VERY IMPORTANT PETITION. spent a lot of time on it.

[Saranagata]

https://chng.it/Bm6XjRFS8n

Guys, please read and sign the petition only if you agree. A lot of effort went into drafting it. It is the need of the hour to have proper science, instead of  impractical and unscientific "science".

[Yimpa]

This is a no-brainer for me. Weed makes me feel ALIVE!

Signing nowz

[Yimpa]

OH wait, I read the petition wrong. Too late, I signed it already 

 

 

Dammit, Leo. You know two wrongs don't make a right  

Ah, shit.. nevermind. I said "wrong" 4 times now!

Edited August 30 by Yimpa

[Saranagata]

@Leo Gura Hey Leo, there is no proper definition of life as you said in one of your video. we should atleast strive to stop ascribing the word to matter without any senses.

[Princess Arabia]

The plant in the pic is a very common weed called Plantain Leaf. It is life's Neosporin. Got stung by wasp once and rubbed the leaf (which was in my front yard) on it and it was like I never got stung. Skin rashes and insect bites. Tons of vitamins and minerals and is one of nature's miracles. Everyone steps on it and goes to the store to purchase pharmaceuticals.

So by signing the petition one is saying plants aren't living things? Not sure what one is agreeing to by signing.

Edited August 31 by Princess Arabia

[Lucasxp64]

Sorry buddy, but your argument becomes just a matter of degree of how much a thing responds to stimuli, by that logic, ChatGPT (Or another Large Language Model - LLM) is a more alive than a plant due to its emergent intelligence... But plants are more relatable when it comes to mortality and survival than an LLM could ever be (it's ephemeral, it's an immortal bag of bits and instructions)...

It's interesting, but I guess we should move towards making EVEN MORE granular distinctions about what things actually are, than taking a step backwards and trying to revise some definition like that... It's like asking if Pluto is a planet or something else...

Naming of things are very contextual, and what they mean is contextual.

I think our current definition of a "Living Being" is already pretty good. We share a common ancestor with them, they literally have cells and dna just like we do, they literally have the same molecular machinery that we do, they even suffer from dna damage similar to us ("cancer"), and so on.  They are part of our biosphere. They suffer from diseases, plagues, environmental factors (toxins, temperature, humidity), radiation, gravitational forces, water, sunlight, etc.

We are literally dead without plants, they are an extension of us.

I think all of that is more fundamental than the complexity/utility of their behaviors.

Like Gabor Maté said: "The nature of human beings is disputed, but if you look by what we NEEDS it thrive and grow"

Our nature and the nature of plants converge with our shared needs we have to thrive and grow.

That's a better, more wholistic approach to defining them, rather than trying to disconnect us away from us.

There are psychological/social implications to that definition.

Like when they used to say that animals were merely automatons that didn't even feel emotions, when in fact, from every angle we look, they are more alike us than different.

We should instead see how things are similar to us, as opposed to dissimilar.

I think it's too reductionist and disconnects human beings from our natural roots and we are becoming those sick and isolated beings, too much about the power we yield, too little about our needs.

Calling plants not alive is essentially saying a person is less alive because they are mentally handicap. I'm sure they still have the same basic needs we do.

Edited August 31 by Lucasxp64

[Saranagata]

@Lucasxp64

15 hours ago, Lucasxp64 said:

Firstly Thank you very much, mate for taking time and posting such detailed criticism. 

I would like to point out that we do not have any consensual defintion of life as of now. 

But here's my point, as you said that plants have DNA and can have the need to grow and thrive. I consider this a scientifically incorrect statement. The growth of plants is not out of their urge rather a consequence of random interactions with the environment. Infact, no one's needs should ever be taken while formulating scientific definitions because, need is a belief and my need might not necessarily be yours. 

secondly we can are now seeing the development of self replicating molecules and machines. Going by our definition , we need to consider them as living. Infact replication is due to random chemical interaction.  every atom can undergo random chemical interactions. why then should we consider an atom(matter) as non living, while considering dna (another form of matter) as living. remember formation of progeny is only accidental. There is no intentionality. 

Rather defining life  on the basis of analogy of our sense perceptions (as the capabililty to perceive through senses) might be a better definition. 

 

 

[Saranagata]

@Princess Arabia yes, because IMO living should not be based on the ability to replicate, rather it should be defined on the basis of ability to perceive through senses. which plants clearly lack. 
In my definition my life can only be verified through my experience (I perceive, therefore I am) and your life would be my belief since you  possess similar senses to me. 

[Princess Arabia]

13 minutes ago, Saranagata said:

@Princess Arabia yes, because IMO living should not be based on the ability to replicate, rather it should be defined on the basis of ability to perceive through senses. which plants clearly lack. 
In my definition my life can only be verified through my experience (I perceive, therefore I am) and your life would be my belief since you  possess similar senses to me. 

I'm not going to get into this because I don't have enough information to rebut your stance, but I will say that plants supply oxygen which is essential for life  Chlorophyll, which gives them their green color is essential to sustain lung activity and eliminates free radicals within the body that can cause harm to and reduces the capacity for the body to heal itself back to optimum performance.

[Carl-Richard]

What about fungi?

Metabolism is a good definition of life.

[Saranagata]

@Carl-Richard Metabolism is a very vague word. In the case of human it could mean anything that ranges from ATP synthesis to fat breakdown. But in the case of amoeba it just means osmosis and diffusion of a  few molecules. 

Then you can actually connect a ECMO machine to an already declared dead body of any creature, This would start the metabolic processes in the body, but would that mean that the dead has become alive?

what's common in all of these metabolic processes is they are all chemical reactions. why would one chemical rxn (in a lab) be considerd non life, while another one be considerd as a sign of life?

attaching a video, where molecules can self replicate without dna. what do we call those?

    

[Carl-Richard]

48 minutes ago, Saranagata said:

Metabolism is a very vague word.

Life is a very vague word.

I asked a sincere question: why is your petition not about fungi?

Edited September 2 by Carl-Richard

[Saranagata]

@Carl-Richard well I should include every form of matter, that doesn't have analogous senses to humans. yes, fungi, bacteria, viruses should also be included. But just testing out people's opinions on the hardest one, which is plants and trees. 

so yes, we need to differentiate fungi also from the definition of "life".

 

Edited September 2 by Saranagata

[Carl-Richard]

14 minutes ago, Saranagata said:

@Carl-Richard well I should include every form of matter, that doesn't have analogous senses to humans. yes, fungi, bacteria, viruses should also be included. But just testing out people's opinions on the hardest one, which is plants and trees. 

so yes, we need to differentiate fungi also from the definition of "life".

How similar must the sense organs be? For example, plants have photoreceptors. What about unicellular lifeforms? After all, plants evolved from them.

Edited September 2 by Carl-Richard

[Saranagata]

@Carl-Richard Hey man, I really appreciate your line of questioning. 

"photoreceptors" is a name we have given to a piece of matter, that interacts with light in a certain way. so do photoelectric plates, atoms, and garbage.

How similar sense organs must be? atleast in shape and form.

But that's not the point. my point is , you should not give the authority to someone else to tell you that you are alive,(science is all about giving the authority to someone else).

I am alive, because I perceive sensations, that's all.  and since you possess similar sense organs, I BELIEVE, YOU ARE ALIVE. I CAN NEVER SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE YOU ARE.  (no one can ever prove someone else's sense perceptions)

By bringing the definition of life into science we are removing the very meaning of it, and making the word useless. self replication/Homeostasis/Metabolism are not  defining features of life without contradictions.

Life can only be experienced, never be or tried to be proved. and you can only do it with yours. 

Edited September 2 by Saranagata

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Saranagata said:

@Carl-Richard Hey man, I really appreciate your line of questioning. 

"photoreceptors" is a name we have given to a piece of matter, that interacts with light in a certain way. so do photoelectric plates, atoms, and garbage.

How similar sense organs must be? atleast in shape and form.

But that's not the point. my point is , you should not give the authority to someone else to tell you that you are alive,(science is all about giving the authority to someone else).

I am alive, because I perceive sensations, that's all.  and since you possess similar sense organs, I BELIEVE, YOU ARE ALIVE. I CAN NEVER SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE YOU ARE.  (no one can ever prove someone else's sense perceptions)

By bringing the definition of life into science we are removing the very meaning of it, and making the word useless. self replication/Homeostasis/Metabolism are not  defining features of life without contradictions.

Life can only be experienced, never be or tried to be proved. and you can only do it with yours. 

In that case, you'll notice that your experience doesn't merely consist of single sense perceptions arising independently but rather a cohesive experience of being an organism; of seeking certain things and avoiding others, of maintaining your bodily boundary; of generally pursuing survival. This sense of being an organism probably goes way deeper than merely having a few seemingly complex sense organs (eyes with a lens, nose with nostrils, ears, etc.). You could probably stretch it as far down as unicellular organisms. Complex sense organs might produce "richer" experiences, but simpler ones might still produce experiences nonetheless.

Also, some of our sense organs are arguably not that complex. For example, the sense of taste is merely chemicals binding to receptors. It's simple and "mechanical" like photoreceptors in plants (or mechanoreceptors in the skin and musclefibres). They are still associated with specific experiences. "But they're linked to a complex nervous system". Maybe, but that complex nervous system is also linked to a complex body. Which one is more complex? Obviousy the body is already extremely complex, with or without a nervous system (even a single cell is).

While it's true that some of our (gross) experiences seem to correlate strongly with our nervous system, the nervous system obviously interacts with and is integrated with various other systems in the body (hormonal systems, the digestive system, various organ systems). When these systems change, our experience changes accordingly. Thus, in a very real sense, the systems themselves are our senses (or their own form of sense organs), as reflected in our experience. For example, you can feel the difference in your experience after eating an apple vs. eating a steak, as subtle as it might be. So which is more likely to come first: experiences associated with changes in bodily systems, or experiences associated with changes in very specific bodily systems?

So in summary, I think to single out specific components like specific configurations of sense organs or specific bodily systems like neuronal systems misses the bigger picture of the unitary organism working with processes like homeostasis and metabolism to produce an unitary experience of being an organism.

Edited September 2 by Carl-Richard

[Thought Art]

Plants are basically rocks everyone knows that.

I think plants are alive. They grow, metabolize such as in the process of photosynthesis, have cell organization, reproduce, they sensory perception, they maintain homeostasis,  communicate with each other, evolve over time. I don't think they meet a criteria of not being alive but its an interesting argument. Plants, I think even show signs of stress etc. I don't have 100% focus right now. Will look at this later as it's an interesting idea, and I'd have to look into it. 

Is human sensory perception really active? It could also be argued to be passive. My ears hear, nose smells, eyes see but they just do that automatically. 

Definitely an interesting discussion that showcases the issues around what is good or bad science, and how we looking at the same external phenomena can make different conclusions.

Just because a non-living system replicates, or can do similar things to living organisms like plants doesn't make plants non-living. People who are into technology love to do this sort of backwards rationality where they take similar behaviour of non-biological systems, technology and say "Hey, if we can make a system do this than life is also a dumb machine" which is false. These machines created by man are not life.

I decided to show your post to chatgpt:

This argument presents an interesting perspective on what it means to be alive, suggesting that our traditional understanding of life may need to evolve. However, several points in this argument can be critically analyzed. Let’s break down the main arguments and where they may be right or wrong:

1. Reproduction and Growth Are Insufficient Markers

Argument:
The argument suggests that reproduction and growth are insufficient markers of life because self-replicating machines and computer programs can exhibit these traits but are not considered alive.

Analysis:

Correct Aspect: It is true that self-replicating machines and certain algorithms can mimic some behaviors associated with life, such as growth and replication.

Flawed Aspect: The comparison between biological organisms and computer programs or machines is problematic. Biological growth and reproduction involve complex biochemical processes and cellular functions that are fundamentally different from how machines or programs replicate or grow. For example, biological reproduction involves DNA and RNA, complex biochemistry, and cellular structures, which are not present in non-living self-replicating systems. Hence, while machines can mimic these traits, they do not possess the underlying biological mechanisms that define living organisms.

2. Plants Lack Sense Perception

Argument:
The claim is that plants lack true sense perception, which is a crucial feature of life. They argue that plants' responses to stimuli are passive and mechanical.

Analysis:

Correct Aspect: Plants do not have nervous systems or sensory organs like animals, which can lead to the perception that they lack active perception.

Flawed Aspect: The argument underestimates the complexity of plant responses to stimuli. Plants can perceive their environment in sophisticated ways, such as phototropism (growing towards light), gravitropism (responding to gravity), and chemotropism (response to chemicals). They can also communicate with each other through chemical signals and even exhibit behaviors akin to learning and memory (e.g., Venus flytrap mechanism). These responses are not purely mechanical; they involve signaling pathways and hormonal regulation, which are hallmarks of biological perception. Thus, while different from animal senses, plant perception is still a valid form of interaction with their environment.

3. Plants Do Not Demonstrate True Autonomy

Argument:
The argument posits that plants follow preprogrammed responses to stimuli and lack the autonomy that animals exhibit.

Analysis:

Correct Aspect: Plants operate within a set of biological constraints, and their behaviors are often viewed as automatic responses to stimuli.

Flawed Aspect: Autonomy can be a relative term. Plants can make complex decisions based on multiple environmental inputs, such as optimizing water use during drought conditions, engaging in complex interactions with other plants, fungi, and animals (e.g., symbiotic relationships), and even modifying their growth patterns based on competition. These actions demonstrate a form of biological decision-making, although different from the active behavior seen in animals. Thus, plants exhibit a form of autonomy appropriate to their ecological niche.

4. Plants Are Complex Chemical Systems

Argument:
The argument likens plants to complex chemical systems, suggesting that their biochemical processes do not necessarily indicate life.

Analysis:

Correct Aspect: It is accurate that plants involve complex biochemical processes, similar to some non-living systems, which can lead to intricate behaviors.

Flawed Aspect: Living organisms are defined by their ability to carry out life-sustaining biochemical processes such as metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, and reproduction. Plants are not merely passive systems; they actively regulate their internal environment, respond to external changes, and can even heal wounds and defend against pathogens. These are characteristics of living organisms, distinct from non-living chemical systems. The complexity and organization of these processes in plants point to life, not just chemistry.

5. Redefining Life for a New Era

Argument:
The argument calls for a redefinition of life to include sense perception, autonomy, and dynamic interaction with the environment.

Analysis:

Correct Aspect: It is valuable to continually refine and update scientific definitions as our understanding evolves. Including aspects of perception, autonomy, and interaction could broaden our understanding of life.

Flawed Aspect: Current definitions of life already include interaction with the environment and responses to stimuli, which plants demonstrate. The argument seems to assume that only organisms with nervous systems (like animals) can be truly considered alive, which is a narrow view. Life is a spectrum of complexity, and plants represent a different, yet equally valid, form of life. Redefining life should not exclude forms of life that do not resemble animals.

Conclusion

While the argument makes some thought-provoking points, it is largely based on misunderstandings or oversimplifications of biological concepts. Plants meet the criteria for life established by biology: they grow, reproduce, respond to their environment, and maintain internal homeostasis. The argument for not considering plants as living beings because they do not possess animal-like perception or autonomy ignores the diversity of life forms and the different ways in which life can manifest. Thus, while it is important to explore and expand our definitions, current biological definitions rightly classify plants as living organisms.

Edited September 2 by Thought Art

[Thought Art]

lol found this

[Saranagata]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

In that case, you'll notice that your experience doesn't merely consist of single sense perceptions arising independently but rather a cohesive experience of being an organism; of seeking certain things and avoiding others, of maintaining your bodily boundary; of generally pursuing survival. This sense of being an organism probably goes way deeper than merely having a few seemingly complex sense organs (eyes with a lens, nose with nostrils, ears, etc.). You could probably stretch it as far down as unicellular organisms. Complex sense organs might produce "richer" experiences, but simpler ones might still produce experiences nonetheless.

 

Yes, you are right. but bodily boundary itself is not a scientific boundary rather a belief. A belief that has come into my mind due to language which itself is a human construct. again appeal to authority/majority. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Also, some of our sense organs are arguably not that complex. For example, the sense of taste is merely chemicals binding to receptors. It's simple and "mechanical" like photoreceptors in plants (or mechanoreceptors in the skin and musclefibres). They are still associated with specific experiences. "But they're linked to a complex nervous system". Maybe, but that complex nervous system is also linked to a complex body. Which one is more complex? Obviousy the body is already extremely complex, with or without a nervous system (even a single cell is).

there is absolutely zero causative evidence to say that taste is a result of nerve impulses. there is correlative evidence though to say that. but correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation. and here's the part where you are gonna confirm that I am mad.

There is literally zero evidence to say that thoughts are generated in the brain. and I don't think there will ever be any. 

 

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

While it's true that some of our (gross) experiences seem to correlate strongly with our nervous system, the nervous system obviously interacts with and is integrated with various other systems in the body (hormonal systems, the digestive system, various organ systems). When these systems change, our experience changes accordingly. Thus, in a very real sense, the systems themselves are our senses (or their own form of sense organs), as reflected in our experience. For example, you can feel the difference in your experience after eating an apple vs. eating a steak, as subtle as it might be. So which is more likely to come first: experiences associated with changes in bodily systems, or experiences associated with changes in very specific bodily systems?

"Bodily systems" itself is a construct of language. why it couldn't be that I am the universe experiencing itself through senses which is assuming a separation in the universe due to language. No language ---> No separation in any forms within the universe. But language itself is a made up thing. (make believe/unscientific). In this case, I am the only life for me. 

 

 

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

So in summary, I think to single out specific components like specific configurations of sense organs or specific bodily systems like neuronal systems misses the bigger picture of the unitary organism working with processes like homeostasis and metabolism to produce an unitary experience of being an organism.

well, I might be the universe, so could you be. which has forgot it's essential nature and has created boundaries. 

You are free to consider me crazy man, a lot of people do anyways.  But found no other platform to discuss such things.

Edited September 2 by Saranagata

[Saranagata]

1 hour ago, Thought Art said:

lol found this

lol.... Then why don't we get to a definition that will atleast give a meaning to life.   or leave the definiton as something which is beyond the scope of science. 

I am reading the chatgpt thing. will reply.