pretty good reasons for why someone might think that all the spiritual, supernatural discussions about DMT would be BS. And these are just a few reasons. The main thing is that it is currently impossible to even find any reasonable evidence to support any spiritual claims. Until there is any strong evidence, there will always be the possibility that DMT is just a molecule that produces psychotic visions and thought patterns and any insights revealed by it are due to deep introspection.

This is a funny phrase that gets thrown around a lot - "there's no evidence to support...." - and I find it funny because it presupposes that you have scrutinized every theory, examined everything from every angle, have processed the information correctly, etc...Additionally it's quite easy on either side to simply dismiss evidence claiming it's "not strong enough" but that would be a subjective assessment. Part of what makes assessing what evidence is available difficult is that the data received in the experience cannot be directly shared with others. The "evidence" is transmuted into words which all too often are crude metaphors that don't align with the reality of the situation.

When you say things like "natural selection" or insert-your-theory-here can explain something one way or the other, that does not necessarily make it valid. When something seems to fall within the parameters of an explanatory model, it very likely only reflects a contemporary understanding. Neils Bohr had a very convincing model of the atom for some time, but it was simply just that - convincing. If everyone just plants their flags in the "it's all BS" pile, asserting that finding contrary evidence is impossible, then it becomes all too easy to become complacent and stop looking for evidence at all, or worse yet - refusing to thoroughly examine the evidence that's already on the table, prematurely dismissing it as weak or non-existent.

 

[Pharmer]

So what if it is all BS? Then what? well...then everything really. On some level it is all bs-this life, our experience and memories is all a distorted version. Such is the facts of life really. What is important is that we remember why we are here.

There once was a poor candle marker that had seven children and a wife to feed. Year after year the candle marker came upon hard times and barely made it through the winter. The man had heard of this wonderful island where the beaches were covered in diamonds, the hills filled with gold and a boat went to this island every three years. It was very difficult to get to this island and the boat could only get into the shores at key times so whomever went had to stay until the boat could sail again a few years later. The candle marker thought he could fill up enough sacks of diamonds and gold to survive for years to come. So he made the trip.

Several men were aboard and when they came to the island. It was indeed true that the shore was filled with diamonds and the hills spilled out gold. All the men filled their sacks and stored them away. No one fought because there was enough for everyone. As time went by the candle marker saw that no one had candles at night and the camp was very run down. So he started making candles and everyone loved him for his gifts of light. He became a highly respected man on this island and helped to make the town shine on many levels. This man became so proud of his work that he forgot all about his sacks of riches. At the end of the third year he packed up his best new candles to sail home. Thinking of how proud his family would be to see how well respected he had become.

Upon returning home and filled with pride the wife of the candle maker was very angry. She could not believe that he left the riches to bring back candles. She could not see the value of candles and only placed value on the diamonds and gold.

Life is strange like this and DMT is like the island of riches we visit. What we bring back and apply onto our daily lives is important.

 

[edge2054]

Great story Pharmer. Thanks for sharing

 

[Ringworm]

Life is sedimentary bullSt.
There are so many layers, some are thick and hard, some are soft and wafer thin....

Whatever, pick your layer and get jiggy with it.

In this joe fellas deal, it's pretty obvious what happened.
Some hear the holy word and become devotees, some are scared and put up the shields. Sometimes the shields are words like "evil" sometimes they are just to discredit it all as not real.

But, we the prophets of the lost pyramid know the truth.... just as soon as we figure out how to get outta this forest, we might even tell someone. "tell someone what?" "I dunno, what was the question again?" "something bout a clock that doesn't move" "oh yeah"

 

[SKA]

I have experienced several severe Psychosises(Is that the plural form of Psychosis?)
I have found them NOT to resemble DMT or any other Psychedelic experiences in any way.



MAYBE you mean to compair DMT visions with the visions of those suffering from Schizophrenia? I don't know.
I once knew a guy who, according to his parents, had been severely schizophrenic since birth. I could only
judge from outside, but the way he acted seemed like he COULD indeed be experiencing something like DMT-esque visions.

He was constantly talking to invisible "company" and lived in an (seemingly)imaginative world all the time.
He was kind, but quite instable and could explode into anger/fear in no time. For seemingly no reason.

Who knows....He may be percieving elves and other hyperspace entities all the time.
I see how that could account for his strange behaviour. Allthough it remains anyone's guess what this guy is
really perceiving and experiencing.



That being said: Just because he is "schizophrenic" doesn't mean there is no truth to his visions & perceptions of reality. Same could be said of DMT visions.

 

[Pandora]

Of COURSE it is all BS. We understand that "reality" is what the majority say it is, etc., ad infinitium, ad nauseum, add DMT, add enlightenment and blah.

Many of us have an inkling of just how small we are and thus just how funny all this BS really is.

Therefore I say unto you:

CHOOSE YOUR TURD WISELY!

Make sure that sucker is thickly gold plated with lots of layers or you'll be eatin' poop before you know it.

 

[Swinjin]

^

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

[...]

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that plants are trying to communicate with anything. Communication requires some minimum level of consciousness that plants do not have in any demonstrable capacity.

This isn't true. What we call consciousness in neuroscience terms is not necessary for communication, and we have lots of examples of communication between plants and varieties of plants, animals, and simple forms of life (like single celled organisms).

You are right that plants and other organisms "communicate" with each other in some ways, but this discussion isn't about the unconscious chemoception of plants or neurotransmission involved in autonomic functions of the body. The discussion is about the validity of spiritual claims related to DMT, such as the idea that plants consciously attempt to convey abstract ideas to humans both in a sober and intoxicated state through scientifically unknown means.

This discussion is about conscious communication by seemingly unconscious parties. My post didn't overtly say this, but it seemed to be implied and to be fair I did say that there is no proof that they are "trying" to communicate with anything. This word implies a level of conscious effort.

Fruit evolved to be colorful so animals can easily identify it. This is an example of coevolution through communication over time. This one is clear. We get food from the tree in exchange for moving and propagating its seed and lineage. Color is a form of visual communication.

Fruit did not evolve to be colorful so animals could more easily identify them. They evolved this way because animals could more easily identify them. A plant didn't decide one day to have colorful fruit because it thought that they would be more easily identifiable. What happened was that one day a mutation lead to colorful fruit and since this made the fruit more identifiable, the fruit was dispersed more effectively giving that genetic line an advantage over other non-colorful genetic lines. So that genetic line outcompeted the other lines.

You could call this "visual communication", but definitely not conscious communication. But since communication requires that one party conveys a signal to another party, it could be argued that there is no communication here. The color of the fruit is not meant to convey anything. It is just a property of the plant that happens to makes it more attractive.

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

This is a funny phrase that gets thrown around a lot - "there's no evidence to support...." - and I find it funny because it presupposes that you have scrutinized every theory, examined everything from every angle, have processed the information correctly, etc.

This is wrong, no evidence just means that no one has found evidence to support the idea. There may be evidence that no one has found yet, but until that evidence is found all that we can go by is the evidence we currently have. At least this is the way that it works in science. And in science there comes a point where it is impossible to dismiss evidence anymore.

When you say things like "natural selection" or insert-your-theory-here can explain something one way or the other, that does not necessarily make it valid. When something seems to fall within the parameters of an explanatory model, it very likely only reflects a contemporary understanding. Neils Bohr had a very convincing model of the atom for some time, but it was simply just that - convincing. If everyone just plants their flags in the "it's all BS" pile, asserting that finding contrary evidence is impossible, then it becomes all too easy to become complacent and stop looking for evidence at all, or worse yet - refusing to thoroughly examine the evidence that's already on the table, prematurely dismissing it as weak or non-existent.

You can't compare the theory of natural selection to the Bohr model, at least not in its current form. I'll admit that when Darwin published this idea, there were flaws and weaknesses, but since the "Modern Synthesis" almost all the holes have been plugged.

Natural selection along with genetics are beyond convincing. They are the unifying concepts of biology and have been demonstrated repeatedly for many decades. We may not have a perfect understanding of these concepts, but our understanding is a very close reflection of the truth in these cases.

In science, the BS flag only stands until there is a reason for it not to stand. Good scientists are wary of claiming that contradictory evidence is impossible in most cases. But the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the people making contradictory claims.

From a purely scientific standpoint, all the purely spiritual ideas about DMT are currently BS until further evidence is found. But it's not like scientists are averse to finding evidence that this incorrect. Science has examined the "evidence" that spiritual ideas are not BS, and from its comparatively unbiased view there is not enough evidence to support their truth, if there is any evidence.

If anything, the people who want to discredit science are being complacent and dismissive. They take it personal when they see that science doesn't recognize their ideas as truth. And they become disillusioned by this. Their search for meaning clouds their minds and closes it off to the possibility that there is no meaning to find.

I don't mean this in an offensive way at all, but I see this as an expression of the ego (in the Jungian sense). The ego wants so much to think that it is special in some way and that there is meaning. It wants you to think that you are somehow experiencing something special with DMT, whether or not there is any deeper meaning behind it, because this by extension makes you feel special. In all of this, special just means more important than everyone else.

Then when science comes and questions their beliefs, they fight against science claiming it to be too reductionist in order to protect their ego. Everyone wants to think that what they are experiencing is truth whether or not it is supported by science. They just don't want to be wrong.

The ego is an inescapable aspect of our psychology. I don't think that I'm above its influence and I wouldn't want to be totally without it in this world. I'd argue that it has been beneficial to our survival (but that's a whole other discussion). I just think it's more in line with the lessons of DMT (and psychedelics and life in general) to humble yourself enough to be willing to admit that the DMT experience might have no deeper meaning beyond this conception of reality.

I personally feel that there is more to DMT than can ever be understood by science. I can't deny my personal experiences or what I feel. Despite this, I'm willing to put aside my ego and it's selfish tendencies in order to admit that I might be wrong.

There is nothing wrong with being wrong as long as you a re willing to admit when you are wrong. In this case, there really is no way to be certain whether I'm right or wrong. There will always be the possibility that it is just chemical screwing with my brain.

I like to think of my spiritual beliefs as being analogous to Schrödinger's cat. Until I have proof either way, my beliefs are both right and wrong at the same time.

 

[DreaMTripper]

PowerfulMedicine You make some good points and a sound argument and information I did not know before so thanks for that and you are right there is no evidence of plants having a consciousness as we know it (of what little we know) however meaningful communication doesn't need a conscious communicator.

My speculation is not from a spiritual viewpoint but a systemic perspective, however I certainly wont rule anything spiritual out to me the juries still out on that one and peoples subjective experience cant be lightly dismissed either.

The communication speculated could be a result of co-evolution. We do know that plants communicate with other organisms in their environment and us being a part of that environment begs the question as to are they communicating with us?

We are not separate from the earths ecosystem although throughout humanities time on the planet we have certainly tried to separate ourselves from it.

I agree with you when you say people like more than anything to look for anything that will cement their current belief system and some will get defensive when confronted with evidence to the contrary and throw out anything that doesn't fit within their framework of belief. A good example of this is Christianity.
Science on the contrary often goes out of its way to prove something within its own current framework of belief as wrong.

The term BS can throw up many connotations and meanings maybe the question should be defined as Does DMT serve a purpose beyond the currently perceived physical world?
Will we ever know the answer to that when our perception of reality is restricted to the senses we measure it with?


Just want to throw these links in not to back up any argument but just for information sake and as they are relevant to the thread..

The ‘root-brain’ hypothesis of Charles and Francis Darwin: Revival after more than 125 years

This year celebrates the 200[th] aniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, best known for his theory of evolution summarized in On the Origin of Species. Less well known is that, in the second half of his life, Darwin’s major scientific focus ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Electrical Patterns of Life; The Work of Dr. Harold Saxton Burr | World Research Foundation

The following excerpts are taken from Blueprint For Immortality, by Dr. Harold Saxton Burr.

www.wrf.org

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/11/christof-koch-panpsychism-consciousness/

 

[Orion]

Which version has the most gravity ? The trip being BS or it all being real? That time you met face to face with the axis of all existence or the time your body turned to a plastic cocoon before you emerged as a confusion of luminous glyphs and fell down the inside of a flower stem and got spat out of a white hole... waking from a dream you never had, sucked into the carpet fibre and turned into radioactive cartoon soup...

That happened. Maybe it might be more comforting to believe it's all BS. But no guarantees....

Smoalking moar clears up reality and dream alike.

 

[universecannon]

It seems narrow and premature to assume that organisms without a brain or nervous system like ours most likely can't be conscious or intelligent on some level (or to act as if one has perused and analyzed ALL the evidence and arguments on this subject). I once heard an interesting story which I'll paraphrase, because it highlights how bizarre and contradictory our perspective can be in this regard. If you created a robotic beetle that could sense and respond to the environment, make decisions, fly, metabolize, reproduce, and so on, those in the artificial INTELLIGENCE community would be absolutely baffled at its capabilities upon witnessing it in action. Yet a real living beetle, far more complex and advanced than the robotic beetle, is somehow less remarkable to them and not worthy of the word.

As history has shown time and time again - and this includes the evolution of science - the universe is always smashing and transforming our conceptual models of how things work, and the limits we impose on how nature works are constantly being redefined (for example, it seems like every month there is research on an 'impossible new galaxy'...or 'impossible star defies physicists models'...etc). Science fiction can quickly become science fact, and what you might call supernatural one decade could easily become consensus reality the next. We should be careful of thinking that we have something ever truly nailed down either way.

I find it odd that people dismiss the idea of plants having some level of consciousness or intelligence by reducing all the baffling things they do to being 'merely' biochemical reactions (or X set of physical processes) crafted through nothing more than the mindless process of natural selection. We know that they can sense light, moisture, gravity, temperature, water, chemicals, touch, sounds, infections, parasites, sense unstable branches (like vines on a tree), ward of predators, attract beneficial organisms, warn other species, heed warnings from others, and so on, and respond to this stimuli through a wide variety of behaviors. We can't see it, but standing in the woods we are immersed in a biochemical soup of pant communication with the environment and symbiotic relationships.

If all we do is reduce everything we discover about them, or ourselves, in this way, then you might as well deduce that human consciousness and conscious human communication is merely an illusion in this regard as well...An illusion generated by neuro-chemical processes crafted through natural selection that give the illusion of consciousness or intelligence, but which is ultimately merely X sets of physical processes. And indeed, there are many reductionists who jump on that philosophical bandwagon...This branch of left-brained reductionist "merely-ism" has existed for centuries and often fails to look at the wider context, and how the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Similarly, to think that the fact that DMT is in the human body/brain and found throughout the planetary ecosystem is not remarkable because we understand the chemical pathways that lead to its creation is to completely miss the point entirely IMO. I'm not saying I believe 100% that it is there for inter-species/planetary communication, or that plants have consciousness, or any of that; I'm saying that this reductionist approach does not suck the fascination out of things like people try to portray it as doing (an approach which seems to be partially a reaction to the suppression of the church long ago). We don't even know what DMT is DOING in our own bodies in the first place, much less what it is doing in the thousands or millions of species throughout the biosphere. Understanding the metabolic pathways that lead to its creation does not make the experience or it's ubiquitous presence throughout nature any less remarkable or mysterious. If you think it does, I'd suggest a re-acquaintance with that dimension sometime soon ...the true profoundness of the implications of that experience fade in our awareness as the time between the last deep experience grows.

 

[universecannon]

Anyways here are some interesting bookmarks I've saved about plants:

Are plants more intelligent than we assume?
Underground signals carried through common mycelial networks warn neighbouring plants of aphid attack
plants communicate to eachother through the roots
plant audial communication
plants communicate through clicking sounds (more on that one here)
mimosa plants seem to learn and remember (same story here with better images)

Again, I'm not trying to convince anyone that plants ARE conscious or communicate with humans on an intelligent level. Just that we don't know at this point, and it is far too early to assume that the idea is BS or true either way. My personal views, based on my experiences, those of others, and the evidence I have seen thus far, lean towards it being very possible, but that measuring it scientifically would be extremely difficult. But there are other lenses through which we can come to attain an understanding of reality and ourselves -- science is not the only one. There is no reason we need to limit ourselves to gazing at this great mystery of existence through just one lens. To clarify, I am not anti-science -- I wouldn't have done my undergrad in cog sci if I was. Its just that some use it as a belief system in a way that is not that unlike religion IMO.

I'll leave this post with an interesting quote by Simon G. Powell, from his book the Psilocybin Solution (you'll have to read it to understand the context and what he means by nature or natural intelligence)

“…the impressive fine-tuning of Nature is most clearly indicated in the evolutionary process that Nature has facilitated here upon the Earth. Over some three and a half billion years, our planet has transformed itself from a lifeless mass of rock into a veritable metabolizing organic matrix in which countless elegantly patterned organisms swarm about the Earth’s surface, each organism an informational expression of natural intelligence. Yet, like the hour hand of a clock, scientists have failed to discern the context-driven intelligence of evolution, claiming instead that evolution is essentially a dumb and mindless process. But this can only be a subjective inference likely drawn according to the perceived duration over which evolution manifests, a duration so great that the intelligence operating over such a span remains all but invisible. If we instead imagine viewing a time-lapse film of the biosphere wherein three and a half billion years of information-gaining evolution are compressed into but one intense second, then modern electronic human culture and human consciousness explode instantaneously into existence, bursting forth out of the Earth’s ocean of elemental constituents. This awesome pattern of self-organization can be no mere accident. To those who would still scoff at this assertion, I can only ask them this: If the aforementioned capacity of the Universe does not suggest a great intelligence at work, then what sort of Universe would?”

 

[PowerfulMedicine]

There is a possibility that plants are self aware and consciously communicating in ways beyond which our scientific knowledge can measure currently. And there are scientists who try to study the way that plants communicate. Science definitely hasn't explored every avenue of research and it might turn out that one day we find out we were wrong about the level of consciousness in plants.

But there just is no compelling evidence of it yet, so in the eyes of science it is BS at this point. I don't see why it's so hard to accept this. Science isn't the end-all-be-all of our knowledge. Scientific beliefs may not accept spiritual ideas and can be slow to change, but that is the beauty of science.

Any one can make any claim about anything, but it is all BS to science without sufficient evidence. Science searches for an objective reflection of truth that is replicable, quantitative, and free of bias. It allows us to make accurate predictions and to manipulate our world in ways that could never be accomplished in any other way.

You're never going to see a shaman cook up a physical rocket and then travel to the moon using his spiritual knowledge. Science may have its limits and downfalls, but spirituality has just as many downfalls if not more. At least scientific ideas are unified. There are so many spiritual belief systems that claim to be the absolute truth, yet are completely contradictory. Some may like to think that spirituality and logic are separate, but they are not. The entirety of spiritual thought does not stand up to the scrutiny of reason. Someone has to be wrong regarding their spiritual beliefs, but who can prove who is right and who is wrong. Science avoids this sort of problem by only working with ideas that are "provable".

And while some people may say that plants have no consciousness, it is well known to science that plants and all living organisms have some level of consciousness. I've never claimed that plants are devoid of consciousness. They can sense stimuli and react to them accordingly. But there is a distinction between consciousness and conscious intent which requires some level of self-consciousness. And all these concepts exist on spectra. With regards to communication we must make the distinction between conscious intent and genetically programmed behavior that occur automatically.

I don't see how it's any less amazing or profound to be able to understand the mechanisms behind how life works without having to rely on some mysterious unknowable power or unsubstantiated claims. Science has allowed us to understand life on a level that no one before has ever known. Science may be reductionist, but the best way to understand something is to reduce it into processable chunks and then build out from there.

I agree that we shouldn't limit ourselves purely to science, but I'd prefer not to convince myself into completely believing something that I can never have proof of being even a close reflection of truth. So I keep an open mind. I acknowledge and embrace many unscientific ideas, but I don't let these ideas influence my scientific beliefs without a reason to do so. While scientific knowledge is incomplete and may be wrong in some cases, it is the closest thing to "truth" that we have.

 

[Warrior]

As a trained research scientist I have to say that science doesn't know sheet about sheet. One of the major non-entheogen-induced awakenings I've had in my life was in realizing how pathetically limited the current scientific scope is (after a few years of research, attending conferences, giving presentations to other scientists, and so on). We talk it up with pride about how much we now understand with science to the point we forget it's just scratching the surface. The story keeps going and going and going. The story doesn't stop where science stops.

Science is more like a little scaffold climbing up an unthinkably mysterious existence, and from the ground up it looks like science has come a long way. But in absolute reality our science is a little dusting of mold on refrigerated leftovers.

I think this is at the heart of the OP's reference to Joebono. If it's all BS, then science defines our everything. But if it's not BS and is something instead, then science is just one tool among many for discovering and understanding truth.


On a more personal note, Patricia Churchland used to be among my professional and intellectual heros. I took neuroscience classes based on her books and lectures. I even met her during a period when I had consumed a lot of her material, (which makes this all the more strange to me, thinking back on it all). But now I see her entire life's work as just plain wrong. I've seen enough to realize that my own understanding of the relations and mechanics of the universe and of consciousness is much, much further reaching than hers, and the thousands of other academics prevailing over consensus reality. These academics are the ultimate gate keepers to what trickles down to the layperson as common knowledge. It doesn't exist unless they say it exists. That's why I know it's all wrong, and why she is wrong. I have countless examples where I have had serious scientific questions, and have asked the researchers straight to their face about it, and seen the emotional response as words come out of their mouths. They're always scared or angry/annoyed when you ask them something they don't know. They are scared because they are afraid of what they don't know. It's denial, which is a memory game we play to avoid facing fear.

 

[thymamai]

I take it like cinema.

Are the pictures real?

Well, it is real enough.

A spectacle - it is food for the soul. Not for logic, though certainly we can incorporate it into our academia, and experiment with what can be changed in consensus and what still cannot.

Why worry. Where-ever you go; there you are.

 

[universecannon]

Again, I never said I believe this or that, or that you should too. Nor did I say that we should abandon science, or anything of that sort. I never made this into some kind of science vs. spirituality discussion, or about my 'beliefs' (I try not to have any), so I'm not sure why you're focusing on this and lecturing me on what you think science is. I'm simply pointing out a trend in thinking I see these days, and why I find it odd and contradictory. I think we are in agreement about much more than you think.

As I said, we just don't know at this point, and IMO it is far too early to assume that these possibilities are either BS or true either way. Everything is not BS in and of itself until science says otherwise - there is just insufficient evidence to say for sure, I think. Was the existence of other galaxies BS until hubble came along? Is the existence of life elsewhere in the universe flat out BS until hard evidence shows otherwise? Or are these simply questions that hadn't found the answer to or enough evidence for just yet? Instead of answering the question with 'BS' from the get-go, and then perhaps later revising our answer as evidence comes along(or perhaps not), why not just admit that we don't know either way yet?

I think framing everything as 'BS until hard evidence shows otherwise' is bad wording and an unrealistic way to view the world that is removed from the reality of the situation, and serves to discredit anything outside of our current scientific capacity to understand or research. I think that instead of saying everything IS BS until hard evidence surfaces, it would be more accurate to humbly admit that we just don't know the answer to that question at this point in time.

Although I would ask you to not assume from this that I'm implying that all ideas stand on some kind of equal footing. Some obviously hold a much higher probability of being BS than others.

And while some people may say that plants have no consciousness, it is well known to science that plants and all living organisms have some level of consciousness.

I'd have to disagree here. In my experience, most completely dismiss the question of plant consciousness outright. Not all - some remain open minded about it - but most.