Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
7) No Hit-and-Run questions.
Please don't delete your post for no apparent reason. If you plan on deleting a question later, say so in the post, or if you feel that you have a good reason to remove it, message a mod beforehand. It's not fair to the ones who took their time to answer, and it's not in the spirit of the community.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Seek citations
For what? Burden of proof is on you.
Why? No vegan ever produced a paper proving consciousness. Why do they get a pass?
I'm not here defending vegans, I'm here questioning your batshit insane take that animals have an equivalent level of consciousness as plants.
then you got my point: it's just as much of an insane take saying they dont. yet having not acquired any burden of proof of consciousness to say let alone commit to such absolutes.
you need to drop that as an argument and keep it as your personal belief until it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt.
til then; just as much conjecture to say equal consciousness to say consciousness exists.
we will meet on that day when theyve written the paper to prove consciousness and where it exists: then we can get proof that one has more than the other.
til then: we are two batshit insane people screaming at eachother. nothing more.
better arguments out there to be plant based. this here is just magical thinking for no other goal than to emotionally manipulate other people.
stick with facts. efficiency, less farming of animals were way better arguments than magical consciousness beliefs to be bullshit and screamy about.
Plants neither possess nor require consciousness.
For consciousness to emerge, an organism requires a massive degree of centralised structural, organisational, and functional complexity. This paper builds on the "threshold brain" framework established by neuroscientists, which maps out the absolute minimum neural machinery needed for subjective experience. Animals possess centralised nervous systems designed to integrate disparate sensory streams into a single, unified perspective. Because plants have a decentralised, structurally simple organisation completely devoid of neurons or brains, the authors note that the likelihood of them possessing consciousness is "effectively nil." Their behaviors are hardwired, genetic reflexes, not conscious choices.
this is not conclusively proven
We don't have absolute proof of many things in science, we have large bodies of evidence that require equal amounts of evidence to support alternative hypotheses. For example, we haven't absolute proof of the theory of evolution but no one serious would doubt it without ignoring the entire global fossil and genetic record.
We haven't fundamentally proven that consciousness requires a brain, but every piece of empirical evidence we have links subjective awareness, like feeling pain or fear, to centralized neural processing. If we abandon that baseline, we lose any objective way to measure it.
this is just circular reasoning that excludes anything that isn't an animal from having consciousness.
this assumes we have already agreed what consciousness means. each paper so far begins with a relative goal that was agreed within that pod of what they are treating as 'consiousness'
which is very much still open to interpretation depending on which school of thought that you, with your own set of beliefs, will decide to go with on whichever paper will support it.
it doesnt prove consciousness. it just argues a belief of an idea around consciousness.
It sets out a framework for levels of consciousness and implies that plants are way below that threshold.
Even if we go outside mainstream scientific understanding and near universal intuition and accept plants as conscious, this paper (and others if you did some cursory research on a subject you seem to care so deeply about) would still point to plants being considered less conscious than animals.
"implies"
You said so yourself.
My job isn't too prove your "maybe" or validate your imaginary thinking. I owe you no such research. Indicating as if i had any such obligation is just more emotional manipulation.
I refuse to be moved by any such manipulation.
And that's the problem I have with the current idea of vegan behaviors .
Sure, it's all Ok to act in absolutes around consciousness while you eat plants. Every other sector of science is operating in doubts until your eating plants. You can't have it both ways. That is absolute bullshit.
So you have no idea how scientific evidence works.
Neither do you.
In simple terms you can understand: I do not agree on their definition of consciousness.
The paper became irrelevant as a point for us to agree on anything after that.
Want to disagree on fairy tales of sky daddies? It would be just as concrete at this point.
It builds on a framework which defines what the minimum threshold for what neuroscientists can consider consciousness is.
Tell that to the humans that were born with very little brain matter to live a full life.
Neuroscience holds little over jellyfish, starfish and sea cucumbers which have no brain.
To be fair I'd probably get more sense out of any of the aforementioned than yourself on this matter.
Oh noes. I don't have your approval? Whatever shall I do?
Hold on... oh. I think I'll survive :)
Good to see you see value in animals and humans with little to no brains to fulfill the conscience bias.
Guess that means i won this point. Good.
However it Kinda makes you a shit person to subject people with little brain matter as an insult of intelligence. Shame on you. And you call yourself a vegan emotional manipulator? Do better.
Continue to be ridiculed by everyone with the slightest bit of scientific understanding I suppose.
That won't be you, troll.
I mean at this point it seems you don't even understand what a troll is.
Not surprising high school level science is lost on you really, it requires a basic level of reading comprehension.
are we still discussing conciousness or are you just doing ad hominem attacks cuz you cant do anything else
smells like troll.
You resorted to declaring troll and in doing so dragged the conversation down to ad hominem exchanges.
Pointing out that you have failed to understand high school level biology (plants don't have a central nervous system) is barely ad hominem anyway.
You asked for citations which I provided. You've now moved the goalposts by rejecting science's framework of consciousness.
There's nowhere else to go here.