Inspiration

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by Alex.s, Dec 9, 2010.

  1. Alex.s

    Alex.s Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It certainly helps me to love the environment and plants much more profoundly, whether they themselves have emotions or not, I believe they can feel mine. :) I will read the other authors you have suggested they have come up as I look through more material. Thanks for the input.

    I don't see this magic as a system of beliefs and definitely not as a doctrine, it is something that we each feel individually, and the more time you spend with plants and nature the more you tend to feel a connection to their health and energy. Some people claim this can be infinitely deep and I think it is something inherent in humanity that we are losing the more we close ourselves off in office buildings and concrete jungles. It is the personal that cannot be measured or re-created, only experienced. I've studied some logic in the past and if you've read Wittgenstein he shows that words (and science) are trapped within their own paradigm of understanding, which is flawed and cannot substitute direct experience and the knowledge learnt through silence. In fact logic itself is something of an illusion, a mirror of nature, and the idea that only things that can be explained logically are real is absurd, however I agree that theories that can only be explained subjectively are hard to agree with for anyone who does not have that subjective experience. The idea of an objective/subjective duality is the trail of western philosophy and the search for the ultimate truth and way of explaining the universe objectively. I am much more drawn to the Eastern philosophies that accept what is as what is, and overcome this duality, not through scientific inquiry but through meditation and understanding, something science can never aspire to. That is why I believe scientific education is also a loss of 'reality', the concepts of 'objectivity' are illusory but we feel them to be 'real' and tangible, our objective way of viewing this world as creates the dualism that is conflict, and it is an illusion to believe that because we say it works this way we now understand it. Symbols are just symbols, they are just trying to mirror reality, and will never do so. They can explore reality, but only on shallow levels. The mind is the most sensitive instrument for exploring reality and the logical side of the mind accounts for practically nothing in our direct experience.

    I believe that the permaculture ethic 'care of earth' needs to encompass this extra understanding of our connection with plants, not on a level that scares people off, simply that plants are living beings that deserve our love and respect. I feel that until people can view nature as more than an inanimate scenery we will continue to view it as a commodity to be adjusted to our lifestyles. If people regained their emotional connection with nature then the decisions about whether to harm nature for economic gain would become unbelievably clear, because we will have an emotional conflict about harming what we love. I also believe that if we could perceive the connection between the health of the environment and our health, especially on psychological levels regarding happiness and spiritual wellbeing we would be appalled at the thought of hurting it.
     
  2. sun burn

    sun burn Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just can't see why permaculture needs any woo-woo at all as people seem to like to refer to it. I think there's plenty of human values and warmth in the concept of a sustainable system of farming called permaculture. I really don't see why you need song dance ritual except if certain individuals like to do that sort of thing because it makes them feel good. I also don't think its necessary to harp on about science. Good gardening is good gardening. Lots of dodgy systems harp on about science but this only makes them sound more dodgy to my mind. I am referring to things like astrology and ayeurvedic medicine. The less said about science the better when these people are talking about their practices. Just focus on the nuts and bolts of gardening well to an ecological system as Mollison laid out and by all means there's no need to ignore the human side of caring and sharing that is part of permaculture. Then as far as I am concerned any debate about ideological underpinnings matter far less. The thing is permaculture is a practice. Ok a design system that really obviously only becomes fruitful when its put into practice. Its very much of the earth. Its very much about people and community. Nature and love and concern for the planet. I'd prefer the estoterics kept out of it because it makes me cringe and when people starting stressing the scientific about it, it just makes my eyes glaze over and start to detach as someone is straining after credibility (unnecessarily in my opinion). Frankly i think the science of it is important if someone is trying to experiment with new aspects such as which plants go well with what or trying different types of land structures and in teh beginning when it was being established. Science is experiment and observation. And then double checking. its not sitting in a turret and day dreaming. Its not using a lot of clever sounding words that no one understands the meaning of - which is what a lot of people do when they are trying to convince you something unscientific is scientifically proven eg. lots of cosmetic products and dietary ideas. Good science when written about uses plain english and its comprehensible. That is when its written for a lay audience. Obviously when written for an initiated audience of other scientists lots of words like data and statistical terminology will be used. But they are taling to each opther only this language not to us so it doesn't matter that we don't understand it. But when talking to their lay clients stuff should be clear and make sense not just sound clever but actually be nonsense.

    I suppose though if you want to debate and prove of disprove whether food forests are a high yielding method of farming, then you do need to call on scientific tools such as statistics and analysis. You do need to make comparisons and you do need to have credible strictly controlled plots of plants growing together to prove the point. A theory is not a proven system. It has to demonstrated to work. For some reason a number of people are not convinced that food forests are high yielding and efficient ways of growing food. I don't care so much about taht to be honest. I just think it has too many other valuable things going for it. Obviously i want there to be a yield and a sufficient yield but if a permaculture banana trees grows more or less than a banana grown in a monoculture, i couldn't give a damn. You'd have to tally up the yield of the whole piece of land and compare the yield of the monocrop with the total yield of the multi crop i expect. And then you might want to factor in somehow the use and non-use of chemicals and measure the soil health.

    Down the track i really hope to try to establish a food forest here. I think it will be an ongoing project of trial and error as to what plants work best with what plants and so on. I think it will be a great wonderful nurturing thing to do. Who needs fairies when engrossed in such a project. That's what i can't understand.
     
  3. purplepear

    purplepear Junior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,457
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Farm manager/ educator
    Location:
    Hunter Valley New South Wales
    Home Page:
    Climate:
    warm temperate - some frost - changing every year
    and perhaps you never will but that is ok too.
     
  4. Alex.s

    Alex.s Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I also recommend 'how to save the world: one man, one cow, one planet'. It is a movie that is fairly easy to get online.
    It is about the biodynamics movement in India, and it is very encouraging to see how much it is flourishing! They use Steiner's preparations and guidelines and they are rejuvenating the farms and the communities, beautiful.
     
  5. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day All

    Some time ago (longer-contributing members might remember) there was brief conversation on this forum with regards to Integral Ecology. Reading this thread tonight, and grasping some of your more salient thoughts, has reminded me of the many things all you good folk continue to teach me. Thanks for that. Oh, and if you get the chance, check out this old thread and feel free to add a comment or two: Two Q's about Permaculture and Integral theory.

    Cheerio, for now (I have a huge amount of work on), Markos
     
  6. mischief

    mischief Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,665
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    s/e
    Location:
    South Waikato New ZeLeand
    Climate:
    Cool mountain
    I have read most of the Anastasia books and found them to be a sweet story that would be nice if.....
    I havent read the others though.
    I dont use the term woo-woo any more, I prefer 'Quantum Physics'.
    I consider myself to be a hard nosed capricorn but on the other hand I have seen and experienced too many 'mystical' type things to just shrug this aspect of life off as woo-woo.

    Mainline science is not the be all and end all of scientific discovery and knowledge, merely the current cutting edge, people like Galileo are proof of this and there are modern equivelents.
    On the dark side you have Monsanto who apparently know better than mothers who want to feed their kids natural food.( for a dark side example)
    Dont knock what you dont know.

    My first rule on everything is never assume anything, as Sunburn said question your conditioning, etc..

    Permaculture as a subject has nothing particular to do with this subject other than the fact that those who are engaging in it are spiritual in nature and some maybe most of them know this.

    Once you get spiritually aware people togethr sooner or later the subject is going to come up and it really doesnt have anything to do with growing a sustainable environment unless you recognize that some people see things as being interconnected by ... something......
     
  7. sun burn

    sun burn Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm just reading about galileo on Wikipedia. Galileo is called the Father of Modern Science. Not sure what you mean by mainline science. Your conflation of woo woo to quantum physics is misguided. The guy conducting those experiments can't be a proper scientist. The experiments sounds ridciulous.

    I think you should look up quantum physics as well. I don't think you understand it at all. I admit to not understanding it either but i do know that its all based in matter. When thoughts are made, the could be no detectable (by a plant) effect. A thought may translate into a kinetic response (not sure if that's the right word) eg facial reaction, speech and other actions but not likely to produce waves that can be received, let alone understood by a plant or another mind. A plant can only react positively to a thought if it is translated into an action that directly impacts the plant. I can't find the description of the experiment i read that i thought Alex described earlier. Otherwise i could say why that experiment looks dodgy. The guy sounds like a quack type scientist.

    Interesting post above Alex. About the subjective and the objective. I missed it before. I value subjective experience but it has its limits as do objective explanations. I value the rational and the irrational. I think most scientists and thinkers in teh world now understand that it was a mistake to dismiss the value of subjective experience and the irrational. This does not mean that scientists believe in woo woo. IT does not mean that woo woo is real. My subjective feelings and thoughts are real but they are mine and you cannot experience them directly. YOu can only know about them by my communicating to you about them be it by expression or speech or touch. If something is an objective fact, i can demonstrate it to you. Sometimes people make so-called demonstrations of fact but misinterpret them. They will say "this" is what you are looking at, "this" is what it means when in fact it is neither. I think that is what is going on in the plant thought experiment as described by Alex.

    For example i can show you boiling an egg and I will tell you "this is frying an egg" and because you don't know any better you might believe me. Anyone who understands what frying an egg is will know that the demonstration is false. Similarly anyone who knows how a demonstration of fact should be conducted would know that it is false. Scientists know how demonstrations of fact should look. A lot of lay readers would not. Especially people who have no grounding in science.

    Spiritually aware people are as fallible as anyone. They are also prone to the same sorts of conceits. A wonderful book about Indian sadhus (holy men) is called Sadhus. It is a truly excellent book and anyone claiming to be interested in eastern philiosphies will find it extremely enlightening. I have some interest in Eastern philosophies and i found it fantastic. It is a great short cut to understanding a lot about indian mystics and spiritual traditions in India. It is written by Patrick Levy. The story is the author wanted to become a sadhu so that he could get to the bottom of his questions about eastern philosophy. He spends a few years as a disciple or follower of a very wise Sadhu. The author himself had studied western philosophy at university.
     
  8. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Sunburn, The who said what now? :think:

    I totally understand what you are referring to Mischief. I feel pretty much the same way visa-vis Quantum Physics, or at least the way the likes of Deepak Chopra represent it. And also on the personal experience of the 'mystical' and a certain 'spiritual awareness'. It's something I have tried to explain to folks before, but if you don't get it, you don't get it. So I stopped trying to tell people about it and just enjoy it for myself. :)

    Sometimes I forget and drift away from it, but that's OK I never drift too far :)

    Peace
     
  9. sun burn

    sun burn Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "The who said what now?" I don't know what you mean Grahame.

    I just made a few searches into the Secret Life of Plants. One thing i discovered was that the show mythbusters proved that the cleve Brackers? experiment is dubious. Ie if his experiment was good, they should have been able to get similar results which they at first they did. Then they made it more scientific by reducing outside inputs that could interfere with the equipment and then there was no response from the lie detector. These guys are scientists (though i don't much like their show on tv) while Clevel B was not. He was an intelligence fella. Sorry i can't remember the details. I had a quick look on wiki about him too.

    Then i found this on a physics forum. The members of this forum consider this book an example of Bad Science.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=75781
     
  10. Alex.s

    Alex.s Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have also just watched this movie and find it to be one of the most stunning documentaries I have ever seen: it is about humanity and the earth, our history and our current position in relation to the environment. It covers the beauty and the ugliness, the fear and the hope.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU
    youtube: Home
    I recommend it to everyone, the footage of nature is breathtaking and the summation of the worlds state is something a lot of people need to hear.
     
  11. mischief

    mischief Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,665
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    s/e
    Location:
    South Waikato New ZeLeand
    Climate:
    Cool mountain
    Thanks Grahame.
    I forgot myself there for a bit, I too dont ususally bother trying to explain things to others either its usually just too much hard work.

    Mainline science is my term for that screened science that you are allowed to be taught in schools and follows the acceptable partyline.

    As for not understanding what physics and Quantum Physics are, no I'm not a scientist only an interested lay person who reads anything that comes my way.
    Most of these have been written by people who want to be taken seriously by their own field and that doesnt happen if they dont publish something of their work.

    A common law is that the observer alters the action being observed simply by that fact that they are in fact observing.
    Now that sounds woo-woo, but apparently is a proven observable fact.

    I could go on with other well know and documented things along this line but I'm sure if you are interested in finding them out you will gain greater pleasure from doing so yourself rather than have them fed to you.

    Oh ever picked up a phone to call someone and have them on the other end of the phone having just called you... used to happen to me all the time, or the phone rings and it just happens to be them.

    Or what about the monkeys on a Japanese Island who taught themselves to rinse their food in the sea to make it taste better, then soon after other monkeys on other Islands in the vicinity start doing the same thing with absolutely no interaction.......
    Sorry, couldnt help myself.
     
  12. sun burn

    sun burn Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You forgot how Newton came up with the theory of gravity - was it that or relativity? I forget which. And someone in france came up with the same thing at the same time, ie within the same year. You call it X. I don't. I call it Y. Generally i call it pure coincidence but say with Newton, its not even pure coincidence, given that they had access to the same sorts of knowledge more or less up to this time, its a feasible but extremely rare sort of event. Its not impossible. Things like this happen. My sister and I on more than one occasion bought each other the same present for the same christmas. For me there is nothing magic about that. It happened because we are sisters. Its still an extremely unlikely sort of thing to happen but its a lot less likely to have happened between two people who are not siblings. We were also shopping in the same shop and at the same time though we had gone separate routes and did not see other when we bought these things. As far as I know i did not know she was buying me a windup taxi until i opened my present and the same is true for her. Ditto years later when we bought each other the same pair of flared denim shorts though in that case I don't think we went shopping together.

    "I too dont ususally bother trying to explain things to others either its usually just too much hard work " The thing is mischief, people on both sides of the arguement feel the same way though when you said quantum physics, i thought it would look bad if i didn't respond. I thought it would look as though you had stumped me when in fact i am thinking, you haven't a clue what quantum physics is.

    It is clear that neither side is going to convince the other to their position. I have known this for a long time and tend to try to avoid these sorts of debates.

    "A common law is that the observer alters the action being observed simply by that fact that they are in fact observing.
    Now that sounds woo-woo, but apparently is a proven observable fact." Actually its not woo woo at all. It is just that observers have their blind spots (the human fallibility factor i'd call it). We tend not to see what we don't want to see. For example, if a thing is going to bugger up the results well we try to minimise the significance of that thing so it can be written off. A good scientist would investigate it. That is the beauty of the scientific method. If someone else does the same thing and gets different results you know there was some sort of error, somewhere. Scientists are human. There is no mystery about the fact of observation altering things, although it is a fairly recent understanding i think, but it also is not magic. I think you think it is because you don't actually understand what they mean by it when they say it.

    "Most of these have been written by people who want to be taken seriously by their own field and that doesnt happen if they dont publish something of their work." The thing is if they are not taken seriously by those who know the field then no one else should take them seriously either. That's my point about the post above. Scientists do not take The Secret Life of Plants seriously. It is bad science according to the scientists. Its only a lay readership who take it seriously. And at that, those who have little grasp of how science works.

    I am sorry for keeping on debating but don't belittle me as if i am the one who is lacking something simply because i disagree with you and have a comeback for every point you make. I think when the debate gets to belittling people it only means you've run out of arguments and you are getting desperate. In philosophy the idea is to have civilised debate without feeling the need to resort to insults. Sometimes people have to agree to disagree.
     
  13. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I didn't really sense any belittling myself. I think one of the difficulties in this conversation is that some of us are unclear on the view point of others. For example, Sunburn, I'm a little unclear on what you would refer to as 'woo-woo' (seeing we are using this term to the purposes of this discussion). What sort of things would you describe as woo-woo? I do understand that you think the idea that plants can feel emotions is just outlandish, but apart from that? I'm also not quite sure what you mean by 'pure coincidence', is there impure coincidence? Are you a believer in Synchronicity? and if so how would you explain it? Do you believe in the power of thought in bringing about physical world manifestation?

    I certainly agree with you that propinquity is more likely to bring about certain results, certain 'coincidences' but it doesn't explain all of them. I find it interesting what science does with things that are 'anomalies'

    For the longest time (and until recently) mainstream science considered the human brain to be a non-plastic thing, something that could not change once it was set. Anyone who questioned this or tried to postulate that it was even slightly plastic, was ridiculed and chastised. A few pioneers persisted, even in the face of this opposition (not just ridicule but active opposition) and now the consensus is that the human brain is indeed very plastic.

    If you are interested in this there is an excellent book called The brain that changes itself I recommend it.

    And here is something else to think about...

    Consider the following procedures: take the inner most mucosa of the fourth stomach (abomasum) of a young calf. Dry and clean it. Slice finely and soak for a few days in salty water to which vinegar has been added. Filter the solution. Or this: inject virus infected material into a fertilized egg. Allow it to develop in the live chicken embryo for several days. Open the egg, harvest the virus, and purify it. Strange sounding procedures? The first is the method of isolating rennet for cheese making. The second a method of manufacturing human vaccines. The difference between these strange sounding procedures and the Biodynamic preparations making methods is that we now understand the processes involved in rennet and vaccine production, but don't yet understand the processes involved in making Biodynamic preparations.

    Many theories have been proposed over time, which have taken decades or centuries to be proven. Many practical discoveries have been made which have been of great benefit to mankind, and which have been used for centuries or millennia before being scientifically understood...
     
  14. Kerrick

    Kerrick Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sun burn, I'm in agreement with you that whatever our personal beliefs, in permaculture we should concern ourselves with things that we can observe and know empirically. I find this really helpful in making sure I get good results, even if I don't thoroughly understand why I'm getting them. I try to stick to what I can observe, and then to what I can reason from what I can observe. My personal beliefs about spirit don't contradict anything empirically provable, nor do they lead to conclusions that are different from the conclusions I reach by relying solely on what observation and testing—so I tend to stick to conclusions based in observable fact, just in case my hypotheses about consciousness prove to be incorrect.

    Still, I think you may dismiss The Secret Life of Plants too hastily. From what I remember, there's some good research in there. The particular experiments with the EKGs haven't been able to be replicated by other researchers, if I recall. But the author's argument is that plants sense their surroundings, communicate with one another and with other species through chemicals, and, he concludes, act to improve the health of their environments. He supports his arguments well scientifically, if I recall correctly. In fact you might also check out this interesting 2010 TED Talk by Stefano Mancuso: The Roots of Plant Intelligence. It stands up to the reason test—plants are living things; they sense chemicals and emit them; because they don't move, it makes sense that they've had to evolve in such a way that they can alter their local chemical environments in order to survive. The extraordinary part of the argument is that from the perspective of plants, animals (including humans) are part of their environment. Poison ivy and Nettle are doing to humans precisely what Black walnut does to other plants, with different chemicals. The author takes a risk in going so far as to say that since humans are part of plants' environment, some plants are acting in self-interest to help humans be healthier as part of their manipulation of their environment with chemicals, and this is why they produce chemicals that "just happen" to be medicinal for us. But he doesn't discount the role of coevolution, and it's a calculatedly risky hypothesis, not a conclusion out of the sky.
     
  15. mischief

    mischief Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,665
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Female
    Occupation:
    s/e
    Location:
    South Waikato New ZeLeand
    Climate:
    Cool mountain
    Alex I'd like to apologise for sounding sarcastic about the Anastasia books.
    When I read them I was told this was a biography type series and part way thru it occured to me that this might not actually be the case.
    These books were written in Russia which as we know was a staunch communist country.
    My understanding on what made communism so appealing to this country was that the ordinary people were little more than slaves and here was something saying there could and should be fair and equal share in all things which unfortuantely did not happen.

    The concept of every person being able to have their own plot to live on and grow with hits the heart of most people, I think.
    The concept of accountability, responsibility, caring etc not just for yourself but others and the environment we live in was done in such a way that it Was energising.
    I didnt get to read the last book or the one on child raising so I dont know how those went.

    Was there something in particular that really hit home for you?

    I havent read the other two books and would like to hear your take on these.

    Sunburn,
    Sorry ,I was not having a go at you I just get frustrated when people, for example say the are fasinated by eastern religions/mysticisms, knowing that especially in places like India where Gurus or what ever the right name for them is have been documented as living without food and water for months and buried in the ground and on being dug up some time later (cant remember how long) they were still alive and in good form.
    And yet wont allow that other things are possible.
    Bumblebees are not logically able to fly and yet they do.
    I feel that if anyone was ever able to communicate with bumblebees and actually told them this then they probably would stop flying.

    I have had too many coincidences happen to me and my family to consider that it is coincidence.

    Newton also stated that all things were connected by Aether for which he was scoffed at.
    Now in Astrophysics, statements are being made that it appears that suns and planets and even whole galaxies appear to be interconnected by something but they arent to sure what that might be.
    My first thought when I read that was okay but Newton said that 300 years ago and we are only just catching up too him?

    On Qunatum Physics, it is too much hard work mainly because most people are not interested in it and see no point to it.
    Physics has always been of interest to me and when this subject became woo-woo as you call it, at first I was quite taken aback.

    When a person graduates in thier field of study they are supposed to have done a thesis of which they are then expected to publish( not being such a person I dont really know the ins and outs of this).
    Some times people cannot get their thesis published because they dont conform to the norm.

    There are too many well documented examples of scientists who put forward ideas that threaten the current norm and are shut down quite often permanently.
    We are left with investors who control what science gets used and what does not bases on what they can make money from.

    It is for this reason I have been calling it mainline (as in heroin) science rather than main stream.

    When I said you would gain more pleasure from learning more about this subject than being fed tid bits I was being serious not knocking you.
    Its that way with all subjects, if you are interested you do gain more pleasure discovering for yourself the jewels of it and how it relates to you or your life etc...
    Philosophy is another pet love but one that again doesnt take up all my time.
    I often go back to it or study what comes my way.
    Currently-well for the last 10 years have been mulling over what I have studied and formulating my own take on this subject and its cousin -religion.

    On plants, dont you find it odd that plants which have no eyes can produce a flower that looks like the very insect that pollinates it to act as an atttractant?
    I have seen a small tree hooked up to a metre and watched as different things were done or said to it.
    One of the most amazing things I ever saw (for me) was when someone came into the room and the metre went wild, then when they left it calmed right down again.
    What we learnt later was this person was pyscotic and about to have a breakdown yet appeared to be completely normal.
    This tree picked up something.
    Obnosis= observing the obvious.or observing what its actually before yor eyes.And accepting that you have actually observed it-those anomolies grahame was talking about.
    We are all conditioned not to see things and it is startling what you find out when you question what
    you know .
    If we dont understands something we quite often just dont see it which is why it is important for people to analyse what they know for themselves, it s too easy to just accept what we told.
     
  16. sun burn

    sun burn Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Kerrick. This is the second post of yours I've read and I really like the way you think.

    Thanks also for writing more about the book. It is interesting what you say but it would be a mistake to extrapolate from all those things that plants can think and feel emotions in a way that animals can. There are perfectly good explanations in straight science as to why plants do the things they do without heading off into the realm of the fabulous. I am pretty sure too that the authors would have drawn on this material to put their case. Perhaps i should read the book at some point. They obviously write very convincingly.

    Certainly plants are reactive to their environment. Plants are sensitive creatures but they are not "sensible".

    "The particular experiments with the EKGs haven't been able to be replicated by other researchers, if I recall." Do you mean the lie detector?

    Above I wrote that the mythbusters show was able to replicate the results but they realised that the responses of the plants were caused by environmental input so they made conditions more stringent and then there was no response.

    Certainly communicating by chemical means is not unbelievable. In fact I think its downright mainstream. But I am contesting that human thought can be detected by plants. The thing is, from the way you are writing, it seems like there's a lot of anthropomorphism going on in the argument. Plants do not think or feel. They have no brain. They respond to external conditions certainly but there is no consciousness.


    I think its a great stretch to say suggest that plants are looking after us in a conscious way. This is a very human-centric view of the universe and I am definitely against that position. Its the view that has dominated western history and has led us to where we are with out environmental crisis. If you understand the theory of evolution you will see that plants are only automatically acting in self-interest, as are well all. The fact that it helps other plants and other animals is more about the effectiveness of the whole biological system. We all already know that the system works because living things interact symbiotically with each other. Its not called the web of life for nothing. Some people might want to call this the will of God. His great design. I and many others understand this as the forces of nature. The natural world is like a cake recipe. There is always room for improvement and variation. But if some experiment doesn't work, the cake will slump or be no good and no one will follow that recipe again. Nature experiments. That how we got to where we are. But as the earlier would be evolutionists were later shown, the necks of giraffes did not grow taller by straining after the higher leaves alone. Those that were accidentally born with longer necks ended up surviving better, particularly in times of food shortage. So those animals got the chance to breed more often and it was their genes that ended up dominating the gene pool while those with short necks starved and didn't get the chance to breed.

    A lot of the fantasy that people believe in would be dismissed if only people understood the theory of evolution better. But most people don't appreciate the importance of this theory. Note that although this is a theory, there is a lot of hard evidence to support this theory and nothing that seriously contradicts it, hence its success amongst scientists. Hence its mainstream position.
     
  17. Alex.s

    Alex.s Junior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    63
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not at all mischief, i'd be surprised if a lot of people weren't a little sarcastic about the Anastasia books. For me it was just the fact that it questioned the foundation of my whole upbringing, the idea that our society is well structured. I can't help but feel that the education system is heavily flawed (and the schools mentioned in the book are beautiful!), not because it's not important to be educated, but because we are sat down for 6 hours a day behind a desk in an ugly room and force fed 'good science' and never shown the true magic, which is nothing more than nature itself. Before 'education', children used to spend the whole day with their family in the natural environment learning the relationship between man and nature, now we are literally divorced from nature and learn the 'logical' way of thinking, while our parents 'earn a living'. It challenged to the core the idea that we have to make money to survive, that it is even a good thing, that we have to conform to society and that there is any happiness in doing so. I felt it was fairly fantastic too in the depth, but the message was still strong for me; don't believe that 'science' knows what's best or that 'society' is the optimal situation for you.

    I don't see what is so amazing about the idea of plants being intelligent, they are alive and evolved before animals did, they were the first organisms to move to land. I do agree with you though Sun Burn that arguing plants are here for humans is a bit self-centred, however Animals are integral in the life-cycles of plants, so by helping us they are helping themselves. Something which I feel is striking though is that plants have been proven to respond to human emotion in their growth. I can attest to this as a girl who is very important to me recently gave me two eggplants of an Italian species, these plants mean a lot to me and I would even say I love them, these two plants are thriving and have grown faster than any other plants I have. What is most amazing though is her mother has one of the same plants planted at the same time that is not even half the height of mine. Her mother has a greener thumb than I do as well. So if you are willing to accept that plants respond to emotion through growth, and that they can therefore feel our emotional energy, I don't think it is hard to believe that they would try to create an environment that promotes our good emotions, what's good for us is good for them. I also reason that as animals are necessary for many plants survival (transporting seed, pollination), then surely they would want to be as attractive to animals as possible to ensure they achieve their aim, i.e. through healthy food and a pleasant appearance. So maybe they are not acting to look after us, but after themselves indirectly. The actual examples of plants ingenuity in taking advantage of their animal counterparts is too amazing to be 'coincidence'; i.e. there is a certain flower that simulates the appearance of a female bee so that the male bee will try to mate with it and incidentally pollinate the flower. I just watched an example of an acacia that when fed upon by giraffe releases a gas that once in contact with other leaves causes a toxin to be released in the leaf matter, this is why giraffes only browse the foliage and move on quickly. These plants have evolved mechanisms that are so specific to their environment and reactive to exact stimulus that the idea they could be automatic does not do justice to them and is perhaps rather just our ignorance and propensity to label what cannot be seen as hard to believe.

    The experiments have been repeated many times, and as for the many failures, Backster and many other scientists explain that if you cannot create a connection with the plants then you will not be able to communicate effectively. Sounds convenient but I can relate to it, there are many people who can communicate deeply with animals and they would say the same thing about anyone who can't create that connection, and judging by the myth-busters guys they don't seem to be that intuitive...

    It's important to note that most of our 'modern science' was at one point dismissed by the 'scientific authorities' as outrageous. Many great scientists made discoveries that were only accepted after their death.

    By the way mischief the other two books focus on plant intelligence and biodynamics respectively (although secret life of soil also touches on other soil enhancing practices). I am particularly enjoying the latter as I find it greatly encouraging that so many people are switching from chemical farming to biodynamic/organic farming now that it is more viable. As for the cow dung buried in horns, as mystic as it seems they have done many experiments and shown that dung buried in similar receptacles differs in chemical constitution and is less potent. Who know why? but it works :)

    What I think is unfortunate is this strong belief that science can save the day. Science can only fight symptoms of the problems we face, only nature can fight the cause of all our problems. Secrets of the Soil mentions that nearly every non-infectious disease and most terminal diseases did not exist before the invention of industrial agriculture (when we stopped getting the necessary nutrients from the food we have poisoned). It shows that before we lost our connection to natural and healthy food degenerative disease was practically inexistent. So while many argue that medical science is wonderful and a breakthrough, if we spent the billions on good health we would not need so many quick fixes. The answer is similar in agriculture, although scientists that develop new chemicals and the industries surrounding farming want to find the next scientific solution to the disaster, actually the only solution is to rebuild the soil and farm naturally, because that is and always was the best way. They have shown repeatedly that added chemicals have diminishing returns until the soil is worthless and then becomes arid wasteland (American dustbowl, Victoria and salination).

    The 'magic' for me is simply reality. The natural world is far too miraculous for scientific explanation and I feel we should accept and embrace that, not close our minds to that which we cannot fathom.
     
  18. geoff

    geoff Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How is it possible to state this as if it were certainty, when we don't even know the source of our own consciousness? We presume it's in the brain, but we've not yet had any conclusive proof.

    A plant is, for want of a kinder analogue, similar to a computer, and they've posited that a computer could develop consciousness if there were enough connections, enough processing power. What's the difference between a plant and a computer in that regard? Science, if I recall correctly, tells us that all cells are (or can be?) charged, so in effect a plant is an electrical network. What is the brain, other than an electrical network?
     
  19. sun burn

    sun burn Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    https://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1262865?ref=W_Ask&utm_source=Ask

    Obviously the questions "what is the source of our own consciousness" is a lot harder than "do plants have a brain". I don't know of any scientists who challenge the notion that plants don't have a brain. Scientists seem to have a pretty good idea how plants work. When it comes to questions about the workings of the world, i think scientists really do understand it better than your average you or me. They have proven this time and again. For a start we wouldn't be sitting here communicating like this were it not for scientists and their understanding of the physical world. What's your best trick? Science proves itself by having very real results - sending people to the moon, coming up with a pretty darn good cure for bacterial infections (don't forget before we all died of many of those), and yes unpleasant things like GM foods. But these are real tangible consequences of the things that scientists work and anyone trained in the techniques can do the same. It is transferrable from one person to another. Its not like you have to have special powers to do science.

    I think the brain is a bit more than an electrical network. I am not sure if the charge of a cell indicates it is an electrical network. I don't understand about electrical networks to answer your question though.

    I don't accept that a plant is like a computer. And when a computer develops consciousness, then I will believe it.

    I studied a little bit of philosophy at uni in the past and one of the elementary questions was what is the difference between a human and a machine, ie a computer. This came up because in the past Descartes had said we were machines. I think. It was a long time ago anyhow and I can't remember it all very well or correctly. You can always look it up yourself. Of course with advances in robotics and so on, further challenges have been raised to the distinction between humans and computers I think. But i am sure if you look for them on google instead of asking me, you will find better answers to those questions you raise. But of course if you take your replies from pretend scientists, you are likely to find the sort of answer you are looking for rather than what scientists really know and think.
     
  20. geoff

    geoff Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I won't deny that plants don't have a brain, as in a specific organ that forms a biological processing center for decision making based on inputs from the rest of the organism, but lack of a brain doesn't preclude consciousness, it only precludes the consciousness that we presume exists within the brain and which we identify as human/animal consciousness.

    The questions were more rhetorical than actual questions of you personally. I've a fair grounding in the science of computers and the theories that lead to the prospect of conscious machines, as well as a rudimentary knowledge of biology, specifically plant biology. As to whether a plant is like a computer, I did indicate it wasn't a kind(good) analogue, it's only applicable as far as the two possess electrical currents and are not presently believed to have consciousness. The brain is an electrical network that is able to alter the strength of pathways, and it is possible that computers may one day emulate this, though I am dubious as to whether the line of consciousness will ever be crossed. The fundamental difference between a plant as an electrical network and the brain as one, is that plants don't possess neuron-like structures, so cannot create the same kind of purposeful electrical network that is essentially a problem solving model, so far as we know.

    All the same, who is to say that there cannot be an alternative form of consciousness that does not require the same short-term adaptation of storage structures for problem solving? Science tells us that synapses fire when a certain potential energy has built up across them, breaching a threshold. The collective firing or non-firing of all these synapses is what is believed to lead to thought, an emergent property of the brain and this electrochemical activity. At this stage, as far as I'm aware, the plant biologists don't have enough of the right data to say whether the sum total of all the electrical potentials across all the cells in a plant have any emergent properties such as a limited form of consciousness. They are doing MRI, PET and CT scans of plants nowadays, but this is typically to analyse their architecture and dynamic chemical pathways through them. I seriously doubt anyone has ever bothered to investigate this seriously, and why would they, what money would there be in it?

    Science is great when it knows it's place. I don't believe we should read too much into conclusions that have no grounding in science. A statement from a scientist that has no backing of proof is just an opinion, the same as for everyone else. Until there is an understanding of what consciousness is and where it comes from how can there be a sound basis to say what does and does not have it?

    There was also another thing I'd like to clarify:
    There is something called the "observer effect", where the act of observing alters the state of the system being observed. As an example measuring a voltage through an electrical system requires that we alter the system, so we've actually affected the reading we get. Observer error is an entirely different phenomenon.
     

Share This Page

-->