Plant Morality / Ethics: Plant Abuse?

[thebestofenergy]

@plant answer my questions, then, and only then, I'll address your post.

I have explained you more times than I can remember everything you have said, and there has been no effort on your part.
If you were asking a mere question, you have your clear answer already - multiple times.

At this point it looks like you're copy pasting the same sentences over and over, and you're not listening at all. If it weren't for the very few times you actually responded, I would think you were a bot.
Sentences that I have addressed multiple times and I've shown to you how they make no sense.
But you simply ignore what I say, and repeat whatever you want, which is disrespectful.

Be fair, address and answer to everything I said, and explain, then we can continue.

I am having doubts now that you were banned because of what you said, rather than your attitude towards discussion.

[brimstoneSalad]

@plant You should read the forum rules. Bumping is not prohibited here, but ignoring people's questions is. This is a discussion forum and if you're just repeating yourself without answering others' arguments that's not allowed.

Perhaps you should retire from discussion on this topic and try participating in another discussion to learn how discussions work.

[plant]

It appears that an attempt is made to turn the topic of the discussion onto me, which is the reason that I have chosen to respond selectively paired with an attempt to make it very clear that I did not intend to preach that plants are sentient.

It appears that argumentum ad hominem is used as a sort of pro-active defense.

I have done my best to answer properly and to explain clearly that there is no reason to turn the subject of the discussion onto me: I did not intend to question the plausibility of veganism.

Plant sentience appears to be seen as an anti-veganism argument, or at least as an argument that is used by 'anti-vegans' to attack vegans. Perhaps it explains why the subject may be sensitive.

The argumentum ad hominem that is used, is false. I am accused of not responding and ignoring while my latest response to the latest accusation of such clearly shows that the basis for that claim (in that specific case) holds no ground.

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?

I answered properly and explained that the topic was not intended to question veganism.

I also answered properly to the request to provide evidence for plant sentience. I have explained that such is not required because the topic is intended to address a simple and clear fact: "the emergence of Plant Neurobiology" on the basis of which plant sentience should be considered and on the basis of which it can be said that the status quo of science is contentious. You are allowed to be convinced that plants are not sentient, but you are not allowed to claim that it is an undisputed fact, because it clearly isn't.

An outsiders perspective does not need to provide evidence. It would be sufficient to make a case for the plausibility of the foundation of a consideration. The emergence of a science field in general is a pretty strong foundation. Plant sentience is not something that can be compared with believing in little green man on Mars.

[thebestofenergy]

@plant for the last time, if you actually care about this topic, answer the questions, and address my points - especially the ones comparing the validity of believing in plants' sentience because of a few professors saying so to be the same as the validity of believing in meat being healthy/astrology/flat Earth because of a few professors saying so.
You keep making arguments in favor of plants being sentient (check my quotes), and when they're criticized, you keep trying to somehow make people believe you're merely asking questions. It's your logic that's being criticized, not your question per se, and then you try to twist things by making the wrong assumption that vegans are sensitive about plants' sentience when it's been explained to you multiple times why it wouldn't be the case, because people with any amount of critical thinking wouldn't even entertain the thought of something as stupid as plants being sentient for a moment.

I have answered and made you understand many times why plants are undisputedly non-sentient, and why your sources are bogus. I've explained the logic behind it, linked you things (that you didn't even bother to read and address), and showed you how your reasoning is flawed. I have addressed all the arguments you made that suggest plants to be sentient, and I've explained to you why they make no sense. I have pointed out your contradictions, and I have quoted you making claims that plants are sentient multiple times (check the previous posts) after you claiming you didn't claim that. You ignore everything, and you keep going, repeating the same stuff that has been shown to you to be wrong/make no sense multiple times.
You're being a coward.

No ad hominem has been made, you don't know what you're talking about.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Read it, please.

Your arguments are not argued to be wrong because of some trait you have, but because they're pseudoscientific and biased absurdity, based on appeal to authority and cherry-picking (another criticism you haven't addressed). But you don't address my criticism, and keep linking intellectually dishonest sources whose points have already been addressed.

Your appeal to authority to suggest that plants are sentient doesn't hold up.

[plant]

@plant for the last time, if you actually care about this topic, answer the questions, and address my points - especially the ones comparing the validity of believing in plants' sentience because of a few professors saying so to be the same as the validity of believing in meat being healthy/astrology/flat Earth because of a few professors saying so.

My argument in reply has been clearly: this topic isn't about me or what I believe, or what I consider belief-worthy for that matter. I have done my best to make a case for, and further explain that, the mere plausibility of the consideration of plant morality is evident from for example the emergence of a science field in general named Plant Neurobiology.

Those "few professors" cannot be tossed aside that easily as if they are some spiritually motivated individuals. The mentioned professors and researchers are increasingly receiving credible mainstream media attention.

Just these facts are used to consider the plausibility of the consideration of plant sentience.

It then turns to the question: the consideration of plant sentience could be essential for plant well-being and for nature the prosper into the far future. Since there are some signs that vegans and animal-rights activists are inclined to suppress information regarding plant sentience, what would be the origin or cause of that factor and what effects could it imply (for plants)?

I have specifically mentioned the following:

- 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

My questions are philosophical. They are honestly just intended to discover a potential new insight. They are not intended to judge, argue, preach or to effectuate anything.

You keep making arguments in favor of plants being sentient (check my quotes), and when they're criticized, you keep trying to somehow make people believe you're merely asking questions. It's your logic that's being criticized, not your question per se, and then you try to twist things by making the wrong assumption that vegans are sensitive about plants' sentience when it's been explained to you multiple times why it wouldn't be the case, because people with any amount of critical thinking wouldn't even entertain the thought of something as stupid as plants being sentient for a moment.

In my previous post I explained that it is not valid to state that the conviction that plants are not sentient, is an undisputed fact in the status quo of science, because it clearly isn't. The emergence of a science field in general named Plant Neurobiology is evidence that it isn't. One can claim that plant neurobiology is nonsense, but one cannot claim that the non-existence of plant sentience is an undisputed fact.

I understand that the term 'sentience' may hold a different meaning or definition from several different perspectives. Perhaps, when it comes down to evaluting the term 'sentience' from a specific perspective, you are in fact correct in your conviction that the term does not apply to plants.

The origin for the mis-understanding may be that I (personally) for example consider that, since plants are in fact very different from animals, what a term like 'sentience' could imply relative to plants may be of a very different nature than how such a term could hold meaning for an animal, but that it would not imply that plants are somehow of lesser value than animals because the origin of sentience may be the same for plants and animals (in summary: the root/origin of sentience may have manifested differently in plants)

I have answered and made you understand many times why plants are undisputedly non-sentient, and why your sources are bogus. I've explained the logic behind it, linked you things (that you didn't even bother to read and address), and showed you how your reasoning is flawed. I have addressed all the arguments you made that suggest plants to be sentient, and I've explained to you why they make no sense. I have pointed out your contradictions, and I have quoted you making claims that plants are sentient multiple times (check the previous posts) after you claiming you didn't claim that. You ignore everything, and you keep going, repeating the same stuff that has been shown to you to be wrong/make no sense multiple times.
You're being a coward.

No ad hominem has been made, you don't know what you're talking about.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
Read it, please.

I have seen no evidence from you by which you can make the claim that the non existence of plant sentience is an undisputed fact. I do not believe that such evidence can be possible, although there may be an opportunity when exploring the exact definition of the term 'sentience'.

Perhaps when I use the term 'sentience', it could be replaced by the word 'consciousness' or '(what it takes to be a) social and intelligent creature'.

If you believe that you provided clear evidence by which it can be stated that the non-existence of plant sentience is an undisputed fact, please refer me to that evidence (once more, please).

Your arguments are not argued to be wrong because of some trait you have, but because they're pseudoscientific and biased absurdity, based on appeal to authority and cherry-picking (another criticism you haven't addressed). But you don't address my criticism, and keep linking intellectually dishonest sources whose points have already been addressed.

Your appeal to authority to suggest that plants are sentient doesn't hold up.

It wasn't intended as such: there was no argument made to claim that plants are sentient. The mere plausibility of the consideration that plants are in fact sentient, has been made evident with the references that I provided.

[Red]

plant, your responses have continually been refusing to address the points head on, and are just repeating already debunked claims.

We have no issue with addressing arguments (even absurd ones) on this forum, but we do have issues with members refusing to address points and acting like no one addressed them in the first place.

We likely won't ban you, but we may start deleting your posts if you continue to do this.

[brimstoneSalad]

@plant You are in violation of forum rules. You need to answer the questions others are asking of you, that's typically how debate progresses, not by repeating the claims you have already made.

the mere plausibility of the consideration of plant morality is evident from for example the emergence of a science field in general named Plant Neurobiology.

If you had read the link I gave you, you would understand that name "plant neurobiology" is a misnomer. The scientists arguing in that article are concerned the name will mislead ignorant people such as yourself and the media into believing something is being seriously studied which is not.

It's as if some geologists got together and called their work "rock neurobiology" to study the growth of crystals and the chemical reactions and structure that create complicated shapes. It has nothing to do with neurons, and neither does the study of plant signaling (the only credible research being done).

Most people working under "plant neurobiology" are self evident quacks who are promoting spiritual beliefs and not doing science. You see a lot of work claiming plants are psychic and can read minds or have feelings. Yes there is some credible research in signaling that is being grouped under that, but doesn't apply to "neurobiology" because such does not exist in plants and those researchers know it.

You can not interpret a misnomer as evidence of the thing it is misrepresenting.

Signaling is responded to by ordinary cells through chemicals that alter gene expression. Plant cells don't operate as logic gates and they do not express associative learning -- they are not sentient or conscious in any meaningful sense of the words as we apply them to animals. The little credible research there is is interesting stuff, but it is not neurobiology, it's not a brain, and it doesn't support your claims in the slightest.

At the very *best* some root behavior resembles that of the simplest worms, just on a much slower time-scale, but there is still no evidence that such animal worms are even sentient so that behavioral correlation doesn't tell us anything that we don't know -- that there's even less reason to believe plants are sentient than worms that we already don't believe to be sentient.

Those "few professors" cannot be tossed aside that easily as if they are some spiritually motivated individuals.

Most of them are, and it's bad science AKA pseudoscience.

The mentioned professors and researchers are increasingly receiving credible mainstream media attention.

Yellow journalism isn't evidence of anything. Do you believe everything you see on Fox news too?

The media covers things that will get clicks and that people are too stupid to know are bullshit. "Plant intelligence" is a popular topic in that regard.
There are also plenty of stories on miracles, near death experiences, facilitated communication, etc. When it comes to "science" or pseudoscience journalism there is no apparent correlation between the credibility of a field of research and coverage.

Just these facts are used to consider the plausibility of the consideration of plant sentience.

If you're scientifically illiterate I can see how that would make it seem plausible -- that's why these rags keep publishing this content, because people are too ignorant not to click. In terms of it actually being plausible because of this you're dead wrong. Only actual scientific evidence would lend real plausibility to these claims, and there is none.

Now start answering @thebestofenergy's questions, or stop talking about this.
You're welcome to argue the case, but you are not welcome to lecture and ignore and at best misrepresent others' arguments. You need to answer the questions asked of you. Go back and look for question marks, then answer those questions. If it helps, they look like this: ?
Answer ALL of the questions asked of you by other people. If it has a question mark you answer it. Don't say anything else about plant intelligence/sentience/etc. until you do that.

[plant]

@plant You are in violation of forum rules. You need to answer the questions others are asking of you, that's typically how debate progresses, not by repeating the claims you have already made.

I already explained repeatedly: I did answer, but perhaps the answer wasn't to your liking. I want to be clear: this topic isn't about me or to question veganism. Therefor some of the questions were irellevant.

This topic is started by me, as such I have a certain eligibility to determine the subject of the discussion. I have made it very clear that I did NOT want that the subject of the discussion was turned onto me.

I have been suspected and accussed of lots of things during the short duration of this topic. An example:

@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.

It is evidence of a certain intent or defensive attitude in which the goal is to attack or undermine me - the messenger - in an attempt to discredit the information. I have seen such behaviour before, with people who were unable to use sound reasoning to defend their idea's. It is a lowly tactic in my opinion.

My responses have been sincere and I did answer the questions while in the same time steering the topic away from a potential turning of the subject onto me - the messenger.

Most people working under "plant neurobiology" are self evident quacks who are promoting spiritual beliefs and not doing science. You see a lot of work claiming plants are psychic and can read minds or have feelings. Yes there is some credible research in signaling that is being grouped under that, but doesn't apply to "neurobiology" because such does not exist in plants and those researchers know it.

You can not interpret a misnomer as evidence of the thing it is misrepresenting.

Signaling is responded to by ordinary cells through chemicals that alter gene expression. Plant cells don't operate as logic gates and they do not express associative learning -- they are not sentient or conscious in any meaningful sense of the words as we apply them to animals. The little credible research there is is interesting stuff, but it is not neurobiology, it's not a brain, and it doesn't support your claims in the slightest.

At the very *best* some root behavior resembles that of the simplest worms, just on a much slower time-scale, but there is still no evidence that such animal worms are even sentient so that behavioral correlation doesn't tell us anything that we don't know -- that there's even less reason to believe plants are sentient than worms that we already don't believe to be sentient.

Those "few professors" cannot be tossed aside that easily as if they are some spiritually motivated individuals.

Most of them are, and it's bad science AKA pseudoscience.

The mentioned professors and researchers are increasingly receiving credible mainstream media attention.

Yellow journalism isn't evidence of anything. Do you believe everything you see on Fox news too?

Again, clearly, you attack the messenger in attempt to provide a basis for your conviction that plants are not sentient.

As an example, you name the cited media as Yellow journalism and ask wether I would believe anything from Fox news. The first cited article in the OP is from BBC and there are many articles from science magazines and direct links to published research.

A professor who studied plant behaviour for 4 decades argues that plants are in fact "slow animals" that can feel, see, listen and respond. It doesn't seem to be just to call him a quack or BBC Yellow journalism for giving the perspective of the professor credible coverage.

You are correct that you cannot simply believe anything from the media. However, when a subject in the media is considered 'in general' one can derive some worthy insights from it. When publishers such as BBC or science magazines give credible attention to professors that claim that plants are social and intelligent creatures that are capable of 'friendship' with animals, then as such that information can provide a sound basis for consideration (without the need to believe anything).

Again: the cited articles in the OP were not intended to prove that plant sentience is a fact, they were provided to make a case that the mere plausibility of the consideration of plant morality is evident, by which one cannot argue - like you do - that the non existence of plant sentience is an undisputed fact in the status quo of science.

With regard to plant neurobiology being quackery. I do not believe that such a conviction or attitude is applicable and just. It appears that a lot is yet unknown about plants. It was only recently discovered that cells at the tips of the hairs on the roots of plants function similarly as brain neurons in animals.

NIH.GOV: From Nerve Roots to Plant Roots
Sprouting. Branching. Pruning. Neuroscientists have borrowed heavily from botanists to describe the way that neurons grow, but analogies between the growth of neurons and plants may be more than superficial. A new study from the National Institutes of Health and Harvard Medical School suggests that neurons and plant root cells may grow using a similar mechanism.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-re ... paraplegia

It is not evidence for plant sentience but it is certainly something that may be worthy of consideration and further research (i.e., it would not be just to call scientists who investigate it and who provide theories for it's purpose, quacks).

With regard to the subject of the topic: the precense of neurochemicals in plants was discovered fairly recently. Perhaps it is purposeless, as you say. But perhaps it isn't. In my opinion the fact that the discoveries are fairly recent would demand a humble attitude to what may be possible to discover.

The fact that the discoveries are recent may be a hint that plant sentience - something that we cannot conceive of with today's knowledge - may be possible. If you would truly be capable of caring for sentient beings, would you not (in retrospective) want to have done what you could to discover it in plants so that you could have provided sufficient care?

With regard the interest of humanity. It may be essential that humans will have been capable of discovering plant sentience if it exists, to even consider forging a fruitful, i.e. friendly, relation with alien species, if the goal is to prevent survival to be subject to mere random chance or 'luck'.

If friendship is possible, at quest would be: what would be its purpose and what would it require?

To return to the subject of the topic: The issue that this topic intends to address is that the information that indicates that plant sentience may be possible, may be principally suppressed and ignored, which could cause a problem if in fact plants are later to be proven to have been sentient creatures.

I have seen no evidence that justifies the claim that Plant Neurobiology is quackery and that the idea that plants could be sentient creatures can be tossed aside as nonsense.

[plant]

plant, your responses have continually been refusing to address the points head on, and are just repeating already debunked claims.

We have no issue with addressing arguments (even absurd ones) on this forum, but we do have issues with members refusing to address points and acting like no one addressed them in the first place.

We likely won't ban you, but we may start deleting your posts if you continue to do this.

Can you mention a specific question that was ignored? I have seen no reference until now of any question that was ignored.

[Red]

plant, your responses have continually been refusing to address the points head on, and are just repeating already debunked claims.

We have no issue with addressing arguments (even absurd ones) on this forum, but we do have issues with members refusing to address points and acting like no one addressed them in the first place.

We likely won't ban you, but we may start deleting your posts if you continue to do this.

Can you mention a specific question that was ignored? I have seen no reference until now of any question that was ignored.

There have been, you seem to have a very selective reading ability.

You're just repeating yourself over and over again, as if your claims are definitive and there is no possibility that they can be wrong.
Read the forum rules:

This is a discussion forum. Please come here willing to discuss. This isn't a place to lecture, and then refuse to address others' rational arguments or even answer others' questions. Discussion is founded upon logic, if you don't accept basic logic as valid, there's really nothing for you to do here except lecture, and this isn't the place for it. Again: This is a discussion forum.