Life should have stopped developing at the plant level.

[Dani Paradox]

If you can't provide the mechanism that allows plants to experience pain than don't spread your pseudoscience around. There is no research to back up what you are saying. Communication and reaction are irrelevant.

Dude. Communication and reaction are irrelevant?? They are responding to the pain by communicating with one another and releasing chemicals. If they were unable to feel the pain then how the fuck would they be able to respond to it? Again, I'm not wasting my time doing your research for you to find the specifics. This is not pseudoscience. Go research it yourself, or choose to stay in your little bubble. I'm done with the conversation. You're already wasted enough of my time.

 

[Virgo]

Dude. Communication and reaction are irrelevant?? They are responding to the pain by communicating with one another and releasing chemicals. If they were unable to feel the pain then how the fuck would they be able to respond to it? Again, I'm not wasting my time doing your research for you to find the specifics. This is not pseudoscience. Go research it yourself, or choose to stay in your little bubble. I'm done with the conversation. You're already wasted enough of my time.

Do you also thing that because thermometers can react to temperature that they also experience pain?

 

[weedoge]

Dude. Communication and reaction are irrelevant?? They are responding to the pain by communicating with one another and releasing chemicals. If they were unable to feel the pain then how the fuck would they be able to respond to it? Again, I'm not wasting my time doing your research for you to find the specifics. This is not pseudoscience. Go research it yourself, or choose to stay in your little bubble. I'm done with the conversation. You're already wasted enough of my time.

Even if this were true, feeling pain does not equate to understanding and suffering. So expand your theory some more.

 

[Virgo]

Even if this were true, feeling pain does not equate to understanding and suffering. So expand your theory some more.

Exactly. Thermometers can't experience pain, they react to temperature, but they have no nervous system to actually experience pain.

 

[Dani Paradox]

So instead of researching it, he pulls up a picture of a thermometer. lol.

You are comparing a living organism to an inanimate object. I am done with this. Goodbye.

 

[Dani Paradox]

http://time.com/2953362/plants-hear/

Study: Plants Can 'Hear' Their Attackers' Approach

Some plants can hear caterpillars eating leaves and respond by emitting caterpillar-repelling chemicals, according to a new study published in the journal Oecologia.

Scientists have known that certain plants respond to sound vibrations—corn roots, for example, lean toward vibrations of a specific frequency—but until now it hasn't been clear why they're able to do so. In this experiment, researchers from University of Missouri exposed one set of plants to a recording of caterpillars eating plants and found they emitted more of the anti-caterpillar chemical and did it more quickly than the plants that weren't exposed to the sound.

The researchers also found that background noise like wind or insects had no impact on the plants, indicating that the plants could distinguish the sound of their attackers.

Now the researchers are looking for the "ears" of the plants that allow them to hear, though they suspect they take the form of proteins known as "mechanoreceptors" found in plants and animals that respond to pressure.


So not only can they feel themselves being attacked......they can even hear their attackers approaching, and release specific chemicals to ward off the attackers!! Pretty impressive for something that is "unable to feel."

 

[Virgo]

So instead of researching it, he pulls up a picture of a thermometer. lol.

You are comparing a living organism to an inanimate object. I am done with this. Goodbye.

I've researched this. There is no mechanism that allows plants to feel pain. The fact that it is a living organism if irrelevant. If you can't understand why I brought up the thermometer that's just sad...

 

[Virgo]

http://time.com/2953362/plants-hear/

Study: Plants Can 'Hear' Their Attackers' Approach

Some plants can hear caterpillars eating leaves and respond by emitting caterpillar-repelling chemicals, according to a new study published in the journal Oecologia.

Scientists have known that certain plants respond to sound vibrations—corn roots, for example, lean toward vibrations of a specific frequency—but until now it hasn't been clear why they're able to do so. In this experiment, researchers from University of Missouri exposed one set of plants to a recording of caterpillars eating plants and found they emitted more of the anti-caterpillar chemical and did it more quickly than the plants that weren't exposed to the sound.

The researchers also found that background noise like wind or insects had no impact on the plants, indicating that the plants could distinguish the sound of their attackers.

Now the researchers are looking for the "ears" of the plants that allow them to hear, though they suspect they take the form of proteins known as "mechanoreceptors" found in plants and animals that respond to pressure.


So not only can they feel themselves being attacked......they can even hear their attackers approaching, and release specific chemicals to ward off the attackers!! Pretty impressive for something that is "unable to feel."

So now a simple microphone and a microchip can feel pain to?
Nowhere in that study did it mention the ability to experience pain. Did you even read it?

 

[Dani Paradox]

I've researched this. There is no mechanism that allows plants to feel pain. The fact that it is a living organism if irrelevant. If you can't understand why I brought up the thermometer that's just sad...

I understand why you brought up the thermometer. It is a bogus argument. You are comparing a living organism to an electronic device. That is apples and oranges. If you are unable to understand that it is an illogical argument that is just sad.

 

[Virgo]

I understand why you brought up the thermometer. It is a bogus argument. You are comparing a living organism to an electronic device. That is apples and oranges. If you are unable to understand that it is an illogical argument that is just sad.

Why is it absurd?

 

[Dani Paradox]

Once again, here is yet another article. How many do I have to post until you get it?

"According to Daniel Chamovitz, dean of Life Sciences at Tel Aviv University, plants can feel themselves being eaten, they just don't have the capacity to give a shit." Like I said, they feel pain differently than other organisms.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...ure-science-is-that-plants-cant-feel-pain-302

 

[Dani Paradox]

"So, if I follow you, plants really do feel, not metaphorically, but really. They just can't feel pain. Right?
Plants don't have pain receptors. Plants have pressure receptors that allow them to know when they're being touched or moved—mechanoreceptors. It's a specific nerve cell."

There you go. Mechanoreceptors. View pain how you want. Like I said, they feel differently than animals. But they are conscious, aware, and able to feel what is happening. That is pain.

 

[weedoge]

Once again, here is yet another article. How many do I have to post until you get it?

"According to Daniel Chamovitz, dean of Life Sciences at Tel Aviv University, plants can feel themselves being eaten, they just don't have the capacity to give a shit." Like I said, they feel pain differently than other organisms.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...ure-science-is-that-plants-cant-feel-pain-302

cool article that states plants don't suffer

It's feeling it. I would even use the word "aware," but it doesn't care. A leaf knows when it's been cut, and it will respond, but it's not getting a complex, like 'oh my god. What happens to me if this happens again?'

The idea that damage has to be pain is mistaken. We feel pain because we have specific types of receptors called nociceptors which are programmed to respond to pain, not to touch. People can have genetic malfunctions where they feel pressure but never feel pain because they don't have pain receptors.

But you said plants are 'aware.' So aren't they cognizant of this damage?
No. I refuse to use the word cognition. We have no understanding of what cognition is. None whatsoever. Plants are not cognizant. When we cut a leaf, we assume that the plant is suffering. But that's our own anthropomorphism about what's going on.

There's some interesting stuff on that page you posted you should read it...

 

[Dani Paradox]

Why is it absurd?

I should not have to explain why comparing a living organism to an inanimate object is absurd.

 

[Virgo]

Once again, here is yet another article. How many do I have to post until you get it?

"According to Daniel Chamovitz, dean of Life Sciences at Tel Aviv University, plants can feel themselves being eaten, they just don't have the capacity to give a shit." Like I said, they feel pain differently than other organisms.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...ure-science-is-that-plants-cant-feel-pain-302

Lmao, first that article didn't reference a study, but an interview. Secondly, the biologist agreed with my position. Once again did you even read it?

It is going to take 1 study that supports your position.

 

[weedoge]

"So, if I follow you, plants really do feel, not metaphorically, but really. They just can't feel pain. Right?
Plants don't have pain receptors. Plants have pressure receptors that allow them to know when they're being touched or moved—mechanoreceptors. It's a specific nerve cell."

There you go. Mechanoreceptors. View pain how you want. Like I said, they feel differently than animals. But they are conscious, aware, and able to feel what is happening. That is pain.

They are not conscious, that page you just posted says that.

 

[Virgo]

I should not have to explain why comparing a living organism to an inanimate object is absurd.

Why both have mechanisms to react, but no mechanism to feel.

 

[Dani Paradox]

Why both have mechanisms to react, but no mechanism to feel.

They feel with mechanoreceptors. I just said that. Yes, I read the fucking articles. Yes it referenced a fucking study. The fucking study was done by researchers at the University of Missouri. Did YOU read the fucking article?? Because it says that right in the article.

 

[Dani Paradox]

And, no the botanist did not agree with you. He said plants do not have pain receptors.....which you and I already discussed. Plants do not have nervous systems. I already fucking said that. I said that does not mean that they are unable to FEEL. They just experience pain differently than other living organisms. They are able to feel in their own way.

 

[weedoge]

This is an argument of semantics, I know he probably can't read my posts but it's right there in a very concise form in an article you posted @Dani Paradox. Plants feels and respond to damage, this doesn't necessarily equal pain, this also does not mean they are conscious. It just means they have a mechanism with which to detect and respond to damage, of course they do they're plants.

 

[Virgo]

They feel with mechanoreceptors. I just said that. Yes, I read the fucking articles. Yes it referenced a fucking study. The fucking study was done by researchers at the University of Missouri. Did YOU read the fucking article?? Because it says that right in the article.

No, the study talking about reacting to events not experiencing pain.

And, no the botanist did not agree with you. He said plants do not have pain receptors.....which you and I already discussed. Plants do not have nervous systems. I already fucking said that. I said that does not mean that they are unable to FEEL. They just experience pain differently than other living organisms. They are able to feel in their own way.

To copy and paste from weedoge

It's feeling it. I would even use the word "aware," but it doesn't care. A leaf knows when it's been cut, and it will respond, but it's not getting a complex, like 'oh my god. What happens to me if this happens again?'

The idea that damage has to be pain is mistaken. We feel pain because we have specific types of receptors called nociceptors which are programmed to respond to pain, not to touch. People can have genetic malfunctions where they feel pressure but never feel pain because they don't have pain receptors.

But you said plants are 'aware.' So aren't they cognizant of this damage?
No. I refuse to use the word cognition. We have no understanding of what cognition is. None whatsoever. Plants are not cognizant. When we cut a leaf, we assume that the plant is suffering. But that's our own anthropomorphism about what's going on.

 

[Threads]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain

Pain is a distressing feeling often caused by intense or damaging stimuli. The International Association for the Study of Pain's widely used definition defines pain as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage";[1] however, due to it being a complex, subjective phenomenon, defining pain has been a challenge. In medical diagnosis, pain is regarded as a symptom of an underlying condition.

Now we have a working definition of what pain is.

The International Association for the Study of Pain's widely used definition defines pain as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

Emotion is any conscious experience[1][2][3] characterized by intense mental activity and a certain degree of pleasure or displeasure.[4][5] Scientific discourse has drifted to other meanings and there is no consensus on a definition.

Let's look at the other definitions (and if they connect to plants)
https://www.verywellmind.com/theories-of-emotion-2795717

Facial-Feedback Theory (Doesn't apply to plants)

The facial-feedback theory of emotions suggests that facial expressions are connected to experiencing emotions. Charles Darwin and William James both noted early on that sometimes physiological responses often had a direct impact on emotion, rather than simply being a consequence of the emotion. Supporters of this theory suggest that emotions are directly tied to changes in facial muscles. For example, people who are forced to smile pleasantly at a social function will have a better time at the event than they would if they had frowned or carried a more neutral facial expression.

Cognitive Appraisal Theory (May apply to plants)

According to appraisal theories of emotion, thinking must occur first before experiencing emotion. Richard Lazarus was a pioneer in this area of emotion, and this theory is often referred to as the Lazarus theory of emotion. According to this theory, the sequence of events first involves a stimulus, followed by thought which then leads to the simultaneous experience of a physiological response and the emotion. For example, if you encounter a bear in the woods, you might immediately begin to think that you are in great danger. This then leads to the emotional experience of fear and the physical reactions associated with the fight-or-flight response.

Schachter-Singer Theory (May apply to plants)

Also known as the two-factor theory of emotion, the Schachter-Singer Theory is an example of a cognitive theory of emotion. This theory suggests that the physiological arousal occurs first, and then the individual must identify the reason for this arousal to experience and label it as an emotion. A stimulus leads to a physiological response that is then cognitively interpreted and labeled which results in an emotion.

Schachter and Singer's theory draws on both the James-Lange theory and the Cannon-Bard theory of emotion. Like the James-Lange theory, the Schachter-Singer theory proposes that people do infer emotions based on physiological responses. The critical factor is the situation and the cognitive interpretation that people use to label that emotion. Like the Cannon-Bard theory, the Schachter-Singer theory also suggests that similar physiological responses can produce varying emotions.

For example, if you experience a racing heart and sweating palms during an important math exam, you will probably identify the emotion as anxiety. If you experience the same physical responses on a date with your significant other, you might interpret those responses as love, affection, or arousal.

Evolutionary Theory (May apply)

It was naturalist Charles Darwin who proposed that emotions evolved because they were adaptive and allowed humans and animals to survive and reproduce. Feelings of love and affection lead people to seek mates and reproduce. Feelings of fear compel people to either fight or flee the source of danger. According to the evolutionary theory of emotion, our emotions exist because they serve an adaptive role. Emotions motivate people to respond quickly to stimuli in the environment, which helps improve the chances of success and survival. Understanding the emotions of other people and animals also plays a crucial role in safety and survival. If you encounter a hissing, spitting, and clawing animal, chances are you will quickly realize that the animal is frightened or defensive and leave it alone. By being able to interpret correctly the emotional displays of other people and animals, you can respond correctly and avoid danger.

The James-Lange theory (May Apply)

The James-Lange theory is one of the best-known examples of a physiological theory of emotion. Independently proposed by psychologist William James and physiologist Carl Lange, the James-Lange theory of emotion suggests that emotions occur as a result of physiological reactions to events.

The Cannon-Bard Theory of Emotion

Another well-known physiological theory is the Cannon-Bard theory of emotion. Walter Cannon disagreed with the James-Lange theory of emotion on several different grounds. First, he suggested, people can experience physiological reactions linked to emotions without actually feeling those emotions. For example, your heart might race because you have been exercising and not because you are afraid. Cannon also suggested that emotional responses occur much too quickly for them to be simply products of physical states. When you encounter a danger in the environment, you will often feel afraid before you start to experience the physical symptoms associated with fear such as shaking hands, rapid breathing, and a racing heart. More specifically, it is suggested that emotions result when the thalamus sends a message to the brain in response to a stimulus, resulting in a physiological reaction. At the same time, the brain also receives signals triggering the emotional experience. Cannon and Bard's theory suggests that the physical and psychological experience of emotion happen at the same time and that one does not cause the other.

From all the information gathered here. It is safe to presume that in order for something to have an emotional response (Required for pain), it must have a nervous system, and that emotion itself requires conscious and aware.

So in order to feel pain there must be 4 factors.

1. Has sensory output.
2. Responds to stimuli
3. Is sentient and conscious.
4. Has an emotional response.



Let's start with a nervous system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system

The nervous system is the part of an animal that coordinates its actions by transmitting signals to and from different parts of its body. The nervous system detects environmental changes that impact the body, then works in tandem with the endocrine system to respond to such events.[1] Nervous tissue first arose in wormlike organisms about 550 to 600 million years ago.

Now we have a working definition of what a nervous system is.

The next question is.

Do plants have a nervous system?

https://www.labroots.com/trending/videos/12777/plant-nervous-system-found

Plants don't have a nervous system, but they do seem to have a method for communicating with one another. In a way, it's like their own kind of nervous system.

Okay. That tells me that plants are capable of sending electrical signals if being stepped on by a caterpillar. So they have sensory awareness and respond to stimuli.

So 1 & 2 has been answered. The next question is if they are conscious and aware. If plants themselves simply have respond to stimuli via electrical signals, that doesn't equate to 'feeling pain.' That is just a chemical reaction. A chemical reaction itself is not enough to declare something being in pain. Photosynthesis would also fall under 1 & 2 as many plants react to sun light.

 

[Threads]

Let's look at some studies

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-mimosa-plants-memory-01695.html

Plants may lack brains and neural tissues but they do possess a sophisticated calcium-based signaling network in their cells similar to animals' memory processes," they explained.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195646

Plants can detect the presence of their neighbours and modify their growth behaviour accordingly. But the extent to which this neighbour detection is mediated by abiotic stressors is not well known. In this study we tested the acclimation response of Zea mays L. seedlings through belowground interactions to the presence of their siblings exposed to brief mechano stimuli. Maize seedling simultaneously shared the growth solution of touched plants or they were transferred to the growth solution of previously touched plants. We tested the growth preferences of newly germinated seedlings toward the growth solution of touched (T_solution) or untouched plants (C_solution). The primary root of the newly germinated seedlings grew significantly less towards T_solution than to C_solution. Plants transferred to T_solution allocated more biomass to shoots and less to roots. While plants that simultaneously shared their growth solution with the touched plants produced more biomass. Results show that plant responses to neighbours can be modified by above ground abiotic stress to those neighbours and suggest that these modifications are mediated by belowground interactions.

These two studies beg the next question.

Are plants sentient

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28875517

Feelings in humans are mental states representing groups of physiological functions that usually have defined behavioural purposes. Feelings, being evolutionarily ancient, are thought to be coordinated in the brain stem of animals. One function of the brain is to prioritise between competing mental states and, thus, groups of physiological functions and in turn behaviour. Plants use groups of coordinated physiological activities to deal with defined environmental situations but currently have no known mental state to prioritise any order of response. Plants do have a nervous system based on action potentials transmitted along phloem conduits but which in addition, through anastomoses and other cross-links, forms a complex network. The emergent potential for this excitable network to form a mental state is unknown, but it might be used to distinguish between different and even contradictory signals to the individual plant and thus determine a priority of response. This plant nervous system stretches throughout the whole plant providing the potential for assessment in all parts and commensurate with its self-organising, phenotypically plastic behaviour. Plasticity may, in turn, depend heavily on the instructive capabilities of local bioelectric fields enabling both a degree of behavioural independence but influenced by the condition of the whole plant.

Well what is sentience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Sentience is the capacity to feel, perceive or experience subjectively

From the information gathered. Plants are sentient due to their sensory output. But they are incapable of processing experiences as a worm or even a maggot would, due to their lack of neurons and nervous tissue.

So we have 1, 2 & 3.

So this brings us back to the question. Can plants feel emotion?

The answer as of now is no. Which answers our first question.

Given the criteria from our definition of pain, plants cannot feel pain. Plants themselves are incapable of feeling or even processing emotion. This does not mean that plants are not wildly complex.

Plants.

1. Have sensory output.
2. Respond to stimuli
3. are sentient and (maybe) conscious.

To argue that plants 'Are incapable of feeling emotion' is a foolish argument. Plants do have a nervous system, they do have multiple sensory outputs, and plants are indeed sentient and even aware of their own environments. But as of now, they have not evolved with the necessary tools to have the complex nervous system of that of even a flea or tick.

 

[weedoge]

...

See I would kind of disagree with your definition of sentience for a start, that same wikipedia article states how western philosophy states how sentience is the ability to experience sensations.

You lost me at the part where you said plants are sentient because of their "sensory output" and could do with a little more explanation on what you mean by that.

I also would never deny that plants are incredibly complex things, but I still can't say I believe they're truly conscious and I believe consciousness is required for sentience.

I also believe that yes it is possible for mechanisms other than brains and possibly even neurons to exhibit similar behaviours, but I don't think it happens on the same level. (Fun fact, octopuses use the neurons in their arms a little bit like brains if I recall correctly!)

I certainly wouldn't agree that it's foolish to argue that plants are incapable of feeling emotion, but I'm happy to leave that one alone lol.

 

[Dani Paradox]

Perhaps it is a pointless argument one way or the other. I am inclined believe that they have their own unique and subjective way of experiencing feeling that we are simply not yet able to understand. I am unable to fathom how complex living organisms like trees are able to exist the way that they do without being able to feel what is happening on some level unique to it's species. It's far greater than just chemical reactions. They're alive. It's a whole different world. Maybe one day there will be new discoveries into the conscious experience of plants. Then again, we don't even have a full understanding of consciousness itself in the first place. It will likely be quite some time before we reach that point.

 

[Virgo]

Let's look at some studies

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-mimosa-plants-memory-01695.html



https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0195646



These two studies beg the next question.

Are plants sentient

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28875517



Well what is sentience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience



From the information gathered. Plants are sentient due to their sensory output. But they are incapable of processing experiences as a worm or even a maggot would, due to their lack of neurons and nervous tissue.

So we have 1, 2 & 3.

So this brings us back to the question. Can plants feel emotion?

The answer as of now is no. Which answers our first question.

Given the criteria from our definition of pain, plants cannot feel pain. Plants themselves are incapable of feeling or even processing emotion. This does not mean that plants are not wildly complex.

Plants.

1. Have sensory output.
2. Respond to stimuli
3. are sentient and (maybe) conscious.

To argue that plants 'Are incapable of feeling emotion' is a foolish argument. Plants do have a nervous system, they do have multiple sensory outputs, and plants are indeed sentient and even aware of their own environments. But as of now, they have not evolved with the necessary tools to have the complex nervous system of that of even a flea or tick.

At one point you say plants don't have a nervous system and then you later contradict yourself. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that plants are sentient because they have sensory output. Typically sentience is used to refer to subjective experience. You claim plants have no emotions and then later claim that is a foolish argument.

 

[weedoge]

At one point you say plants don't have a nervous system and then you later contradict yourself. I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that plants are sentient because they have sensory output. Typically sentience is used to refer to subjective experience. You claim plants have no emotions and then later claim that is a foolish argument.

I don't know if I'm missing something but the sensory output thing seemed to come out of nowhere, pls tell me if I'm being an idiot (haven't slept for like 24 hours) but what does sensory output, whatever that is, have to do with sentience? By using that to back up your point, if it were true, you could surely forget the rest of the points you made and just say "because they react outwardly to sensory input (assuming that's what you mean by sensory output) then they are sentient." but then surely you're simplifying it all down to "sense = consciousness"??? Please tell me if I totally misunderstood Threads.

 

[Swisher]

Do you also thing that because thermometers can react to temperature that they also experience pain?

it might be easier to use organic matter in an example than a man-made plastic device ( forget mercury)... perhaps, a venus fly trap

 

[Angst Filled Fuck Up]

Nah, even then I would feel bad for the plants. All that jockeying for position when it comes to sunlight. Maybe amoeba-level. I don't feel much sympathy for amoebas.

 

[Swisher]

Nah, even then I would feel bad for the plants. All that jockeying for position when it comes to sunlight. Maybe amoeba-level. I don't feel much sympathy for amoebas.

I love pseudopods I hope to get one for Christmas!