Plants feelings
Helen
said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they were sure
they did. What do you think?
Alan Gould
<a...@efg.com.au> writes
>Recently I saw a programme about whether or not plants have feelings - some
>said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they were sure
>they did. What do you think?
>
are born, grow, feed, drink, procreate, protect themselves, age and die.
They are living beings, as are mobile creatures of the animal world.
They do not have a brain but they do have the equivalent of a nerve
system by which messages are carried between their physical parts.
In humans, feelings are seen as the operation of the nerve system in
body and mind. That makes them sentient creatures. They can observe and
communicate about the feelings of other beings, but they cannot
experience them. That has often led to a belief that such feelings do
not exist, as seen in the case of fish, animals and even other humans.
I personally think that plants do have feelings of a type, though
probably not experienced as humans feel pain or emotion.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.
Broadback
If it is ever proved that plants have feelings, and can feel pain what
on earth are veggies going to do? :-(
--
Please do not reply by Email, as all
emails to this address are automatically deleted.
Kay
>said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they were sure
>they did. What do you think?
>
>
reaction to sensory perception? Emotional response?
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"
dave @ stejonda
<w...@towill.plus.com> writes
>If it is ever proved that plants have feelings, and can feel pain what
>on earth are veggies going to do? :-(
Eat cabbages that are certified to have died a natural death.
(Who originally wrote that? - Asimov?)
--
dave @ stejonda
Bring culture back to NTL.
http://www.performance-channel.com/
Kay
<w...@towill.plus.com> writes
>If it is ever proved that plants have feelings, and can feel pain what on earth
>are veggies going to do? :-(
They become frutarians - who will only eat bits that animals and plants
shed - fruit is OK, as is milk and possibly eggs, but not carrots.
dave @ stejonda
<k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> writes
>fruit is OK, as is milk
though it's not the milk that is the concern but the veal that is
necessary for (cow) milk to be produced
JennyC
"Helen" <a...@efg.com.au> wrote in message
news:411d6808$0$24638$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Recently I saw a programme about whether or not plants have feelings - some
> said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they were sure
> they did. What do you think?
>
Not having a nervous system, I feel they probably don't, but there are huge
discussions on the net about this very subject:
http://ar.vegnews.org/plant_consciousness.html
Jenny
Kay
@stejonda.freeuk.com> writes
>In message <XBLkQHBB...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>, Kay
><k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> writes
>>fruit is OK, as is milk
>
>though it's not the milk that is the concern but the veal that is
>necessary for (cow) milk to be produced
>
leave enough for the calf. I thought veal production had a whole source
of other worries.
It's impossible to live without drawing some veil over some aspect of
what you are doing. Different people draw the line in different places.
The truth is that as a species we are just too abundant not to have an
adverse effect. That doesn't absolve us from the responsibility to try
to minimise that effect.
Kay
writes
>
>"Helen" <a...@efg.com.au> wrote in message
>news:411d6808$0$24638$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Recently I saw a programme about whether or not plants have feelings - some
>> said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they were sure
>> they did. What do you think?
>>
>
>Not having a nervous system, I feel they probably don't,
Comes back to definition of 'feelings' doesn't it? Does someone whose
nervous system is shot to hell have less 'feelings' than the rest of us?
Less physical sensation, yes, but their emotions are intact, and their
capacity for distress.
I'm inclined to think it's something to do with the extent to which the
control systems are centralised.
Sacha
<k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>> Comes back to definition of 'feelings' doesn't it? Does someone
whose
> nervous system is shot to hell have less 'feelings' than the rest of us?
> Less physical sensation, yes, but their emotions are intact, and their
> capacity for distress.
>
> I'm inclined to think it's something to do with the extent to which the
> control systems are centralised.
Do you remember there was something written about experiments in this line?
Was it in The Secret Life of Plants? I seem to recall something about a
scientist burning the leaf of a plant with a cigarette and then the plant
was hooked up to electrodes to register its 'reactions'. When the same man
entered the room again there was - apparently - a distinct reaction from the
plant. I may not be remembering this very clearly but it was along those
lines.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)
Sacha
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:43:48 +0100, Sacha
> <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Do you remember there was something written about experiments in this line?
>> Was it in The Secret Life of Plants? I seem to recall something about a
>> scientist burning the leaf of a plant with a cigarette and then the plant
>> was hooked up to electrodes to register its 'reactions'. When the same man
>> entered the room again there was - apparently - a distinct reaction from the
>> plant. I may not be remembering this very clearly but it was along those
>> lines.
>
> Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together? ;-)
If taken to its logical conclusion it's going to given vegans and
vegetarians food for nothing but thought. ;-)
Stephen Howard
I think it unlikely.
Evolution makes use of whatever advantages it can lay its hands on -
and in the case of animals it's made very good use of the range of
feelings that we might term 'instincts'.
Had the same been true for plants then you might find that your
courgettes would kick you in the shins when you tried to pick
them...or your sweet peas slap you round the face when you tried to
cut the blooms.
They've been around a great deal longer than us, so it's fair to
assume that if they haven't evolved in this fashion by now then they
never will.
Plants ( and any other living things ) have the ability to react to
their environment based on what their senses, such as they are, allow
them to perceive - although you could argue that for the most part
these reactions are more mechanical in nature.
Regards,
--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk
Franz Heymann
Show me the plant's memory and nervous systems.
Franz
Franz Heymann
Please define "feelings" before going f into this particular
pseudo-philosophical direction.
Franz
Franz Heymann
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:hfash0pjphhkstbu8...@4ax.com...
I can let you know where they reside. Is that enough information to
make my point?
{:-))
Franz
> --
> Martin
Stephen Howard
<janet.a...@flobalobzetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The message <r87sh01dbee17a2ml...@4ax.com>
>from Stephen Howard <sees...@email.uk> contains these words:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:16:49 +1000, "Helen" <a...@efg.com.au> wrote:
>
>> >Recently I saw a programme about whether or not plants have feelings - some
>> >said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they were sure
>> >they did. What do you think?
>> >
>> I think it unlikely.
>> Evolution makes use of whatever advantages it can lay its hands on -
>> and in the case of animals it's made very good use of the range of
>> feelings that we might term 'instincts'.
>
>> Had the same been true for plants then you might find that your
>> courgettes would kick you in the shins when you tried to pick
>> them...or your sweet peas slap you round the face when you tried to
>> cut the blooms.
>> They've been around a great deal longer than us, so it's fair to
>> assume that if they haven't evolved in this fashion by now then they
>> never will.
>
> What about nettles, thorny things and poisonous plants? They might not
>be able to kick you in the shins (though I've met docks that could
>wrestle a grown man to the ground) but they have evolved a means to
>resist "attack".
>
That's true - but the system they've evolved is an 'always on' one.
The presence of 'feelings' would surely give rise to a range of
defence/attack mechanisms that would be brought into play at
discretion, in reaction to certain conditions...in the same way that a
little terrier can be a cute, fluffy ball of fun one minute, and a
mass of sharp, pointy teeth the next ( or is that just my dog? ).
Having said all that, I'm pretty sure my Heliotropes are sulking...
Broadback
nettles do not sting unless something brushes against them?
Franz Heymann
"Janet Baraclough.." <janet.a...@flobalobzetnet.co.uk> wrote in
message news:200408141...@flobalobzetnet.co.uk...
> The message <hfash0pjphhkstbu8...@4ax.com>
> from Martin <m...@privacy.net> contains these words:
>
> > On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 14:42:06 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
> > <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
be
> compared with those of a turnip?
It is moving in that general direction at an alarmingly rapid rate of
increase, but as best I can judge, I am not quite there yet.
Franz
Kay
<w...@towill.plus.com> writes in answer to someone else
>>
>> That's true - but the system they've evolved is an 'always on' one.
>> The presence of 'feelings' would surely give rise to a range of
>> defence/attack mechanisms that would be brought into play at
>> discretion, in reaction to certain conditions...in the same way that a
>> little terrier can be a cute, fluffy ball of fun one minute, and a
>> mass of sharp, pointy teeth the next ( or is that just my dog? ).
>>
>nettles do not sting unless something brushes against them?
>
reacts to a live and buzzing fly?
OK, you may say that is mechanical, but then so are all our senses when
you look at them closely enough.
Alan Gould
>on earth are veggies going to do? :-(
>
Alan Gould
hey...@btopenworld.com> writes
>Show me the plant's memory and nervous systems.
>
Alan Gould
<sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Do you remember there was something written about experiments in this line?
>Was it in The Secret Life of Plants? I seem to recall something about a
>scientist burning the leaf of a plant with a cigarette and then the plant
>was hooked up to electrodes to register its 'reactions'. When the same man
>entered the room again there was - apparently - a distinct reaction from the
>plant. I may not be remembering this very clearly but it was along those
>lines.
'The Secret Life of Plants' was compiled by Peter Tompkins and
Christopher Bird in 1973. It was published by Allen Lane for Penguin
Books as ISBN 0 7139 0594 8. Though it quoted an exhaustive bibliography
of scientific and non-scientific material it was seen as a somewhat
tongue in cheek attempt to open up the subject of plant feelings.
Reading it put me firmly in the pro Plant life/rights/feelings camp.
This group conducted a very comprehensive discussion begun by me of the
issues involved in [IIRC] late 1997 under the title 'A Philospohical
Approach'. I learned much from that long thread about gardeners'
reactions to the idea of plants having feelings, but little firm
evidence one way or the other about the OT. Little seems to have changed
since then.
Alan Gould
. <janet.a...@flobalobzetnet.co.uk> writes
> I hope you're not suggesting Franz's memory and sensibility might be
>compared with those of a turnip?
>
Alan Gould
hey...@btopenworld.com> writes
>Please define "feelings" before going f into this particular
>pseudo-philosophical direction.
>
Franz Heymann
"Alan Gould" <al...@agolincs.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:P0uR1wBq...@agolincs.demon.co.uk...
> In article <cfl8bu$b8p$2...@titan.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
<notfranz.
> hey...@btopenworld.com> writes
> >Show me the plant's memory and nervous systems.
> >
> Tell me that they do not sleep at night, or hibernate in winter.
Neither photosensitivity nor temperature-sensitive behaviour are
indicative of the presence of intelligent behaviour.
Have you ever come across shape memory solids?
Have you considered that humble water also hibernates when the
temperature drops below 0 deg C?
Have you considerd the fact that a solar cell also goes to sleep at
night?
Franz
Franz Heymann
> In article <200408141...@flobalobzetnet.co.uk>, Janet
Baraclough.
> . <janet.a...@flobalobzetnet.co.uk> writes
> > I hope you're not suggesting Franz's memory and sensibility might
be
> >compared with those of a turnip?
> >
> More likely a Kohl Rabi.
{:-))
Franz
Franz Heymann
> In article <cfl8bv$b8p$3...@titan.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
<notfranz.
> hey...@btopenworld.com> writes
> >Please define "feelings" before going f into this particular
> >pseudo-philosophical direction.
> >
> Corporal or emotional reactions.
No.
Water reacts corporally by becoming steam at a suitable combination of
pressure and temperature.
A torch battery reacts corporally by refusing to pass a current
through a light bulb when certain chemical changes have occurred in
it.
Would you like more contra-indications?
I challenge you to design an experiment which would prove that a plant
has any emotional reactions. The concept is an emergent phenomenon
which can only be described at all in the case of higher animals.
Franz
Sacha
Gould" <al...@agolincs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <BD43C794.1330%sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk>, Sacha
> <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> Do you remember there was something written about experiments in this line?
>> Was it in The Secret Life of Plants? I seem to recall something about a
>> scientist burning the leaf of a plant with a cigarette and then the plant
>> was hooked up to electrodes to register its 'reactions'. When the same man
>> entered the room again there was - apparently - a distinct reaction from the
>> plant. I may not be remembering this very clearly but it was along those
>> lines.
>
> 'The Secret Life of Plants' was compiled by Peter Tompkins and
> Christopher Bird in 1973. <snip>
But was it in that book that the experiment I'm thinking of was cited? Do
you recall?
--
Sacha
Stephen Howard
wrote:
>In article <2o739pF...@uni-berlin.de>, Broadback
><w...@towill.plus.com> writes in answer to someone else
>>>
>>> That's true - but the system they've evolved is an 'always on' one.
>>> The presence of 'feelings' would surely give rise to a range of
>>> defence/attack mechanisms that would be brought into play at
>>> discretion, in reaction to certain conditions...in the same way that a
>>> little terrier can be a cute, fluffy ball of fun one minute, and a
>>> mass of sharp, pointy teeth the next ( or is that just my dog? ).
>>>
>>If I may steal an idea from an ancient philosopher, how do you know that
>>nettles do not sting unless something brushes against them?
You mean in the sense that they leap out and jump you?
Could be right there...I always seem to end up getting stung, even
when I know exactly where the nettles are.
>>
>What about Venus fly trap, which ignores a prod with a pencil, but
>reacts to a live and buzzing fly?
That it can discriminate is perhaps down to a array of finely honed
sensors. I'd bet it wouldn't do so well with, say, an artist's
brush...unless it reacts to a range of frequencies that might be set
up by the beating of an insect's wing?
>
>OK, you may say that is mechanical, but then so are all our senses when
>you look at them closely enough.
True...in the sense that there's a reaction to a stimulus, but having
an emotional response is an entirely different kettle of fish ( and
thereby hangs yet another debate ).
Regards ( currently consoling a depressed courgette ),
--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk
Peter
<al...@agolincs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <411d6808$0$24638$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, Helen
><a...@efg.com.au> writes
>>Recently I saw a programme about whether or not plants have feelings - some
>>said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they were sure
>>they did. What do you think?
>>
>Plants react to their treatment and surroundings by various means. They
>are born, grow, feed, drink, procreate, protect themselves, age and die.
>They are living beings, as are mobile creatures of the animal world.
>They do not have a brain but they do have the equivalent of a nerve
>system by which messages are carried between their physical parts.
>
>In humans, feelings are seen as the operation of the nerve system in
>body and mind. That makes them sentient creatures. They can observe and
>communicate about the feelings of other beings, but they cannot
>experience them. That has often led to a belief that such feelings do
>not exist, as seen in the case of fish, animals and even other humans.
>
>I personally think that plants do have feelings of a type, though
>probably not experienced as humans feel pain or emotion.
Respond to stimuli is one of the six things that all living things
do. I have been trying to remember the other five:-
Eat, breathe, reproduce, grow and ???. Judging by myself the sixth
thing could be forget!
P
Alan Gabriel
"Kay" <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i5SpOdCl...@scarboro.demon.co.uk...
> What about Venus fly trap, which ignores a prod with a pencil, but
> reacts to a live and buzzing fly?
>
You have to touch the hairs in the trap twice to trigger it. It saves the
plant wasteing energy on something that isn't alive.
--
Regards,
Alan.
Preserve wildlife - Pickle a SQUIRREL to reply.
Alan Gould
<sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>But was it in that book that the experiment I'm thinking of was cited? Do
>you recall?
Yes, [I still have the book] there are a lot of experiments quoted
linking plants, their life, their feelings, their growth etc. to
electricity and magnetism. The one you refer to was actually a test to
see if plants had extra-sensory perception - between them and/or to
other beings. I quote a part of the experiment:
'He [Clee Baxter, a lie detector expert] then conceived a worse threat:
he would burn the actual leaf to which the electrodes [of a lie
detector] were attached. The very instant he got the picture of flame in
his mind, and before he could move for a match, there was a dramatic
change in the tracing pattern on the graph in the form of a prolonged
upward sweep of the recording pen. Bakster had not moved, either towards
the plant or towards the recording machine. Could the plant have been
reading his mind?' Later Bakster reluctantly concluded that it had.
Alan Gould
<notfranz...@btopenworld.com> writes
>I challenge you to design an experiment which would prove that a plant
>has any emotional reactions. The concept is an emergent phenomenon
>which can only be described at all in the case of higher animals.
>
FWIW, I see plants as the highest of beings. Partly because they were
around long before animals, and partly because whereas animals,
including humans, are totally dependent upon plants, plant-life has no
need of animals - even of gardeners.
Kay
<please...@to.this.ng> writes
>
>Respond to stimuli is one of the six things that all living things
>do. I have been trying to remember the other five:-
>Eat, breathe, reproduce, grow and ???. Judging by myself the sixth
>thing could be forget!
>
But my mind has gone blank. /goes and searches out Revision Guide
First - it's seven, not six ;-)
Movement
reproduction
sensitivity
nutrition
excretion
respiration
growth
Kay
<sees...@email.uk> writes
>>reacts to a live and buzzing fly?
>
>That it can discriminate is perhaps down to a array of finely honed
>sensors. I'd bet it wouldn't do so well with, say, an artist's
>brush...unless it reacts to a range of frequencies that might be set
>up by the beating of an insect's wing?
No it's a very simply arrangement - it has several hairs, rather like
cats' whiskers, and more than one of them has to be touched in sequence
to trigger the response.
>>
>>OK, you may say that is mechanical, but then so are all our senses when
>>you look at them closely enough.
>
>True...in the sense that there's a reaction to a stimulus, but having
>an emotional response is an entirely different kettle of fish ( and
>thereby hangs yet another debate ).
>
>Regards ( currently consoling a depressed courgette ),
>
>
>
--
Sacha
Gould" <al...@agolincs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
> 'He [Clee Baxter, a lie detector expert] then conceived a worse threat:
> he would burn the actual leaf to which the electrodes [of a lie
> detector] were attached. The very instant he got the picture of flame in
> his mind, and before he could move for a match, there was a dramatic
> change in the tracing pattern on the graph in the form of a prolonged
> upward sweep of the recording pen. Bakster had not moved, either towards
> the plant or towards the recording machine. Could the plant have been
> reading his mind?' Later Bakster reluctantly concluded that it had.
>
That was it. Thanks for finding it again.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)
Dave Poole
That plants react to stimuli (in other words can 'sense') is not in
dispute. They are highly reactive organisms and even without a
recognisable central nervous system, can organise themselves to react
quite rapidly according to whether they are under stress or otherwise.
It has long fascinated me that the moment a herd of giraffes arrive to
feed on one species of Acacia in the South African veldt, the entire
neighbourhood of Acacias starts to mobilise huge and toxic quantities
of tannins to both bark and shoots. After feeding for a short time,
the animals have to move on to another species. I look upon this as
an electrical stimulus given out and received by plants under attack.
I suspect it is quite common and may even be transmitted through
ground moisture.
I carried out as bit of an experiment with the 'sensitive plant' -
Mimosa pudica quite a few years ago. Seedlings were either potted up
or planted out, 8" apart in deep trays. The potted plants were also
kept 8" apart. If the leaves on a potted plant were hit or damaged,
the entire plant would collapse as would be expected, but there was
never a reaction in its neighbours.
Those in the trays reacted differently on several occasions. Mild
hitting of the leaf would result in the collapse of foliage on that
plant only. However, cutting a leaf off or severely damaging it
often (but not always) caused other plants in that tray to react as
well - even though great care was taken not to touch or shake them in
any way.
Not a truly scientific experiment for it wasn't carried out on a large
enough scale or over a long enough period. That said, it was an
interesting exercise and my conclusions were that the plants responded
electrically and that a fluctuation in electrical discharge was
transmitted through the soil moisture, which was picked up by its
neighbours, causing them to react as well.
Back to feelings, I have great difficulty in according plants with
the ability to feel in an emotional way (love, hate etc.) for this
requires quite complex thought processing. Emotion is a consequence
of the need to remain together (as a pairing) or within one's own peer
group for self protection and the successful rearing of young. Its
roots are in baser instincts of the survival of the species and I have
great problems in accepting that such sensations are present in any
other than life forms with a highly organised central nervous systems.
Don't you think we are getting a tad too phyllanthropomorphic ;-)
Dave Poole
Torquay, Coastal South Devon UK
Winter min -2°C. Summer max 34°C.
Growing season: March - November
Stephen Howard
wrote:
>In article <d36th0dc9rj2uks14...@4ax.com>, Peter
><please...@to.this.ng> writes
>>
>>Respond to stimuli is one of the six things that all living things
>>do. I have been trying to remember the other five:-
>>Eat, breathe, reproduce, grow and ???. Judging by myself the sixth
>>thing could be forget!
>>
>I knew this a year ago when my son was doing GCSEs ;-)
>
>But my mind has gone blank. /goes and searches out Revision Guide
>
>First - it's seven, not six ;-)
>
>Movement
>reproduction
>sensitivity
>nutrition
>excretion
>respiration
>growth
What about death?
Regards,
Stephen Howard
wrote:
>In article <le4th0d8hvv6armcg...@4ax.com>, Stephen Howard
><sees...@email.uk> writes
>>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:39:33 +0100, Kay <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>What about Venus fly trap, which ignores a prod with a pencil, but
>>>reacts to a live and buzzing fly?
>>
>>That it can discriminate is perhaps down to a array of finely honed
>>sensors. I'd bet it wouldn't do so well with, say, an artist's
>>brush...unless it reacts to a range of frequencies that might be set
>>up by the beating of an insect's wing?
>
>No it's a very simply arrangement - it has several hairs, rather like
>cats' whiskers, and more than one of them has to be touched in sequence
>to trigger the response.
Aha.. that's why I figured the artist's brush would probably trigger a
response.
Regards,
Alan Gould
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
>Hmm, but that's just not true, is it? What about plants that are
>dependent upon insects for fertilisation not to mention those which
>depend on birds and animals for seed dispersal?
>
Those plants have developed or evolved that way to make use of animals
etc. which are there now, but were not so previously. That does not
alter the fact that on this planet non-plant life is wholly dependent
upon plant life, but not vice-versa.
Alan Gould
<daver...@nomail.co.uk> writes
>
>Back to feelings, I have great difficulty in according plants with
>the ability to feel in an emotional way (love, hate etc.) for this
>requires quite complex thought processing. Emotion is a consequence
>of the need to remain together (as a pairing) or within one's own peer
>group for self protection and the successful rearing of young. Its
>roots are in baser instincts of the survival of the species and I have
>great problems in accepting that such sensations are present in any
>other than life forms with a highly organised central nervous systems.
>
that not an equivalent of fear or wariness in animals? And when they act
in ways which will lead to their procreation, isn't that equivalent to
the mating instinct in animals, known as love (or whatever) in humans?
Franz Heymann
> In article <cflvk7$t1e$3...@sparta.btinternet.com>, Franz Heymann
> <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> writes
> >I challenge you to design an experiment which would prove that a
plant
> >has any emotional reactions. The concept is an emergent phenomenon
> >which can only be described at all in the case of higher animals.
> >
> I have quoted one in this thread in a response to Sacha.
You have not. You have quoted a lot of anecdotal rubbish with
exactly zero scientific content.. Not only was the experiment
uncontrolled, it also was not repeated by an independent observer. I
asked for the design of an experiment. which would prove that a plant
has emotional reactions. I did not think it neceaasry to insert the
word "controlled" before "experiment", bur I do so now,
retrospectively. Other "experiments" don't count in this context.
> FWIW, I see plants as the highest of beings.
Your definition of "high" in this context clearly differs from mine
and from that of any rational biologist.
> Partly because they were
> around long before animals, and partly because whereas animals,
There were even more primitive life forms in existence before plants
came on the scene. Why don't you classify them as even higher
life-forms that plants?
> including humans, are totally dependent upon plants, plant-life has
no
> need of animals - even of gardeners.
Oh dear.
{:-((
Franz
Franz Heymann
> In article <BD444786.13A6%sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk>, Sacha
> <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >But was it in that book that the experiment I'm thinking of was
cited? Do
> >you recall?
>
> Yes, [I still have the book] there are a lot of experiments quoted
> linking plants, their life, their feelings, their growth etc. to
> electricity and magnetism. The one you refer to was actually a test
to
> see if plants had extra-sensory perception - between them and/or to
> other beings. I quote a part of the experiment:
>
> 'He [Clee Baxter, a lie detector expert]
That does not bode well for starters. Lie detectors have been shown
in controlled experiments to be totally unreliable, except insofar as
they intimidate the person being interviewed.
> then conceived a worse threat:
> he would burn the actual leaf to which the electrodes [of a lie
> detector] were attached. The very instant he got the picture of
flame in
> his mind, and before he could move for a match, there was a dramatic
> change in the tracing pattern on the graph in the form of a
prolonged
> upward sweep of the recording pen.
That is anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence obtained fron
controlled experiments and therefore have exactly zero scientific
value.
Is he implying that the leaf had predictive powers?
And in any case, leaves don't have skins whose surface resistivity
behaves like that of humans.
> Bakster had not moved, either towards
> the plant or towards the recording machine. Could the plant have
been
> reading his mind?' Later Bakster reluctantly concluded that it had.
That little lot,.I am afraid, can only be described as vintage crap.
It is on a par with the book I read which gave "evidence" that Jesus
did not in fact die on the cross, but was rescued by his close
friends, and after he had recovered from the ordeal, escaped to France
with Mary Magdalen, where they founded the Plantagenet family.
Franz
Dave Poole
<al...@agolincs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>When plants react to circumstances in a defensive or protective way, is
>that not an equivalent of fear or wariness in animals?
No, it is purely the result of a stimulus in the same way that
photosynthesis starts to occur when a plant is exposed to light or
that wilting occurs as a result of lack of water.
>And when they act
>in ways which will lead to their procreation, isn't that equivalent to
>the mating instinct in animals, known as love (or whatever) in humans?
Well, for a start, the mating instinct in many humans has nothing to
do with the need to procreate and is more to do with recreational (and
to an extent personal or even selfish) gratification. In some cases
it is accompanied by a deeper emotional sensation, but by no means
always. With the exception of Bonobo chimpanzees and some species of
dolphin, there are few if any indications that other animals act in a
similar way.
Sorry, I think you are way off the mark here. You are projecting
human emotions onto lower animals and then to plants. This is an all
too common human failing that ill-serves the objects of those
emotions. There is no science to prove that plants have 'feelings' or
emotions. All living things seek to multiply, whether they are of a
microbial or higher life form. Procreation is one of the defining
characteristics of living things. Instinct (in animals) and reaction
to stimulus (in plants) is not the same as emotion and it is facile
to make such a comparison.
Nor do plants act in any positive or selective way that leads to their
procreation. They react to stimuli which ultimately leads to
flowering. The stimuli can be day-length, maturation, stress and
temperature amongst many other things. Plants have no choice in the
matter - their purpose is to grow, reproduce and thereby perpetuate
themselves. Nor do they select 'mates'. So long as pollen arriving
upon the stigmas is viable and from a genetically compatible plant
(ie. same or related species) fertilisation will occur.
Dave Poole
<al...@agolincs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>That does not
>alter the fact that on this planet non-plant life is wholly dependent
>upon plant life,
Bacteria and microbes which feed upon manganese deep underground or
the searingly hot acids emitted from volcanic fissures on the sea bed
might argue with that.
>but not vice-versa.
So the loss of pollinating insects, rodents, bats, primates and birds
to which certain plants have adapted specifically will not have any
adverse effects upon those plants then? There are hundreds if not
thousands of plants that have adapted to very specialised pollinators
and if those pollinators disappear, then so do the plants. A widely
known example is the Yucca which flowers prolifically here in the UK,
but cannot set seed since the moths which assist with the flowers'
pollination are not present amongst our fauna and could not exist in
our climate. If those moths disappeared in their native habitat, so
would the Yuccas eventually.
Many valuable tropical species (my favourites the bananas come quickly
to mind, but there are many more) are bat pollinated. Wipe out the
bats (and they are becoming highly endangered in many regions) and the
plants disappear. No, you are wrong, there is a powerful necessity
for co-existence for without one there will not be the other. You
cannot make such sweeping statements that plants can exist without
animals, because ultimately flowering plants are dependent upon animal
life.
Kay
<daver...@nomail.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:08:29 +0100, Alan Gould
><al...@agolincs.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>That does not
>>alter the fact that on this planet non-plant life is wholly dependent
>>upon plant life,
>
>Bacteria and microbes which feed upon manganese deep underground or
>the searingly hot acids emitted from volcanic fissures on the sea bed
>might argue with that.
>
>>but not vice-versa.
>
>So the loss of pollinating insects, rodents, bats, primates and birds
>to which certain plants have adapted specifically will not have any
>adverse effects upon those plants then?
Not to mention plants which depend on ingestion of insects for the major
part of their nutrition.
Franz Heymann
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:o4ruh09sbg6f4k82i...@4ax.com...
>
> >where they founded the Plantagenet family.
>
You are right. The Plantagenets are fescendants of the Merovingians,
if I remember correctly.
>
> "There are at least a dozen families in Britain and Europe
today-with
> numerous collateral branches who are of Merovingian lineage. These
> include the houses of Hapsburg-Lorraine (present titular dukes of
> Lorraine and kings of Jerusalem), Plantard, Luxembourg, Montpezat,
> Montesquiou, and various others. According to the 'Prieure
documents,'
> the Sinclair family in Britain is also allied to the bloodline as
are
> various branches of the Stuarts. And the Devonshire family, among
> others, would seem to have been privy to the secret. All of these
> houses could presumably claim a pedigree from Jesus; and if one man,
> at some point in the future, is to be put forward as a new
> priest-king, we do not know who he is."
>
>
> Have you been reading the Da Vinci Code or the Holy Blood and the
Holy
> Grail?
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
Please tell me who the authot of the Da Vinci Code is. I enjoy that
genre more than sci fi.
Franz
Franz Heymann
I am afraid your concept of what constitutes an ecosystem consisting
of interacting components id fatally flawed.
Franz
Alan R Williams
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:39:21 +0100, Kay <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <d36th0dc9rj2uks14...@4ax.com>, Peter
> ><please...@to.this.ng> writes
> >>
> >>Respond to stimuli is one of the six things that all living things
> >>do. I have been trying to remember the other five:-
> >>Eat, breathe, reproduce, grow and ???. Judging by myself the sixth
> >>thing could be forget!
> >>
> >I knew this a year ago when my son was doing GCSEs ;-)
> >
> >But my mind has gone blank. /goes and searches out Revision Guide
> >
> >First - it's seven, not six ;-)
> >
> >Movement
> >reproduction
> >sensitivity
> >nutrition
> >excretion
> >respiration
> >growth
>
> What about death?
It's not a necessary characteristic. An amoeba, for example,
reproduces by dividing itself, so it satisfies reproduction. It's
dubious though if you can say that the parent has died.
> Regards,
>
> --
> Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
> http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
> Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk
Alan
--
Alan Williams, Room IT301, Department of Computer Science,
University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K.
Tel: +44 161 275 6270 Fax: +44 161 275 6280
Sacha
<ala...@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> Stephen Howard <sees...@email.uk> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:39:21 +0100, Kay <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <d36th0dc9rj2uks14...@4ax.com>, Peter
>>> <please...@to.this.ng> writes
>>>>
>>>> Respond to stimuli is one of the six things that all living things
>>>> do. I have been trying to remember the other five:-
>>>> Eat, breathe, reproduce, grow and ???. Judging by myself the sixth
>>>> thing could be forget!
>>>>
>>> I knew this a year ago when my son was doing GCSEs ;-)
>>>
>>> But my mind has gone blank. /goes and searches out Revision Guide
>>>
>>> First - it's seven, not six ;-)
>>>
>>> Movement
>>> reproduction
>>> sensitivity
>>> nutrition
>>> excretion
>>> respiration
>>> growth
>>
>> What about death?
>
> It's not a necessary characteristic. An amoeba, for example,
> reproduces by dividing itself, so it satisfies reproduction. It's
> dubious though if you can say that the parent has died.
>
But perhaps it mourns its inner child........... ;-)
Franz Heymann
>
> For a good laugh?
>
>
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0552149519/026-9591912-6630049
>
> You will love finding all the stupid mistakes :-)
I shall order it.
Franz
Sacha
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:54:45 +0100, Sacha
> <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> What about death?
>>>
>>> It's not a necessary characteristic. An amoeba, for example,
>>> reproduces by dividing itself, so it satisfies reproduction. It's
>>> dubious though if you can say that the parent has died.
>>>
>> But perhaps it mourns its inner child........... ;-)
>
> ... and is jealous of it's better half?
A fruitless exercise.
--
Sacha
Franz Heymann
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:54:46 +0100, Sacha
> <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 14/8/04 13:56, in article
1t2sh05f68fd26a4e...@4ax.com,
> >"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >> Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together? ;-)
> >
> >If taken to its logical conclusion it's going to give vegans and
> >vegetarians food for nothing but thought. ;-)
>
> ROFLMAO
>
> Very good! I can't wait for Franz to read your post.
This note sent by Martin on the 14th only arrived here today. What on
earth is my ISP doing?
(I bet that surprised you!)
>
> Let them eat cattle cake, as Marie Antoinette really said.
I like that one.
Franz
Franz Heymann
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:43:48 +0100, Sacha
> <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 14/8/04 12:09, in article iTVJ00B4...@scarboro.demon.co.uk,
"Kay"
> ><k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>> Comes back to definition of 'feelings' doesn't it? Does
someone
> >whose
> >> nervous system is shot to hell have less 'feelings' than the rest
of us?
> >> Less physical sensation, yes, but their emotions are intact, and
their
> >> capacity for distress.
> >>
> >> I'm inclined to think it's something to do with the extent to
which the
> >> control systems are centralised.
> >
> >Do you remember there was something written about experiments in
this line?
> >Was it in The Secret Life of Plants? I seem to recall something
about a
> >scientist burning the leaf of a plant with a cigarette and then the
plant
> >was hooked up to electrodes to register its 'reactions'. When the
same man
> >entered the room again there was - apparently - a distinct reaction
from the
> >plant. I may not be remembering this very clearly but it was along
those
> >lines.
>
> Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together? ;-)
Just paint yourself green, do your own photosynthesising act and drink
mineral waters.
Franz
Tim Challenger
> On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:54:46 +0100, Sacha
> <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 14/8/04 13:56, in article 1t2sh05f68fd26a4e...@4ax.com,
>>"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>> Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together? ;-)
>>
>>If taken to its logical conclusion it's going to give vegans and
>>vegetarians food for nothing but thought. ;-)
>
> ROFLMAO
>
> Very good! I can't wait for Franz to read your post.
>
> Let them eat cattle cake, as Marie Antoinette really said.
If God had wanted us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made animals out
of meat.
--
Tim C.
Kay
<tim.cha...@aon.at> writes
>
>If God had wanted us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made animals out
>of meat.
>
of meat
Franz Heymann
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:13:13 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
> <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> >news:j04sh0h22h788801g...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:54:46 +0100, Sacha
> >> <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 14/8/04 13:56, in article
> >1t2sh05f68fd26a4e...@4ax.com,
> >> >"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Is this thread leading to giving up eating food all together?
;-)
> >> >
> >> >If taken to its logical conclusion it's going to give vegans and
> >> >vegetarians food for nothing but thought. ;-)
> >>
> >> ROFLMAO
> >>
> >> Very good! I can't wait for Franz to read your post.
> >
> >This note sent by Martin on the 14th only arrived here today. What
on
> >earth is my ISP doing?
>
Yes. I think it is nearly time to declare the well-wishing season
over. {:-))
Franz
Sacha
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:47:28 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
> <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>> Pumping Birthday greetings to the Dales?
>>
>> Yes. I think it is nearly time to declare the well-wishing season
>> over. {:-))
>
> It's my turn at the end of this month.
To turn 80?
Peter
wrote:
>In article <d36th0dc9rj2uks14...@4ax.com>, Peter
><please...@to.this.ng> writes
>>
>>Respond to stimuli is one of the six things that all living things
>>do. I have been trying to remember the other five:-
>>Eat, breathe, reproduce, grow and ???. Judging by myself the sixth
>>thing could be forget!
>>
>I knew this a year ago when my son was doing GCSEs ;-)
>
>But my mind has gone blank. /goes and searches out Revision Guide
>
>First - it's seven, not six ;-)
>
>Movement
>reproduction
>sensitivity
>nutrition
>excretion
>respiration
>growth
Thank you!
The names for the seven things seem to have changed a bit since I
did school certificate biology some 58 years ago.
Peter
Kay
. <janet.a...@flobalobzetnet.co.uk> writes
>The message <shxq4hAS...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
>from Kay <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> In article <Ln_Uc.123502$0V3....@roc.nntpserver.com>, Tim Challenger
>> <tim.cha...@aon.at> writes
>> >
>> >If God had wanted us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made animals out
>> >of meat.
>> >
>> If God didn't want us to be cannibals, he wouldn't have made humans out
>> of meat
>
>he nearly succeeded in many cases) then we'd all be vegetarian and could
>still eat each other.
>
If he was serious, he'd have made us out of
Kay
. <janet.a...@flobalobzetnet.co.uk> writes
>The message <shxq4hAS...@scarboro.demon.co.uk>
>from Kay <k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
>
>> <tim.cha...@aon.at> writes
>> >
>> >If God had wanted us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made animals out
>> >of meat.
>> >
>> If God didn't want us to be cannibals, he wouldn't have made humans out
>> of meat
>
>he nearly succeeded in many cases) then we'd all be vegetarian and could
>still eat each other.
>
>
Careful! It's only the underground bit you can eat - the bit on the
couch is poisonous!
Kay
<k...@scarboro.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>If he was serious, he'd have made us out of
How did that get here! ;-)
I obviously shouldn't read my ngs before I'm fully awake
Gaby Chaudry
> Recently I saw a programme about whether or not plants have feelings -
some
> said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they were sure
> they did. What do you think?
I only discovered this thread today, so I'm a bit late in answering....
O.K. My Anthurium didn't bloom since last autumn. On Monday I bought an
Alocasia sanderiana and showed it to my Anthurium saying: "Look, how
beautiful this plant is! But you, you only produce green leaves over and
over, but no flower. What is wrong with you?"
Believe it or not: a small inflorescence is showing up since Wednesday!
A friend of mine told me that she had a plant which didn't want to bloom,
neither. She shouted at the plant: "If you don't start blooming till the end
of the week, I will throw you away!". Guess what happened? No, she didn't
have to throw it away!
You may say: this was just by chance. But I happened to see things like
these often enough to assume that they are signs of feelings. Fear or
perhaps even jealousy are motives I see in these reactions.
Gaby
--
Mrs. Gaby Chaudry
http://www.gaby.de/bilder/
mailto:ga...@gaby.de
Sacha
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:38:51 +0100, Sacha
> <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 19/8/04 21:07, in article j22ai0p3makvs9vbs...@4ax.com,
>> "Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:47:28 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
>>> <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Pumping Birthday greetings to the Dales?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. I think it is nearly time to declare the well-wishing season
>>>> over. {:-))
>>>
>>> It's my turn at the end of this month.
>>
>> To turn 80?
>
> not quite :-)
Well.......let us know when to start the count down!
The Reids
>If it is ever proved that plants have feelings, and can feel pain what
>on earth are veggies going to do? :-(
I saw a veggie on TV who would only eat individual leaves from a
plant to avoid killing it!
--
Mike Reid
If god wanted us to be vegetarians he wouldn't have made animals out of meat.
Wasdale-Lake district-Thames path-London "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Franz Heymann
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:47:28 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
> <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> >> Pumping Birthday greetings to the Dales?
> >
> >Yes. I think it is nearly time to declare the well-wishing season
> >over. {:-))
>
How old?
Which day?
Franz
Sacha
"Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:32:53 +0100, Sacha
> <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 20/8/04 9:17, in article krcbi0htq17anf2g1...@4ax.com,
>> "Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:38:51 +0100, Sacha
>>> <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 19/8/04 21:07, in article j22ai0p3makvs9vbs...@4ax.com,
>>>> "Martin" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 19:47:28 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
>>>>> <notfranz...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pumping Birthday greetings to the Dales?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I think it is nearly time to declare the well-wishing season
>>>>>> over. {:-))
>>>>>
>>>>> It's my turn at the end of this month.
>>>>
>>>> To turn 80?
>>>
>>> not quite :-)
>>
>> Well.......let us know when to start the count down!
>
> in about 15 years.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The Reids
>>I saw a veggie on TV who would only eat individual leaves from a
>>plant to avoid killing it!
>
>LOL! Presumably that means that no root crops can be eaten. And what
>about seeds like rice or pulses. Each one has the potential to be a
>plant so how could one eat those, either?
the presenter asked him if it caused him any problems and he
said only that he wife had left him! I cant remember what his
rules on potential life (seeds etc) were, IIRC he had gradually
got more and more extreme, an obsession I suspect rather than a
rational approach to moral eating. Still, its his choice.
Having read all this stuff I keep finding myself looking round
quickly on the allotment and I swear some bindweed tried to trip
me up the other day, its not paranoia, they *are* watching me.
:-)
Perhaps if I get the compost heap consecrated they will be
placated? But I couldn't put flowers on it, could I?
Darwins Frog
This is a very interesting thread, and poses a very intriguing
question.
To cut to the chase, IMHO, plans are living and as such have senses in
which they employ for their survival. They can physically 'feel' but
can't mentally 'feel'.
That is the difference between plants and animals.
--
Darwins Frog
Alan Gould
<Darwins.F...@news.gardenbanter.co.uk> writes
That sounds about as good a summary of the topic as can be made.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.
David Hill
as such have senses in which they employ for their survival. They can
Who's to say that plants don't have a sense, or senses that we know nothing
about.
--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk