Plant Morality / Ethics: Plant Abuse?

[brimstoneSalad]

@plant If you are using a proxy to hide your IP address, that may be another reason your post was flagged as spam.

I'll just say that when an anonymous person has the same views as and references an obscure contemporary philosopher (like Michael Marder) that person usually turns out to BE that obscure contemporary philosopher. If that's the case, then you may also be afoul of the no-self-promotion guidelines, particularly if you're doing it anonymously under the guise of a third person recommending your own work (which has some seriously troubling ethical ramifications). If you are Michael Marder it would be appropriate to say so and apologize for the deception.

[plant]

@plant If you are using a proxy to hide your IP address, that may be another reason your post was flagged as spam.

I'll just say that when an anonymous person has the same views as and references an obscure contemporary philosopher (like Michael Marder) that person usually turns out to BE that obscure contemporary philosopher. If that's the case, then you may also be afoul of the no-self-promotion guidelines, particularly if you're doing it anonymously under the guise of a third person recommending your own work (which has some seriously troubling ethical ramifications). If you are Michael Marder it would be appropriate to say so and apologize for the deception.

I do not use an anonymous IP / proxy and I am not a philosopher (and therefor not Michael Marder who is a professor of philosophy). My personal consideration of plant morality is based on logic.

- I am not religious and I am not an atheist (which in my view is the opposite of a religion and therefor a religion itself)
- I do not have political views and I intend to be neutral
- I am not ideologically motivated and I do not feel the urge to tell other people how they should live
- Based on logic, I have interests in ethical considerations

With regard to the ban. The post was initially published for about 15-20 minutes. I then decided to post a reply (the same as in this topic) and received the notice that I was banned. So it appears that it was a manual action.

Was the post removed because the subject was plant sentience? If so, does it imply anything with regard to the issue that I intended to denote in this topic (that vegans and animal-rights activists may be turning a blind eye to plant well-being).

Even if vegans are not inclined to accept information that proves that plants are sentient creatures, while perhaps (one could consider that) there is reasonable ground to do so. What persons in humanity would be capable of even considering plant morality or to take it a step further than that, to take it up for plants?

Are there people in the world, as a generic group, that could potentially consider plant morality to protect plants if that would be needed (just in case that plants are sentient, without the consideration wether that is actually the case or not)?

People who feel inclined to consider animal ethics may be the only persons of whom it is to be expected to be capable of considering plant morality. So the (potential) issue of principled rejection of the idea, if present, could have profound implications.

[brimstoneSalad]

With regard to the ban. The post was initially published for about 15-20 minutes. I then decided to post a reply (the same as in this topic) and received the notice that I was banned. So it appears that it was a manual action.

That's an action called "bumping" and is forbidden on most forums as a form of spam. You can usually not respond to your own posts. It's not forbidden here, but that's unusual.

Even if vegans are not inclined to accept information that proves that plants are sentient creatures,

Vegans would be inclined to accept that kind of information if it existed. I already linked you to a consensus paper signed by a substantial number of plant scientists that explains why what you're talking about is pseudoscience.

It has been discussed on this forum how not all plant foods are equal in ethical consideration due to death of wild animals and effect on the environment, such as palm oil (something many members try to avoid). We are not disinclined to refine our choices of plant foods in light of evidence.

There are also posts on this forum discussing whether oysters, worms, or some simple insects are sentient -- and even for these simple animals the evidence is slim to none. Most people here consider oysters and small worms non-sentient, so if you want to argue for plants you may want to start with evidence that oysters are sentient -- that should be much easier, right?

[plant]

Professor Suzanne Simard's notion that trees are more like humans than many people think is evidence that it may be possible for humans to imagine what it's like to be a plant. This by itself is notable. Can the same be said of a rock?

Her 30 years of research in Canadian forests have led to an astounding discovery: trees talk, communicating often and over vast distances. Trees are social creatures that are much more like humans than you may think.

And there are professors saying how flat the Earth is, or how climate change isn't real.
Where is the evidence for that?

As I've said, communication happens in many forms - such as apps sending your data. It's not a giveaway for sentience.

There is evidence of a serious movement under mainstream scientists. This is simply an argument by which can be stated that the consideration of plant morality is applicable.

I do not personally want to 'argue' that plants are sentient. This would be something for scientists to discover. I merely intend to consider the possibility based on recent scientific discoveries and to address the potential issue that vegans may be 'inclined' to principally suppress the information, which could have profound implications for the well-being of plants.

In 2005, Italian botany professor and plant neurobiology pioneer Stefano Mancuso and a group of international scientists established The Society for Plant Neurobiology to study sophisticated behavior in plants—much to the jeers of many of their colleagues.

Not only do plants engage in neuron-like activity and movement, they make mathematical computations, see us and, like animals that act altruistically, show kindness toward their relatives. They are able to recognize themselves and communicate with animals and other plants via alluring airborne fragrances and a diverse repertoire of chemical compounds exuded through their roots.

As for movement, plants do move and they do so with intention. A plant flowers, orients its leaves, goes into sleep mode and even “plays” (for visual proof, see this TED talk).

In 2012 Daniel Chamovitz, director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences at Tel Aviv University and author of What a Plant Knows, reported that plants “see” us via photoreceptors that perceive different wavelengths of light. They are aware of when we come near them and whether we’re wearing a blue or red shirt.

In yet another study, in 2007 plant ecologist Susan Dudley of McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, worked with sea rockets—members of the mustard family native to beaches throughout North America, including the Great Lakes—to investigate whether plants can recognize their relatives. Dudley and a graduate student found there was less root competition when closely related “siblings” shared the same pot than when groups of strangers grew in a common container. This demonstrated that the sea rockets not only recognized but acted altruistically toward their relatives, a behavior known as “kin recognition.”

Other studies have indicated that plants are capable of self-recognition. In 1991, researchers Bruce Mahall of the University of California–Santa Barbara and Ragan Callaway, now at the University of Montana, found that the roots of white bursage plants, residents of the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts, inhibited the growth of other plants with which they came into direct physical contact but did not impede the growth of their own roots, meaning that they could distinguish “self” from “other.”

https://www.nathab.com/blog/research-sh ... cordingly/

The scientists also note that the physiology of plants is very different from that of animals:

For a plant, a centralized neurological control center (such as a human brain) doesn’t make much sense because a predator—a grazing deer or lawn mower—could easily chop it off. So instead, this decentralized intelligence scattered throughout the roots works as a very effective survival strategy; a plant can persist when even 90 percent of its root tips are clipped.

Plants are clearly very different from animals but when it is proven that they can be 'friends' with animals (i.e. form meaningful relationships), then perhaps there is also something similar between plants and animals, or something applicable for consideration to secure long term well-being for both plants and animals.

At question would be: what does a plant want?

What does a one-day fly want?

What does a horse want?

What does a blade of grass want?

What does a 1000-year old tree want?

What does a woman want?

What do the microbes in human physiology want? (humans contain 10x more microbes than human cells, without which the human could not live) Essentially, humans are a sort of plant on a microbe level.

Neurotransmitter chemicals do not mean sentience.
Every apparatus of every organic life has neurotransmitters that are used. They're needed to carry information.

The article you posted at the beginning says: 'In animals, these chemicals and signals are delivered, carried and interpreted by the nervous system'.
And that's the key, it's about understanding and interpreting subjectively the information gathered - something for which a central nervous system is required, and that plants don't do.
Even phones gather information. Many of your body parts gather information without you realizing it, and adjust accordingly, but that doesn't mean that different parts of your body are sentient.

With regard to the requirement of a nervous system, some recent research indicates that some human emotions and behavior originates from bacteria in the gut.

Collective unconscious: How gut microbes shape human behavior
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 5615000655

(2017) Understanding the emergence of microbial consciousness
Microorganisms demonstrate conscious-like intelligent behaviour.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29254105

(2016) Gut bacteria and the brain: Are we controlled by microbes?
Although the interaction between our brain and gut has been studied for years, its complexities run deeper than initially thought. It seems that our minds are, in some part, controlled by the bacteria in our bowels.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/312734

Germs in Your Gut Are Talking to Your Brain. Scientists Want to Know What They’re Saying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/heal ... entia.html

When your gut bacteria talk, your brain listens and replies
https://massivesci.com/articles/tedmed- ... ia-autism/

(2018) An Ancient Virus May Be Responsible for Human Consciousness
You've got an ancient virus in your brain. In fact, you've got an ancient virus at the very root of your conscious thought.
https://www.livescience.com/61627-ancie ... brain.html

The bacteria (plant like creatures) are controlling a complex animal brain and provide "gut-feelings" or "gut-instincts" that humans use to make their most complex decisions in life.

If a bacteria or virus is proven to be conscious, it is evidence that plants are likely to possess a higher consciousness (i.e. sentience).

If the human or animal experiences a high stress event it receives an adrenaline shot by which the animal does not feel pain and acquires a certain superhuman strength.

There are multiple factors with that.
Firstly, they'll be consciously aware of what's going on, and they'll experience emotional distress because of it.
If you cut your arm off, you may not feel pain for a few seconds, but you'll be shocked and horrified. If a tree gets its branch cut off, there is nothing felt whatsoever.
Secondly, it goes against your best interests regardless. There is a big opportunity loss by losing your arm, and it may screw up your life. You'll have trouble even being able to work or to do basic chores, and you'll wish you had your arm back.
Thirdly, the physical pain will eventually kick in, and you'll be unfortunate enough to experience it. Although, that's probably the least of your worries by then. Worries, that plants wouldn't have.

Some plants only bloom after a forest fire. They are actually counting on being burned away to bloom and reproduce. What is atop of a plant may be their rear end, which for some plants may be compareable to hairs on an animal.

My consideration is simply: "what is "good" for a plant?" is a valid question which implies that plant morality is applicable.

A lot is yet unknown in every field of science.
Does that mean everything is up for uncertainty?
There are things that we do know. Plants not being sentient is among that.

Having a conviction about plants not being sentient is justified, because it's evident they aren't - both from a physical empirical perspective (completely lacking the structure to allow sentience), and from a logical perspective.

I do not agree that such a statement is valid, considering the fact that many mainstream scientists argue the opposite. It is contentious to state that plants are with certainty not sentient. As it appears to me, at best one could argue that it is not evident that they are.

On a general perspective one should consider that the origin of life and consciousness are yet unknown. It is not a valid idea to believe that consciousness originates in the brain despite that it has been a status quo for several decades. Scientists are increasingly returning on that dogmatic idea.

What do you mean by consciousness? Do you mean sentience?
If not, explain.
And yes, we do know where sentience originates from, very clearly. http://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/index.php/Sentience

Consciousness and sentience may describe something similar, although the latter (sentience) may be a concept that is valued from the perspective of the human while counsciousness per se may be an attempt to objectively describe a phenomenon.

When you use the term sentience and argue that some animals such as worms and oysters are not sentient (see @brimstoneSalad) that clearly shows that you make an opiniated distinction (a judgement based definition) while the term consciousness may be a concept that intends to objectively describe awareness or 'manifestation of intelligent life'.

Do you know what dogmatic means?
Something that's 'a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds', or something that's 'a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church'.
There is nothing about it that's dogmatic, just like gravity isn't dogmatic. It's what every piece of evidence and reason tells us.

The idea that sentience originates in the brain is contentious. The origin of counsciousnes and thereby feelings, thoughts and emotions, is not yet known.

There are people who manage to live a normal human life with merely 10% brain tissue. It is an indiciation that something other than brains may be at play that enables them to perform as a human, i.e. to be sentient.

Consciousness without a brain?
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 12&t=16742

My main argument against synthetic biology is that the genetic structure would serve a concept that should be as it is, i.e. it would be a 'fixed state'. Can life be a fixed state? (would it be a optimum or "good"?)

It's still not very clear what you're trying to say.
Are you saying plants shouldn't be modified because they're 'intended' by nature to be as they are?

When humans would attempt to top-down control the fabric of nature they would figuratively create a stone that would sink in the ocean of time.

The concept in which the genes would be structured would be fixed. It would be a product for a defined result that should remain as it is.

There may be vital information within the complex coherence of genes that is impossible to see from an external perspective because it reaches into the future. A top down construction of plants and animals may therefor not be healthy (as food for humans, and for nature as a whole).

The foundation for the spirit in genetically engineered plants and animals may be severely disrupted. The effects could span 1000 years so that it is difficult or impossible to see or predict.

Filtering out genetic defects and unwanted properties logically results in weakness in evolution.

Overcoming problems is essential for progress in life. Some presumed defects may be a part of a 300 year evolutionary strategy that is essential to acquire solutions for longer term survival. GMO could disrupt such processes and hinder successful evolution.

My concern is: plants have a will to go further than what exists, to reach into the future.

No, plants have no will. Non-sentient things do not have a will.
I'm not sure why you think plants have a will to reach into the future.

In the case that plants are sentient, would you agree that genetic engineering may harm what would be required for plants to have come into existence?

When humans would attempt to control the genetic construct for a concept that should remain as it is, they would undermine what is essential for the plant to have been able to come into existence.

How so? Modifying something doesn't undermine it.
Are you saying it would undermine nature? And if so, why?

It is explained with the following logic:

"If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist."

A concept that should be as it is intended cannot be the origin of itself, i.e. be the origin of will.

The idea that the laws of nature are constant in time (which would legitimate the use of emperical science as a guiding principle) is a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism.

What do you mean by laws of nature? Physics?

Yes, anything of which science assume that it is unquestionable reality. On what basis can it be said that anything that is assumed remains the same in time?

According to Nietsche, when practicing science independently, scientists are essentially fulfilling the role of a philosopher. Logically, that would be based on a belief or dogma (uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science (i.e. without further thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done).

This is my main argument against synthetic biology.

No, dogma is different than science. It's literally the opposite.
Belief and dogma are two different things that you use interchangeably.
Dogma: 'a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true'
Belief: 'something that you believe'

You don't have to be dogmatic to believe in something.
I can believe modifying plants would be a positive net for the future by simply considering consequences and weighing things, without basing myself on dogmas.

When one believes or assumes that what science poses as truth remains so in time, then one could argue that it implies a certain conviction or belief which could be considered a dogma.

without further thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done

Why do you assume scientists don't think about that?
That would depend on the individual, 'not further thinking about whether it's actually good' isn't a trait of practicing science.

How can empirical science possibly formulate a reason for morality? A scientist with a heart is respected by many people in society and can have an effect on culture, but why? Does empirical science support her efficiency for cultural change? Where does 'heart' originate from?

Morality may be important for plants - and nature as a bigger whole - to prosper when human science evolves further, for example considering the developments in synthetic biology and GMO.

If anything, GMOs give plants a significant resilience and higher chances of survival. So it would be a good thing considering your logic and wanting them to prosper.

Why would the plant survive? Just to be there at random, waiting to be harvested?

Recent evidence shows that parasites are already resistant to Bt corn, potentially causing a disaster.

(2020) https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/a ... e-comeback

My argument is: the plant did not become stronger than the parasite, it has been hiding behind an artificial / chemical wall (in this case genetic engineering by a human). The plant stays behind weak while the parasites become stronger.

Super bacteria (superbugs) show what potential danger such a practice could entail. By fighting bacteria with chemicals, the bacteria become stronger while the human stays behind weak. The human enjoys a few hundreds years of easy life but in the mean time the bacteria are evolving in such a way that they actually can potentially wipe out the human when the chemical wall behind which the human hides, breaks.

The Rise of Superbugs Called 'Apocalyptic Scenario'
https://www.livescience.com/26586-super ... avies.html

Exponential growth introduces unique and serious risks by which morality may be vital to prevent potential fatal flaws in human evolution.

Can you be more specific than that, and explain?
Exponential growth of what?

Modern technologies such as machine learning enable to scale idea's and concepts quickly which could pose new and unique risks.

[thebestofenergy]

And there are professors saying how flat the Earth is, or how climate change isn't real.
Where is the evidence for that?

As I've said, communication happens in many forms - such as apps sending your data. It's not a giveaway for sentience.

There is evidence of a serious movement under mainstream scientists. This is simply an argument by which can be stated that the consideration of plant morality is applicable.

How does that address what I've said? You're doing the same thing.
Please show me the science explaining it, rather than saying there is someone that believes it.
There are scientists that believe crazy things.

https://www.zodiacpsychics.com/article/ ... ology.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -astrology

Some scientists noticed that schizophrenics were more likely than others to have February birthdays. Also, January and March birthdays. It wasn't a huge effect, but it was statistically significant nonetheless. And schizophrenia definitely affects your personality.

Then scientists found the same for bipolar disorder, winter and early spring birthdays have it worst. They also noticed that the incidence of these diseases was particularly low for people who were born in late summer and early fall. Suicidality, which closely tracks mental illness, appears to be strongest for April through June birthdays. Dyslexia may be strongest in the summer babies.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/astrol ... dern-times
Look at how many people believe it throughout history. Certainly can't be a coincidence it's been there throughout time, with major figures believing in it?

https://medium.com/the-science-of-astro ... ead3fabe04

An English astronomer named Percy Seymour has formulated a scientific theory of astral influences that describes the solar system as an intricate web of planetary fields and resonances. The Sun, Moon, and planets telegraph their effects to us via magnetic signals, says Seymour, an astrophysicist and respected authority in the field of cosmic magnetism. Omnipresent throughout the universe, magnetism is known to affect the biological cycles of numerous creatures here on Earth, including humans. In sum, Seymour’s multi-link theory proposes that the planets raise tides in the gases of the Sun, creating sunspots and their particle emissions, which then travel across interplanetary space to strike Earth’s magnetosphere, ringing it like a bell. These planetary magnetic signals are then perceived by the neural network of the fetus inside the mother’s womb, heralding the child’s birth.

Do you now believe in astrology?
If not, why.

I do not personally want to 'argue' that plants are sentient.

Then you can't argue plants have inherent moral value.

This would be something for scientists to discover.

If you trust scientists with this, know that scientific consensus is that plants aren't sentient.

I merely intend to consider the possibility based on recent scientific discoveries

What scientific discoveries?
What you've linked so far is either someone's opinion or things that don't prove sentience in the slightest.

and to address the potential issue that vegans may be 'inclined' to principally suppress the information, which could have profound implications for the well-being of plants.

Why would they suppress information that has no bearing on reality?
When you ignore astrology, are you suppressing information, or simply ignoring a waste of time?
I don't see a problem with people ignoring something that goes against neuroscience, empirical evidence and evolutionary biology all at the same time.

Not only do plants engage in neuron-like activity and movement, they make mathematical computations, see us and, like animals that act altruistically, show kindness toward their relatives. They are able to recognize themselves and communicate with animals and other plants via alluring airborne fragrances and a diverse repertoire of chemical compounds exuded through their roots.

And apps communicate with humans. They send alerts with sound to make humans be aware of notices.
You keep posting what they do, and then simply assume it implies sentience.

It doesn't.

Please explain how they do it, and why it would mean sentience.
And also, please address the science explaining how and why plants cannot be sentience (e.g. lack of a central nervous system and other parts required for sentience).

As for movement, plants do move and they do so with intention.

They do move. Not with intention.
A robot moves. A self-driving car moves.

Do you think a Tesla moves with actual intention, or because it's programmed to do so, and it's following a software of pattern recognition for the road it travels?

There's a big difference between moving and moving with intention.

I had addressed the moving aspect before, instead of debating my point, you just give me more examples.
If you want to be convincing, you have to give me scientific proof, not something I already said is not proof of sentience.

In yet another study, in 2007 plant ecologist Susan Dudley of McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, worked with sea rockets—members of the mustard family native to beaches throughout North America, including the Great Lakes—to investigate whether plants can recognize their relatives. Dudley and a graduate student found there was less root competition when closely related “siblings” shared the same pot than when groups of strangers grew in a common container. This demonstrated that the sea rockets not only recognized but acted altruistically toward their relatives, a behavior known as “kin recognition.”

Do you realize how many even more complex software than plants for recognition there are?
There are face recognition software, road recognition software, speech recognition software, etc.

Do you think a Tesla acts altruistically towards nature, because it avoids going off-road and destroy it?

There are many plants in nature that have a sharing-type system, to ensure survival. They evolved that way.
Ensuring survival doesn't mean sentience or conscious awareness of your surroundings.

The scientists also note that the physiology of plants is very different from that of animals:

For a plant, a centralized neurological control center (such as a human brain) doesn’t make much sense because a predator—a grazing deer or lawn mower—could easily chop it off. So instead, this decentralized intelligence scattered throughout the roots works as a very effective survival strategy; a plant can persist when even 90 percent of its root tips are clipped.

Do you understand the difference between sentience and survival strategy?

It's a really important difference. Every organism has a survival strategy, but not every organism is sentient.

The same arguments you used for plants can be used for bacteria and viruses. Sentience and survival strategy aren't interchangeable, and the latter doesn't prove the former.

Plants are clearly very different from animals but when it is proven that they can be 'friends' with animals (i.e. form meaningful relationships)

No, that is not proven at all.
There isn't even a reason to believe it, let alone have proof.

At question would be: what does a plant want?

Nothing, because they aren't sentient.

What does a one-day fly want?

Flies are in a grey areas in terms of sentience. If it wants something, it's probably to survive and to reproduce.

What does a horse want?

What does a blade of grass want?

What does a 1000-year old tree want?

What does a woman want?

For sentient beings, it depends by context what they want, but you can assume they want to survive, avoid suffering, and have their best interests fullfiled.
For non-sentient beings like plants, there is no want.

What do the microbes in human physiology want? (humans contain 10x more microbes than human cells, without which the human could not live)

Are you using a dependency factor as a reason why something would be sentient?
If X is sentient, and X depends on Y for survival, it doesn't mean Y is sentient.

Essentially, humans are a sort of plant on a microbe level.

And a rock is made of molecules, which are made of atoms. Same as humans.
Does that mean both rocks and humans are sentient?

With regard to the requirement of a nervous system, some recent research indicates that some human emotions and behavior originates from bacteria in the gut.

And where do you think that information is processed?
Do you think the bacteria processes it? Or the brain?
Do you think the bacteria interprets it? Or the brain?
Do you think that ultimately changes in how we feel happen in the brain, or in the bacteria?

Tanning originates from the sun.
Cold originates from low temperatures.
Some happiness originates from money.

The bacteria (plant like creatures) are controlling a complex animal brain and provide "gut-feelings" or "gut-instincts" that humans use to make their most complex decisions in life.

So you're admitting the processing of information still happens in the brain, then?
And that the feelings we get aren't directly from the bacteria, but from our central nervous system?

If a bacteria or virus is proven to be conscious, it is evidence that plants are likely to possess a higher consciousness (i.e. sentience).

No, they're not proven to be conscious.
You're doing the same thing again, linking as many cherry-picked articles you can find to support your position, without actually arguing the point in each of them. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... ry-Picking
I can find a hundred links supporting the flat-Earth theory, but at the end of the day, there is no evidence.
You're making fallacies like thinking that if X influences Y, and Y is sentient, therefore X is sentient too. Which doesn't make sense. You could argue that fire is controlling humans in certain contexts, because it keeps them away. Is fire sentient?
Randomness ultimately controls humans. Is the concept of randomness sentient?

If the human or animal experiences a high stress event it receives an adrenaline shot by which the animal does not feel pain and acquires a certain superhuman strength.

There are multiple factors with that.
Firstly, they'll be consciously aware of what's going on, and they'll experience emotional distress because of it.
If you cut your arm off, you may not feel pain for a few seconds, but you'll be shocked and horrified. If a tree gets its branch cut off, there is nothing felt whatsoever.
Secondly, it goes against your best interests regardless. There is a big opportunity loss by losing your arm, and it may screw up your life. You'll have trouble even being able to work or to do basic chores, and you'll wish you had your arm back.
Thirdly, the physical pain will eventually kick in, and you'll be unfortunate enough to experience it. Although, that's probably the least of your worries by then. Worries, that plants wouldn't have.

Some plants only bloom after a forest fire.

Yes, that's another survival strategy.
It would make no sense evolutionarily speaking for plants to sprout when there is a fire. It's detected, and the sprouting processed is stopped.
Just like a smoke detector detects smoke.

A lot is yet unknown in every field of science.
Does that mean everything is up for uncertainty?
There are things that we do know. Plants not being sentient is among that.

Having a conviction about plants not being sentient is justified, because it's evident they aren't - both from a physical empirical perspective (completely lacking the structure to allow sentience), and from a logical perspective.

I do not agree that such a statement is valid, considering the fact that many mainstream scientists argue the opposite. It is contentious to state that plants are with certainty not sentient. As it appears to me, at best one could argue that it is not evident that they are.

No, mainstream scientists do not argue the opposite. As I've said before, scientific consensus considers plants non-sentient. It's a ridiculous concept.

Did you check @brimstoneSalad 's link?

Consciousness and sentience may describe something similar, although the latter (sentience) may be a concept that is valued from the perspective of the human while counsciousness per se may be an attempt to objectively describe a phenomenon.

And that's what I asked you. Please define that phenomenon.

How can you determine what has consciousness or not, if you can't even define it?

When you use the term sentience and argue that some animals such as worms and oysters are not sentient (see @brimstoneSalad) that clearly shows that you make an opiniated distinction (a judgement based definition) while the term consciousness may be a concept that intends to objectively describe awareness or 'manifestation of intelligent life'.

It's not an opinionated distinction.
It's a fact, supported by evidence. Sentience has a precise meaning. Did you read the section to the wiki I linked you?

'May be'? You build your world view on concepts that 'may be' meaning something?
How can you say something has consciousness, if the definition is so loose and so up to interpretation?
Manifestation of intelligent life doesn't really mean anything. What is 'intelligent'? Is that sentience, or just calculating power? Do computers have consciousness, because they're intelligent?

The idea that sentience originates in the brain is contentious. The origin of counsciousnes and thereby feelings, thoughts and emotions, is not yet known.

First of all, you're using sentience and consciousness interchangeably again.
So, do they mean the same thing, since you're doing that?

Second of all, yes, sentience originates in the brain.
It's very clear how and when it does. Neuroscience isn't dubious about it.
Every organism that doesn't have a central nervous system (brain) isn't sentient. How so?

Where would information be processed and interpreted if not in the brain? How do we get knowledge of anything? Does the bacteria store our knowledge, thoughts, and wants?
Why does the brain even exist?

There are people who manage to live a normal human life with merely 10% brain tissue. It is an indiciation that something other than brains may be at play that enables them to perform as a human, i.e. to be sentient.

Consciousness without a brain?
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 12&t=16742

You keep using cherry-picked examples, and then you do a non-sequitur that's supposed to prove your point.

Having 90% of your brain damaged doesn't prove your point. Normal functions can be kept with 10%. The person also has an IQ of 75.

If you want to prove the brain isn't responsible for sentience, show me someone that doesn't have a brain at all, and is still functioning normally.
If you can do that, then you have a point. And it shouldn't be that difficult to do considering how confident you are, right?

You're saying it's 'contentious' to believe that sentience originates in the brain. Show me someone without a brain that's sentient.

And after that, show me scientifically what causes sentience to exist instead.

It's still not very clear what you're trying to say.
Are you saying plants shouldn't be modified because they're 'intended' by nature to be as they are?

When humans would attempt to top-down control the fabric of nature they would figuratively create a stone that would sink in the ocean of time.

What?

The concept in which the genes would be structured would be fixed. It would be a product for a defined result that should remain as it is.

Why?

There may be vital information within the complex coherence of genes that is impossible to see from an external perspective because it reaches into the future. A top down construction of plants and animals may therefor not be healthy (as food for humans, and for nature as a whole).

There may be information stored in viruses that would allow us to become eventually immortal.
Should we avoid eradicating viruses, or fighting them for our benefit, based on a theory with no evidence that has no reason to be believed in?

There is a clear known benefit from modifying plants, while what you're saying is an assumption with no reason to be believed.
A beneficial known always trumps an imaginary unknown.

The foundation for the spirit in genetically engineered plants and animals may be severely disrupted. The effects could span 1000 years so that it is difficult or impossible to see or predict.

How did you arrive to that number?
What calculations did you use to realize that 'disrupting the genes' could have bad consequences for 1000 years?

It's also impossible to see or predict if leaving humanity alive would be a good thing or not in the long run.
Should we wipe out everyone, in the off-chance that it's not?

Again, a known benefit trumps a theory that has no ground in reality, and of which the validity is unknown.
You could make up theories about everything, and why doing X might be bad in every scenario.

You're advocating to slow down progress for something you have no reason to believe in.

Filtering out genetic defects and unwanted properties logically results in weakness in evolution.

No, it logically does the opposite. It strengthens.
It's literally what gene modification is for. Improvement.

In the case that plants are sentient, would you agree that genetic engineering may harm what would be required for plants to have come into existence?

No, I don't. It's not necessarily the case.
I can genetically modify myself, and not harm my dad's balls. Or his sperm. Or my mom's womb.

What exactly are you referring to, when you're talking about what made plants come into existence?
And why would it be harmed by genetically modifying them?

By using the word harm, are you implying what made plants come into existence is a sentient being? If you're talking about a god or some supernatural being, it'd be easier to just say so.

When humans would attempt to control the genetic construct for a concept that should remain as it is, they would undermine what is essential for the plant to have been able to come into existence.

How so? Modifying something doesn't undermine it.
Are you saying it would undermine nature? And if so, why?

It is explained with the following logic:

"If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist."

What?
Of course there would be reason to exist. Because sentient beings would want to keep existing, and not just disappear or die.

And how does that logic explain what I was asking?

The idea that the laws of nature are constant in time (which would legitimate the use of emperical science as a guiding principle) is a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism.

What do you mean by laws of nature? Physics?

Yes, anything of which science assume that it is unquestionable reality. On what basis can it be said that anything that is assumed remains the same in time?

Science never assumed that it's unquestionable reality. The fact that you say that means you don't understand science at all.

Some constants do change over time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-vari ... _constants
But once it's adjusted for the change, there isn't an error anymore.
A physical equation remains valid throughout time, if you adjust for possible change in constants, and if it's not disproven.

According to Nietsche, when practicing science independently, scientists are essentially fulfilling the role of a philosopher. Logically, that would be based on a belief or dogma (uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science (i.e. without further thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done).

This is my main argument against synthetic biology.

No, dogma is different than science. It's literally the opposite.
Belief and dogma are two different things that you use interchangeably.
Dogma: 'a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true'
Belief: 'something that you believe'

You don't have to be dogmatic to believe in something.
I can believe modifying plants would be a positive net for the future by simply considering consequences and weighing things, without basing myself on dogmas.

When one believes or assumes that what science poses as truth remains so in time, then one could argue that it implies a certain conviction or belief which could be considered a dogma.

How is the fact that some constants may change over time relevant to anything you're saying?
Do you think scientists never consider the possibility that constants may change (like gravity with the expansion of the universe)? Why would they keep measuring them, then?

Basing ourselves on the best evidence we have is not dogma. It's simply the reasonable thing to do.
You'd, instead, base yourself on imaginary theories and sacrifice progress for the sake of them, when there's no reason to believe them.

without further thinking about whether it is actually 'good' what is being done

Why do you assume scientists don't think about that?
That would depend on the individual, 'not further thinking about whether it's actually good' isn't a trait of practicing science.

How can empirical science possibly formulate a reason for morality? A scientist with a heart is respected by many people in society and can have an effect on culture, but why? Does empirical science support her efficiency for cultural change? Where does 'heart' originate from?

I have never said empirical science formulates a reason for morality.
But science (empirical or not) certainly gives the tool needed to formulate a reason for morality (i.e. neuroscience, biology, future predictions and forecasts, etc.).
I'm not sure why that's relevant though, the point was that you simply assumed that scientists and science as a whole wouldn't think about the morality of their own actions. Why?
Of course scientists do, they have moral agency.
Do you think they'd just hand out hydrogen bombs to random people so they could gather info on the use of them, thus furthering scientific knowledge of them?
Why do you think there are regulations?

Morality may be important for plants - and nature as a bigger whole - to prosper when human science evolves further, for example considering the developments in synthetic biology and GMO.

If anything, GMOs give plants a significant resilience and higher chances of survival. So it would be a good thing considering your logic and wanting them to prosper.

Why would the plant survive? Just to be there at random, waiting to be harvested?

Yes, exactly. Plants aren't sentient.
However, they're needed for sentient beings - both in terms of food and oxygen production/air filtration.

You keep seeming to think there is a 'purpose' for plants, and for all beings, beyond simply being evolved that way and having no inherent meaning.
What is that purpose, and why?

My argument is: the plant did not become stronger than the parasite, it has been hiding behind an artificial / chemical wall (in this case genetic engineering by a human). The plant stays behind weak while the parasites become stronger.

And that argument can be used normally too.
What do you think plants use as a survival defense strategy against parasites? Chemicals that would bother the parasites.
Whether the chemical is artificial or not, the result is the same. Except artificial has much more potential (as it's been proven with GMOs).

The plant doesn't stay behind weak. It's been made stronger, it's been given an advantage that will stay there throughout time, and it won't hinder it, but help it survive.

Super bacteria (superbugs) show what potential danger such a practice could entail. By fighting bacteria with chemicals, the bacteria become stronger while the human stays behind weak. The human enjoys a few hundreds years of easy life but in the mean time the bacteria are evolving in such a way that they actually can potentially wipe out the human when the chemical wall behind which the human hides, breaks.

That's a fallacious comparison.
Super bacteria is caused by unregulated/badly regulated use of antibiotics, and it's not intended as a consequence, and it's not a benefit.
Genetical modifications are intended as a consequence, and it's a benefit.

Exponential growth introduces unique and serious risks by which morality may be vital to prevent potential fatal flaws in human evolution.

Can you be more specific than that, and explain?
Exponential growth of what?

Modern technologies such as machine learning enable to scale idea's and concepts quickly which could pose new and unique risks.

Virtually any growth poses a risk. Should we just wait around to die, never making any progress?
Just hang around until an asteroid hits us, and finding no solutions to reduce suffering on the planet, because of the off-chance something wrong might happen?
If we're careful in how we approach certain things like a super-intelligent AI, we can eventually do it. We don't have to just rush into it.
A super-intelligent AI would also pose a much bigger risk than other innovations, and it's not a good representation of general progress.
And that's also why there's a big amount of caution with AIs in general, because the threat a super-intelligent AI would pose is recognized and real. Unlike plant GMOs.

[plant]

There is evidence of a serious movement under mainstream scientists. This is simply an argument by which can be stated that the consideration of plant morality is applicable.

How does that address what I've said? You're doing the same thing.
Please show me the science explaining it, rather than saying there is someone that believes it.

The communication is getting extensive. I will try to restore focus to a simple subject: plant sentience, whether it exists and whether there is a basis to consider plant morality.

What is clear from your response is that you consider that evidence for plant sentience is non existent and that the status quo of science is resolut in it's conviction that plants are not sentient.

The sources that I shared in the OP show that mainstream professors are increasingly raising awareness for the fact that plants are conscious, social and sensitive creatures that can be compared to animals. A professor who studied plant behaviour for 4 decades states that plants are essentially "slow animals". There is an emerging science field named Plant Neurobiology and scientists are starting organisations such as The Society for Plant Neurobiology and The Society of Plant Signaling and Behavior.

This simple fact could be a reason to consider that the presumed status quo of science by which is stated that plants are not sentient, is contentious, in which case openness for the possibility of plant sentience would be demanded by definition (for the purpose of maintaining an open mind for what may be possible, i.e. to prevent principled or dogmatic denial of an idea).

Argumentum ad hominem, e.g. arguing "those professors are crazy" does not seem to be a justified defense. The field plant neurobiology is driven by hundreds of professors and researchers. Many of the mentioned professors held TED talks et cetera. They are not all controversial. The fact that mainstream media provides those many independent professors and organisations with credible attention would require at least a basic level of consideration of the validity of the idea that plants are sentient (or: why not). One cannot hide behind the argument that the 'status quo of science' legitimizes the conviction that plants are not sentient because the emergence of a field named "Plant Neurobiology" + mainstream media attention clearly shows that such is not justified.

On this basis, I would believe that the consideration that plants are sentient should be taken seriously.

With regard to a ground for philosophical consideration: Scientists argue that there is evidence that plants 'talk'. If that would be the case, then that could be evidence of subjective experience.

BBC: Plants talk to each other
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141111 ... n-internet

And apps communicate with humans. They send alerts with sound to make humans be aware of notices.
You keep posting what they do, and then simply assume it implies sentience.

It doesn't.

Please explain how they do it, and why it would mean sentience.
And also, please address the science explaining how and why plants cannot be sentience (e.g. lack of a central nervous system and other parts required for sentience).

I do not agree that you can compare communication means in plants with that of phones created by humans. Clearly, the phone is part of the human and as such it is evidence of sentience although indirectly that of the human. In plants, the communication means that humans today have been able to discover are clearly part of the plant and as such are indicative of a purpose that lays within the plant.

According to the 'status quo' of science it is simply unknown today why plants have such communication means. Therefor is not valid to assume that it is purposeless.

(2014) New research on plant intelligence
How plants sense and react is still somewhat unknown. Plants have a system for sending electrical signals and even produce neurotransmitters, like dopamine, serotonin and other chemicals the human brain uses to send signals.

"We don't know why they have them (neurochemicals), whether this was just conserved through evolution or if it performs some sort of information processing function. We don't know. There's a lot we don't know," Pollan says.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/ ... out-plants

And where do you think that information is processed?
Do you think the bacteria processes it? Or the brain?
Do you think the bacteria interprets it? Or the brain?
Do you think that ultimately changes in how we feel happen in the brain, or in the bacteria?

The origin of consciousness, emotions and thoughts is at question. What is evident from the cited research is clearly that something is originating from the bacteria. That itself is remarkable. Bacteria control the root of certain human emotions and thought processes.

Randomness ultimately controls humans. Is the concept of randomness sentient?

I consider that idea invalid. If life could be here by accident then it could also accidently not exist by which nothing would exist.

My argument against the randomness origin of life theory is: the origin of life is unknown. If it is not known where life came from, then it is not possible to claim that what has been observed is limited to what has been observed. The origin of life cannot be factored out because it hasn't been observed.

My motive to be against the idea that the origin of life is randomness: a belief that evolution is driven by random chance may result in the idea that thinking isn't needed and that anything random will count as "good".

Second of all, yes, sentience originates in the brain.
It's very clear how and when it does. Neuroscience isn't dubious about it.
Every organism that doesn't have a central nervous system (brain) isn't sentient. How so?

Where would information be processed and interpreted if not in the brain? How do we get knowledge of anything? Does the bacteria store our knowledge, thoughts, and wants?
Why does the brain even exist?

Such questions are seeking to confirm an assumption about the origin of consciousness but do not provide evidence. I can understand why it may occur as evident that consciousness originates in the brain but humans who live with 10% brain tissue clearly show that something other than brains may be at play.

Here also, the mere consideration is demanded. It is not justified to hide behind the argument that the 'status quo of science' argues that consciousness originates in the brain.

Having 90% of your brain damaged doesn't prove your point. Normal functions can be kept with 10%. The person also has an IQ of 75.

There are many other cases including that of a math student (University student) with an IQ of 126 who had merely 5% brain tissue.

"I can't say whether the mathematics student with an IQ of 126 had a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear it is nowhere near the normal 1.5kg and much of the brain he does have is in the more primitive deep structures that are relatively spared in hydrochephalus".

These cases do prove something. It is simply not justified to hold on to the belief that consciousness originates in the brain. It could still be so, but then the origin should be found in that remaining 5% brain tissue. One could wonder: why hasn't it been found?

Based on these facts, one could demand openness for alternative perspectives. It does not imply that one is obliged to believe in fairy tales. But one may be able to extend his/her search into new area's.

How is the fact that some constants may change over time relevant to anything you're saying?
Do you think scientists never consider the possibility that constants may change (like gravity with the expansion of the universe)? Why would they keep measuring them, then?

Basing ourselves on the best evidence we have is not dogma. It's simply the reasonable thing to do.
You'd, instead, base yourself on imaginary theories and sacrifice progress for the sake of them, when there's no reason to believe them.

I am certainly not against progress. GMO, genetic engineering et cetera for scientific motives may be essential for human progress. Personally, I simply intend to introduce ethical consideration.

With regard to your argument: one could pose that science evidently holds practical value for humanity, i.e. that it is a big success.

From a philosophical perspective however, there are simply unanswered questions which could be of great importance for humanity (on the longer term or in some specific way).

For example, is it optimal for human evolution to use science as a guiding principle? The fact that science can be of practical value for a few hundred years may not be relevant in the face of this question.

You keep seeming to think there is a 'purpose' for plants, and for all beings, beyond simply being evolved that way and having no inherent meaning.
What is that purpose, and why?

Yes, that is correct. I intend to question in this topic in what way the consideration of such is applicable.

Perhaps you are correct and plants are in fact meaningless, a product of pure randomness. I do not see a solid ground however to grand such a conviction validity in the face of recent discoveries that increasingly show that plants are intelligent, social and sensitive creatures that can forge meaningful relationships with animals.

[thebestofenergy]

There is evidence of a serious movement under mainstream scientists. This is simply an argument by which can be stated that the consideration of plant morality is applicable.

How does that address what I've said? You're doing the same thing.
Please show me the science explaining it, rather than saying there is someone that believes it.

What is clear from your response is that you consider that evidence for plant sentience is non existent and that the status quo of science is resolut in it's conviction that plants are not sentient.

Yes, absolutely.

The sources that I shared in the OP show that mainstream professors are... A professor who studied plant behaviour for 4 decades states...

You just quoted me saying

How does that address what I've said? You're doing the same thing.
Please show me the science explaining it, rather than saying there is someone that believes it.

and you do the same thing, again?

Why do you try to convince me with the same tactic that didn't work before?

Do you know how many doctors that have studied more than 4 decades, still defend meat and deny it's unhealthy?
And then there are some doctors that have studied more than 4 decades, and say the opposite.

How do you know which side is right? And why?
Do you just base yourself on some cherry-picked doctors, or use a different method to determine what's the truth? And what would that method be?

There is an emerging science field named Plant Neurobiology and scientists are starting organisations such as The Society for Plant Neurobiology and The Society of Plant Signaling and Behavior.

'Plant neurobiology concerns mostly the sensory adaptive behaviour of plants and plant electrophysiology'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_per ... hysiology)

That doesn't say anything about sentience. There's no doubt that plants have a way to detect things, and adapt to certain circumstances.
As I've explained already though, that's not a reason for sentience.

Argumentum ad hominem, e.g. arguing "those professors are crazy" does not seem to be a justified defense.

I've never said those professors were crazy, and I'm not making an ad hominem.
What I'm saying is that anecdotal examples of professors saying this or that, is not a good way to find the truth.

What stops you from believing the Earth is flat, or that meat is healthy?
There are magnitudes more esteemed doctors arguing for meat being healthy, than for plants being sentient.

Also, why do you not address the science saying the opposite of what you're saying?
I've asked you if you read what @brimstoneSalad posted, but you didn't reply. Did you?

With regard to a ground for philosophical consideration: Scientists argue that there is evidence that plants 'talk'. If that would be the case, then that could be evidence of subjective experience.

The communication thing, again?
You say A, I address it by saying B, then you say A again.
Running in circles isn't going to get anywhere.

I've already addressed the 'talking' (e.g. communication) before, multiple times.
Address what I've said directly, if you disagree.

And apps communicate with humans. They send alerts with sound to make humans be aware of notices.
You keep posting what they do, and then simply assume it implies sentience.

It doesn't.

Please explain how they do it, and why it would mean sentience.
And also, please address the science explaining how and why plants cannot be sentience (e.g. lack of a central nervous system and other parts required for sentience).

I do not agree that you can compare communication means in plants with that of phones created by humans.

Why?
If you just say statements and you do not provide arguments for them, nobody's going to be convinced.

Clearly, the phone is part of the human and as such it is evidence of sentience although indirectly that of the human.

What?
Part: 'an amount or section which, when combined with others, makes up the whole of something'
The phone isn't part of the human, just like a shoe isn't. The human is just holding it/wearing it.

So is the phone sentient, or not?
Not the human holding it, but the phone itself.

In plants, the communication means that humans today have been able to discover are clearly part of the plant and as such are indicative of a purpose that lays within the plant.

Please, explain.
I don't understand what you mean, the sentence structure isn't clear.

If you're saying the communication is part of the plant, yes, of course. So what?
Does it have a purpose? Yes, plants communicate as a survival strategy.
Do they do so with conscious intent? No, just like a phone doesn't communicate warning you it's on low battery with conscious intent.

According to the 'status quo' of science it is simply unknown today why plants have such communication means.

It's very clear why it'd be there.

Where have you read that status quo?
Is pri.org/stories the status quo of science?
Or is it just the nth time you post someone's opinion? Which you do.
Please, read what the cherry-picking fallacy is. Do you think you may be falling in it?

You do realize you're quoting articles that say:

He says for the longest time, even mentioning the idea that plants could be intelligent was a quick way to being labeled "a whacko." But no more, which might be comforting to people who have long talked to their plants or played music for them.

In fact, there are many critics with many alternative theories for explaining the response the plants are having. Still ...

'Still...'? Really?
Do you think 'still' is a good rebuttal of the current scientific consensus?

And you somehow manage to believe that's the science status quo?

Pollan says there is no agreed definition of intelligence. "Go to Wikipedia and look up intelligence.

I didn't know the science status quo would base itself on Wikipedia.

And where do you think that information is processed?
Do you think the bacteria processes it? Or the brain?
Do you think the bacteria interprets it? Or the brain?
Do you think that ultimately changes in how we feel happen in the brain, or in the bacteria?

The origin of consciousness, emotions and thoughts is at question. What is evident from the cited research is clearly that something is originating from the bacteria. That itself is remarkable. Bacteria control the root of certain human emotions and thought processes.

Yes, just like something originates from the sun hitting your skin.
But neither the sun, nor the concept of the sun hitting the skin, nor the skin, are sentient.

When you say bacteria 'control', you do understand that bacteria do not do X to control with an intention.
The way they affect anything is by their doings happening to have consequences that affect us.
Do you think bacteria causing an infection have a malicious intent?

Would heroine exercise control on you if you injected it? Or would it simply be having an effect on your brain without intent behind it?

Randomness ultimately controls humans. Is the concept of randomness sentient?

I consider that idea invalid. If life could be here by accident then it could also accidently not exist by which nothing would exist.

Let me see if I understand what you're saying.
If X can be random, then X could also accidentally not exist.
Just because X has randomness, it doesn't mean that the randomness expands to every part of X.

If I throw a dice, and the outcome is random, it doesn't mean that the dice could just stop existing.

But yes, life could have not existed. That's a possibility.
You think it's impossible for life not to exist in a context?

My argument against the randomness origin of life theory is: the origin of life is unknown. If it is not known where life came from, then it is not possible to claim that what has been observed is limited to what has been observed. The origin of life cannot be factored out because it hasn't been observed.

So, if X's origins are unknown, then observations about X are not necessarily true, because there could be more to iy.

Why? It's a non-sequitur. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... n-Sequitur

I may not know how fire is started, but I do know that putting my hand in the fire is not a good idea.
The observation is correct, and it doesn't require me to understand the origins of fire to know it'd hurt me.
Could there be more to it? Yes.
So, then putting your hand in the fire is possibly safe because there could be more to it? No.

My motive to be against the idea that the origin of life is randomness: a belief that evolution is driven by random chance may result in the idea that thinking isn't needed and that anything random will count as "good".

So you're saying you believe in something based on a motive, rather than reasoning and evidence.
Do you see how that's problematic, and is not different than some carnists believing animals to not be sentient because otherwise their practices would be bad?

Also, evolution =/= good. I'm not sure why you'd think:

Everything is random -> therefore thinking isn't needed -> therefore everything is good

Thinking is always needed. Maybe you're confusing thinking with the concept of free will?
Also, everything being random, doesn't mean everything would be good. That's another non-sequitur.

Second of all, yes, sentience originates in the brain.
It's very clear how and when it does. Neuroscience isn't dubious about it.
Every organism that doesn't have a central nervous system (brain) isn't sentient. How so?

Where would information be processed and interpreted if not in the brain? How do we get knowledge of anything? Does the bacteria store our knowledge, thoughts, and wants?
Why does the brain even exist?

Such questions are seeking to confirm an assumption about the origin of consciousness but do not provide evidence.

No, such questions are there to simply get an answer from you. An answer which you don't give.

I can understand why it may occur as evident that consciousness originates in the brain but humans who live with 10% brain tissue clearly show that something other than brains may be at play.

I already addressed that...

It is not justified to hide behind the argument that the 'status quo of science' argues that consciousness originates in the brain.

Except I'm not hiding behind it. I literally explained you how sentience works in the first post.
You, on the other hand, still haven't explained me how plants have sentience.

These cases do prove something.

Which is?
Please, don't simply make statements that beg a question, and just leave it there up for interpretation.
Complete what you're trying to say.

It is simply not justified to hold on to the belief that consciousness originates in the brain.

Why?
Again, another statement without substance. You're not convincing anybody by just repeating things over and over.

It could still be so, but then the origin should be found in that remaining 5% brain tissue. One could wonder: why hasn't it been found?

It hasn't? Really?
Please, read my initial post on how sentience works.
If the main parts to gather information and process it are still intact sufficiently, it would definitely make sense that the person is not a vegetable.

Now, please, answer my previous questions about the brain, which you conveniently ignored.

I am certainly not against progress. GMO, genetic engineering et cetera for scientific motives may be essential for human progress. Personally, I simply intend to introduce ethical consideration.

Ethical consideration for why GMO's would be bad.
Based on an imaginary theory that has no reason to be believed in.

From a philosophical perspective however, there are simply unanswered questions which could be of great importance for humanity (on the longer term or in some specific way).

For example, is it optimal for human evolution to use science as a guiding principle? The fact that science can be of practical value for a few hundred years may not be relevant in the face of this question.

So, what's your point?

Science is a branch of philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
Science is simply: 'the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment'
Why would the study of our reality be bad? What would you rather have, instead?

You keep seeming to think there is a 'purpose' for plants, and for all beings, beyond simply being evolved that way and having no inherent meaning.
What is that purpose, and why?

Yes, that is correct.

Can you elaborate and explain why you think so, then?
What is the purpose, and why?

Perhaps you are correct and plants are in fact meaningless, a product of pure randomness. I do not see a solid ground however to grand such a conviction validity in the face of recent discoveries that increasingly show that plants are intelligent, social and sensitive creatures that can forge meaningful relationships with animals.

You still haven't given a meaning for intelligence. And as such, what you've written has no meaning.
Computers are intelligent.

There is 0 evidence that plants are sentient (let alone sensitive creatures), but yet you claim there is.
And somehow, after all this time, you haven't given me a single piece of evidence.
You've only been able to provide me with things that do not relate to sentience (i.e. reaction to stimuli, communication), and anecdotal opinions, linking to biased articles showing no evidence themselves that would prove sentience at all - and instead simply using the argument 'we can't know for sure' to try and gain any ground on the subject, which is a very intellectually dishonest thing to do and a tactic that shows they have absolutely nothing solid, if anything.

Why can you give me no evidence?

[plant]

Why do you try to convince me with the same tactic that didn't work before?

It is not my intention to convince anyone of anything. I joined this forum merely to ask a question, and it was not about (plausibility of) veganism but related to a factor that may have an impact on plant well being, just in case that plants are in fact sentient creatures.

With regard to evidence. All evidence that I as an outsider need to consider plant morality is the fact that hundreds of professors and scientists are arguing that plants are social and intelligent creatures that are capable of 'kindness' or altruistic behavior. If a plant is capable of meaningful interaction with animals (i.e. friendship), then that is evidence of sentience.

TED: The roots of plant intelligence (Italian botany professor)
https://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancu ... telligence

The motive to start this topic is not to convince or preach that plants are sentient. As mentioned earlier, I am not politically or ideologically motivated. I am also not religious.

I (as an outsider) simply noticed in twofold:

1) modern developments such as "Plant Neurobiology" and professors claiming that plants are essentially "slow animals"

2) vegans and animal-rights activists may be inclined to principally suppress or ignore information about plant sentience

The resulting consideration: who else than people that are inclined to consider animal ethics could potentially be inclined to consider plant morality? What people in the world could potentially take it up for plant well-being in the case that it would be essential?

An example for comparison:

If an alien creature from a fast rotating planet would visit earth and experiences time on a much faster pace, humans could be perceived by them similar to how humans perceive plants: meaningless, capable of creating complex structures but other than that, holding no value in relation to what matters to that fast moving alien, who, because of his speed, has full mastery and control over the human.

Do you believe that it would be valid to consider the human purposeless from the perspective of the alien who will never be able to see the intrinsic value of human concerns as in the time for the alien to live a full life, the human has been able to live a few days.

You keep seeming to think there is a 'purpose' for plants, and for all beings, beyond simply being evolved that way and having no inherent meaning.
What is that purpose, and why?

Yes, that is correct.

Can you elaborate and explain why you think so, then?
What is the purpose, and why?

My consideration is simply: "what is "good" for a plant?" is a valid question, therefor plant morality is applicable.

In my opinion it is not possible to stand above life as being life. A basis of respect (for plants) may be essential for successful evolution.

[thebestofenergy]

Why do you try to convince me with the same tactic that didn't work before?

It is not my intention to convince anyone of anything.

Then what are you trying to do, if not trying to convince people that moral consideration should be given to plants?

I joined this forum merely to ask a question, and it was not about (plausibility of) veganism but related to a factor that may have an impact on plant well being, just in case that plants are in fact sentient creatures.

You didn't merely ask a question, you went out of your way to post many cherry-picked articles to support your position. It's very clear you want to convince people to give moral consideration to plants.
There's nothing wrong in trying to convince people of something, why are you trying to make it seem like it's not the case.

With regard to evidence. All evidence that I as an outsider need to consider plant morality is the fact that hundreds of professors and scientists are arguing that plants are social and intelligent creatures that are capable of 'kindness' or altruistic behavior.

That may be enough for you to give plants the attribute of sentience, but it's not enough for anybody that has a modicum of critical thinking.

Many of those professors simply show certain tasks that plants are able to do (that I've addressed), and talk about how plants behave--and do not believe plants are sentient creatures.
The others that do, do not have any amount of evidence to show in support of their belief. There needs to be a strong lack of understanding of neuroscience and evolutionary biology to hold the belief that something lacking a central nervous system is sentient.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... -Authority
'Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.'
It's exactly what you've been doing since the beginning.

Once again, I'll ask, did you read this? http://www.linv.org/images/about_pdf/Tr ... 20Alpi.pdf

Can you please address my paragraph about astrology, and the questions I asked?
Can you answer if you believe that meat is healthy, because doctors say so (a much bigger amount than the ones advocating for plants' sentience)?
Can you answer if you believe the Earth is flat, because some scientists say so?
If no, why not?

I'm putting effort in addressing everything you say, even if you don't ask a question, and you completely ignore my questions, then stating over and over the same things without addressing what I've said. You're being disrespectful.
Effort in a discussion has to go both ways.

TED...

I'm going to stop looking at the cherry-picked links you post and only address the arguments you write here yourself.

The motive to start this topic is not to convince or preach that plants are sentient.

Really? You clearly say people have a reason to take plants into moral consideration.
Read what you said.

Recent scientific studies show that plants physically have what is needed for consciousness.
...
The idea that plants are a meaningless hump of matter does not seem plausible.
...
Philosopher: Plants are sentient beings that should be eaten with respect
...
My personal consideration of plant morality is based on logic.
...
If a bacteria or virus is proven to be conscious, it is evidence that plants are likely to possess a higher consciousness (i.e. sentience).
...
It is contentious to state that plants are with certainty not sentient. As it appears to me, at best one could argue that it is not evident that they are
....
The sources that I shared in the OP show that mainstream professors are increasingly raising awareness for the fact that plants are conscious, social and sensitive creatures that can be compared to animals.
...
This simple fact could be a reason to consider that the presumed status quo of science by which is stated that plants are not sentient, is contentious

Do those seem like mere questions? Or arguments?
That, plus many bogus and unscientific cherry-picked articles.

You also said

I agree that the base of moral consideration for plants would revolve around the question whether plants are sentient creatures.

and then said

I do not personally want to 'argue' that plants are sentient.

Then this begs the question: what exactly is your argument in favor of plant ethics based on, if not sentience, after you agreed that the base of moral consideration would be sentience?

1) modern developments such as "Plant Neurobiology" and professors claiming that plants are essentially "slow animals"

I already addressed plant neurobiology before. I'd rather not repeat myself again.

2) vegans and animal-rights activists may be inclined to principally suppress or ignore information about plant sentience

@brimstoneSalad addressed this. Why don't you respond to what he had to say about it?

The resulting consideration: who else than people that are inclined to consider animal ethics could potentially be inclined to consider plant morality? What people in the world could potentially take it up for plant well-being in the case that it would be essential?

Hopefully nobody, because it's pseudoscience.

If an alien creature from a fast rotating planet would visit earth and experiences time on a much faster pace, humans could be perceived by them similar to how humans perceive plants: meaningless, capable of creating complex structures but other than that, holding no value in relation to what matters to that fast moving alien, who, because of his speed, has full mastery and control over the human.

This is a fallacious comparison.
The alien could still understand humans are sentient, through many different ways (even empirical ones). Speed isn't the determining factor in the understanding of sentient.

We're not lacking the understanding of sentience, or having something that stops us from understanding plants. Whether plants move slow or not, isn't relevant. We know for sure they aren't sentient, not because of the speed at which they move, but because they lack physical structure that allows for sentience.
It'd be absurd to consider them sentient, just like it'd be absurd to think that pieces of cotton would have the necessary wiring and coding to compute accurate future predictions, or for a gravel stone to have the neural network to compute complex calculations.
It's physically, empirically, not there.

Yes, that is correct.

Can you elaborate and explain why you think so, then?
What is the purpose, and why?

My consideration is simply: "what is "good" for a plant?" is a valid question, therefor plant morality is applicable.

Again, you don't answer my question, and simply say something irrelevant to what I asked.

'What is good for a plant' isn't a valid question, for all the reasons I explained ad infinitum, and that you still have to address.

In my opinion it is not possible to stand above life as being life. A basis of respect (for plants) may be essential for successful evolution.

And you've not demonstrated that in the slightest.
I've addressed it, but instead of then addressing what I said, you go back to the original point. You keep going in circles with all your arguments.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... -Reasoning
Please, read that.
You've been doing it since the beginning.

Why are plants sentient? Because professors say so. Why do professors say so? Because of X task plants can perform. How does X task mean that plants are sentient? Because plants are sentient, and professors say so.

If you want to continue this discussion, you have to answer my questions too.
You can't simply skip the ones you can't answer, or that you don't know how to answer, or that would show a fallacy in your reasoning.
Willful ignorance of the questions/arguments I present doesn't help your case. The more you do it, the more you show your reasoning is biased and doesn't hold up at all as soon as it's slightly scrutinized.

[plant]

There's nothing wrong in trying to convince people of something, why are you trying to make it seem like it's not the case.

Honestly, the consideration that I described is the motive to start the topic. It is a question on behalf of 'plant well-being' and there is no intention to 'convince' or preach that plants are sentient.

The OP is intended to present a case as basis for the consideration that plants may in fact be sentient, or (if the term sentience is perceived in a specific way that is less likely to be applicable to plants): that plants are social and intelligent creatures that have a subjective experience, are capable of 'kindness' or altruistic behavior and are capable of 'friendship' with animals.

Are plants in fact social and intelligent creatures? An answer to that question does not necessarily need to be relevant for my consideration because the information that I use for my consideration is for example the emergence of the field "Plant Neurobiology". It is simply a fact that many professors are convinced that plants are in fact social and intelligent creatures. As an outsider, I would be obliged to consider that a status quo that denies such information could be contentious. I could not judge what party is correct, but I can know that there are views that may be worthy of consideration, views that are provided with credibility by mainstream media.

It results in a simple consideration of something that could potentially be correct: plants are social and intelligent creatures.

Then the simple question arises: what people in the world could potentially protect plants, if in fact they are social and intelligent creatures?

The report by philosopher Michael Marder that he was confronted with resistance by animal-rights activists is an example that there may be a real issue:

Unthinkable: Is it ethical to eat plants?
Plants are ‘intelligent’, says philosopher Michael Marder, which is why we need to eat them with respect.

His claim that a plant is an “intelligent, social, complex being” has been contested by some biologists, but a stronger reaction has come from animal-rights activists who fear their cause is undermined by extending a duty of respect to plants.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980

People who care for animals beyond their self-interest, i.e. that are capable of empathy for other creatures, are perhaps the only people who could potentially have empathy for plants.

So there may be a real issue for nature to prosper on the longer term if the issue would not be addressed.

With regard to what plant morality may entail for vegans. As can be seen in the example of the symbiosis between a tree and a bird, the tree is clearly very happy with the seed dispersal by the bird and the bird is happy with highly nutritious seeds and nesting infrastructure.

Soul Mates: Nutcrackers, Whitebark Pine, and a Bond That Holds an Ecosystem Together
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/soul ... -together/

For humans to live ethically with a plant may for example entail to collect the seeds from consumed fruits and nuts so that it isn't wasted. The plant benefits, the human benefits. Both could become happy (in theory).

To make it easy: organizations can manage it all. Paired with products could be a simple seed collector that can be returned to the company. The company benefits because seeds are valuable.

Again: I do not want to argue that such interaction with plants would be required or would be best for plants or humans (i.e. it is not intended to convince or preach). It is simply a suggestion for what plant ethics could in theory entail.

That may be enough for you to give plants the attribute of sentience, but it's not enough for anybody that has a modicum of critical thinking.

Many of those professors simply show certain tasks that plants are able to do (that I've addressed), and talk about how plants behave--and do not believe plants are sentient creatures.
The others that do, do not have any amount of evidence to show in support of their belief. There needs to be a strong lack of understanding of neuroscience and evolutionary biology to hold the belief that something lacking a central nervous system is sentient.

The assumption that sentience originates in a central nervous system may not be correct. One could pose that a musician would need a complex instrument to produce music, but the music itself, the beauty that one can perceive in music, does not originate in that instrument.

The brain and nervous system may be merely an instrument. From such a perspective, it can be considered that plants (or perhaps an alien on an other planet) has a very different system while the essence of the beauty that is perceived in music by humans, can originate and express in plants similar to how music originates is musicians.

The potential for friendship between plants and animals would be evidence that that factor - the essence of beauty - which is the origin of sentience, of emotions and thoughts in humans, is present in plants. And because that factor is the origin of sentience, plants can potentially - from their unique subjective experience - poses of something similar.

From a philosophical perspective there is an argument against the idea that consciousness originates in the brain. For sentience, emotions and thoughts to be possible, something must logically have preceded it: valuing. It implies that the origin of sentience cannot be found in the individual, i.e. in a physical brain.

A complex neurological process may be merely an expression of something that precedes the senses.

The question would become: what is the origin of valuing? Since it precedes the senses, it cannot logically originate in the individual. Thus: where does it originate from / how can it be explained?

Can you please address my paragraph about astrology, and the questions I asked?
Can you answer if you believe that meat is healthy, because doctors say so (a much bigger amount than the ones advocating for plants' sentience)?
Can you answer if you believe the Earth is flat, because some scientists say so?
If no, why not?

This topic isn't about me or what I believe. It would be irrelevant what I believe. This topic is not intended to argue that plants are in fact sentient. The mere plausibility of the consideration that it may in fact be the case, is used as basis for ethical consideration and the notion that there may be a factor that could potentially have an impact on plant well-being and for nature to prosper.

It may be the task of philosophers to explore passable roads in front of the tide. In my opinion, the articles that I shared in the OP provide a pretty strong case for the consideration of the plausibility of the idea that plants may in fact be social and intelligent creatures.

2) vegans and animal-rights activists may be inclined to principally suppress or ignore information about plant sentience

@brimstoneSalad addressed this. Why don't you respond to what he had to say about it?

@brimstoneSalad mentioned the following, which is similar to your arguments.

It's scientific consensus that plants are not sentient in the same way it's scientific consensus that the Earth is a globe and orbits the sun. You can certainly find contrary articles out there and even "research papers" that are being claimed to demonstrate the contrary, but that doesn't mean they're credible. There's a whole flat earth society doing research to prove the Earth is flat too. Plant intelligence is regarded as pseudoscience for good reason.

As @Red said above, vegans do not have a stake in this. Whether plants are sentient or not it is still appropriate to remove animals from our plates due to the harm animal agriculture does to the environment and far more plants.

I do not believe that it has addressed the question. It appears to be a defense of veganism and I understand from some articles that 'plant sentience' has been used by proponents of meat consumption in a sort of ideological battle.

I hope that I have made it sufficiently clear that this topic is not intended to question the plausibility of veganism. I merely intended to discuss the potential existence of a factor by which plant-well being may be ignored by vegans and animal-rights activists (on a very big scale, i.e. fundamentally for some yet unknown reason/cause), which could have an effect on nature's ability to prosper.

Perhaps plants are not sentient and there is no problem. But what if plants are sentient and would have required a level of care from humans?