thejazz97 Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Funny, it is you have comprehension issues. The article stated this: Clearly the evidence is not there to support the claim that plants can feel. Respond to external stimuli yes, but that is not the same as feeling. When you say it is disputable whether plants lack a sense self, you rely on vagueness (haven't clearly defined 'self') and ambiguity (switching back and forth between our notions of consciousness and plant awareness) to try and make a point. That isn't good argumentation there bub. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant Granola 1 cup 650 Oatmeal flakes 1 cup 500 Wheat germ,toasted 1/4 cup 350 Avocado 1/2 (medium) 75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant Did you even read the article? No one I spoke to in the loose, interdisciplinary group of scientists working on plant intelligence claims that plants have telekinetic powers or feel emotions. Nor does anyone believe that we will locate a walnut-shaped organ somewhere in plants which processes sensory data and directs plant behavior. More likely, in the scientists’ view, intelligence in plants resembles that exhibited in insect colonies, where it is thought to be an emergent property of a great many mindless individuals organized in a network. Much of the research on plant intelligence has been inspired by the new science of networks, distributed computing, and swarm behavior, which has demonstrated some of the ways in which remarkably brainy behavior can emerge in the absence of actual brains. AGAIN, there is evidence to believe that plants can exhibit a form of intelligence, but that is not the same as being conscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 AGAIN, there is evidence to believe that plants can exhibit a form of intelligence, but that is not the same as being conscious. Why would you eat an intelligent creature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Why would you eat an intelligent creature? Why would you smash an intelligent computer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Funny, it is you have comprehension issues. The article stated this: Clearly the evidence is not there to support the claim that plants can feel. Respond to external stimuli yes, but that is not the same as feeling. When you say it is disputable whether plants lack a sense self, you rely on vagueness (haven't clearly defined 'self') and ambiguity (switching back and forth between our notions of consciousness and plant awareness) to try and make a point. That isn't good argumentation there bub. And when I talk about rationality I am talking specifically about normative reflection. As for Taurine: source: So serious athletes on plant based diets need about 1000mg of taurine daily. Plant based foods containing taurine: Granola 1 cup 650 Oatmeal flakes 1 cup 500 Wheat germ,toasted 1/4 cup 350 Avocado 1/2 (medium) 75 source: And keep in mind this 1000mg requirement is for serious athletes- the average joe doesn't need that much. Besides, if people were able to find ethical dairy practices that treat their cows well or good poultry practices like having back yard chickens you can find an abundance of taurine in cheese or eggs. Demonstrating your lack of comprehension once again. Do you even try to comprehend someone elses viewpoint or do assume what they mean and ignore all else. The article does not claim that plants do or do not have feelings or a sense of self. It states that there evidence that shows response to external stimuli and memory of said responses. The fact that they are hesitant to make claims doesn't prove or disprove anything. That was my point. You continue to make assumptions then state them as facts. I was demonstrating that it is possible where you are stating unequivocally that it is not. Can you comprehend that?? Plants may... Plants cannot and do not... One is open-minded and the other is close-minded. Can you guess which is which? People have different abilities to produce taurine naturally. Vegans from birth have a more natural ability while meat-eaters have a more difficult time. For taurine to be produced the body needs two different aminos in conjunction with certain vitamins. If these are not present, then it is difficult for the body to keep up production. Therefore people who can afford a balanced vegetarian diet are more likely to avoid health issues. I stated earlier that I know personally people who have had severe health issues related to a vegetarian diet. They all eventually went to a fish also diet or went back to omnivore. All of your sanctimonious crap won't change reality. The reality is that not everyone can be vegetarian and healthy. I would like to add that these people were healthy vegetarians for years, but as they got older the health issues piled up. And their doctors confirmed that it was diet related. Taurine deficiency. Edit: interupted mid sentence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Why would you smash an intelligent computer? Because I dropped it in Grade 9, okay... I talking to someone behind me and when I turned around I accidentally elbowed it off the table. I tried to catch it with my foot but it just bounced off and completely shattered on the floor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Demonstrating your lack of comprehension once again. Do you even try to comprehend someone elses viewpoint or do assume what they mean and ignore all else. The article does not claim that plants do or do not have feelings or a sense of self. It states that there evidence that shows response to external stimuli and memory of said responses. The fact that they are hesitant to make claims doesn't prove or disprove anything. That was my point. You continue to make assumptions then state them as facts. I was demonstrating that it is possible where you are stating unequivocally that it is not. Can you comprehend that?? Plants may... Plants cannot and do not... One is open-minded and the other is close-minded. Can you guess which is which? People have different abilities to produce taurine Again, being hesitant to state that plants are conscious just goes to show that there is truth to the claim that plants are not conscious given our growing scientific knowledge regarding neurophisiology and consciousness. Responding to external stimuli can point towards there being grounds for claiming that plants are intelligent- that's it. Beyond that, my claims that plants are not conscious are factually supported because there is no evidence to support otherwise. You are running around in circles here trying to demonstrate I am making unjustified leaps in my reasoning but as I have stated, my claims are quite conservative. You can dress it up in whatever semantics you want but you're not adding anything to the discussion. People keep bringing up this notion that if plants can be harmed as well it is equally as wrong for people to eat plants, and therefore the entire argument regarding not harming animals is rendered unpersuasive. But as I have shown that argument relies on factually false claims, no matter how much you try to save it. I don't have to claim at all that it is unequivocally true, as hardly any knowledge can meet such a standard. But my claims are reasonable, and you keep ignoring that. You need to move on from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Again, being hesitant to state that plants are conscious just goes to show that there is truth to the claim that plants are not conscious given our growing scientific knowledge regarding neurophisiology and consciousness. Responding to external stimuli can point towards there being grounds for claiming that plants are intelligent- that's it. Beyond that, my claims that plants are not conscious are factually supported because there is no evidence to support otherwise. You are running around in circles here trying to demonstrate I am making unjustified leaps in my reasoning but as I have stated, my claims are quite conservative. You can dress it up in whatever semantics you want but you're not adding anything to the discussion. People keep bringing up this notion that if plants can be harmed as well it is equally as wrong for people to eat plants, and therefore the entire argument regarding not harming animals is rendered unpersuasive. But as I have shown that argument relies on factually false claims, no matter how much you try to save it. I don't have to claim at all that it is unequivocally true, as hardly any knowledge can meet such a standard. But my claims are reasonable, and you keep ignoring that. You need to move on from this. All you've brought to the "discussion" is opinions based on assumptions. Thats all! Show me where I claimed that plants are intelligent. Guess what? It didn't happen. I claimed that we don't know. That's all! Seriously? Most facts(knowledge) can't meet the standard of being uniquivocally true. Wow!!! Did you notice the word "know" within the word knowledge. Obviously you assume that your opinion is more important than others. Key word: opinion!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 All you've brought to the "discussion" is opinions based on assumptions. Thats all! Show me where I claimed that plants are intelligent. Guess what? It didn't happen. I claimed that we don't know. That's all! Seriously? Most facts(knowledge) can't meet the standard of being uniquivocally true. Wow!!! Did you notice the word "know" within the word knowledge. Obviously you assume that your opinion is more important than others. Key word: opinion!! Like I keep saying, YOUR reading comprehension is truly horrible. I clearly stated that the article you posted and thejazz's article state there are grounds for plants being considered intelligent based on scientific research. You claim you don't know but funny enough science claims it knows enough to indicate such, even if it is still in the early stages of research. Your opinion is irrelevant unless you have something interesting to say about it. As for knowledge, I can already tell you do not know much about epistemology. Very few epistemologists would claim we have unequivocal knowledge. Science certainly doesn't believe in such because the very methodology of science i.e. inference to the best explanation entails it cannot be possible to have 100% undoubted truth. We can, however, have very strong grounds to believe things to be true such as the laws of nature etc. Maybe that is what you are trying to say but your language is not precise nor clear. My arguments contain sound premises. You haven't shown otherwise. You just keep stating the same thing over and over, filled with reasoning errors. Your arguments at a university level you would be torn to shreds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Again, being hesitant to state that plants are conscious just goes to show that there is truth to the claim that plants are not conscious given our growing scientific knowledge regarding neurophisiology and consciousness. Responding to external stimuli can point towards there being grounds for claiming that plants are intelligent- that's it. Beyond that, my claims that plants are not conscious are factually supported because there is no evidence to support otherwise. You are running around in circles here trying to demonstrate I am making unjustified leaps in my reasoning but as I have stated, my claims are quite conservative. You can dress it up in whatever semantics you want but you're not adding anything to the discussion. People keep bringing up this notion that if plants can be harmed as well it is equally as wrong for people to eat plants, and therefore the entire argument regarding not harming animals is rendered unpersuasive. But as I have shown that argument relies on factually false claims, no matter how much you try to save it. I don't have to claim at all that it is unequivocally true, as hardly any knowledge can meet such a standard. But my claims are reasonable, and you keep ignoring that. You need to move on from this. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Do you have actual evidence that plants are not conscious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Do you have actual evidence that plants are not conscious? Do you have actual evidence that there is no such thing as a flying spaghetti monster? I think you misunderstand the principle you stated. EDIT: I'll add that plants lack the neuro-physiology commonly found in conscious beings i.e. brain and accompanying neuro-physiology like nerve cells, brain stem etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Do you have actual evidence that there is no such thing as a flying spaghetti monster? I think you misunderstand the principle you stated. EDIT: I'll add that plants lack the neuro-physiology commonly found in conscious beings i.e. brain and accompanying neuro-physiology like nerve cells, brain stem etc. So you equate lack of evidence for a mythical, satirical, and supernatural being with lack of evidence for consciousness for a living, feeling being? And I'm the one misunderstanding the principle? That edit makes a good point that should have been made when you made the claim, instead of now. As it stands, you provided no factual evidence when you said, "Beyond that, my claims that plants are not conscious are factually supported because there is no evidence to support otherwise." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Frk Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 You need an excuse to eat meat? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Goose Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 So you equate lack of evidence for a mythical, satirical, and supernatural being with lack of evidence for consciousness for a living, feeling being? And I'm the one misunderstanding the principle? That edit makes a good point that should have been made when you made the claim, instead of now. As it stands, you provided no factual evidence when you said, "Beyond that, my claims that plants are not conscious are factually supported because there is no evidence to support otherwise." Well for starters, I keep referencing the quoted articles that plants don't feel, because 'feeling' presupposes consciousness. Plants are living things yes, but they don't feel. I didn't think I would have to state basic neuro-physiology but point taken. This discussion already requires too much talk on my part, so I try to limit it where I think I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I have to raise a question, growing up on a farm I understand that many of the current cattle have been selectively breed and are basically domesticated. If we were to stop eating cattle, when then happens to the cattle? Do you think they'd all just move on out to the mountains and survive on their own. The Belgium Blue and some types of Dairy cows would then become extinct as they need assistance when calving. I can't speak for the big feedlots but with most small ranchers who have less than 200 head, they treat these animals as if they are they own pets. It's not like they live a bad life. In fact a lot of the ranchers have names for their cattle and have a relationship with them to the point where they understand the traits of certain cows. If they are sick, they are cared for, during calving season (in the middle of winter) were out in the field checking every hour to make sure they are ok. They are protected from predators and giving large grasslands for an abundance of food, then at the end of their lives they are harvested and taken as humanly as possible. As yes growing up in a small community in alberta I also fish and hunt. Nothing is better than eating a fresh fish I caught less than an hour earlier. And honestly with hunting, it plays a important part of wildlife conservation. Tags are given out each year to help maintain animal life. For example white tail deer breed like crazy and our are voracious eaters, and given the chance, an overpopulation of them could strip a forest bare and this would have negative affect on Mule deer, rabbits and other types of animal. Increase birth rate also creates increase death rate, which feeds more food for predator animals, like coyotes, wolves and cougars. Once the predator population expands too much they start to move into towns and feed on human garbage and small pets like cats and dogs. Hunting not only allows people to eat the cleanest cuts of meat, it also plays an important role at maintaining control in our small environment where humans and animals have to try co exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 It's odd because humans have survived with meat in their diet for millennia. Just like the urge to procreate, we have an innate urge for satisfying food. I see so many vegan cookbooks trying to make veggie dishes resemble real food (tofu burger, lettuce pizza or whatever).Deep down, you vegans want that burger, or maybe a rib steak, all marbled and juicy with sear marks on top...delicious. A big boat of gravy made from au jus pours onto a giant pile of pan-fried pork rib chops, with a side of bacon on a plate made from beef jerky. As you look about, chicken wings rain down all around you, plump and savory, all different flavors. ..tex mex, Buffalo, Chipotle Barbecue, teriyaki. A whiff of smoked beef brisket envelops your nostrils, as you spin around to find a large smoker filled with fleshy goodness. You pile the tender, flavourful brisket onto your jerky plate, on top of your burger, bacon, steak and gravy -soaked pork chops. You ready your knife and fork and engage in a food filled orgy that would leave Larry Flynt guilt stricken. After the food climax has ended, you engage in sensual pillow talk with the Chipotle chicken wings, letting them know that after 15 minutes and a date with the restroom, you'll be ready for round 2.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Been Vegeterian since 2002, never going back. All your excuses of eating meat is garbage, and unjustified, just finding reasons to eat meat. That's fine. All,of you will regret eating meat. Trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desiboynux4lifee******* Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Been Vegeterian since 2002, never going back. All your excuses of eating meat is garbage, and unjustified, just finding reasons to eat meat. That's fine. All,of you will regret eating meat. Trust me. Look I'm willing to stop eating meat, but can you give me some decent meals that can give me decent amount of protein. I need about 100-190 grams of protein a day. I'm starting to feel bad when I eat meat, for example, yesterday I had fried chicken and didn't even enjoy it as much. If you can give me some decent meals that are good and full of protein that would be good because I also want to be vegeterian but I need my protein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Building Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Look I'm willing to stop eating meat, but can you give me some decent meals that can give me decent amount of protein. I need about 100-190 grams of protein a day. I'm starting to feel bad when I eat meat, for example, yesterday I had fried chicken and didn't even enjoy it as much. If you can give me some decent meals that are good and full of protein that would be good because I also want to be vegeterian but I need my protein. Focus on grains/legumes that are complete proteins. Keyword complete. http://greatist.com/health/complete-vegetarian-proteins I cook like a badass, so never bothered to look at the recipes and as such, can't comment on them, BUT the page has a list of complete proteins that your body can absorb properly. Incomplete protein (food without all/most of the essential amino acids that comprise protein) leaves you feeling hungry (unless you get the other amino acids from something else) because your digestive system spends so much energy trying to break it down into something useable and without the amino acids it won't fully get there. I eat lots of hemp hearts, amaranth, quinoa, freekeh, chickpeas, and nuts, myself. When I'm not eating smoked chicken wings, bacon, elk, venison, moose, or beef, that is. I feel pretty damn alright when I restrict the amount of meat I eat, but every so often I need pork ribs and a whole roasted turkey. It just tastes good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.