canuckistani

Yes.

Lol. The science you don’t understand is gibberish ?? The authors word say plants are capable of cognitive function. Proof is provided, no amount of vegan denial will change the facts. Sure. Except in this case we didn’t program it, thus we are not cognizant of what mental states it possesses or not. If a car dropped from space that shows avoidance behavior, we cannot say it’s programmed behavior. They make claim to cognitive abilities. Which satisfies the point. You cant if you do t understand the science as you said. The simple logic that in food scarcity scenario those who can digest the widest spectrum of food have highest survivsbility. Current extinction modelling predicts the same. I have said it many times. A species has the right to exist as it is in evolved behavior. It’s ethical for a species to be what they are universally capable of and/or universally behave as. Your limited information based ethics cannot make natural reality unethical without divine invocation, period. Kant understood this, you don’t.

I can speak for my species when we have mass data, thank you very much. If you empathize equally with animals as human, that is clinically anomalous behavior and not empathy. You cannot empathize more with creatures you relate less with, as empathy is relatability. It’s another word you are looking for.

Says the greatest troll of all. I am flattered.

I am denying the notion that confirmation bias based on instinct for species closer to us in relatability is a moral benchmark. It isn’t, it’s bias.

Respectfully still means below a human. We empathize more with humans, humans offer us more value as beings and all species are biassed in favour of their own. All this means humans should give humans more rights than other species....which we do.

It’s based on thinking your culture is the best. Not that your culture sucks at abc and mine at xyz.

Exact same signal response overrides your mental state bias which is again a vertibral bias. You simp,y have no concept of what controls an experiment has. Irrelvant. We care for a behavior. If a being behaves with empathy, jealousy and sadness, it’s behavior determines such action, aka output. Not what you think it’s brain is or isn’t or looks like. Unless the cells themselves feel in these cases. You cannot be judge of this, because you do not understand the science I am citing. But it’s expected standard religious science denial from you. I just wrecked vegan morals. Since violence is not always a present behavior, it’s not always ethical. Violence can be ethical. Evolved behavior is ethical because a species has the right to be as is, which overrides one individuals view of what it should or shouldn’t be based on personal bias and limited info. Inferior is a material judgement. We have decisive proof of the last three major extinction events being easiest on omnivores. Ergo, it’s superior diet. Appeal to nature is superior morality than appeal to senses of one individual of one species amongst billions. Nature overrides you because you are limited. What exists in nature has a right to exist as is.

Animals have less rights than people. Difference is what you quoted, victims are people, what I quoted, you are just Messi g with people’s fun for what you think are animal victims.

Yep I would. But people deserve greater rights than animals because people are more capable and thus valuable than animals 1vs1 and every species is positively biased towards its own members, hence it’s justified.

I am not advocating for outlawing a behavior based on my anecdotal experience, as you alleged. I am asking for something to be outlawed where people are victims. Not cultural concepts of whether animals are victims or if they are, if we should care or not. People and animals don’t have the same right and it’s silly to argue they should.

They do because their responses say they do. End of story. PTSD is a phenomenal conscious experience and they show symptoms of it just like animals do, including entire bandwidth. They do, hence they respond to pain just like cows do by seeking avoidance. False. You are showing your vegan religious colours again. I’ve cited this multiple times and you’ve shown ignorance of this specific part of the debate multiple times. Disingenuous religious behavior yet again. Again, how would you know ?? You are dodging this simple question: how do you judge if I understand signal processing or not, when you are illiterate on the topic yourself ?? And all human evolved behavior that pertains to basics of life, is by default ethical. A creature has right to continue it’s evolved basic existence. Irrelevant. We digest meat better than we do plants. Plant based diet is also not required. We have decisive evolutionary and biological proof of creatures losing abilities they do not use anymore. We may thrive, we may evolve with plant based diet, but if we stop eating meat, it’s matter of time before we cannot digest meat. Which would be decisively inferior outcome for our species as we are omnivores, which is superior survivsbility to either carnivore or herbivore diet. We again have decisive proof of this from fossil records. What is a creatures basic evolved response towards basic ingredients of life: food, sex, raising the young: they are by default ethical for that creature. For a creature has the right to exist as is, as evolved. What is evolved behavor cannot be immoral, when it’s species wide behavior. To say so, is to use Christianic original sin argument.

Undeserved reputation, since we are not very tolerant. You only tolerate what you don’t like.

Depends on what the abuse was. My culture is far more into tolerance while yours is into moral crusading. That’s why your culture struggles so much opposing viewpoints.

Morals are for you to live by, not to impose on others. Especially when it comes to non human interactions.

Billions do. It’s called the non crusader mentality of ‘ If you don’t like it, don’t do it. But don’t stop others from doing it just coz you don’t like it’.

Lit does only if you partake. So your feelings should get to control others behavior ? Slippery slope indeed. You don’t get to outlaw things for others just because you don’t like them. That’s imposition not tolerance. Then stop trying to tell others what they can or cannot do. Difference is, i am not advocating for outlawing any such behavior. I am pointing out what is wrong and if people listen, good. If they don’t, no big deal. It’s not my kids who are at risk or my marriage. You on the other hand, want to impose what you believe on others as a matter of law. Not live and let live at all. More like crusading against others choice.

Sure. All it means is they are similar to us. Not that those who are not similar to us are less conscious. Thats not confirmation of consciousness, that’s just confirmation of similarity to us. Consciousness is a behavior. Not organ response. Otherwise, a perfectly concious AI will not be concious for lacking organ response. It does prevent us from making any specific observations. All we know is cows don’t like to be burnt. Neither do plants. They both respond with defence mechanisms they are capable of. One being more like us in heir response nature doesn’t make them more concious. No it isn’t. Otherwise a fish is just as concious as a cat, a mollusk is just as concious as us. Consciousness is a spectrum not a discrete function. Then your objections to plant consciousness is nulllified because your decisions on why they are not concious is organ response based. How would you know this ? Are your trained or trained or educated in signal analysis ? Do you know what constitutes a conscious signal output vs programmed response output ? Seems to me you are dismissing a sophisticated field of science because it doesn’t suit your view and yet you know virtually nothing of it. Nope. I am simply explaining the science behind the research to you. As far as I am concerned I don’t have to reach on anything. My premise was plants have consciousness and I have proven my premise with the highest burden of proof possible: citing the actual peer reviewed paper itself and not some magazine article. That’s just your opinion and not science. You are again trying to judge a method-signal processing - which you yourself are completely ignorant of. This is called being disingenuous. In science, the observable data overrides hypothesis. Observable data shows us that PTSD response in mustard plant follows the exact same PTSD parameter of a traumatized goat. That fact overrides any ‘supposed to or not’ speculations. This is rich, considering you are self admittedly not in a position to understand and thus evaluate the science. Since you are not familiar with the science you are simply not in a position to extrapolate from the data given. Which is why it seems like stretching the truth. Irrelevant. How we have evolved, by default is ethical as it’s illogical to say an evolutionary process sans divine judgement is unethical. There is no basis to the idea that an evolved idea is unethical, unless you wish to contend that you know better than evolutionary response....it presupposes that a species is fundamentally flawed or wrong, which is effectively an original sin argument: something that even atheist western philosophies are infected by due to the Christian base of the society. The justification isn’t self sustainance, the justification is two fold: an evolved species wide response cannot be unethical as any evolved response in nature,by default, is ethical for said creature. For two, it’s survival justification. We have decisive proof that omnivory is decisively superior evolution response than either obligate carnivore or herbivore diet. We also have decisive proof that species lose ability over somethign when they give up on that something. Ergo, long term veganism is decisively inferior evolutionary step for our species and evolutinary regression. Ergo unsupportable. Evolution does not require justification. What is, is. Existence by default is the dominant position over what can or may exist. Technically GMO is not unnatural, it’s sped up cross breeding in evolutionary timeframes. GMO foods also exist to serve a purpose, not advocated as replacement of the natural species. Which is exactly what GMO regulations exist to address. But veganism pretends to supplant what naturally exists. Ergo, bad analogy. I do get it. What I get is, you think your ideas are better than the response we have evolved. Which is laughable and nothing more than original sin argument. A species’ universal response towards the basic behavior of life, as defined by food, mating and child raising habits are by default ethical for that species. It’s ethical for an omnivore to eat omnivore diet, it’s ethical for a species that kicks out its newborn to struggle on their own to do so, it’s ethical for ducks to procreate by raping each other. The fundamental basis of ethics is not imposing arbitrary values over those that are proven, tried and tested evolutionary response. it is ethically permissible for any species to behave in the way they have evolved to behave. Arguing otherwise is end game argument of original sin or ‘fallen’ or ‘always flawed’ nature, all of which require a divine agency to override evolved response. If you are into divinity, that’s consistent rationale. If you are not, then it’s logically inconsistent and egoistic to think you know better than evolutionary response, when science is still uncovering reasons for said evolved behavior.

But WHY would you want something changed that others don’t agree with you on and which doesn’t impact you or them ?? That’s my question. Why do you think it’s right to get something banned for others, when there isn’t a decisive agreement on whether it has a victim or not in the first place. Isn’t that seeking to impose your opinions on others ?? Sure. But many don’t see its uncaring to tie a horse to a wagon and get it prancing around or jump hurdles on its back. If you do, great. Don’t partake. But why do you think it’s right for you to try and impose your views on such personal concepts like compassion, caring etc. On others ?? Live and let live. Not crusade for what you think right.

Except for one or two specific instances, like spearing bulls or wrestling them, people do not all think it’s cruel or inhumane. So why should you get to change everyone’s culture because of your opinion on cruelty or inhumanity? You don’t like it, don’t partake in it. But if others think it’s not cruel, let them continue.

Nope, never. I have simply maintained our unique and incomparable position in consciousness to any other known lifeform on a purely cognitive comparability basis. This is not a ‘ first amongst equals’ line of reasoning, it’s ‘species x cannot compare its consciousness to any other species on the basis of lacking conclusive communication TO species studies consciousness to ever say with decisive confirmation the nature of consciousness’. in simple terms, we cannot say for certain if burning a goat makes the goat feel burning the same way we do or if it’s a stabbing pain. We guess on that count and it’s largely a practically irrelevant point to any but the issue of confirmatory consciousness. And your argument was summarily dismissed due to lacking a basic form of scientific control. You cannot cite superior consciousness based on organs response, when consciousness itself is not tied to those organ responses. Ie, you cannot use ‘ it twitches it’s eyes and looks at me lovingly when pet’ to compare consciousness response with a being LACKING EYES as a physiology. The only rational scientific control, as mentioned in the article and which you are completely unable to grasp, is evaluation of consciousness on the basis of signal response analysis. Ie, if the responses it is capable of, is showing organized, conscious thought pattern, then that and that alone is the basis of consciousness appraisal. On this facet, plants show remarkable conscious response. So much so that cutting edge research is linking it with a remarkable synaptic mimicry facilitates by a complex network of roots and fungi on the roots. Clearly, you have zilch comprehension of the scientific discussion on consciousness and are simply stuck in the confirmatory bias of ‘ no eyes, no twitch, no, salivation,no locomotion equals no consciousness’. You are mistaken. The paper said what I said above. It won’t give you the answer you seek because a being like a plant cannot show the same ‘ oh $&!# swish away to bad stuff or release perfume bomb to animal that is saying loving things’ because it is not thst sort of lifeform. consciousness requires a species wide control. The only control, as the article state, barring direct communication , is signal response analysis. Aka McKlintock’s smart cell. As I said, please science more. See above. I am dismissing your objections to a scientific peer reviewed paper on plant intelligence because your objections stem mostly from lack of basic scientific education on how to set up controls to a said experiment. Clearly, you have never researched a serious scientific project akin to a thesis defence or self directed grad studies in pure sciences. In such, you become very familiar with the concepts of controls to an experiment that makes the experiment scientifically valid. Neurophysiology of intelligence is limited by mathematical constrains to beings possessing neurons. It’s inapplicable to machine learning, never mind other beings. Signal theory isn’t yadda yadda, it’s the universal benchmark of discerning if output is intelligent, self aware, repeater, random noise, etc. It’s data analysis that you clearly have no idea, is the most sophisticated benchmark in and of itself of consciousness of lack of, of a signal. Again, just because you are ignorant of those scientific concepts, doesn’t mean your two bit memorization of a few philosophy courses is overriding to the scientific reality. You seem so, because you are simply not familiar or strong enough in mathematics to represent reasoning mathematically and verify. Hence you are stuck in the ‘ memorized theories and intuitive loop’ of thinking. It’s okay, I hurt your feelings by citing peer reviewed paper that’s two years old on plant intelligence. It wrecks your vegan religion, so it’s no different than science denial of religious people. I get it. Conciosness or lack of it, is based on displayed response. Source of displayed response, as in AI does not need to be a brain or CPU. distributed signal processing is older than CPU tech btw. Nope. See above. It’s observers bias using observers physiological parameters that’s not valid to non veribral consciousness. If your signal response matches to PTSD, you got PTSD. Same stimuli pattern customized to species yields PTSD. Whether it’s human, cow or mustard plant. Reason to is not because we know how it percieves the world. But because it’s similar enough to us for us to make observational guesses that make sense to us. 3 year olds get upset equally when their pet fish or cat get distressed, not more so for the cat because it’s way smarter and cognitive, but because both have eyes, skin, ears, howl, etc. A cat in pain shows far more relatable benchmarks of pain than a fish. Yet my daughter mourned their deaths the same as a kid of 4. This is the basis of empathy: like life forms. Not nonsense about consciousness or ability to feel. If that’s the case people with crazy parents would empathize more with empathy than their parents. Yet they don’t. Empathy is based on your ability to relate to a life on instinct, not a rational decision based on complexity of the lifeform. You are just mad because I cited science, told you the science and you don’t get the science and get lost in the science stated. It’s ok. This isn’t about you only. This is expose of vegan nonsense for others. PS: I see you pretty rapidly dropped the whole optimal eco friendly ness of veganism vs optimized omnivory. I guess you found out the data and math to that is pretty elementary once you look up the nitrification of manure vs compost.... PPS: arguing that it’s immoral for a species to eat something that it biologically evolved to eat, without a divine writ against said diet, is a remarkable logical own-goal in itself. If there is no God, it cannot be morally wrong for any creature, including us, to exist in its most fundamental form of life, which is self sustainance. Ergo, it cannot be immoral for an evolving lifeform to eat something that it has evolved eating, on a moral basis alone. That’s pretty much saying your ideology is directly superior to objective material evidence. But that’s a whole another gamut of ethics.

But why pill ? What’s wrong with suffering done to food ?? Billions of species do it every day ,the bulk majority of life does it. That is the most objective benchmark of it being perfectly natural to suffer if you are food to something. Maybe it’s a consequence of being brought up in the artificiality of western supermarket lifestyle, where you don’t get to interact with your food from its living state to its death. I am thankful my kids grew up picking the chicken they want, live and seeing it butchered in front of them, as is natural for our species since time immemorial. Maybe this is why this whole laughable ethics of slaughter mentality is seen amongst people who grow up the supermarket only lifestyle.

So because we relate to something more, it doesn’t make our responses ethicsl towards them. It makes it more biassed, that’s all. Sorry if it’s repeating myself but your post was a lil bit too short for me to fully grasp if you were agreeing or not. Plants show pain, fear etc responses too. We just don’t relate to it intuitively because they do not have hairs that stand up, eyes that go wide in shock or vocal cords that emit frequency of sound we interpret as distress. We relate more to animals and value animal suffering more not because we have evidence that animals feel more than plants ( the evidence shows that plants also feel though it’s hard to quantify which species or individual life form feels stimuli x more), but because we relate to their organ structure of eyes ears tongues etc more than species which lack all these organs.

I never for one instance said plant consciousness is comparable to humans. For the simple reason that no other species can be objectively compared to ours as we lack the basic means of communication. As for plants vs animals , I have cited actual biologists and their papers. It came as a shock to me too, but unlike you, years of science training and experience has taught me to defer to the findings and statements of scientific authorities in the field, even if it’s counter intuitive. I realize that plant cognition is counter intuitive. Many things in science are. Such as the moon drifting away from our planet and not coming closer to it ( as any standard gravitational analysis predicts). This is why you are struggling to accept this basic fact because this counter intuitive idea is also influenced by your cognitive bias towards life forms more similar to you (animals). There is no rational basis to conclude that a cow recoiling from a fire is suffering more than a plant emitting stress symptoms from fire. Empathy is irrelevant to ethics and is actually unethical in an ethical comparison, since empathy is fundamentally a case of bias. This is why we are more empathetic to the emotions of our children than a random stranger. ?? This makes no sense. Animal poop is more fertilizing than direct plant matter. It means it’s more ecologically friendly to have an animal eat the husks of corn, eat the animal and use its poop for fertilizer, than use the husks directly as fertilizer. It’s mathematically provable. Waste cellulose is any and all plant matter that herbivores can digest but we cannot. Husks,stalks, barks, leaves etc. Unlike you, I am not the kind to pass off my cognitive bias towards animals as some ethical consideration. All life is sacred and all things kill life forms to live, except for those species that eat rocks or amino acids directly. And this POV of all life being sacred, with plant life and animal life on equal footing is not just some vendetta, there are millions of people who live by this motto. They are called Jains, who have been practicing their non violence ethics for 2500 years longer than these new age vegans. The only difference between them and me, is I consider it part of the natural cycle to eat anything I am capable of digesting without presenting a biological threat to me. But carry on with your cognitive bias and newfound ideology of Veganism. It’s ethics are objectively inferior to those of the Jain ethics regarding nonviolence as well as being an immature ideology, since it hasn’t been around long enough to iron out its kinks.

Cognitive bias is not an argument for anything but cognitive bias. It’s not an argument for more or less suffering. We cannot prove that cows suffer more than mollusks or clams and if clams suffer more than corn. What we can prove is all life forms take defensive and avoidance measures toward painful experiences, thresholds of which varies from species to species.