Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

Your definition of pain, just like Neruz's definition of nervous system (that applied only to animals) is anthropocentric. It is defined from the standpoint that we are special on the basis of implementation, rather than purpose and function. There are those who once claimed that animals were incapable of pain, practically everyone now agrees that this is not the case.

I don't think the analogy really holds, since animals feeling pain relies on the same exact mechanisms as pain in humans.

The fact of the matter is that "function" is different; there is a difference between something simply responding to a harmful stimulus in a way that benefits it, and that same thing actually being aware and conscious of it, regardless of the implementation.

[Nadaka]

The definition of awareness seems to be at odds with your stance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness

Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being aware of something. In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event.

The only aspect of that description that the more advanced plants do not match is "a human's or an animal's".

Let me ask, if there was a plant that was ambulatory and capable of speaking language and expressing its feelings in a way that we would understand, would you hold the "a human's  or an animal's" part of that definition as absolute (especially considering the definition separates humans from animals for the only possible reason to make us special)? It is arguable that there are plants more aware of injury than some primitive animals.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Im one step closer to being a vegan (shudder).  Maggarg has claimed all the chickens.....guess I shoulda seen that one coming.  *slaps self in back of head

[LegoLord]

In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event.

That one sentence renders everything before it irrelevant, due to the first three words.  The word "cognitive" suggests actual thought.  Which plants don't have.

[G-Flex]

You'd have to consider what processes are going on inside the plant, what information is being represented, and how it's treated. To suggest that what's going on there is anywhere near as complex as what's going on in a mammalian brain is ridiculous.

[Nadaka]

In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event.

That one sentence renders everything before it irrelevant, due to the first three words.  The word "cognitive" suggests actual thought.  Which plants don't have.

The first three words? " In biological psychology"? Cognition at its most basic level is the processing of information. The plants nerves provide information, its Root Apices process and respond. I have a hard time seeing how anyone could even begin to claim that isn't at its most basic level cognition.

You'd have to consider what processes are going on inside the plant, what information is being represented, and how it's treated. To suggest that what's going on there is anywhere near as complex as what's going on in a mammalian brain is ridiculous.

To suggest that pain is complex or has any origin in the mammalian brain is even more ridiculous than the strawman hypothesis you suggest. Pain is likely the most primitive sense of all in that it is an internal subset of touch, a sense that some plants definitely do have (the venus fly trap and sun dew carnivorous plants could not function without it).

I never once suggested that plants were our equal, that they compare in anyway to a human or mammals mind. I've already posted links to some of the science that backs up what I am saying. Plant neuroscience is relatively young, we don't know that much because most people can not get over how alien plants are to us to recognize that they could be more complex than a rock that happens to grow.

[Earthquake Damage]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 

[Cthulhu]

For one, smell is the most primitive sense, not touch.  I'm no neurologist, so I can't say this with any certainty, but I'm a little shaky on the whole "Pain is a subset of touch" thing too.

Anyway, a venus flytrap's mechanisms are not due to a sense of touch, any more than a mousetrap goes off because it has a sense of touch.  A venus flytrap is much more complex than a mousetrap, yes, and involves a lot of chemical and physical changes, but it's still not a voluntary nervous system response, or even a reflex.

Also, and I'm being extremely pedantic for the sake of pedantry here, carnivorous plants don't need their carnivorous parts to function.  If you plant one in soil rich in the resources they would normally gain through digesting insects, they don't grow as many traps and are otherwise fine.

[G-Flex]

I'd like to reiterate that if the ability to detect, respond (and choose how to respond) to a negative stimulus/condition is "pain", then there are brands of toasters and televisions that feel pain.

[Nadaka]

I'd like to reiterate that if the ability to detect, respond (and choose how to respond) to a negative stimulus/condition is "pain", then there are brands of toasters and televisions that feel pain.

That concept does not bother me at all. Of course, I rarely eat toasters and televisions.

[nil]

I'd like to reiterate that if the ability to detect, respond (and choose how to respond) to a negative stimulus/condition is "pain", then there are brands of toasters and televisions that feel pain.

Maybe that just means we ought to treat our toasters better

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In all seriousness, the question of what consciousness and subjective experience are and where they come from waaayy too unresolved for any of this to be much more than idle speculation.

[G-Flex]

However, if you consider the actual emotional and cognitive aspects of suffering (beyond "something bad happened and this will affect my future decisions in an extremely direct manner"), I don't think you'll see much of an analogue in plants.

[Nadaka]

However, if you consider the actual emotional and cognitive aspects of suffering (beyond "something bad happened and this will affect my future decisions in an extremely direct manner"), I don't think you'll see much of an analogue in plants.

Does a deer feel pain? I think so, if it is cut, crushed or burned it flails and writhes the same way a higher animal such as a human does. But how did that pain affect its emotional and cognitive aspect? We have absolutely no idea. Aside from people, a handful of domestic animals and higher primates we have an insufficient basis of communication and empathy to determine any kind of emotional impact. What if it was a mouse? The reaction is the same, but we have even less cues for empathy and communication. What if it was a parrot? Again, the parrot is more alien, even though we know they are sophisticated and intelligent animals, their emotional status can not be determined easily. Even further, a worm responds to "pain" the same way that the deer, mouse or parrot does. Plants are so far removed from us that they might as well be cthulhian horrors. We can not see the analogue in plants even if it was there because they are so alien that empathy and communication are impossible. The only thing we have to go on are the physical and biochemical reactions, and these are very similar to animals.

[DJ]

You'd be hard pressed to find an analogue in more primitive animals too. Where exactly do you draw the line?

[Sergius]

About pain...

You trip and hit your foot hard. Do you know that something has been damaged? Sure. There is some sort of signal that goes to the brain and informs it that a few cells have been squashed. However, no bones are broken, and there's no other major damage other than maybe a little bruise later. However, the ridiculous amount of histrionics that goes after hitting your foot aren't in any way a justified response to said damage. You'll jump, curse, roll on the ground, rub your skin vigorously, whimper, want someone to kiss it and make it better. 5 minutes after being a total wuss, you'll stand up and feel no worse for wear.

That is, in my opinion, pain. Some sort of evolved mechanism, more like a training mechanism to make you more careful in the future, than simply the knowledge that something has been hurt and that some action must be taken - seriously, there's nothing to do there except cope with a few seconds of intense pain and endeavor not to repeat it. The thing that Pavlov used to do negative conditioning and stuff.

In fact, there are many things that can kill us and in fact don't hurt a lot. I heard that getting shot by a bullet can be quite painless, because 1) the pain is too great and basically numbs itself and 2) we don't have a lot of sensory data near our major organs to know that we're dying from gunshot wounds. So we only feel pain from the ruptured skin and some of the muscles.

Just because a machine/plant receives input from some damage done to it, and makes it react in some way (that may be entirely logical if->then) doesn't translate into pain. It doesn't mean it ISN'T pain either (how can we tell? animals whine when mistreated... or sad... or whenever, really, just like people; plants don't... that's all we got for now I suppose).