Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

I was actually considering using the word "sympathy" rather than "empathy". Still, I would argue that the former stems from the latter, that the concepts are more similar than they are different.

In the end, our impulse is towards protecting that which takes much time and trouble to emerge, grow or produce, as opposed to that which is common, invasive or cynically created. However, when it comes to food and resources, our sympathies give way to pragmatism.

[psyreporter]

The first article is simply about the well-known fact that gut flora have a big influence on things like serotonin levels, which obviously affect mood.

The second article is simply about cells adaptively responding to environmental factors. That article is using "memory" in a metaphorical sense with respect to mentality.

The link was to an article on BBC about the effects of bacteria on mental health relative to food.

The following article on NYT claims that bacteria are controlling the brain:

Germs in Your Gut Are Talking to Your Brain. Scientists Want to Know What They’re Saying.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/heal ... entia.html

When your gut bacteria talk, your brain listens and replies
https://massivesci.com/articles/tedmed- ... ia-autism/

The bacteria are controlling a complex human animal brain and provide "gut-feelings" or "gut-instincts" that humans use to make their most complex decisions in life.

[psyreporter]

Further to Marvin's post, if we do not kill, then we will die, to be replaced by an entity that has no qualms about killing.

The proto-consciousness experienced by plants and simple animals will not produce the kind of emotional affects that are important when considering the ethics of killing. As things stand, we humans are often so self-absorbed that we cannot even empathise with pigs, cattle, sheep and chickens - all intelligent, sensitive species that suffer similarly to human children. Given the situation, with most human societies supplying most of their meat needs with ruthlessly cruel containment and slaughter factories, plants don't stand any chance of mustering empathy.

Life is incredibly tough, a fact disguised by our ability insulate ourselves from the worst of it with "civilisation". It's not just humans, of course. All species are utterly ruthless when it come to feeding and protecting themselves and their young. Plants too. So often you can see them locked in their slow motion wrestles for the sunniest spot, and each "combatant" will be trying to take every last bit of sun, not caring at all if it kills its neighbour.

We dream of a kinder world that is, at best, still a long way off.

An individual fight to survive that could result in what can be indicated as ruthlessness towards others does not imply that it is Nature's end or that it is the reality of Nature.

Plants show moral behaviour. When their mycelium network is developed, plants instruct fellow plants where to grow so to prevent the sunlight struggle that you mentioned.

Trees Talk to Each Other in a Language We Can Learn

Science had always believed that trees competed with each other for carbon, sunlight, water and nutrients.

Simard’s groundbreaking work showed that trees are interdependent and cooperative, in fact they are immersed in deep relationships with each other.

Source: https://upliftconnect.com/trees-talk-to ... can-learn/

Plants also transfer food to their neighbours when they experience a shortage. Baby trees receive food so that they can grow to sunlight.

In some cases, plants which are located far away from each other can exchange nutrients via the fungal network that connects them underground. In temperate forests, young trees benefit from the ability of older (and taller) ones to reach up to sunlight; so much so that up to 40% of their carbon can come from their grown-up neighbours’ photosynthesis⁵ via the fungal wood wide web.

It is clear evidence that plants are not ruthless in their fight for sunlight as you indicated. They do not intend to 'kill' their neighbours. Plants are part of Nature and together they are involved in a fight to survive. Some do not make it and some species destroy others but plants do help each other out to perform the best that they can. They do not 'kill' by the essence of their being.

Is civilisation merely a disguise? Or is it evidence of human intentions (morality) of which it can be stated that it deserves realization and advancement so to enable humans to prosper?

[psyreporter]

The following shows why morality for plants could be important:

Mother trees transfer wisdom through mycelium network

Ecology professor Suzanne Simard’s research has important environmental implications for the destruction of our forests. She says that when mother trees are injured or dying, they send their wisdom onto the next generation, but they can’t do this is if they are all wiped out at the same time. She hopes that her research will change the way we practice forestry.

Prof. Simard says trees have a sophisticated and interconnected social network existing underground.

A world of infinite, biological pathways that connect trees and allow them to communicate, and allow the forest to behave as if it’s a single organism.

Her 30 years of research in Canadian forests have led to an astounding discovery: trees talk, communicating often and over vast distances. Trees are social creatures that are much more like humans that you may think.

https://upliftconnect.com/trees-talk-to ... can-learn/

According to the professor, plants are more like humans than many people think.

[Terrapin Station]

The link was to an article on BBC about the effects of bacteria on mental health relative to food.

The following article on NYT claims that bacteria are controlling the brain:

Germs in Your Gut Are Talking to Your Brain. Scientists Want to Know What They’re Saying.



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/heal ... entia.html

When your gut bacteria talk, your brain listens and replies
https://massivesci.com/articles/tedmed- ... ia-autism/

Once again, that's simply an article about how gut flora influence chemicals, proteins etc. in the brain. It's not actually claiming that anything outside of the brain amounts to mentality.

[Sy Borg]

It is clear evidence that plants are not ruthless in their fight for sunlight as you indicated. They do not intend to 'kill' their neighbours. Plants are part of Nature and together they are involved in a fight to survive. Some do not make it and some species destroy others but plants do help each other out to perform the best that they can. They do not 'kill' by the essence of their being.

Is civilisation merely a disguise? Or is it evidence of human intentions (morality) of which it can be stated that it deserves realization and advancement so to enable humans to prosper?

Whatever cooperation plants get up to, they are still largely ruthless. Certainly the weeds in my yard are.

Civilisation is a respite, a bubble in which we can insulate ourselves from most dangers. I would rather live in civilisation, with all its flaws, than in the wild.

[Pattern-chaser]

I've been thinking about this topic, and the questions it raises. More specifically, I've been wondering about what lies behind these questions.

The questions seemed relevant considering publications by professors that argued that plants are essentially "slow animals". It may be important that philosophy explores passable roads in front of the tide.

Agreed. Was this ever in question?

A basis of respect or morality may be vital for plants to prosper.

Too complicated, perhaps? What plants need to thrive is for us to leave them and their habitats alone. Morality is a human thing, which dictates (or at least influences) how humans will treat them. All the plants themselves need is to be left alone. Where's the issue?

[psyreporter]

The questions seemed relevant considering publications by professors that argued that plants are essentially "slow animals". It may be important that philosophy explores passable roads in front of the tide.

Agreed. Was this ever in question?

The topic simply provides an option to discuss whether plant morality is applicable.

Too complicated, perhaps? What plants need to thrive is for us to leave them and their habitats alone. Morality is a human thing, which dictates (or at least influences) how humans will treat them. All the plants themselves need is to be left alone. Where's the issue?

Plants provide food so it would not be an option to leave plants alone. Plants are a part of the human environment, thereby morality as a human concept is applicable to plants if there are arguments by which it can be considered that morality is applicable for plants.

The research by professor Suzanne Simard shows an example why morality may be important. She claims that mother trees "talk" and pass their wisdom to younger trees and based on that information she argues for morality in forestry.

Mother trees transfer wisdom through mycelium network

Ecology professor Suzanne Simard’s research has important environmental implications for the destruction of our forests. She says that when mother trees are injured or dying, they send their wisdom onto the next generation, but they can’t do this is if they are all wiped out at the same time. She hopes that her research will change the way we practice forestry.

Her research and personal advocacy may have a certain effect in society. However, to truly derive meaningful effects for human progress it may be essential that such arguments are explored by philosophy.

[psyreporter]

The following article confirms what was mentioned in the OP with regard to information about plant intelligence and consciousness to not find ground with many people. Both vegans and animal right activists are not motivated to take it up for plants.

Philosopher: Plants are conscious creatures that should be eaten with respect

Philosopher Michael Marder, a research professor at the University of the Basque Country, has called for “more respectful treatment of the flora” through his books Plant-Thinking and the forthcoming The Philosopher’s Plant.

His claim that a plant is an “intelligent, social, complex being” has been contested by some biologists, but a stronger reaction has come from animal-rights activists who fear their cause is undermined by extending a duty of respect to plants.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980

Instead of protecting plants, as it appears, animal right activists use their anger to attempt to suppress information that could show that plants are intelligent creatures similar to animals.

Vegans are inclined to ignore and suppress the information as well.

[Sculptor1]

The following article confirms what was mentioned in the OP with regard to information about plant intelligence and consciousness to not find ground with many people. Both vegans and animal right activists are not motivated to take it up for plants.

Philosopher: Plants are conscious creatures that should be eaten with respect

Philosopher Michael Marder, a research professor at the University of the Basque Country, has called for “more respectful treatment of the flora” through his books Plant-Thinking and the forthcoming The Philosopher’s Plant.

His claim that a plant is an “intelligent, social, complex being” has been contested by some biologists, but a stronger reaction has come from animal-rights activists who fear their cause is undermined by extending a duty of respect to plants.

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980

Instead of protecting plants, as it appears, animal right activists use their anger to attempt to suppress information that could show that plants are intelligent creatures similar to animals.

Vegans are inclined to ignore and suppress the information as well.

Marder is not a scientist.
Plants are not conscious.
Marder is just a very naughty boy

[Consul]

So-called plant intelligence is "competence without comprehension" (Dennett). Plants have various behavioral/functional competences or capacities resulting in biological fitness, but there is no mental intelligence or mental experience involved. Their lives and behaviors turn out to be fascinatingly complex on closer scientific scrutiny, but they mustn't be romanticized, because plants are nonetheless "living robots" (Dennett), nonfeeling and nonthinking living beings. There is nothing it is like to be a plant!

QUOTE>
"Competence without comprehension is Nature’s way, both in its methods of R&D [Research and Development] and in its smallest, simplest products, the brilliantly designed motor proteins, proofreading enzymes, antibodies, and the cells they animate. What about multicellular organisms? When does comprehension emerge? Plants, from tiny weeds to giant redwood trees, exhibit many apparently clever competences, tricking insects, birds, and other animals into helping them reproduce, forming useful alliances with symbionts, detecting precious water sources, tracking the sun, and protecting themselves from various predators (herbivores and parasites). It has even been argued (…) that some species of plants can warn nearby kin of impending predation by wafting distress signals downwind when attacked, permitting those that receive the signals to heighten their defense mechanisms in anticipation, raising their toxicity or generating odors that either repel the predators or lure symbionts that repel the predators. These responses unfold so slowly that they are hard to see as proper behaviors without the benefit of timelapse photography, but, like the microscopic behaviors of single cells, they have clear rationales that need not be understood by the actors.

Here we see emerging something like a double standard of attribution. It is well-nigh impossible to describe and explain these organized-processes-in-time without calling them behaviors and explaining them the way we explain our own behaviors, by citing reasons and assuming that they are guided by something like perceptual monitoring, the intake of information that triggers, modulates, and terminates the responses. And when we do this, we seem to be attributing not just competence but also the comprehension that—in us—“normally goes with” such behavioral competence. We are anthropomorphizing the plants and the bacteria in order to understand them. This is not an intellectual sin. We are right to call their actions behaviors, to attribute these competences to the organisms, to explain their existence by citing the rationales that account for the benefits derived from these competences by the organisms in their “struggle” for survival. We are right, I am saying, to adopt what I call the intentional stance. The only mistake lies in attributing comprehension to the organism or to its parts. In the case of plants and microbes, fortunately, common sense intervenes to block that attribution. It is easy enough to understand how their competence can be provided by the machinery without any mentality intruding at all.

Let’s say that organisms that have spectacular competences without any need for comprehension of their rationales are gifted. They are the beneficiaries of talents bestowed on them, and these talents are not products of their own individual investigation and practice. You might even say they are blessed with these gifts, not from God, of course, but from evolution by natural selection. If our imaginations need a crutch, we can rely on the obsolescing stereotype of the robot as a mindless mechanism: plants don’t have understanding; they’re living robots. (…)

While we’re on this topic, it’s interesting to recall that in the twentieth century one of the most popular objections to GOFAI [Good Old-Fashioned AI] was this:

The so-called intelligence in these programs is really just the intelligence—the understanding—of the programmers. The programs don’t understand anything!

I am adopting and adapting that theme but not granting understanding (yet) to anyone or anything:

The so-called intelligence in trees and sponges and insects is not theirs; they are just brilliantly designed to make smart moves at the right time, and while the design is brilliant, the designer is as uncomprehending as they are."

(Dennett, Daniel C. From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2017. pp. 84-6)
<QUOTE

[Sy Borg]

Dan D is far from my favourite philosopher. Once again, living things are being described as "machines" and "programmed". It seems that some observers take those metaphors too seriously. Obviously, no matter how machinelike an organism may seem to us humans, it is not a machine, but an entity with its own particular needs.

Of course, if we are to fuss over the minimalist, at best, sensations of simple organisms, then we are not going to be able to do much in life. In fact, how would we reconcile the act that our macrophages kill countless bacteria, fungi and viruses every day?

[Consul]

Dan D is far from my favourite philosopher. Once again, living things are being described as "machines" and "programmed". It seems that some observers take those metaphors too seriously. Obviously, no matter how machinelike an organism may seem to us humans, it is not a machine, but an entity with its own particular needs.

Any organism has needs with regard to its survival and reproduction, but it doesn't follow that it isn't a living machine.

There's a robotic, subconsciously operating "automatic pilot" or "zombie-within" (Ullin Place) in us, our minds&brains too.

As for the concept of a machine, whether living organisms, including ourselves, can properly be called machines depends on how broadly or narrowly that concept is defined. On the one hand the OED defines it as "a structure of any kind, material or immaterial", and on the other hand it defines it as "a combination of parts moving mechanically, as contrasted with a being having life, consciousness and will."

In 1748 La Mettrie's book L'Homme Machine was published:

QUOTE>
"The human body is a machine which winds itself up, a living picture of perpetual motion."
(p. 7)

"But since all the soul's faculties depend so much on the specific organisation of the brain and of the whole body that they are clearly nothing but that very organisation, the machine is perfectly explained!"
(p. 26)

"To be a machine and to feel, to think and to be able to distinguish right from wrong, like blue from yellow – in a word to be born with intelligence and a sure instinct for morality and to be only an animal – are thus things which are no more contradictory than to be an ape or a parrot and to be able to give oneself pleasure. … I believe thought to be so little incompatible with organised matter that it seems to be one of its properties, like electricity, motive power, impenetrability, extension, etc."
(p. 35)

(La Mettrie, Julien Offray de. "Machine Man." 1748. In Machine Man and Other Writings, translated and edited by Ann Thomson, 1-40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.)
<QUOTE

[Sy Borg]

Dan D is far from my favourite philosopher. Once again, living things are being described as "machines" and "programmed". It seems that some observers take those metaphors too seriously. Obviously, no matter how machinelike an organism may seem to us humans, it is not a machine, but an entity with its own particular needs.

Any organism has needs with regard to its survival and reproduction, but it doesn't follow that it isn't a living machine.

There's a robotic, subconsciously operating "automatic pilot" or "zombie-within" (Ullin Place) in us, our minds&brains too.

As for the concept of a machine, whether living organisms, including ourselves, can properly be called machines depends on how broadly or narrowly that concept is defined. On the one hand the OED defines it as "a structure of any kind, material or immaterial", and on the other hand it defines it as "a combination of parts moving mechanically, as contrasted with a being having life, consciousness and will."

In 1748 La Mettrie's book L'Homme Machine was published:

QUOTE>
"The human body is a machine which winds itself up, a living picture of perpetual motion."
(p. 7)

"But since all the soul's faculties depend so much on the specific organisation of the brain and of the whole body that they are clearly nothing but that very organisation, the machine is perfectly explained!"
(p. 26)

"To be a machine and to feel, to think and to be able to distinguish right from wrong, like blue from yellow – in a word to be born with intelligence and a sure instinct for morality and to be only an animal – are thus things which are no more contradictory than to be an ape or a parrot and to be able to give oneself pleasure. … I believe thought to be so little incompatible with organised matter that it seems to be one of its properties, like electricity, motive power, impenetrability, extension, etc."
(p. 35)

(La Mettrie, Julien Offray de. "Machine Man." 1748. In Machine Man and Other Writings, translated and edited by Ann Thomson, 1-40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.)
<QUOTE

If a plant is a machine, then so are we, in which case everything is a machine, so the notion of living things as machines ultimately lacks meaning. It's a convenient shorthand for predictable processes.

[Consul]

If a plant is a machine, then so are we, in which case everything is a machine, so the notion of living things as machines ultimately lacks meaning. It's a convenient shorthand for predictable processes.

All machines are (mereologically) nonsimple, i.e. complex, composite/compund, objects; so all (mereologically) simple objects are not machines, which means that not everything is a machine. Jack Smart writes that "man is a physical mechanism", with "mechanism" and "machine" being related etymologically. Machines and mechanisms are systems, i.e. complexes or structures of spatiotemporally and causally-functionally interrelated elements. A paradigmatic traditional example of a machine is a clock, but it can be structurally and functionally different from and much more complicated than a clock—which a living organism certainly is. The word "machine" does have the strong connotation "artificial object", so we hesitate to apply it to natural objects.

Mechanisms in Science: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-mechanisms/

The authors draw the following distinction between machines and mechanisms:

QUOTE>
"Not all mechanisms are machines. Machines are human-made contrivances with each part added and organized by a designer to perform a function; biological and social mechanisms, in contrast, are products of evolution, broadly construed (Darden 2006), and so display ornate forms of organization in comparison with contrivances. One machine might contain multiple mechanisms (a car, for example, has mechanisms for braking, propulsion, playing music and climate control). Machines are also capable of being both active and passive (a stopped clock is still a machine); mechanisms, in contrast, have a productive aspect and are always doing something."
<QUOTE