1096
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
1096 points (98.4% liked)
Comic Strips
12041 readers
1899 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You're conflating very different processes here. While there is the hard problem of consciousness and we can't falsify ideas like panpsychism consider a few things.
If you amputate my hand and press on it it will emit nervous signals. Does anyone feel pain? If you destroy most of my brain but keep me alive, then stab me almost all the nervous activity and hormones etc associated with injury will happen. Is there any reason to believe there is any pain felt?
I would say no in both cases, pain is not emitting nervous impulses, or something that precedes releasing endorphins and inflammatory factors etc. Pain cannot even necessarily be reliably correlated with stress markers like heart rate, and in the case of phantom limb syndrome pain can even be associated with a complete lack of signals.
There are good evolutionary reasons to exhange information and resources, even unwittingly. Apparently some bacteria in my tummy are in conversation with my body constantly but I'm not at all aware or actively participating in that. Maintaing pain only really seems to offer advantage if you can do something about it, while it's possible for things to exist accidentally it's not like grass can move to places without mowers or trees shade themselves. In all animals with nervous systems the nervous systems are the vastly most expensive thing to keep alive. In fact there are a few creatures who when entering an immobile stage of life rapidly digest their own (a good explaination for both tenure and retirees!).
Plants don't have rapid long distance communication in their bodies, they don't have centralised organs, they don't even have anything approaching the levels of activity we associate with the simplest nervous systems.
It's probably best to think of grass "screaming" as skin cells "screaming" for resources to make more melanin when exposed to UV. Or lymph nodes "screaming" when releasing hormones to heal a wound and stuff. This is all vastly below the level of consciousness.
Or whatever, embrace panpsychism, like the invisible dragon in my garage nobody can prove it false /shrug. Animals eat plants though and thermo law 2 is a thing so even panpsychics minimise suffering by being plant based.
But what I am arguing is that is an anthropocentric view of what constitutes pain and suffering. We cannot assume either is not possible without a nervous system. It's worth at least looking into the concept even though we don't know that there would be a mechanism simply based on what we know about plants so far. I myself would put myself on the no side when it comes to whether or not plants feel pain, but I couldn't say that it was a 100% definite no by any means and I think we may feel very differently about what it means to be a plant and what plants are capable of in 20 years.
You've got to operate on evidence, there's an infinite number of things you can't falsify and you have no criteria for choosing which to believe or not.
In other animals we observe things consistent with pain such as long term behaviour modification in the absence of a persistent hormone. Things like avoiding places they were injured, becoming more cautious or less curious, even changes that destroy them like starving themselves to death.
Anyone that says "only humans feel pain" is a chauvinist ignoring stuff like rats giving up the will to live.
But trees or mosses or whatever do none of this. A tree will keep trying to grow towards a fence that damages branches in a storm, a tree never starves itself to death making thicker bark after teens carve lovehearts into it, a tree doesn't stop reproducing after 3 droughts kill all its children and so on. Leaves might change colour in response to periods of high or low sunlight but these changes are like tanning, they don't modify anything about how the tree trees.
We can't know is true, but we also can't know I don't have an invisible dragon in my garage. you should definitely not live your life thinking I have an invisible dragon in my garage. Why? you don't have any evidence to suspect it's real that is distinguishable from a random lie. We have no evidence of behaviour in trees indistinguishable from chemical signals we know are below the level of consciousness in ourselves.
I don't know why any of this means that our nebulous definitions of 'pain' and 'suffering' cannot apply to plants.
If I stub my toe, it doesn't modify anything about how I human. But it hurts.
It does though, you will stop walking. Clutch your foot, say ow, look at where you hit the thing, be more careful when walking near there, move the object, pad the object, maybe wear protective covers on your feet, maybe dress a wound if the nailbed was damaged etc. If your toe keeps hurting you will travel to a doctor for assessment, or splint the toe and so on.
Unless you don't notice, in which case you feel no pain despite the toe signalling furiously.
Along side this a bunch of cellular processes will happen to repair the damage, but they happen even if you don't notice (distraction/nerve damage, anaesthetic etc) and so we can notice "huh, there are 2 clusters of things happening, one is conditional and one isn't" and that's a clue that there's something more going on than just a body repairing itself.
Damaged plants can send out signals to other plants, and chemicals to repel what is damaging them (to the specific area where the damage is being done) and repair their damage. Some plants will avoid growing towards areas that they have been unable to thrive in before.
You still seem to be talking about things from a purely human perspective. Dogs will damage their feet and not even let you know sometimes. They will get a piece of glass in their foot and they won't stop walking on them or try to do anything about it until they literally can't do anything about it. My dog tore her CCL and the only reason we knew anything was wrong was that she wasn't limping and then she was a few moments later. She didn't make a sound, she didn't react with any sort of signal that indicated that she was aware serious damage had been done to her, she just was unable to use that leg. Are you going to argue that she felt no pain?
Could you please explain how this can be distinguished from wound healing in a human. Like what chemicals are sent out? what is the mechanism? are they transported anywhere in particular? are different signals collated in determining a response or does the same hormone guarantee the same response in a dose dependent manner?
This is surprising to me, is it distinct from following chemical gradients? I have never seen this, or heard about it. The closest I would say I have ever seen is not growing towards salt or dry soil. What is the evidence here please as I don't know what you're talking about. Is there a memory effect? if a grass doesn't grow south and you put it in a new area will it also not grow south?
I'm really not, I had a whole thing about memory and will to live and avoiding areas where I specifically spoke about rats.
Whether or not you notice it (and it's true that many animals will try to hide injuries, humans included) doesn't mean there is no modifications to behaviour. E.g. licking, protecting the area (less weight on paw, lifiting it up etc), reacting to the same stimulus more negatively such as not eating or growling etc when being touched.
You literally said she stopped using it. Aka she felt pain. Ever eaten after a dentist when your mouth is still numb? you will straight up bite off chunks of your lips and keep eating. If there was no pain she would keep trying to use it and probably just be confused when it didn't work. Which btw is how she'll behave if you anaesthetise her!
Also if you've ever noticed her behaviour after removing say a piece of gravel from between the pads in her feet you'll probably notice despite no damage the first step or two will be tentative. She's anticipating pain, again behaviour modification.
Plants just don't do anything like this.
You are asking me to sum up the entire science of plant cognition in such a brief window that I might as well have Wikipedia do it for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_cognition
No I'm not, I'm asking why you specifically believe those things to be comparable.
What specific knowledge do you have which prompts these apparently very deeply held and unusual beliefs?
Specific knowledge? My whole point here is that there isn't enough knowledge. Why do I need specific knowledge to say "this field is changing by the day and we keep learning plants are able to do all sorts of things we thought you needed a nervous system for, so it is not inconceivable that plants feel pain?"
You do know that I have never made the claim that plants definitely do feel pain, right? I never even claimed that they feel pain the same way an animal does. I even suggested that what they would feel could be described as pain even though it wasn't the sort of thing we would anthropogenically think of as pain because we do not have good definitions for the concept of pain or the concept of suffering.
I'm not sure why I need to repeat myself like this when I made all of this clear in my initial post.
Ok, and I opened by acknowledging the hard problem of consciousness but you never actually said that you disagreed with my assertion that my amputated hand doesn't feel pain.
Do you think my amputated hand feels pain? It would seem that you would have just as much (more maybe! given electric shocks or heat to the fingertips will make it recoil) evidence for it feeling pain as grass. And that all your arguments about grass signalling also apply to my amputated hand.
If you don't think my amputated hand feels pain (or could be considered at least as likely as grass to) why don't you?
I wasn't suggesting a leaf feels pain or that it would be the leaf that would have some definition of pain and suffering if it were ripped from the stem. It would be the rest of the plant.
So why are you bringing up a part that, when separated from the whole, no longer has that capacity in any living thing?
wait what? that's an extremely unusual stance!
What do you mean separated from the whole? all the non hand parts of me are also no longer whole but I am willing to believe amputees, even multiple amputees, even people who have lost the majority of their body can feel pain if their brain is alive and mostly intact.
This is consistent with my belief that pain experiencing happens in a centralised mass of nervous tissue we call a brain.
If you don't think centralised masses of nervous tissue are needed to experience pain (required for plants to, given that no brain is something we can prove) what do you think is? Why would a patch of grass have that thing but not a blade of grass (grass lacks localised organs afterall) or my hand?
Until you stop insisting that an amputated hand is equivalent to an entire plant, this is a ridiculous discussion.
Plants are alive. Amputated hands are not. Those are facts you can't seem to accept.
We appear to be imagining different scenarios. Imagine it is freshly amputated and is still alive, or that we amputate it and hook it up to an artificial circulatory system, or indeed my circulatory system but at a distance so nothing else is connected (curious if you think the pain chance changes in that situation).
I'm sorry, I could have been more explicit. It seemed obvious to me discussing a dead hand was silly but being the internet it's worth clarifying these things.
Why should I imagine it when that's not reality?
Where it would be no more "alive" than Henrietta Lacks' eternal cell line. If you have to keep it from decomposing by artificial means, it's not alive like a plant is alive. This should be obvious to you.
Find a better analogy.
it's not an analogy it's a thought experiment. I am trying to understand the shape of your ideas.
So the ability to feel pain is harmed by cybernetics? division from a whole (still no idea what you mean specifically there in the absence of localised organs)? and if you're going to die in about an hour?
None of what you are talking about has anything to do with what I'm talking about. You can mention severed hands as much as you like.
I'm bored of this. I thought you had interesting opinions, sorry for my mistake.
Also we need to distinguish responding to the environment and even making decisions from experiencing pain.
I can make a robot from Lego that follows a line pretty well but I think we're all pretty comfortable with the idea it is vanishingly unlikely to feel pain (although there are people who feel punishment machine learning schemes are unethical lol).