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

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern Chaser. a most impressive post.

...as my understand stands now, I don't think there is any reason that being a reactionary creature violates the universal balance. Think about it for a moment, subject and object can never be separated, object being the fuel of the mind, and in order to move without, one must be moved within. One must be motivated, which makes it reaction. Evolutionary biology works because organisms react to the changing physical world. Reaction is how we participate in the indivisable world/universe.The minds object is the body, the bodies object is the physical world as object, reaction is the process.

My point is that the universe is one thing, not a collection of distinct parts. I understand your points too, I think, and I wonder if we can come to agreement if we think of human activities as "interaction", rather than "reaction"? "Interaction" seems to me to convey a more useful understanding, no?

[popeye1945]

Patten Chaser, You may be right, give me sometime to be with it?

[Pattern-chaser]

Patten Chaser, You may be right, give me sometime to be with it?

[Belindi]

Belindi, This is not at all a good argument against organisms being re-active creatures. The fact that humanity has the above qualities is not in dispute. If one is to move without, one must be moved within first, be motivated, to be motivated is to define the movement re-action.

What I wrote was insufficient.

I believe in the ecologically- necessary psychological role of emotions i.e. the interactions of endocrine and neural biochemicals with the rest of the organism, and that with the organism's environment.I am enough of a scientific pantheist also to revere all this ecology. Humans would not be viable without emotions.

It is also a fact of nature that men can look at ourselves in mirrors and in multiple mirrors of history, literature and other arts, and the human and natural sciences. Other animals and plants can't do so. The ethic I extract from that fact is Aristotelian in that humans should be all they can be, and the converse of "all they can be" in the case of humans is ignorance of mens' potential to grow in knowledge , judgement, and insight. Knowledge, judgement, and insight are more than reactive they are cerebral. Relatively human cerebration has relative correlates in the human brain.

[Pattern-chaser]

Patten Chaser, You may be right, give me sometime to be with it?

I've been thinking (always a bad sign!). I can see humans as being reactive in the chemical sense, at least. In chemistry, a reactive substance is one that is active, likely to interact with its local environment, rather than to remain passive, as an inert material would do. In this sense, I can see humans as reactive...?

[popeye1945]

When considering health too, it becomes interesting. Sickness shows to a remarkable degree that reaction process is the cause of most problems. When one elemates factors like old age where things just wearout, or physical injury, blunt force, getting cut etc. All the rest involve the introduction of an alien chemical or forgein organism. The organism upon incorporating said alien chemical/organism reacts with it's immune system. Actually I am unsure if the immune system actually reacts to chemical poisoning, but the body at large certainly does. So most all our physical threats are these things that trigger reaction in the form of disease/illness, and hopefully the immune system. So undoubtedly in this sense we are reactive creatures, as reaction defense, or simply dieing.

[Inquinsitive_mind]

Considering that pain is an emotion that is related to the concept 'self', it may be logical that plants are capable of experiencing something within the scope of the meaning of pain when it is said that plants are conscious creatures that can think and form meaningful relations with animals. The presence of the concept 'self' is evident when it is proven that plants can talk.

There are several studies that claim to prove that plants feel pain.

Plants communicate distress using their own kind of nervous system
link

Plants’ Response To Being Eaten Is Very Similar To Our Response To Pain, Researchers Prove
link

Do Plants Have Something To Say?
link

Pain is an emotion that follows valuing of "good" per se in relation to a 'self'. It may be that the 'self' of certain plants resides within a complex system consisting of many individual entities. Perhaps individual blades of grass perceive the value of existence in the health of a bigger whole (e.g. a field of grass). If a horse walks on grass, blades of grass that are destroyed may not experience pain. But perhaps they do in events that could damage the health of the whole of which each individual blade of grass is a part.

I agree, yet disagree with this sentiment. As plants do not have pain receptors, they cannot experience pain in the same way that we understand it. I think the concept of pain as you mention above is more similar to the idea of self-preservation or self-defense, rather than an emotion. I do not believe that plants are capable of an emotional response and the "pain" that they exhibit is more of a physiological or natural response.

It is a fact that plants are organisms, as it is a fact that an innate characteristic of all organisms is reproduction. If a plant is killed, it cannot reproduce and spread its genes to other plants of the same species, resulting in a lack of environmental diversity. To prevent this from happening, I believe these expressions of "pain" that we observe in plants is simply a defense mechanism. Therefore, I would venture to say that, no they do not experience pain (as an emotional response), however, do respond to threatening stimuli by way of complex communication from within the plant itself.

[psyreporter]

I agree, yet disagree with this sentiment. As plants do not have pain receptors, they cannot experience pain in the same way that we understand it. I think the concept of pain as you mention above is more similar to the idea of self-preservation or self-defense, rather than an emotion. I do not believe that plants are capable of an emotional response and the "pain" that they exhibit is more of a physiological or natural response.

It is a fact that plants are organisms, as it is a fact that an innate characteristic of all organisms is reproduction. If a plant is killed, it cannot reproduce and spread its genes to other plants of the same species, resulting in a lack of environmental diversity. To prevent this from happening, I believe these expressions of "pain" that we observe in plants is simply a defense mechanism. Therefore, I would venture to say that, no they do not experience pain (as an emotional response), however, do respond to threatening stimuli by way of complex communication from within the plant itself.

I do not believe that it is valid to consider that what humans can 'see' as a pain expression in plants, is merely a 'mechanism'. It would be similar to René Descartes's argument that pain expression in animals is merely a 'mechanism'.

René Descartes: "animals have no mind, torture them all you want"
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16997

One could wonder: how is it possible that a profound philosopher (the father of 'modern philosophy') perceived pain expression in animals as a 'mechanism'? It may be evidence that an empirical perspective is not likely to be able to provide a valid ground for the determination of actual significance of pain expression.

Perhaps one should consider the question "why do plants exist?". From such a perspective, that which provides significance to the concept pain in animals may be applicable for plants in a similar manner.

Evidence for the physiological foundation for plant neurobiology is only recently discovered (in the past years).

(2019) Researchers: Yes, Plants Have Nervous Systems Too
The really remarkable part is that “these channels are activated by extracellular glutamate, a well-known mammalian neurotransmitter”. “Faster than can be explained by diffusion” means that the transmission appears to be a signal.
https://mindmatters.ai/2019/04/research ... stems-too/

(2018) Do Plants Behave Like Animals?
There’s no doubt that plants do some amazing things. When being eaten by caterpillars, cotton plants release signals that attract insect-eating parasitic wasps to attack the caterpillars. Bean plants in close proximity to each other communicate if one is under attack.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2 ... imals.html

[Inquinsitive_mind]

I agree, yet disagree with this sentiment. As plants do not have pain receptors, they cannot experience pain in the same way that we understand it. I think the concept of pain as you mention above is more similar to the idea of self-preservation or self-defense, rather than an emotion. I do not believe that plants are capable of an emotional response and the "pain" that they exhibit is more of a physiological or natural response.

It is a fact that plants are organisms, as it is a fact that an innate characteristic of all organisms is reproduction. If a plant is killed, it cannot reproduce and spread its genes to other plants of the same species, resulting in a lack of environmental diversity. To prevent this from happening, I believe these expressions of "pain" that we observe in plants is simply a defense mechanism. Therefore, I would venture to say that, no they do not experience pain (as an emotional response), however, do respond to threatening stimuli by way of complex communication from within the plant itself.

I do not believe that it is valid to consider that what humans can 'see' as a pain expression in plants, is merely a 'mechanism'. It would be similar to René Descartes's argument that pain expression in animals is merely a 'mechanism'.

René Descartes: "animals have no mind, torture them all you want"
link

One could wonder: how is it possible that a profound philosopher (the father of 'modern philosophy') perceived pain expression in animals as a 'mechanism'? It may be evidence that an empirical perspective is not likely to be able to provide a valid ground for the determination of actual significance of pain expression.

Perhaps one should consider the question "why do plants exist?". From such a perspective, that which provides significance to the concept pain in animals may be applicable for plants in a similar manner.

Evidence for the physiological foundation for plant neurobiology is only recently discovered (in the past years).

(2019) Researchers: Yes, Plants Have Nervous Systems Too
The really remarkable part is that “these channels are activated by extracellular glutamate, a well-known mammalian neurotransmitter”. “Faster than can be explained by diffusion” means that the transmission appears to be a signal.
link
(2018) Do Plants Behave Like Animals?
There’s no doubt that plants do some amazing things. When being eaten by caterpillars, cotton plants release signals that attract insect-eating parasitic wasps to attack the caterpillars. Bean plants in close proximity to each other communicate if one is under attack.
link

You claim that plants' sense of pain cannot be reduced to simply a biological mechanism, however, two of the articles you provided describe the biological mechanism that occurs when part of a plant senses danger. The ideas of René Descartes are outdated, as these ideas were articulated in the 1600s. Today, we know that most animals are sentient beings who sense pain in a way that is similar to how humans experience pain, through pain receptors.

As I am new to the forum, I do not know how to attach links (the web page will not let me post a reply containing a URL), however, Britannica published an article written by Melissa Petruzzello entitled "Do Plants Feel Pain?". This article describes that plants do not sense pain in the way that we understand it. Some examples provided in the article include uprooting a carrot or trimming a hedge. Do you believe that this causes physical pain to the plant in the same way that you would feel pain if I were to cut off one of your limbs? Or if I were to remove a limb from an animal, such as a dog? If yes, then I would say that the current science surrounding the issue contradicts that belief, as plants have no pain receptors, no brain, no nerves. If no, then I would say that we have reached an agreement on the issue considering what type of pain plants experience.

If plants do not have experience the same excruciatingly negative feelings that we humans associate with pain, then the only other explanation for what pain plants experience, would be a biological mechanism to prevent the death of the overall plant or other plants in the same area. One excerpt from the article named above reads, "While this remarkable response is initiated by physical damage, the electrical warning signal is not equivalent to a pain signal, and we should not anthropomorphize an injured plant as a plant in pain.". I think this excerpt sums up the idea of the claim that I am making, that is, plants can sense damage, and interpret that damage as negative. However, that does not necessarily translate to pain, as we have defined it, or as we experience it as humans and animals.

Furthermore, I think it is important to consider that there are some organisms that are classified as animals, which to our current scientific knowledge are non-sentient and do not experience pain as humans or other sentient-animals do. These include animals lacking a central nervous system, i.e. sponges, hydras, anemones, and coral. I think it is an interesting question to consider whether or not these organisms should deserve a moral status equal to other sentient organisms.

[Pattern-chaser]

I agree, yet disagree with this sentiment. As plants do not have pain receptors, they cannot experience pain in the same way that we understand it.

I've asked this in this topic before, but I wonder why we focus so much on our human ability to feel pain, when the topic is aimed at plants' "moral status"? How does the ability to feel pain (or not) contribute to moral status? Especially as plants are able to detect and respond to physical damage, even though we don't understand that ability as 'feeling pain'? Why must this human-centric concept be applied to non-humans? Does (can?) that lead to understanding, and thereby "moral status"?

[LuckyR]

I agree, yet disagree with this sentiment. As plants do not have pain receptors, they cannot experience pain in the same way that we understand it.

I've asked this in this topic before, but I wonder why we focus so much on our human ability to feel pain, when the topic is aimed at plants' "moral status"? How does the ability to feel pain (or not) contribute to moral status? Especially as plants are able to detect and respond to physical damage, even though we don't understand that ability as 'feeling pain'? Why must this human-centric concept be applied to non-humans? Does (can?) that lead to understanding, and thereby "moral status"?

Great point, there are people who have the inability to feel pain, who lead perfectly normal moral lives.

[Inquinsitive_mind]

I agree, yet disagree with this sentiment. As plants do not have pain receptors, they cannot experience pain in the same way that we understand it.

I've asked this in this topic before, but I wonder why we focus so much on our human ability to feel pain, when the topic is aimed at plants' "moral status"? How does the ability to feel pain (or not) contribute to moral status? Especially as plants are able to detect and respond to physical damage, even though we don't understand that ability as 'feeling pain'? Why must this human-centric concept be applied to non-humans? Does (can?) that lead to understanding, and thereby "moral status"?

I wasn’t necessarily answering the question posed, more so responding to another who had a different perspective on plant pain. Personally, I don’t really vibe with the question of whether or not plants deserve the same moral status as animals. But I thought someone’s response to the question was interesting and wanted to have a sort of subdiscussion of certain aspects that they included in their response. If you read it, you would have realized that.

[Pattern-chaser]

I wasn’t necessarily answering the question posed, more so responding to another who had a different perspective on plant pain.

Yes, but why focus on pain when the topic aims us toward moral status? How does the former contribute to the latter?

[Sy Borg]

I wasn’t necessarily answering the question posed, more so responding to another who had a different perspective on plant pain.

Yes, but why focus on pain when the topic aims us toward moral status? How does the former contribute to the latter?

Does morality exist without suffering?

[Pattern-chaser]

I wasn’t necessarily answering the question posed, more so responding to another who had a different perspective on plant pain.

Yes, but why focus on pain when the topic aims us toward moral status? How does the former contribute to the latter?

Does morality exist without suffering?

I assume you intend pain and suffering as synonyms, so you're asking whether morality is a sort of judgement on a negative experience? Or maybe a code of practice that, if followed, might allow us to avoid pain? Is that your intended meaning?