Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do Trees Feel Emotions?

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 1:26:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have one thing to clarify before I say anything of substance, yes, I do love trees.

For right now this will be the definition of emotions,

a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others. (Google)

And the definition of consciousness,

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. (Google)

So if all an emotion is, is something derived from is the result of the judging the factors of your surrounding your environment (judging meaning deciding if it is good or bad), then trees definitely have emotions. If a tree is getting more than enough resources that it needs, has minimal predators and is prosperous, then by definition the tree would be happy as it"s relationship with its environment is prosperous. If the tree has negative interactions with its environment, then it would follow by definition it would have emotion of that; sad.

This brings up a multitude of questions, which I hope will spring quality discussion. It then follows that based on a tree"s relationship and interactions with its surrounding environment, a tree can feel emotions like humans.

Do trees have thoughts?

If not, is the capability of thought required to have emotions?

Are humans the only organism that "thinks"?

Is every living thing conscious?

If so, does every living thing feel emotions?

What does it mean to be conscious?

What do you think the evolutionary benefit is for having emotions?
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 7:42:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 1:26:46 AM, Hayd wrote:

Do trees have thoughts?

Dunno, ask one.

If not, is the capability of thought required to have emotions?

No brain = no processing.

Regardless, emotions require a whole bunch of hormones that trees don't have.

Are humans the only organism that "thinks"?

Anything with a brain can think.

Is every living thing conscious?

No, since consciousness requires a brain, and not all living things have brains.

Consciousness itself is not all-or-nothing, but is instead a gradual transition correlated with increased brain complexity.

If so, does every living thing feel emotions?

Answered already.

What does it mean to be conscious?

Google the definition.

What do you think the evolutionary benefit is for having emotions?

Not being dead.
tejretics
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:57:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
(1) Interaction with environment is not sufficient for consciousness, since consciousness requires that one be "aware" of the environment. Trees are not "aware," since to be "aware" necessitates a mind, which is a product of the brain (cf. physicalism, biological naturalism, property dualism).

(2) In this case, you can't define "negative," since negative is subjective -- and subjective perception is restricted to beings with emotions, so you're being circular when saying "trees get negative feelings because they get negative interactions."
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 2:23:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 10:57:35 AM, tejretics wrote:
(1) Interaction with environment is not sufficient for consciousness, since consciousness requires that one be "aware" of the environment. Trees are not "aware," since to be "aware" necessitates a mind, which is a product of the brain (cf. physicalism, biological naturalism, property dualism).
I feel that trees are "aware" to some point about their surrounding environment, they are "aware" of the living conditions, the dampness of the soil, etc. They have some level of "awareness". What is the mind though? Would only animals have consciousness then and not plants because plants don't have "brains."

(2) In this case, you can't define "negative," since negative is subjective -- and subjective perception is restricted to beings with emotions, so you're being circular when saying "trees get negative feelings because they get negative interactions."
Ah, that tis true.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 3:28:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, trees are plants, and as such, do not require emotions or consciousness to survive, which therefore negates any probability that trees evolved with consciousness.

Nice philosophy, but not probable.

BTW, Hayd, I recently opened a debate with user
zeromeansnothing about home schooling. Would you like to be our judge? The debate is called "Is homeschooling/distance education a good form of education?"
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 6:09:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 1:26:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
I have one thing to clarify before I say anything of substance, yes, I do love trees.

For right now this will be the definition of emotions,

a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others. (Google)

And the definition of consciousness,

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. (Google)

So if all an emotion is, is something derived from is the result of the judging the factors of your surrounding your environment (judging meaning deciding if it is good or bad), then trees definitely have emotions. If a tree is getting more than enough resources that it needs, has minimal predators and is prosperous, then by definition the tree would be happy as it"s relationship with its environment is prosperous. If the tree has negative interactions with its environment, then it would follow by definition it would have emotion of that; sad.

This brings up a multitude of questions, which I hope will spring quality discussion. It then follows that based on a tree"s relationship and interactions with its surrounding environment, a tree can feel emotions like humans.

Do trees have thoughts?

If not, is the capability of thought required to have emotions?

Are humans the only organism that "thinks"?

Is every living thing conscious?

If so, does every living thing feel emotions?

What does it mean to be conscious?

What do you think the evolutionary benefit is for having emotions?


I remember once they did an experiment on plants by linking the plant up to something akin to a lie detector,

The experiment was to drop shrimps into boiling water and see if the plants react, according to the detector, They did.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 7:00:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 7:42:54 AM, SM2 wrote:
No brain = no processing.
A cell doesn't have a brain, but it still processes and has decision-making skills.
Regardless, emotions require a whole bunch of hormones that trees don't have.
Explain how emotions require hormones???
Anything with a brain can think.
Do cells have brains? What is thought, if it is the processing of external reality then yes they do think.
No, since consciousness requires a brain, and not all living things have brains.
Explain why it requires brain?
Consciousness itself is not all-or-nothing, but is instead a gradual transition correlated with increased brain complexity.
I agree to an extent.
What do you think the evolutionary benefit is for having emotions?
Not being dead.

I don't see the explanation here...
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 7:02:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 3:23:31 PM, FangirlLyfe wrote:
0-0
I dunno... The veins look like they might be able to transmit the feeling through the tree.

What veins?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 7:03:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 3:28:44 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Also, trees are plants, and as such, do not require emotions or consciousness to survive, which therefore negates any probability that trees evolved with consciousness.
It does not have to be necessary, all it has to be is helpful.
Nice philosophy, but not probable.

BTW, Hayd, I recently opened a debate with user
zeromeansnothing about home schooling. Would you like to be our judge? The debate is called "Is homeschooling/distance education a good form of education?"

Sure, would love to.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 7:04:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 6:09:15 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 10/6/2015 1:26:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
I have one thing to clarify before I say anything of substance, yes, I do love trees.

For right now this will be the definition of emotions,

a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others. (Google)

And the definition of consciousness,

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. (Google)

So if all an emotion is, is something derived from is the result of the judging the factors of your surrounding your environment (judging meaning deciding if it is good or bad), then trees definitely have emotions. If a tree is getting more than enough resources that it needs, has minimal predators and is prosperous, then by definition the tree would be happy as it"s relationship with its environment is prosperous. If the tree has negative interactions with its environment, then it would follow by definition it would have emotion of that; sad.

This brings up a multitude of questions, which I hope will spring quality discussion. It then follows that based on a tree"s relationship and interactions with its surrounding environment, a tree can feel emotions like humans.

Do trees have thoughts?

If not, is the capability of thought required to have emotions?

Are humans the only organism that "thinks"?

Is every living thing conscious?

If so, does every living thing feel emotions?

What does it mean to be conscious?

What do you think the evolutionary benefit is for having emotions?


I remember once they did an experiment on plants by linking the plant up to something akin to a lie detector,

The experiment was to drop shrimps into boiling water and see if the plants react, according to the detector, They did.

Was this by mythbusters? How did the trees react?
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 7:33:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Lol...I love this post...TREE HUGGERS UNITE!
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 7:34:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hayd is the DDO Lorax.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 9:59:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 9:58:48 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:34:09 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Hayd is the DDO Lorax.

rofl, thats me :)

Adorbs.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:00:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 1:26:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
I have one thing to clarify before I say anything of substance, yes, I do love trees.

I love em too :)

For right now this will be the definition of emotions,

a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others. (Google)

And the definition of consciousness,

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. (Google)

So if all an emotion is, is something derived from is the result of the judging the factors of your surrounding your environment (judging meaning deciding if it is good or bad), then trees definitely have emotions. If a tree is getting more than enough resources that it needs, has minimal predators and is prosperous, then by definition the tree would be happy as it"s relationship with its environment is prosperous. If the tree has negative interactions with its environment, then it would follow by definition it would have emotion of that; sad.

This brings up a multitude of questions, which I hope will spring quality discussion. It then follows that based on a tree"s relationship and interactions with its surrounding environment, a tree can feel emotions like humans.

A mind is only possible on a nervous system, but trees have nothing that resembles one.

Do trees have thoughts?

No.

If not, is the capability of thought required to have emotions?

Indeed. If emotions are deffined as "states of mind", then you are leaving "involuntary body responses to sensorial information" out of the emotions category. The emotions you are talking about are triggered by thoughts (ie I process the visual information of a bug, I produce a thought, and this thought stresses the endocrine system, which in turn make us feel fear) therefore if you can not think, you can not feel those emotions.

Are humans the only organism that "thinks"?

Anything with a center that processes and interprets information, is thinking. Note that this is not the same as reacting to information. Rocks react to information, but they do not think about this information.

Is every living thing conscious?

Well, as you defined it, it is a big tricky to answer. You say a conscious object is aware of its surroundings, but we don't really know anything but us being aware of our surroundings. I mean, I know I'm aware of my surroundings, but I do not know with certainty that you are, much less a plant. Plants, as rocks and water, react to environment conditions, but are they aware of those conditions? Or it's just basic physics and chemistry (ok not THAT basic in the case of a plant) what makes them answer the environment the way they do?

If so, does every living thing feel emotions?

No. Again you can not feel (emotions defined as a state of mind) without a nervous system that is capable of being affected by an endocrine system.

What does it mean to be conscious?

I define consciousness as the sense of self. Being aware of oneself. But in this post, I'm trying to answer as if I accepted your definition of consciousness.

What do you think the evolutionary benefit is for having emotions?

Inmense benefit. Everyone agrees love is the strongest thing in the Universe, well, it is an emotion isn't it :)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:07:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 10:00:12 PM, Otokage wrote:
A mind is only possible on a nervous system, but trees have nothing that resembles one.

We have a nervous system so that we can move and feel. Trees can 'feel' to some extent.

Do trees have thoughts?
No.

Why not?

If not, is the capability of thought required to have emotions?

Indeed. If emotions are deffined as "states of mind", then you are leaving "involuntary body responses to sensorial information" out of the emotions category. The emotions you are talking about are triggered by thoughts (ie I process the visual information of a bug, I produce a thought, and this thought stresses the endocrine system, which in turn make us feel fear) therefore if you can not think, you can not feel those emotions.

This makes sense, trees can process information, based upon the information processed they 'acknowledge' certain outcomes. The question is do they 'feel' about this subjectively?

Are humans the only organism that "thinks"?

Anything with a center that processes and interprets information, is thinking. Note that this is not the same as reacting to information. Rocks react to information, but they do not think about this information.

How do rocks react to information? It seems that everything else is reacting to them.

Inmense benefit. Everyone agrees love is the strongest thing in the Universe, well, it is an emotion isn't it :)

Fear is stronger than love (Green Lantern Movie)
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:27:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 10:07:03 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/6/2015 10:00:12 PM, Otokage wrote:
A mind is only possible on a nervous system, but trees have nothing that resembles one.

We have a nervous system so that we can move and feel. Trees can 'feel' to some extent.

But if you define a feeling like a state of mind, you must be ready to explain how trees have a mind without a nervous system.

Do trees have thoughts?
No.

Why not?

A thought is only possible with a mind, isn't it? Then how mindless creatures can have thoughts?

If not, is the capability of thought required to have emotions?

Indeed. If emotions are deffined as "states of mind", then you are leaving "involuntary body responses to sensorial information" out of the emotions category. The emotions you are talking about are triggered by thoughts (ie I process the visual information of a bug, I produce a thought, and this thought stresses the endocrine system, which in turn make us feel fear) therefore if you can not think, you can not feel those emotions.

This makes sense, trees can process information, based upon the information processed they 'acknowledge' certain outcomes. The question is do they 'feel' about this subjectively?

Wow. But that's a really complex feeling process. To be aware of the own subjective experiences is something only highly developed brains can do. I can grant you an orca is capable of this, but a plant...? Where is the physical core that allows a plant to do this? The registered neural activity? The behavioural pattern?

Are humans the only organism that "thinks"?

Anything with a center that processes and interprets information, is thinking. Note that this is not the same as reacting to information. Rocks react to information, but they do not think about this information.

How do rocks react to information? It seems that everything else is reacting to them.

Rocks react to heat by expanding or melting, they react to pressure by reorganizing themselves into planes (ie slate), they interact with oxygen changing in color and chemical properties, etc.


Inmense benefit. Everyone agrees love is the strongest thing in the Universe, well, it is an emotion isn't it :)

Fear is stronger than love (Green Lantern Movie)

And fear is key to our survival, isn't it?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2015 10:35:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 10:27:45 PM, Otokage wrote:
But if you define a feeling like a state of mind, you must be ready to explain how trees have a mind without a nervous system.

I don't think I defined it as a state of mind
Do trees have thoughts?

A thought is only possible with a mind, isn't it? Then how mindless creatures can have thoughts?

Why do you have to have a mind?

If not, is the capability of thought required to have emotions?

Indeed. If emotions are deffined as "states of mind", then you are leaving "involuntary body responses to sensorial information" out of the emotions category. The emotions you are talking about are triggered by thoughts (ie I process the visual information of a bug, I produce a thought, and this thought stresses the endocrine system, which in turn make us feel fear) therefore if you can not think, you can not feel those emotions.

Wow. But that's a really complex feeling process. To be aware of the own subjective experiences is something only highly developed brains can do. I can grant you an orca is capable of this, but a plant...? Where is the physical core that allows a plant to do this? The registered neural activity? The behavioural pattern?

I think you misunderstand, based on factors they find an answer, they then judge whether this answer is good or bad, they then react to whether it is good or bad, not very complicated.

Anything with a center that processes and interprets information, is thinking. Note that this is not the same as reacting to information. Rocks react to information, but they do not think about this information.

Rocks react to heat by expanding or melting, they react to pressure by reorganizing themselves into planes (ie slate), they interact with oxygen changing in color and chemical properties, etc.

Ah, I see. Do trees have free-will? Do rocks have free-will?

And fear is key to our survival, isn't it?

Yes, it was just a joke ;)
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 12:55:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 7:00:21 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/6/2015 7:42:54 AM, SM2 wrote:
No brain = no processing.
A cell doesn't have a brain, but it still processes and has decision-making skills.

The bolded part is incorrect. Cells respond to different stimuli according to their chemical properties. There is no "decision" involved; the entire process is automated by chemistry.

Regardless, emotions require a whole bunch of hormones that trees don't have.
Explain how emotions require hormones???

You know that fear you feel when somebody points a gun at you? That's not a rational decision on your part; your brain has been flooded with chemicals that make you experience fear.

Anything with a brain can think.
Do cells have brains? What is thought, if it is the processing of external reality then yes they do think.

Thought requires analysis of stuff. Cells don't analyse stuff, in the same way that a lock doesn't analyse a key.

No, since consciousness requires a brain, and not all living things have brains.
Explain why it requires brain?

Because the brain is where neural processing occurs.

Consciousness itself is not all-or-nothing, but is instead a gradual transition correlated with increased brain complexity.
I agree to an extent.

Good.

What do you think the evolutionary benefit is for having emotions?
Not being dead.

I don't see the explanation here...

Refer back to "somebody points a gun at you". If your brain had to wait for a conscious decision from you before initiating fight-or-flight, you'd get shot.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 4:09:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 1:26:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
Do trees have thoughts?

I would be surprised.

If not, is the capability of thought required to have emotions?

No, not at all.

Are humans the only organism that "thinks"?

No.

Is every living thing conscious?

Dunno, the definition is difficult.

If so, does every living thing feel emotions?

I think that one feels emotions before becoming conscious

What does it mean to be conscious?

Self-awareness is the usual standard , which involves the mirror test. But it's all very fuzzy still.

What do you think the evolutionary benefit is for having emotions?

They're basically a physiological response to a stimulus, so they serve serve a LOT of functions.

Now, let's get past the big question: can trees feel? A lot of the people in this thread brought up neurons, but that's an absurd stance to take; it's essentially circular reasoning. Another brought up the veins in leaves, and is actually remarkably close to the truth: plants can, under duress, use phloem (one of the vascular tissues in plants which make up the vein) to transfer electrical signals. (http://www.plantphysiol.org...)

To dumb down the language, an 'action potential' is what happens in a neuron: it describes a controlled wave of charged ion influxes which travels down the nerve, transmitting a signal. We now know that this happens in plants as well, in a different sort of tissue, in both localized and long-distance ways. In a sense, the plant is aware of things which harm it, and is responding to them in various physiological ways. Plants can also communicate with one another by emitting hormones; this is understood by evolutionary biologists to be somewhat of an accident. Basically, emitting gaseous hormones when injured allows the message to reach every part of the plant more efficiently, but as a plant community formed it also inadvertently alerted all of the surrounding plants capable of receiving that particular hormone. This means that, if insects attack one plant, a bunch of surrounding plants will 'know' about it and respond accordingly by 'listening in' on the plant's conversation with itself. This is a pretty good article on the whole gist of things: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... There are even more instances than I've brought up, it's all very interesting.

Basically, the end story is that most people outside of the field of botany don't know much about plants at all, and that we shouldn't assume that plants are just automatic, simple growing machines. That stance is outdated by several decades, and research indicates that a tree is probably, if we were to measure the sophistication of its various responses, several orders of magnitude more sensitive to and aware of its surrounding than, say, a clam, even though it lacks neurons.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 5:08:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Plants do feel pain (and even "scream" and "talk"), though I don't know about emotions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Regarding if a plant can be intelligent, there is some debate. Though, there is an interesting question regarding the distinction between mind and intelligence.

http://www.pri.org...

Also plants using fungi internet to communicate and distinguish friend from enemy brings questions to how they determine such a relationship through mere connection of fungal threads.

http://www.bbc.com...
Otokage
Posts: 2,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 8:56:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 10:35:20 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/6/2015 10:27:45 PM, Otokage wrote:
But if you define a feeling like a state of mind, you must be ready to explain how trees have a mind without a nervous system.

I don't think I defined it as a state of mind

You defined emotions as: a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.

I was using the word feeling as sinonimous to emotion, sorry about that :p

Do trees have thoughts?

A thought is only possible with a mind, isn't it? Then how mindless creatures can have thoughts?

Why do you have to have a mind?

Because thinking requires a mind. If you had a brain damage, would you still be able to think? Also, when thinking, it is our brain neurons what is seen having activity, hence brains must be key to thinking.

If not, is the capability of thought required to have emotions?

Indeed. If emotions are deffined as "states of mind", then you are leaving "involuntary body responses to sensorial information" out of the emotions category. The emotions you are talking about are triggered by thoughts (ie I process the visual information of a bug, I produce a thought, and this thought stresses the endocrine system, which in turn make us feel fear) therefore if you can not think, you can not feel those emotions.

Wow. But that's a really complex feeling process. To be aware of the own subjective experiences is something only highly developed brains can do. I can grant you an orca is capable of this, but a plant...? Where is the physical core that allows a plant to do this? The registered neural activity? The behavioural pattern?

I think you misunderstand, based on factors they find an answer, they then judge whether this answer is good or bad, they then react to whether it is good or bad, not very complicated.

They can not judge whether the answer is good or bad, nor can they act upon judgement, that's why they always produce the same answer even if this answer is detrimental to them. The same goes to rocks, they also can not judge their answers so they are forced to repeat the same answer again and again. The same goes to us to an extent, for example, allergic people are forced to produce the same immune answer again and again despite the huge damage this entails to themselves. They can even judge whether this answer is good or bad (they have minds to do this), but they can not act upon it (ie, they can not choose to answer in any other way). If even us, the pinacles of thought, are bound by this, how would you expect plants are not?

Anything with a center that processes and interprets information, is thinking. Note that this is not the same as reacting to information. Rocks react to information, but they do not think about this information.

Rocks react to heat by expanding or melting, they react to pressure by reorganizing themselves into planes (ie slate), they interact with oxygen changing in color and chemical properties, etc.

Ah, I see. Do trees have free-will? Do rocks have free-will?

No. Rocks and plants can not make choices, they are forced to always give the same answer if presented with the same stimulus, so I don't see how they could have "free-will".

And fear is key to our survival, isn't it?

Yes, it was just a joke ;)

=)
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:02:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 8:56:01 AM, Otokage wrote:
I was using the word feeling as sinonimous to emotion, sorry about that :p
Ist okay

Because thinking requires a mind. If you had a brain damage, would you still be able to think? Also, when thinking, it is our brain neurons what is seen having activity, hence brains must be key to thinking.

This is for humans, this could be different for other organisms, who have a different make up.

They can not judge whether the answer is good or bad, nor can they act upon judgement, that's why they always produce the same answer even if this answer is detrimental to them. The same goes to rocks, they also can not judge their answers so they are forced to repeat the same answer again and again. The same goes to us to an extent, for example, allergic people are forced to produce the same immune answer again and again despite the huge damage this entails to themselves. They can even judge whether this answer is good or bad (they have minds to do this), but they can not act upon it (ie, they can not choose to answer in any other way). If even us, the pinacles of thought, are bound by this, how would you expect plants are not?

I feel that you are right here.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:07:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 4:09:27 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Now, let's get past the big question: can trees feel? A lot of the people in this thread brought up neurons, but that's an absurd stance to take; it's essentially circular reasoning. Another brought up the veins in leaves, and is actually remarkably close to the truth: plants can, under duress, use phloem (one of the vascular tissues in plants which make up the vein) to transfer electrical signals. (http://www.plantphysiol.org...)

To dumb down the language, an 'action potential' is what happens in a neuron: it describes a controlled wave of charged ion influxes which travels down the nerve, transmitting a signal. We now know that this happens in plants as well, in a different sort of tissue, in both localized and long-distance ways. In a sense, the plant is aware of things which harm it, and is responding to them in various physiological ways. Plants can also communicate with one another by emitting hormones; this is understood by evolutionary biologists to be somewhat of an accident. Basically, emitting gaseous hormones when injured allows the message to reach every part of the plant more efficiently, but as a plant community formed it also inadvertently alerted all of the surrounding plants capable of receiving that particular hormone. This means that, if insects attack one plant, a bunch of surrounding plants will 'know' about it and respond accordingly by 'listening in' on the plant's conversation with itself. This is a pretty good article on the whole gist of things: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.... There are even more instances than I've brought up, it's all very interesting.

Basically, the end story is that most people outside of the field of botany don't know much about plants at all, and that we shouldn't assume that plants are just automatic, simple growing machines. That stance is outdated by several decades, and research indicates that a tree is probably, if we were to measure the sophistication of its various responses, several orders of magnitude more sensitive to and aware of its surrounding than, say, a clam, even though it lacks neurons.

Do plants choose to react in a certain way? Like if they are in a situation, and they have a variety of different options/actions to choose to do, do they have the ability to choose (free-will kinda)? Or is their decision predetermined because of their "brain" power like Otokage said?
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:16:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/6/2015 1:26:46 AM, Hayd wrote:
I have one thing to clarify before I say anything of substance, yes, I do love trees.

For right now this will be the definition of emotions,

a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others. (Google)

And the definition of consciousness,

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings. (Google)

So if all an emotion is, is something derived from is the result of the judging the factors of your surrounding your environment (judging meaning deciding if it is good or bad), then trees definitely have emotions. If a tree is getting more than enough resources that it needs, has minimal predators and is prosperous, then by definition the tree would be happy as it"s relationship with its environment is prosperous. If the tree has negative interactions with its environment, then it would follow by definition it would have emotion of that; sad.

This brings up a multitude of questions, which I hope will spring quality discussion. It then follows that based on a tree"s relationship and interactions with its surrounding environment, a tree can feel emotions like humans.

Do trees have thoughts?

If not, is the capability of thought required to have emotions?

Are humans the only organism that "thinks"?

Is every living thing conscious?

If so, does every living thing feel emotions?

What does it mean to be conscious?

What do you think the evolutionary benefit is for having emotions?


No they do not as they do not have brains which are needed to feel emotions.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:17:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:16:30 PM, beng100 wrote:
No they do not as they do not have brains which are needed to feel emotions.

Why is a brain required? Explain...
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:23:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:17:11 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:16:30 PM, beng100 write
No they do not as they do not have brains which are needed to feel emotions.

Why is a brain required? Explain...

Emotion is only possible through conscious thought. This takes place in the brain. A tree does not have one.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:25:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:23:21 PM, beng100 wrote:
Emotion is only possible through conscious thought. This takes place in the brain. A tree does not have one.
Why is emotion only possible through conscious thought? And why does this have to take place in the brain?
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2015 10:45:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/7/2015 10:25:43 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 10/7/2015 10:23:21 PM, beng100 wrote:
Emotion is only possible through conscious thought. This takes place in the brain. A tree does not have one.
Why is emotion only possible through conscious thought? And why does this have to take place in the brain?

As far as I'm aware all research suggests this. It also seems logical. Without conscious thought emotion would not be possible. What evolutionary advantage would having a conscious have? None as I see it, so therefore it wouldent develop it.