/sci/ - Science & Math

You would need a non-scientific definition of "suffer" to conclude that plants suffer. Plants lack a central nervous system, which means that plants suffer about as much as rocks.

Plants don't feel pain.

>which means that plants suffer about as much as rocks
Unless rocks react, express different genes and release specific volatile products, etc when they're wounded, I beg to differ.

>>2575919
And rocks will roll down a hill when you push them, and respond to other stimulus according to the laws of physics just as a plant would. Got a point?

>>2575919
When my tire's punctured, it releases a foam sealant that serves as a temporary patch. Does my tire suffer?

non-conscious entities cannot "suffer".

>>2575901
>>2575906
>>2575917
>>2575924
>>2575919
I hate this thread already.

>>2575937
Ok?

>>2575932
>>2575924
Unless you eat rocks and tires, your opinions are irrelevant.

>>2575940
What? Why do I need to eat rocks to determine that rocks suffer about as much as plants? I don't follow your logic at all.

>>2575946
Neither do I follow yours.

>>2575919
not to metion they release gas when somthing is eating there leaves to tell other near by plants to start producing posion

saying that you need a central nervous system to suffer, is like saying you need alarms to have fire

>>2575954
Ok. Let me rephrase my point. The only sensible definition for suffering of which I'm aware requires a theory of mind. The evidence available to us says that minds are the result of physical processes in brains. Plants have no brains, and thus they have no minds, and thus they don't suffer.

Just like rocks do not have brains, and thus rocks do not have minds, and thus rocks do not suffer.

>>2575958
No, you need alarms to have alarms. Pain is a state of a nervous system, not physical damage itself.

Seriously, vegetarians have a very skewed view of reality. It is a serious double standard that SOME life is worth protecting but not others.

>>2575968
Jellyfishes don't have brains. So it's fine if you eat them if you're vegetarian for ethical reasons?

>>2575978

pain != suffering. pain is an alarm for suffering. suffering is immediate threats to survival.

>>2575987
I don't know. I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't think that they really have a well known code of conduct besides "Don't eat animals of certain taxonomies".

>>2575987
By "brain", I meant nervous system of some kind. Again, minds are the results of nervous systems, and only minds can suffer. At least under my world view that's how it works.

>>2575992
>pain is an alarm for suffering. suffering is immediate threats to survival.
LOL
Pretty sure that "suffering" is just "feeling pain".

>>2576002
Sponges don't have nervous systems. So it's fine if you eat them if you're vegetarian for ethical reasons?

>>2576006
Again:
>I don't know. I'm not a vegetarian, and I don't think that they really have a well known code of conduct besides "Don't eat animals of certain taxonomies".

>>2575992
Yes plants can suffer from diseases. No one cares about that definition of suffering. My performance reviews can suffer as well when I neglect to show up to work. No one cares about that definition. The definition we care about here is
>feel pain or be in pain
That is the definition of suffer that we want to use here.

>>2576006

>>2575987
vegetarian here, fraking stupid ass titles, and I am okay with eating a jelly fish.
But I only do for ethical and economics reason.

>Why are you vegetarian?
>Because animals suffer!
>So?
>MONSTER! FASCIST NAZI! NAZI! EVIL EVIL!!

not a vegfag but the only reason i'm considering making the change is because i have seen how much food is required to give me energy vs just eating 200 kg of soy a day that gives me the same energy.
the only reason i haven't made the switch is because i am human and i need certain vitamins to survive

>>2576022

why? says who?

if somebody told me i was going to die a painless death in three months, i would certainly suffer far more during those three months.

in no way is physical pain equivalent to suffering

>>2576032
What should the punishment be for killing and eating animals? And wouldn't it be unfair to not punish all forms of life for not abiding by this rule? I mean when a dog kills a person we put it down. So your ethics would mean an end to all carnivorous life on earth!!!

>>2576040
Agreed. A mind is required, though. And a nervous system or something like that is required for a mind.

>>2576021
Well thanks, Mr. Scientist.

>>2576040
..... and?
Pain is still a state of the nervous system.

>>2575901

>>2576040
Yes lets all pretend that mental and emotional pain doesn't exist. No where in that definition did it say PHYSICAL pain.

And its from wordnetweb.princeton.edu

>>2576040
>if somebody told me i was going to die a painless death in three months, i would certainly suffer far more during those three months.
You would? I wouldn't. Maybe you should come to terms with your mortality, you insufferable child.

>>2576050

again, why? plants certainly "try" to survive as much as humans do. they put everything they have into survival. you're overcomplicating things with anthropomorphic unscientific terms like "mind"

>>2576068
>you're overcomplicating things with anthropomorphic unscientific terms like "mind"
Get the fuck out.

plants don't have a fucking nervous system or brain. You're a fucking retard, I'm guessing you think each individual cell in your body has feelings too?

>>2576068
>claim plants suffer
>accuse others of anthropomorphizing

>mfw people are arguing over this shit, when its clear that in the bible animals and plants are soulless automatons that the Lord gave us dominion over for our own use

>>2576068
No, theory of mind is quite scientific. You can pass the Turing test. A dog could pass its own version of the Turing test. A plant could not. It possesses none of the observable aspects of a mind. Moreover, as it lacks any of the physical components which is apparently required to have mind, it's safe to conclude scientifically that plants have no mind.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/01/13/crazy-chlorophyll-using-sea-slug-is-part-animal
-part-plant/

What now plant fags?

>>2576079

>the theory of mind is quite scientific

lolno. look at what you're writing. turing test? really?

>>2576079
>a dog could pass the turing test

how about fucking no.

Scientist, get the fuck out of /sci/. It's clear you're still in high school

>>2576089
0/10 get out
You seriously going to keep claiming that it is reasonable to talk about the "mind" of a plant?

The person you were talking to probably was vegetarian due to the emotional connection she/he has has with animals. It's similar as to why some people would have no problem shooting a rock but a problem with shooting a deer which is likely able to convey emotions and distress with its physical features, has offspring which it may leave behind or not be able to take care of and the overall the chilling appearance a lifeless body.

Regardless OP, you're either immature or emotionally detached with people to get angry over other people's choices in life which have little to no bearing on yours. Part of being a good person is tolerating (using it loosely here, since the standard of it is so low here) others, and all you've done is bring up the same old flawed argument with little thought, perspective and originality; how mediocre of you.

>>2576093
It's own version of the Turing test, if you read the post.

>>2576093
I said very clearly "A dog could pass its own version of the Turing test." You misquoted me.

>>2576095

I'm claiming it isn't reasonable to talk about a "mind" at all.

>>2576112
And that's just silly. I have nothing more to say to such a ridiculous nihilist or troll.

>>2576112
>I'm claiming it isn't reasonable to talk about a "mind" at all.
AND YET HERE WE ARE, ARGUING ON 4CHAN

>>2576112
10/10
Congratulations, you have trolled me.

>>2576117

then define it, moron

also, you missed my point completely about turing tests. a turing test is in no way a measure of a mind. you think that a computer that could pass the turing test would actually have a human mind? wat?

>>2576126
>you think that a computer that could pass the turing test would actually have a human mind?
That's the fucking point of the test. I agree that it's a flawed test, but god damn. YES. I would agree that anything that can convince me it has a mind has a mind.

The way to think about it is to ask why animals feel pain or suffer. The answer is to modify their behavior or learn. The way you know that is the reason is that you know that that's the selective advantage incurred by these capacities. Evolution favored the animals who felt pain (because they changed their behavior to avoid harm) or who suffered (because they learned to avoid the cause of it). Plants neither learn nor have behavior. Thus, pain and suffering would incur no selective advantage. But plants are the product of evolution. Thus, plants do not suffer or feel pain.

If I didn't eat the animals they wouldn't have had a purpose to experience life anyway, at least livestock.