www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:

Graham Kennedy wrote:

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:Vegans do realize that plants are living things, right?

Sure but plants aren't capable of suffering.

Not so fast, my friend.

Nothing in that indicates that plants experience suffering.

If they enjoyed being eaten, why react defensively?

Mikey wrote:If they enjoyed being eaten, why react defensively?

I didn't suggest that they enjoy it. So far as I know plants don't have any conscious reactions whatsoever.

Plants respond defensively for rather obvious evolutionary reasons, yes? But I see no part of that report - or any other - that suggests that plants are aware that they're being eaten, that they experience anything we would recognise as suffering, or indeed that they are capable of experiencing or being aware of anything at all.

Awareness of a stimulus is a prerequisite of a reaction to that stimulus.

Mikey wrote:Awareness of a stimulus is a prerequisite of a reaction to that stimulus.

No it isn't.

How then does an organism react to a stimulus of which it isn't aware? Note I made no mention of consciousness.

Mikey wrote:How then does an organism react to a stimulus of which it isn't aware?

Well for example, there are reflex actions. They are reactions which can happen without awareness.

Note I made no mention of consciousness.

If you are claiming that something is aware of a stimulus, then you are by definition claiming it to be conscious. And this is most certainly the case given that you are using their alleged awareness of stimulus to justify a claim that plants experience suffering, an emotion not available to those objects which are not conscious.

Graham Kennedy wrote:Well for example, there are reflex actions. They are reactions which can happen without awareness.

Hmm, nope. If an organism is insensate to a stimulus, it cannot propagate a response whether reflexive or conscious.

Graham Kennedy wrote:If you are claiming that something is aware of a stimulus, then you are by definition claiming it to be conscious.

Hmm, nope. Heliotropism, as one example, is a well-documented phenomenon, and obviously cannot occur if the plant in question is insensate to the relative position of the sun. I don't consider that to be a conscious act any more than I consider sunflowers to be sapient intelligences.

Mikey wrote:

Graham Kennedy wrote:Well for example, there are reflex actions. They are reactions which can happen without awareness.

Hmm, nope. If an organism is insensate to a stimulus, it cannot propagate a response whether reflexive or conscious.

Graham Kennedy wrote:If you are claiming that something is aware of a stimulus, then you are by definition claiming it to be conscious.

Hmm, nope. Heliotropism, as one example, is a well-documented phenomenon, and obviously cannot occur if the plant in question is insensate to the relative position of the sun. I don't consider that to be a conscious act any more than I consider sunflowers to be sapient intelligences.

Nobody talked about "insensate". You've been claiming that plants are suffering, justifying this by using a response to stimulus as being proof that they are aware. Now you're trying to shift the goalposts.

Not at all. Reacting to a stimulus as if that stimulus were better avoided sure fills the bill.

Mikey wrote:Not at all. Reacting to a stimulus as if that stimulus were better avoided sure fills the bill.

No, it doesn't.

I guess I'll just have to check up on the British interpretation of "stimulus" and "response."

Mikey wrote:I guess I'll just have to check up on the British interpretation of "stimulus" and "response."

You'd be better to check out "suffering" and "awareness" whilst you're at it.

The contention is that I already know.