Philosophy Discussion Forums

It might be a good idea to keep in mind that the brain is a secondary organ in serves to the body, and that the body created the mind, the mind did not create the body. If anyone knows or believes in body consciousness, then it should not be difficult to understand that pain and suffering can register on many levels, without the use of a brain. if a single cell has consciousness, which it indeed does, how much more intriguing that its organelles might also have consciousness. Fungi apparently also serve as a communication network between the trees of the forest, we live in a much more wonderus world then a conservative outlook might imagine. The question, do plants deserve a moral status as an animal, should be rephrased to, do all life forms deserve a moral standing, Something comes to mind, morality is in causing the lessening of suffering in the world, intentionally causing suffering is necessarily evil.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑November 3rd, 2020, 10:41 pm It might be a good idea to keep in mind that the brain is a secondary organ in serves to the body, and that the body created the mind, the mind did not create the body. If anyone knows or believes in body consciousness, then it should not be difficult to understand that pain and suffering can register on many levels, without the use of a brain. if a single cell has consciousness, which it indeed does, how much more intriguing that its organelles might also have consciousness. Fungi apparently also serve as a communication network between the trees of the forest, we live in a much more wonderus world then a conservative outlook might imagine. The question, do plants deserve a moral status as an animal, should be rephrased to, do all life forms deserve a moral standing, Something comes to mind, morality is in causing the lessening of suffering in the world, intentionally causing suffering is necessarily evil.

Yes, the brain evolved to protect the fundamental essence of the organism - the digestive system. Then again, the digestive system evolved to help out the circulatory system, which evolved to aid respiration< which appears to be the fundamental action of life - remaining in constant, cycling contact with the environment. They all are, really, just that each process cycles a different volume at a different rate.

I expect that cellular consciousness would be orders of magnitude less vivid and complex than our waking states - like the difference between seeing the Mona Lisa or a rough, grey smudge that may be an object. While we cannot know exactly how much other entities experience, we can make relative assumptions. We expect that a pig will feel more than a lizard, which will feel more than a beetle. A beetle will feel more than earthworm, which will feel more than fungi and plants. And since someone has to die for us to live, it might as well be those that feel and know the least. So poor old plants and microbes are at the bottom of the chain and, not coincidentally, much larger kingdoms (in biomass) than animals and fungi.

As things stand, most plants have no moral status at all, no more than pebbles. I am personally a prolific serial killer of all manner of weeds in my garden. Not to mention the cockroaches, (some) spiders, files and mosquitoes that end their short lives under the Hand (or Sandal) of Doom. Yet, I am compelled to kill to save my other plants, protect my food supplies and reduce the chance of beasties crawling on me at night. This does not include all the species killed or displaced by my consumption.

"Born into sin", they said. No doubt. Only if we (or our successors) transcend biology, will existence become potentially victimless again, as it was before the advent of sensation.

Greta, Your a sick puppy, a killer, you certainly would not be mistaken for a Jain. I remember Joseph Campbell saying one time, that with the process of life lives upon life, that nothing is really happening, accept its painful. I guess that's true, its an endless cycle, life maintaining life by consuming itself, the snake consuming its own tail. I wonder if consciousness did not arise when the basic elements of the primordial pool became scarce to none existent, that would make hunger the reactionary birth of consciousness, seek and consume. Its funny that in the larger picture of nature, there is no morality, but within groups of organisms it does arise, a reaction to the harsh indifference of nature. As Heraclitus once said, "To God all things are right and good, only to man, some things are and some things are not.''

popeye1945 wrote: ↑November 6th, 2020, 1:26 amI wonder if consciousness did not arise when the basic elements of the primordial pool became scarce to non existent, that would make hunger the reactionary birth of consciousness, seek and consume.

Perhaps it started with the Great Oxygenation Event, which not only wiped out most species at the time, but made multicellular life possible. Perhaps it's the close bonding and close communications of cells bound in a single organism that is the germ of consciousness?

popeye1945 wrote: ↑November 6th, 2020, 1:26 amIt's funny that in the larger picture of nature, there is no morality, but within groups of organisms it does arise, a reaction to the harsh indifference of nature. As Heraclitus once said, "To God all things are right and good, only to man, some things are and some things are not.''

There are different goods and ills. The sense of individual good or ill must be pretty well universal, eg. to a rabbit, heads of lettuce are good and wolves are bad. Then there are social goods and ills, agreed by the group either as a matter of course or, in the case of modern humans, design*.

Ultimately, any suggestion that we should consider plants in a moral sense will be met with ridicule by many. As a human, it is so easy to be arrogant, to forget that we stand on the shoulders of the giants of yesteryear, whose smarts and courage have so empowered us.


* Whether humans are the architects of their systems, or if exigencies are, is debatable.

Interesting, do you think perhaps, consciousness did not arise until there arose symbiosis, that would make cooperation, assimilation the mother of consciousness.

"There are different goods and ills.'' Yes biology determines all meaning, different biology different meaning

''Any suggestion that we should consider plants in a moral sense will be meet with ridicule.'' Our passed ignorance, and that our ignorance was made concrete, through ignorance being made sacred in a great many human spiritual, read religious traditions, has assured that ignorance and arrogance always play a role.

''Whether humans are the architects of their systems, or if exigencies are is debatable.'' Well if your talking about biological systems, I don't think there is any doubt that the changing physical world is the architect. If your talking about systems which fall under the definition of biological extensions then the physical world is only, indirectly the architect.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑November 6th, 2020, 8:20 am Interesting, do you think perhaps, consciousness did not arise until there arose symbiosis, that would make cooperation, assimilation the mother of consciousness.

''Whether humans are the architects of their systems, or if exigencies are is debatable.'' Well if you're talking about biological systems, I don't think there is any doubt that the changing physical world is the architect. If you're talking about systems which fall under the definition of biological extensions then the physical world is only, indirectly the architect.

I don't have an answer for your first question, popeye. As far as I can tell, communication between cells seems important for consciousness. General consensus is that a single neuron is not conscious. Or at least not so in the usual sense of the word.

My sense is that humanity is being lead by the nose by the environment. Societies that grew in crowded places with much internal competition completely overran more laid-back indigenous societies. So, it is impossible for humans to ever enjoy their dream of living in a gentle, relaxed society because a more battle-hardened state will step in to take control over what they would perceive the be a state with a soft underbelly.

So it is impossible for humans to devise large societies where most people are relaxed and happy; progress is largely driven by pain, stress and struggle. It appears to me that humans are pawns of the planet, agents of biosphere change with delusions of grandeur :)

Greta wrote: ↑November 6th, 2020, 7:00 pm My sense is that humanity is being lead by the nose by the environment.

My sense is that the environment is being lead by the nose (to the slaughter,) by humanity.

'I don't have an answer for your first question, popeye. As far as I can tell, communication between cells seems important for consciousness. General consensus is that a single neuron is not conscious. Or at least not so in the usual sense of the word.

My sense is that humanity is being lead by the nose by the environment. Societies that grew in crowded places with much internal competition completely overran more laid-back indigenous societies. So, it is impossible for humans to ever enjoy their dream of living in a gentle, relaxed society because a more battle-hardened state will step in to take control over what they would perceive the be a state with a soft underbelly.

So it is impossible for humans to devise large societies where most people are relaxed and happy; progress is largely driven by pain, stress and struggle. It appears to me that humans are pawns of the planet, agents of biosphere change with delusions of grandeur

Hi Greta, Well don't think anyone has the answer, but wonder ranges freely. Biologically of course life is ever linked to a changing environment, if evolution had a fixed aim it could never adapt to an ever changing physical world. It does seem that humanity has a jackal and hide nature, at present it does not have self-control, and in the absence of self-control it has no control. We do, or perhaps we will in future, have the ability to alter our own natures in order to live my sanely. We first have to discard the mythologies/religions of the past, and place ever more value upon reason.

My sense is that the environment is being lead by the nose (to the slaughter,) by humanity.

Pattern Chaser, Your point is well taken, I believe however that it would take us off in another direction. Perhaps not, the concern for the status of living things might be a symptom of the wretched state of the environment due to humanities thoughtlessness.

Pattern-chaser wrote:My sense is that the environment is being lead by the nose (to the slaughter,) by humanity.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 8:49 am Pattern Chaser, Your point is well taken, I believe however that it would take us off in another direction. Perhaps not, the concern for the status of living things might be a symptom of the wretched state of the environment due to humanities thoughtlessness.

I agree with your last sentence. The way we treat the environment is surely influenced by our attitude toward the natural world. We use it, instead of sharing it with our fellow creatures. That we have to wonder whether we should treat plants decently is, as you say, symptomatic of all our problems.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑November 8th, 2020, 8:49 am

My sense is that the environment is being lead by the nose (to the slaughter,) by humanity.

Pattern Chaser, Your point is well taken, I believe however that it would take us off in another direction. Perhaps not, the concern for the status of living things might be a symptom of the wretched state of the environment due to humanities thoughtlessness.

Is it thoughtlessness? You have societies that have been built and powered with fossil fuels for many decades. So, naturally, fossil fuel companies will be amongst the largest and most influential entities in society. And their shareholders do not want to lose productivity from their legacy power stations while they are still functional. Selfish? Yes. Inevitable? Perhaps. But thoughtless? Often not. Those at the top have calculated that climate change and extinctions may be a disaster for most people, their families and friends should insulated enough to weather almost any storm. People who love technology and socialising, and who don't care for animals and nature, would be perfectly happy living in a protected synthetic environment, as long as it has all the mod cons, shopping and entertainment.

The fault line between urbanisation (new nature) and natural systems (old nature) will no doubt widen. Once ecosystems and societies are decimated, with the only civilisations being small, largely automated communities, the thread's question will be moot. I expect they will adopt Asimov's solution with the fictional planet, Trantor, which was completely developed and its denizens lived on foods originally comprising microscopic fungi and other microbes.

At that point, at least, people will be eating ethically, given that care for microbes is clearly a bridge too far (except tardigrades, of course ;)

Whatever the concerns of the elite, matters little. The environment is a condition, one organisms have been in sink with, but change is happening to fast environmentally, the world will go on, but without us. The fact that population control has been discussed here on this site, is of little to no significance, when you hear it coming from the governments of the world, then there may be a chance, but it just isn't happening, and I fear won't. In steps mother nature, not nice to **** with mother nature.

The concerns of the elite *are* the concerns of the human race. The rest of us and our genetic lines are doomed - for all the reasons you mentioned. All the nice animals die first. What will remain will mostly be cockroaches, rats, germs, billionaires and their machines.

Greta wrote: ↑November 9th, 2020, 3:57 pm The concerns of the elite *are* the concerns of the human race. The rest of us and our genetic lines are doomed - for all the reasons you mentioned. All the nice animals die first. What will remain will mostly be cockroaches, rats, germs, billionaires and their machines.

Greta, Do you believe that if the collective does have a mind, that it is of this elite? This is where pressure need be applied if that is the case. They then need to have their world rocked for them, quite literally.

Because I value consciousness and plants are not conscious, in my opinion they don't deserve moral status "equal" to that of animals.