Thread: Is suicide a cowar- should we eat meat?

Originally Posted by SKA

Plants communicate with insects by means of airborne chemicals they secrete. When attacked by caterpillars and bugs they "warn" other plants, which in turn go into defense mode (poison, close leaves, etc) or attract other animals that come to their aid by killing and eating up the bugs and caterpillars attacking the plant.

I dare a coke can to do that Sandform




I'm not saying plants are conscious in a way that is even slightly similair to human beings. I'm saying plants are likely to be very conscious beings indeed, as I pointed out the plant-communication example to strongly suggest, but could have a consciousness unimaginably different from ours, or animals who's consciousness does resemble ours.

My point being: Who the fuck are we to define the meaning of cosnciousness? And even IF we declare plants as non-conscious beings, how can we "not eat meat out of appreciation for life" and yet eat plants while plants are just another form of life, no more or less worthy of any animal? I'm saying the arguement often used why NOT to eat meat just seems very double to me, because it raises questions like these.

Plants are as concious, in whatever definition, as very simple robots or very simple machines. They are completely and clearly mechanical in a way that simply doesn't produce any conciousness in any relevant sense. My mobile phone 'warns' me when it is about to shut down when the battery is low. Does that qualify it as being equal to plants in that way?

It does, because shattering a mobile phone and cutting up some plants is equally meaningless and unimportant in the sense we are talking about.

So seriously, I know you have some sort of dogmatic post-Christian idea of nature, but you have no grounds to classify plants as any different from robots in regards to conciousness or any ('moral' or 'deserves-respect') factor. Besides the makes-a-good-salad-factor.

So. Walking Teletubbie robots capable of communication amough each other: concious YES or NO? No, and here the fallacy in your assumption that plants have any sort of concious or relevant concious-like factor.

plants are living things..robots aren't o_O

as living things, they are born, grow, make babies and die. AND they change. evolve. not need some scientist to reprogram them. comparing them to a robot is just silly. but that just shows the lack of respect people have for plant life

you should watch more plant life in fast forward motion. neither are they like rocks

I respect vegetarians and vegans and all. but I also think plants don't have half the respect as living things that they deserve. I mean. what kind of creature is man that it kills a tree just because you thought it was an ugly sight in your yard. what kind of creature is man that it decides what lives and dies based on a beauty contest. utter lack of respect for life.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Well, for one thing, ants. (coke cans attract ants)

And for another thing, chemical reactions aren't mental faculties. I guess my computer is alive also, since it reacts to stimuli.

I think you have a gross misunderstanding of plants here. "communicate with insects." They no more communicate things with insects than a hot stove communicates with a hand.


Edit: Is your body conscious because it can do stuff without your mind such as fight infection, grow skin, communicate its status by giving signs of how well it is?

I don't get it. Are you saying that chemical signals aren't communication? Are you aware that your brain operates through chemical signals not much different than plants communicating with insects, and other plants? We aren't talking about ants being attracted to sugar maple sap; plants emit specific chemicals to attract specific insects that are the predators of whatever is eating the plant, and other plants also pick up the chemical signals and start producing them as well.

What goes on in the brain that makes it different from the rest of the body, and plants?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't get it. Are you saying that chemical signals aren't communication? Are you aware that your brain operates through chemical signals not much different than plants communicating with insects, and other plants? We aren't talking about ants being attracted to sugar maple sap; plants emit specific chemicals to attract specific insects that are the predators of whatever is eating the plant, and other plants also pick up the chemical signals and start producing them as well.

What goes on in the brain that makes it different from the rest of the body, and plants?

Actually, it is quite different. One exists to facilite comprehension and thought, the other is no more unique than poprocks in your mouth.


Are you suggesting that plants have a system of information in which they can decide between a specific species of bug, and then call out for another specific species to eat it?



I think I can end the need for our conversation now with a question that, whatever your response, will prove one of two points.

1, You're willing to say or believe anything.
2, You have to agree that plants aren't conscious.

Ok so here is the question.

Is a body that is alive, but has no brain activity(or to make things hypothetically simplier, no brain at all), conscious? And btw, B.O.

Hell another question might be, is your body at this moment conscious/aware independantly of your brain?

Originally Posted by juroara

plants are living things..robots aren't o_O

as living things, they are born, grow, make babies and die. AND they change. evolve. not need some scientist to reprogram them. comparing them to a robot is just silly. but that just shows the lack of respect people have for plant life

you should watch more plant life in fast forward motion. neither are they like rocks

I respect vegetarians and vegans and all. but I also think plants don't have half the respect as living things that they deserve. I mean. what kind of creature is man that it kills a tree just because you thought it was an ugly sight in your yard. what kind of creature is man that it decides what lives and dies based on a beauty contest. utter lack of respect for life.

You have a dogmatic conception of 'living' and 'natural' and such. Read some books, by actual scientists, and you will see. You are not going to read those book, so I will just tell you:

If you actually know anything about these things, you can't contribute any special property to plants you couldn't attribute to other mechanical things, such as robots. You can make robots that evolve behavior, and given enough time, replication, by themselves.

'Challenging nature', by Lee Silver points out exactly how impossible it is to have such view of nature and not contradict yourself at some points. (It is also great at pointing out extreme inconsistencies when it comes to Bush's Bio-ethics council and what it said in regards to stem-cell research. I am saying this because some people on dreamviews that might read this actually read books by actual scientists if they want to learn something, and they might really like this book, it's great.)

Plants can't feel shit because they don't have neurons or a network similar to neurons. If people could feel shit when we take away all their neurons: Yeah, maybe plants can feel shit the same way those people feel things. But people without neurons don't feel anything at all. A cut-off arm might still move if you put 20000 volts on it, but that doesn't mean it's conscious or feels things. Plants they just do what they do because their DNA hardwired their physiology in such a way they do what they do. The fact that they are growing and reproducing doesn't change anything at all. It's extremely dogmatic and stupid to think plants have any form of feelings or consciousness. As extreme cases of 'your kind', the tree-talkers, prove hilariously.




OH SHIT I WAS WRONG TREES ARE FUCKING ALIVE!!! I'll give all my wooden furniture a proper funreal now!1!! REZPETKT THE TREES MAN!!!

No.

Originally Posted by juroara

plants are living things..robots aren't o_O

as living things, they are born, grow, make babies and die. AND they change. evolve. not need some scientist to reprogram them. comparing them to a robot is just silly. but that just shows the lack of respect people have for plant life.

Robots can create new robots. They can be built onto themselves and other robots, and can be taken apart. They can cease to exist. I think this shows a serious lack of respect for robot life.

This states the processes they are using to move towards self designing and programing robots.
Mind you not full article.

Once robots are capable of reprogramming themselves and other robots will they have consciousness, will they have "life"?

Originally Posted by Sandform

Actually, it is quite different. One exists to facilite comprehension and thought, the other is no more unique than poprocks in your mouth.


Are you suggesting that plants have a system of information in which they can decide between a specific species of bug, and then call out for another specific species to eat it?



I think I can end the need for our conversation now with a question that, whatever your response, will prove one of two points.

1, You're willing to say or believe anything.
2, You have to agree that plants aren't conscious.

Ok so here is the question.

Is a body that is alive, but has no brain activity(or to make things hypothetically simplier, no brain at all), conscious? And btw, B.O.

Hell another question might be, is your body at this moment conscious/aware independantly of your brain?

Sounds like you missed anatomy in high school. The brain is a part of the body. Show me a human body that works without a nervous system (of which the brain is a part) and then we can address your questions.

Although, I will say that it sounds like you have a need to anthropomorphize everything around you. It seems that you think consciousness is a special quality of the brain that transcends the simple electrochemical processes that it is based on, and that consciousness is only possible in the exact same way you experience it. You fail to realize that things work independently of how they relate to you, or how you relate to them.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Sounds like you missed anatomy in high school. The brain is a part of the body. Show me a human body that works without a nervous system (of which the brain is a part) and then we can address your questions.

Nice way to avoid what heart of what the question was.

That is like saying that your heart is run by your stomach since if you remove your stomach will die.

There are many systems which work independently and with each other at different times. They are not all reliant on the brain to tell them what to do. The brain can effect many of the systems, but make no mistake, the system is no more controlling the entirety of the body than the stomach is.

American meat is disgusting. Hell, in June South Korea was undergoing protests with people all up in arms wanting to overthrow their government for importing american beef.

Yeah, hot dogs.. mm, pig lips.

Did you know pigs are smarter than dogs?

I don't care if people eat meat. I think it's hypocritical as all hell to get grossed out by cultures who eat dogs when you eat pigs. Horses vs. cows, etc. etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW8qUx9oQoc

Yeah but ther are obvious reasons for a culture to decide some animals are friends, and others are food. Even if it's a random line, it's a line. No one wants to raise a dog, go broke and then eat it. There are clear cultural faux paus to prevent such things. If you raise a pig in our society, there will always be a gap in your relationship with that pig because part of you will see it and think "bacon!" Always.

And it knows, too.

Originally Posted by SKA

PS: How is it that eating plants is not murder? Hypocritical ignobles.

Originally Posted by Sandform

No, if consciousness depicts life. Plants aren't conscious, they aren't aware, they are as aware as crystals or laundry detergent. Furthermore there is no need for a stationairy "being" who does not have motor skills to have consciousness. Some plants, it is true, react to the environment, but only in the same way a coke can reacts to being put in the icebox.

If you have to be conscious to be alive, then what are plants? Plants are able to die, but since they're not conscious they're not alive, so how can they die?! :O!!!! CONSPIRACY!!!

Originally Posted by Sandform

Well yes, it is murder to KILL something that is ALIVE. But do I care? No. Murder is a part of life. The only reason I'm not disturbed by it is because animals aren't human. But if you are deluding yourself into the idea that you aren't "collaborating" in murder you are a fool.

Plants are alive, so now you believe you can murder plants? I guess so..

Originally Posted by SKA

PS: How is it that eating plants is not murder? Hypocritical ignobles.

It is murder. Taking the life of something that's living = murder, in my opinion.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How can we really know that all animals are conscious? I've never seen an animal, besides elephants, show any type of "emotion" or awareness of their own kind dead when they see them. In fact, animals aren't much aware of anything. They don't know right from wrong, and they usually aren't aware of their own kind dying (with the exception of some elephants). Has it been determined in experiments that animals are aware of themselves? Some animals may not be aware of themselves, if they weren't, then they aren't conscious. I think to be 100% conscious you have to be aware of everything, as in yourself, things around you, deaths, and more. Animals aren't usually aware of death, or much going on around them, so maybe animals aren't 100% conscious?

According to definition.com:

Concious:

1. aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. fully aware of or sensitive to something (often fol. by of): conscious of one's own faults; He wasn't conscious of the gossip about his past.
3. having the mental faculties fully active: He was conscious during the operation.
4. known to oneself; felt: conscious guilt.
5. aware of what one is doing: a conscious liar.
6. aware of oneself; self-conscious.
7. deliberate; intentional: a conscious insult; a conscious effort.
8. acutely aware of or concerned about: money-conscious; a diet-conscious society.
9. Obsolete. inwardly sensible of wrongdoing.

1. Animals are probably aware of the things mentioned, but I don't know about sensations. They're usually not aware of death.
2. They don't show remorse for killing, or show feelings towards dead, so they fail that category.
3. They do show alertness sometimes.
4. They usually have no emotions, so again I'm skeptical.
5. I doubt they're aware that much of what they're doing, they don't know right from wrong.
6. They probably are aware of themselves, but I don't know that for a fact.
7. Well, they usually kill and I'm sure they're aware that they're ripping flesh from something, but they still don't know if it's right or wrong.
8. I've never seen an animal concerned about anything, I don't see them worrying when some massive storm is coming by, or of hurricanes, etc. etc.
9. Well, as was already stated, they don't know the difference between right and wrong, so they fail.

So, animals can fit into some of the categories above, but not all, so are they in fact 100% conscious? I don't think so. I also don't see any wrong in killing things that aren't 100% conscious. Fuck animals and plants, if I want to eat one I can and will, it's not wrong to kill an animal or plant, it's called life. We're humans, we're animals in a way, we kill things to eat and live off of, the same way animals in the wild kill and eat things to live off of. It's LIFE. There's nothing wrong with eating animals or plants.

EDIT: Since alertness shows consciousness, Venus Fly Traps trap flies or other insects once it lands into the "mouth," so are Venus Fly Traps conscious now? Plants give off the chemicals once they're being attacked, so that must mean they're aware/alert of being attacked, are they conscious now?

Animals and plants can both fit into the above definitions, but I don't believe plants are conscious, and animals are barely.

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

If you have to be conscious to be alive, then what are plants? Plants are able to die, but since they're not conscious they're not alive, so how can they die?! :O!!!! CONSPIRACY!!!



Plants are alive, so now you believe you can murder plants? I guess so..

Justin, read the context of the conversation next time. "you have to be conscious to be alive" is what the other person was tauting. I was making points under his conjecture which was that in order to be alive you have to be a "living being" you had to be conscious. Plants are living things, but they aren't conscious, therefore it isn't murder to kill/destroy them. Under his conjecture in order to be called "alive" you have to have consciousness.

Don't try to pass off other peoples beliefs on to me Justin, even if you just read my quotes you would see what I was saying.

When speaking with people you have to adapt and respond in ways that their mindset can comprehend. That was what I was trying to do for SKA. By his definition life is only "consciousness" thus it is indeed murder to kill anything alive in that mindframe.

EDIT: It is only murder to kill something which is conscious. With this, under SKA's way of thinking, my opinion is that murdering is killing anything that is alive, since he says in order to be alive you have to be conscious.

Dictionary definitions in an argument = MASSIVE FAIL.

Anyway, my thoughts on consciousness:

Anything that responds to stimuli, either internal or external in origin, by processing them in a closed, connectionist network of nodes that operate chaotically and probabilistically with no predetermined pattern of results is conscious. Furthermore, more complex networks are more conscious than less complex ones.

My definition includes the entire animal kingdom, certain AI experiments, the internet, ant colonies, and plants as conscious beings. However, take note: the last few examples are conscious only as systems, not as individual parts. And a tree, although fitting my definition, by the complexity criterion is many orders of magnitude less conscious than even an ant.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Justin, read the context of the conversation next time. "you have to be conscious to be alive" is what the other person was tauting. I was making points under his conjecture which was that in order to be alive you have to be a "living being" you had to be conscious. Plants are living things, but they aren't conscious, therefore it isn't murder to kill/destroy them. Under his conjecture in order to be called "alive" you have to have consciousness.

Don't try to pass off other peoples beliefs on to me Justin, even if you just read my quotes you would see what I was saying.

When speaking with people you have to adapt and respond in ways that their mindset can comprehend. That was what I was trying to do for SKA. By his definition life is only "consciousness" thus it is indeed murder to kill anything alive in that mindframe.

EDIT: It is only murder to kill something which is conscious. With this, under SKA's way of thinking, my opinion is that murdering is killing anything that is alive, since he says in order to be alive you have to be conscious.

Hehehe, I see now. ._.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Yeah but ther are obvious reasons for a culture to decide some animals are friends, and others are food. Even if it's a random line, it's a line. No one wants to raise a dog, go broke and then eat it. There are clear cultural faux paus to prevent such things. If you raise a pig in our society, there will always be a gap in your relationship with that pig because part of you will see it and think "bacon!" Always.

And it knows, too.

woah hold up....lol

"Yeah but ther are obvious reasons for a culture to decide some animals are friends, and others are food. Even if it's a random line, it's a line."

If it's a random line, sure it's a line. But just like the lines on the map, we created them. A perfect example of how culture creates boundaries, and how ridiculous it is to assume that one 'line' is more appropriate than another.

And if you raised a pig you wouldn't see it as bacon. Just like anything else there is a steady increase of attachment through time.

Xoloitzcuintle.

What if I commit suicide, my consciousness lives on to be a plant that is eaten by a wombat and is then eaten by Neruo. Then passed on as feces that fertilizes the very plant that I once was?
It all seems very transparent to me now!

Originally Posted by Sandform

Nice way to avoid what heart of what the question was.

That is like saying that your heart is run by your stomach since if you remove your stomach will die.

There are many systems which work independently and with each other at different times. They are not all reliant on the brain to tell them what to do. The brain can effect many of the systems, but make no mistake, the system is no more controlling the entirety of the body than the stomach is.

Actually, the stomach isn't neccessarily essential to survival. A gastrectomy is either a partial or complete removal of the stomach, usually due to cancer. Even still, the heart will continue to work for several days even if the entire digestive system were to shut down completely.

Regardless though, I agree with you. The human body is a single whole, and without actually knowing for sure what causes the perception of consciousness one cannot actually say "It must be a property of the brain."

The point, however, was that you apply rigid materialistic and deterministic rules to the whole world except yourself. You see plants as mere chemical machines but fail to see that you are the same thing. Why do you think the organic machine human developed a sense of consciousness but still believe it is impossible for other organic machines to do the same? Without knowing what causes this feeling of awareness and selfhood, how can you be sure it doesn't arise under many seemingly different circumstances?

Originally Posted by Howie

What if I commit suicide, my consciousness lives on to be a plant that is eaten by a wombat and is then eaten by Neruo. Then passed on as feces that fertilizes the very plant that I once was?
It all seems very transparent to me now!

Here's a question; if you commit suicide as the plant or the wombat, is it a cowardice act or are you just a malfunctioning machine? If a human commits suicide, isn't it just malfunctioning?

Originally Posted by cacophony

I don't care if people eat meat. I think it's hypocritical as all hell to get grossed out by cultures who eat dogs when you eat pigs. Horses vs. cows, etc. etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW8qUx9oQoc

Haha those animals are getting OWNED. The guy with the cattle-gun was like "BOOM, HEADSHOT!"

Oh, and you're right that eating dogs isn't any different from eating cows.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Here's a question; if you commit suicide as the plant or the wombat, is it a cowardice act or are you just a malfunctioning machine? If a human commits suicide, isn't it just malfunctioning?

Thats a good question. I think it depends on weather or not you beleive in free will. If you don't, then yes it's just a malfunction, but if humans have free will and those other things don't then it seems to be more than that. But maybe someone in the position of commiting suicide has basically given up any will they had and just doing what they feel will end their pain. And if not a plant or wombat really can't commit suicide as they have no will. Does anyone know if animals ever do commit because of pain or some other thing?

How is suicide malfunctioing? How is living a form of functioning?

I think it's completely selfish. How many times when you hear about on the news, the victims (friends and family) say that NEVER expected it to happen. Apparently most people who commit suicide do not do all they can first before committing the act, or else you'd never be hearing about how the victims never saw it coming.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

How is suicide malfunctioing? How is living a form of functioning?

Well, if we define the machine as "a living being", any action taken by the machine that results in the end of life would be a malfunction, by the definition of the machine.

But a machine is an allomorphic life form, as in it's created... by us. Nothing created us unless you believe in a God or something, we are automorphic and therefore self made organisms. We are not technically machines, because the definition of a machine is also that it works with some purpose in mind. Therefore, you can assess whether it's functioning or not based on how it's meeting it's purpose.

If human beings have no purpose, then we have no function, and there is no difference between a broken one and a functioning one.

Also, Grasshoppa, I guess it really depends on how much you love bacon.