ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

Hi folks, I have stumbled upon this term on google. There's a couple of entries reffering to it, but I don't really grasp the seriousness of these studies.

Is this a fringe science, or a pseudo-science?

Also, this summer, on a very heated debate on ethcics, someone referred to it. I was too gutted that I could not have an opinion on it.

If this is serious, people who use the "plants are sentient too" argument will use this more and more to try to discredit any serious AR / egualitarian reasoning, whether they're anti-vegetarian/vegan meat-eaters, meat-eating tolerant vegetarians, mystical vegans or wannabe-fruitarians, etc.

I reckon we should know about this so that it can be properly inserted into its proper context, with the right use of words such as sensitiveness, sentience, sapience, intelligence, etc.

Plants are intelligent in the same way that a computer might be described as intelligent. It has been argued that plants actively seek what's in their interest (like direct sunlight) albeit in a different (slower) timescale than ours. However, it should be pointed out that plants have no thought - no choice in the matter. If it's "in the interest" of all plants of a particular species to grow up in the direction of the sun, for instance, all plants, given the opportunity, will do so. There is no conscious thought in the process, and this is why, again - without outside interference, all such plants will grow in the direction of the sun.

As for sentience, in the way we understand its meaning, is not just stimulus response. If that were so, it could be said that all electronic devices are sentient, since if they encounter an electric short, or a huge power upsurge, they similarly "behave" erratically (or stop functioning) in a way that might seem that they "behave" this way because they feel the electric current. We of course know this is not the case. Sentience is something that evolved by natural selection because it is a valuable tool in avoiding harm. If it were not so, sentience would have most probably been selected out. And what's in it for plants if they were indeed sentient? Not much.

Simply said, sentient plants would have no Darwinian advantage over non-sentient ones. Of course, this does not show that sentience could not have evolved in plants nonetheless. It simply shows that if it did indeed evolve, it would have been a very wasteful thing to have evolved (in Darwinian terms). Natural selection usually discards wasteful mutations unless they serve some other purpose (like a peacock's wasteful tail, which, although wasteful, could have had an advantage in the case of sexual selection - females might have preferred larger tails, and so the ones with smaller tails got sexually-selected out).

Oh me, oh my. After reading the question and the subsequent response, I don't know where to begin as one educated in horticulture and botany. So perhaps I will not waste the time.

Faunus wrote:But why respond? The original poster didn't either.

Why respond? because I love reading your posts!

On the one hand, it seems like the ultimate "I'm not out to talk to you seriously, I just want to trip you up" question. But I have stumbled over it more than I would like. I know a little bit about plant physiology, but always enjoy learning more from you. You recently addressed this question in our other forum - would you be OK with just pasting some of it over here? and/or we could simply point to that thread? I can't do it at the moment, but would like to have the info easily available here, too.

My main point is always the presence of a central nervous system, with one unit processing signals and coordinating responses. In a plant, I think a lot of responses (pretty amazing ones, too!) occur at a cellular level, but there is definitely communication of the signals. When an insect chews on a leaf, don't other parts of the plant also react by releasing volatile chemicals? Does that only involve an ever-spreading circle of cell-to-cell transmissions, but not a nervous system?

anyway, I for one would love to have your input, and at the very least would like to be able to reference your earlier posts, Faunus. Is that OK?

Folks, I reckon there's a problem in this board somewhere - posts keep on disappearing and it's not the first time I see someone quote some post that is not to be found. Could anyone from the staff have a look at what's going on?
TIA

Panthera, sentience does not necessarily imply a CENTRAL nervous system. There are ganglionic nervous systems too (if anyone knows of others, please let me know!), just to let you know as I see this error quite often.

Panthera, first I want to thank you for the "Plant Brain" thread that you linked on the Vegan Forum on the main ARCO threads. That pretty much summed-up (although in technical botanical terms) what others have been talking about on other web sites. I printed it off and read it three times carefully. Personally, I do not find anything this document to be unscientific, irrational, or in anyway trying to invent a reality in the Plant Kingdom that may not possibly exist. The authors DO call for more scientific investigation into the 'brain-like' status of the root apex transition zone of higher plants. The possibility of a "diffuse brain" and "diffuse nervous system" using plant neurotransmitters to coordinate or even command very complex and sophisticated responses of a plant to its environment is quite sound. Understated, their intelligence is more than what most are willing to consider at this time.

I've noticed that people have a tendency to go to two extremes: one is that they either inappropriately project the human experience of pain, distress, and/or pleasure onto the plants, or they reduce these magnificent beings to being just computer-like things with a biochemical response to stimuli. I take the middle ground in asserting that higher plant species are indeed sentient (or have "hormonal sentience") and are undeniably intelligent. That later term does not imply the capacity to reason, understand, or have other similar mental processes of higher animals. There is a danger when some people see the terms "brain-like", "neurotransmitter-like molecule", "diffuse brain", "synapse-like cell to cell communication", etc. who are not educated in basic botany. Again, inappropriate projection may occur.

I'm being interrupted and must close for now.

Faunus

http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/viewtopic.php?search_id=1858050771&t=5463

Here's a link to the thread on the main ARCO site.

Faunus wrote:Personally, I do not find anything this document to be unscientific, irrational, or in anyway trying to invent a reality in the Plant Kingdom that may not possibly exist. The authors DO call for more scientific investigation into the 'brain-like' status of the root apex transition zone of higher plants. The possibility of a "diffuse brain" and "diffuse nervous system" using plant neurotransmitters to coordinate or even command very complex and sophisticated responses of a plant to its environment is quite sound. Understated, their intelligence is more than what most are willing to consider at this time.

I quite humbly reckon that if this is the case, then people should come up with one of either 2 solutions:
- new words to replace words like "xxxxx-like", ("brain-like", "neurotransmitter-like", etc) or
- extend the current meaning of the existing neurological jargon to embrace the phenomena observed in plants too. In other words, redefine "brain", "neurons", etc etc.
Either of these solutions will take decades of research and further decades of defending it and further decades for the new informations to start to be admitted.

I've noticed that people have a tendency to go to two extremes: one is that they either inappropriately project the human experience of pain, distress, and/or pleasure onto the plants

This isn't a problem specific to this issue, this THE problem of Science, or any other form of KNOWLEDGE. Experience is subjective, and we cannot avoid projecting our experience onto another being because what we consider to be experience is the way we experience it. To put it in other words, we cannot tell what an experience is, we only "know" what an experience is to ourselves.
The same applies to non-human animals too. We don't KNOW what goes on in a dogs head, for instances. We have some clues to it, but it's rather fuzzy and misty (still?).

But, paying careful attention to your words, what exactly are you suggesting - that plants can feel "pleasure" (meaning "some form of pleasure")?

or they reduce these magnificent beings to being just computer-like things with a biochemical response to stimuli.

It isn't necessarily reductor, or particularly incorrect to say that though.
Organized matter can react to external stimuli, so can some machines and human-made devices. But I don't think we have reasons enough to believe (yet?) that the sort of phenomena that occurs in both cases is radically different.
Like the example of dead bodies reacting to external stimuli. Are they sentient? We are entering the unknown now, where conjecture and hypothesis are the only things we can use...

I take the middle ground in asserting that higher plant species are indeed sentient (or have "hormonal sentience")

That is a very strong claim. Can you elaborate on your notion of "hormonal sentience"?

and are undeniably intelligent. That later term does not imply the capacity to reason, understand, or have other similar mental processes of higher animals.

What does it imply then? I'm curious.

There is a danger when some people see the terms "brain-like", "neurotransmitter-like molecule", "diffuse brain", "synapse-like cell to cell communication", etc. who are not educated in basic botany. Again, inappropriate projection may occur.

What exactly do you mean - that if you are educated in basic botany then it is legitimate to use those terms? I didn't seize the meaning of your statement.

kamaleon wrote:

There is a danger when some people see the terms "brain-like", "neurotransmitter-like molecule", "diffuse brain", "synapse-like cell to cell communication", etc. who are not educated in basic botany. Again, inappropriate projection may occur.

What exactly do you mean - that if you are educated in basic botany then it is legitimate to use those terms? I didn't seize the meaning of your statement.

I think what Faunus was pointing out was that such terms would mislead people who don't have a grounding in botany. For those who do have such a grounding, it would be less dangerous. Not any statement about who can legitimately use what terms, just an observation that those terms could very well mislead a lot of people.