Are plants life?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Most people assume that plants are life.
And there's no denying that no animals can survive without plants.
But to say that plants are actually life strikes me as rather odd.

If they discovered that there was another planet that was covered in trees, flowers and whatever, I'd be like... big deal... until they'd found the first animal. Once they'd discovered an animal, then I'd truly feel that we aren't alone in this universe, even if it was a mere insect, or mosquito.

Trees wouldn't make me feel that we had company elsewhere in the universe.

What do people think?

[Donkey]

Um... are you serious? Yes plants are life.

[Greendruid]

Most people assume that plants are life.
And there's no denying that no animals can survive without plants.
But to say that plants are actually life strikes me as rather odd.

If they discovered that there was another planet that was covered in trees, flowers and whatever, I'd be like... big deal... until they'd found the first animal. Once they'd discovered an animal, then I'd truly feel that we aren't alone in this universe, even if it was a mere insect, or mosquito.

Trees wouldn't make me feel that we had company elsewhere in the universe.

What do people think?

Indeed, I wonder if extraterrestrials might think the same about our planet. Thanks for providing an example.

[Non Sequitur]

yes...

[Michael]

Most people assume that plants are life.
And there's no denying that no animals can survive without plants.
But to say that plants are actually life strikes me as rather odd.

If they discovered that there was another planet that was covered in trees, flowers and whatever, I'd be like... big deal... until they'd found the first animal. Once they'd discovered an animal, then I'd truly feel that we aren't alone in this universe, even if it was a mere insect, or mosquito.

Trees wouldn't make me feel that we had company elsewhere in the universe.

What do people think?

If they find a planet with even a single-cell organism alive, that's good enough for me. We are products of same process. :shrug:

[pramjockey]

Why wouldn't plants be life?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Why wouldn't plants be life?
Because they don't think.
A mosquito isn't very intellectual, but it is more intellectual than an oak tree. An oak tree is totally void of intellect, for all its grandeur.

Rene Descartes said 'Je pense donc je suis' (I think, therefore I am)
It could be argued that an armchair is even though it doesn't think, but at least an ant is descartesianly.

[dilettante]

It could be argued that an armchair is even though it doesn't think, but at least an ant is descartesianly.

Is it? Do ants really think in the self-conscious recognition of "I" sense that Descartes wrote of? Or do they simply react to stimuli in a more complex, but not necessarily more self-conscious, way than trees do?

Put another way, if I build a robot that mimics the behavior of an ant, is it more or less alive than a tree?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Is it? Do ants really think in the self-conscious recognition of "I" sense that Descartes wrote of? Or do they simply react to stimuli in a more complex, but not necessarily more self-conscious, way than trees do?

Put another way, if I build a robot that mimics the behavior of an ant, is it more or less alive than a tree?
Yes, ants think. They don't get drunk and solve the world's problems, but they do think which twigs need to be lifted to which part of the ant hill.

[pramjockey]

Because they don't think.
A mosquito isn't very intellectual, but it is more intellectual than an oak tree. An oak tree is totally void of intellect, for all its grandeur.

Rene Descartes said 'Je pense donc je suis' (I think, therefore I am)
It could be argued that an armchair is even though it doesn't think, but at least an ant is descartesianly.

And you can demonstrate that ants think and plants don't, how, exactly?

Your definition of "life" is fascinating and completely unscientific of course.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

And you can demonstrate that ants think and plants don't, how, exactly?

Your definition of "life" is fascinating and completely unscientific of course.
I don't have to demonstrate it to most people - most people know what I mean.

[Donkey]

I don't have to demonstrate it to most people - most people know what I mean.

Er... what DO you mean?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Er... what DO you mean?
Well, come on, I mean ... ants walk, and make decisions - when does a tree make any decision?

[pramjockey]

I don't have to demonstrate it to most people - most people know what I mean.

"I just know that it's that way" isn't science. Much of the universe isn't intuitive. And, that people who know little to nothing about insect behavior "know what you mean" is, honestly, less than compelling.


Even finding single-cell (or an equivalent) life on another planet would be mindblowing. It would change so many assumptions that we have made for so long. Plant life - structures of differentiated cells (assuming that alien life is cell-based) working in harmony? That would be beyond words.

The complexity of something like a single yeast cell, and how it is able to grow, metabolize, manage waste, and reproduce is truly mindblowing. The more you learn, the more you don't know, and we're still learning. Brushing these things off as unliving because they haven't achieved some behavior that you are personally valuing is, IMHO, almost offensive.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

"I just know that it's that way" isn't science. Much of the universe isn't intuitive. And, that people who know little to nothing about insect behavior "know what you mean" is, honestly, less than compelling.


Even finding single-cell (or an equivalent) life on another planet would be mindblowing. It would change so many assumptions that we have made for so long. Plant life - structures of differentiated cells (assuming that alien life is cell-based) working in harmony? That would be beyond words.

The complexity of something like a single yeast cell, and how it is able to grow, metabolize, manage waste, and reproduce is truly mindblowing. The more you learn, the more you don't know, and we're still learning. Brushing these things off as unliving because they haven't achieved some behavior that you are personally valuing is, IMHO, almost offensive.

Many things are mind-blowing.
But everyone knows that a computer may be very sophisticated, but it's lack of self-awareness is what reassures us that it's not one of us.
It's the same with plants - they are not self-aware.
Animals are. At least, that's what I think, and what most people think.

[pramjockey]

Many things are mind-blowing.
But everyone knows that a computer may be very sophisticated, but it's lack of self-awareness is what reassures us that it's not one of us.
It's the same with plants - they are not self-aware.
Animals are. At least, that's what I think, and what most people think.

What you think is, quite honestly (and no offense intended), irrelevant.

There really isn't any evidence of self-awareness in insects. There isn't any behavior that indicates that there is a sense of "oh, I am a unique individual" in a mosquito. Swat at a mosquito and miss, and it will continue mindlessly on its path towards your arm.

That a plant moves more slowly than you like doesn't mean that it is less aware than a mosquito.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Swat at a mosquito and miss, and it will continue mindlessly on its path towards your arm.
.
Yes, it moves towards one's arm - the mosquito smells blood and thinks "yum yum, I'll have some of that"

[pramjockey]

Yes, it moves towards one's arm - the mosquito smells blood and thinks "yum yum, I'll have some of that"

Now you're anthropomorphizing.

[Michael]

I don't have to demonstrate it to most people - most people know what I mean.

Well, I haven't a clue. I can't imagine ants or mosquitos "thinking" any more than a tree. That makes no sense.

The higher mammals certainly do "think", but insects? :rolleyes:

[The Drunk Girl]

So you're definition of "life" pertains to the idea of being able to think?:ummm:

Let me ask you a few questions before I explain why and how plants are life.

1) A newborn that reacts completely on instinct is not life? This fits your definition. Remember this.

2) A person who is brain dead and/or on a ventilator is not considered life either? True, this is a crappy way to live, but technically they are still alive.

Now for my explanation, which I find to be completely silly to begin with, but oh well.

Plants have cells. Sure plant cells are different from animal cells, but they are cells nonetheless. The dictionary states that cells are: "the basic structural unit of all organisms."

Got this so far? Now for the definition of "organism."

1) "a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes." *Ahh! We have the word "life" in that definition*


2) "a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran." *And! We have the word "plant" in this one.

I won't keep giving you direct definitions but...life is life. Just because a living thing doesn't think doesn't mean it isn't alive. The leaves here in Kentucky have fallen off the trees. They're on the ground, brown and dead. They once were alive and green. (Such a shame the fall colors didn't last long).

Stimuli, metabolism, growth, and reproduction are all things animals go through, as well as plants.

dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/)

If this isn't enough for you maybe you should read some books on biology or take a course in it. :shrug:

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Now you're anthropomorphizing.
I don't know what that means.
I don't know what that means.

The Drunk Girl, all I know is that it's the thinking and self-awareness which I consider the amazing part of life. Even if plants have something that classes them as life, big deal, if they can't think and be self-aware.
What would you consider the biggest news story "forest found on Mars" or "Mosquito found on Mars"? I bet if they found a forest, the first thing they would do, would be to search and search for any animal.

[Donkey]

I don't know what that means.
I don't know what that means.

The Drunk Girl, all I know is that it's the thinking and self-awareness which I consider the amazing part of life. Even if plants have something that classes them as life, big deal, if they can't think and be self-aware.
What would you consider the biggest news story "forest found on Mars" or "Mosquito found on Mars"? I bet if they found a forest, the first thing they would do, would be to search and search for any animal.

There would likely be no Mosquito without the forest.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

There would likely be no Mosquito without the forest.
I've already said that I'm aware that animals can't live without plants. They can't live without oxygen either.

[Donkey]

I've already said that I'm aware that animals can't live without plants. They can't live without oxygen either.

At the early stages of life on earth, Oxygen was a toxin.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

At the early stages of life on earth, Oxygen was a toxin.
Well, I've already said that I know animals can't live without plants - I'd still not feel that we had company if they found trees, but no animals on another planet.

[Donkey]

Well, I've already said that I know animals can't live without plants - I'd still not feel that we had company if they found trees, but no animals on another planet.

"Company" is a pretty subjective term.

Less so "life."

[The Drunk Girl]

I don't know what that means.
I don't know what that means.

The Drunk Girl, all I know is that it's the thinking and self-awareness which I consider the amazing part of life. Even if plants have something that classes them as life, big deal, if they can't think and be self-aware.
What would you consider the biggest news story "forest found on Mars" or "Mosquito found on Mars"? I bet if they found a forest, the first thing they would do, would be to search and search for any animal.

Much like this topic, if you don't know or understand something then look it up.

Second, you're opinion of thinking and being self aware of what's amazing in life is far different than your OP. I think it would be better for you to concede than to try and backtrack, leading to you digging yourself a deeper hole further confusing yourself and others with your logic.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Much like this topic, if you don't know or understand something then look it up.

Second, you're opinion of thinking and being self aware of what's amazing in life is far different than your OP. I think it would be better for you to concede than to try and backtrack, leading to you digging yourself a deeper hole further confusing yourself and others with your logic.
I didn't ask pramjockey for information, merely informed him that I didn't understand it. Must I look it up? I don't have to? Good.
Read properly - I never said anything about being aware of what's amazing in life.

[dilettante]

...the mosquito smells blood and thinks "yum yum, I'll have some of that"

Does it? How would you know?

A rock falls toward the ground when you drop it.
My car goes forward when I step on the gas pedal.
My leg kicks out when a doctor taps my patellar tendon (below the kneecap) in a reflex test.

But that doesn't mean that the rock thinks "oh, boy, I'll move down toward the ground now."
Or that my car thinks "I'm going to drive forward!"
Or that my leg thinks "Boy that felt funny; I suppose I'll kick now."


On the other hand: if allowed, a plant will grow toward its light-source, changing shape to expose more leaves to the light. Perhaps the plant is thinking ""yum yum, I'll have some of that?"

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Does it? How would you know?

A rock falls toward the ground when you drop it.
My car goes forward when I step on the gas pedal.
My leg kicks out when a doctor taps my patellar tendon (below the kneecap) in a reflex test.

But that doesn't mean that the rock thinks "oh, boy, I'll move down toward the ground now."
Or that my car thinks "I'm going to drive forward!"
Or that my leg thinks "Boy that felt funny; I suppose I'll kick now."


On the other hand: if allowed, a plant will grow toward its light-source, changing shape to expose more leaves to the light. Perhaps the plant is thinking ""yum yum, I'll have some of that?"
I'll concede that mosquitoes may be a special case - but look at how angry bees get, and how they, and fish struggle to save their lives. I bet that even mosquitoes do this at a miniature level - you chop down the noblest of oak trees, and it's totally unarsed.

[Donkey]

I'll concede that mosquitoes may be a special case - but look at how angry bees get, and how they, and fish struggle to save their lives. I bet that even mosquitoes do this at a miniature level - you chop down the noblest of oak trees, and it's totally unarsed.
Are you basing any of this on science or knowledge of biology?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Are you basing any of this on science or knowledge of biology?
I don't really know how you define science, but I'll tell you what I base it on. I base it on the fact that I have seen animals act like humans, in the situations I describe. I've seen plants act like any old armchair.

[Non Sequitur]

I don't really know how you define science, but I'll tell you what I base it on. I base it on the fact that I have seen animals act like humans, in the situations I describe. I've seen plants act like any old armchair.

Your armchair grows things, reproduces, and changes with the seasons. That is some armchair.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Your armchair grows things, reproduces, and changes with the seasons. That is some armchair.
You're right - it does need a clean.

[pramjockey]

I don't really know how you define science, but I'll tell you what I base it on. I base it on the fact that I have seen animals act like humans, in the situations I describe. I've seen plants act like any old armchair.

That's anthropomorphizing. You're assigning human characteristics to non-human things.

Bees are not humans. We have no possible way of understanding what bees "think" or "feel," but we do know that with the incredibly simple brain structure that bees have, they don't have thoughts, emotions, or experiences like humans do. They just don't have the brain for it.

An "angry" bee is as much acting on an instinctual pattern as anything. It's a genetic response, not an emotional one.


Trying to assign human thoughts and behaviors to non-humans is dangerous. It gets people injured and killed. Just like that VW Beetle may look like it's smiling at you - it isn't any less dangerous when it's coming your way. That "smiling" dog or bear isn't thinking like a human, either.

[Donkey]

That's anthropomorphizing. You're assigning human characteristics to non-human things.

Bees are not humans. We have no possible way of understanding what bees "think" or "feel," but we do know that with the incredibly simple brain structure that bees have, they don't have thoughts, emotions, or experiences like humans do. They just don't have the brain for it.

An "angry" bee is as much acting on an instinctual pattern as anything. It's a genetic response, not an emotional one.


Trying to assign human thoughts and behaviors to non-humans is dangerous. It gets people injured and killed. Just like that VW Beetle may look like it's smiling at you - it isn't any less dangerous when it's coming your way. That "smiling" dog or bear isn't thinking like a human, either.

That dolphin might be, though. :p

[NickKIELCEPoland]

That's anthropomorphizing. You're assigning human characteristics to non-human things.

Bees are not humans. We have no possible way of understanding what bees "think" or "feel," but we do know that with the incredibly simple brain structure that bees have, they don't have thoughts, emotions, or experiences like humans do. They just don't have the brain for it.

An "angry" bee is as much acting on an instinctual pattern as anything. It's a genetic response, not an emotional one.


Trying to assign human thoughts and behaviors to non-humans is dangerous. It gets people injured and killed. Just like that VW Beetle may look like it's smiling at you - it isn't any less dangerous when it's coming your way. That "smiling" dog or bear isn't thinking like a human, either.
Yes, an angry bee is acting on instinct, just as humans act on instinct. Have you ever heard of a plant's instinct?

[Donkey]

Yes, an angry bee is acting on instinct, just as humans act on instinct. Have you ever heard of a plant's instinct?

Instinct to seek out the sun? Instinct to grow into fertile areas? Instinct to snap closed in seconds over the body of an unfortunate fly?

Face it: even a single celled organism is life. Just because plants move slower than (most) animals doesn't make them any less alive.

http://mich-mosh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Lord_of_the_Rings_Ent_Treebeard.jpg

[NickKIELCEPoland]

That's anthropomorphizing. You're assigning human characteristics to non-human things.
Trying to assign human thoughts and behaviors to non-humans is dangerous. It gets people injured and killed. Just like that VW Beetle may look like it's smiling at you - it isn't any less dangerous when it's coming your way. That "smiling" dog or bear isn't thinking like a human, either.

It is my humble opinion that you are talking shite.

[Donkey]

It is my humble opinion that you are talking shite.

While we're making up new definitions, would you mind defining "animal?"

[NickKIELCEPoland]

While we're making up new definitions, would you mind defining "animal?"
First, which new definition have I made up?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Instinct to seek out the sun? Instinct to grow into fertile areas? Instinct to snap closed in seconds over the body of an unfortunate fly?

Face it: even a single celled organism is life. Just because plants move slower than (most) animals doesn't make them any less alive.

http://mich-mosh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Lord_of_the_Rings_Ent_Treebeard.jpg
Thank you. That's a very valid point.

[Donkey]

First, which new definition have I made up?

Well you seem to reject the conventional definition of life.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Well you seem to reject the conventional definition of life.
Yes, but I think you are getting too hung up about words.
Rather focus on the emotions attached to the word 'life'.
'Life' is meant for living'.
That's 'life'.
Full of 'life'.
Are we alone in the universe? Alone!!!

I'm sorry, but if, as I assume, plants are totally void of emotion, then I fail to see what is so special about them, although they make the air much nicer, and are wonderful to look at.

However, I will concede that your last argument about instinct is very valid.

[pramjockey]

That dolphin might be, though. :p

You say that until it tries to have sex with you in your "swim with the dolphins" encounter.

:erm:

[pramjockey]

It is my humble opinion that you are talking shite.

Well, then you should understand me very well.

:angel:

[Donkey]

Yes, but I think you are getting too hung up about words.
Rather focus on the emotions attached to the word 'life'.
'Life' is meant for living'.
That's 'life'.
Full of 'life'.
Are we alone in the universe? Alone!!!

I'm sorry, but if, as I assume, plants are totally void of emotion, then I fail to see what is so special about them, although they make the air much nicer, and are wonderful to look at.

However, I will concede that your last argument about instinct is very valid.

It is highly likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

It is highly likely that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
I agree.

[The Drunk Girl]

http://mich-mosh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Lord_of_the_Rings_Ent_Treebeard.jpg

:inlove::D


I didn't ask pramjockey for information, merely informed him that I didn't understand it. Must I look it up? I don't have to? Good.

I don't know what that means.
I don't know what that means.You're right. You don't have to look it up, but the fact that you aren't willing to take some initiative to actually look it up (instead of responding that you don't know what something means) doesn't seem to help you regarding this topic or any other.

Read properly - I never said anything about being aware of what's amazing in life.

The Drunk Girl, all I know is that it's the thinking and self-awareness which I consider the amazing part of life.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

As I said, The Drunk Girl, read properly.
I clearly state that it is the thinking and awareness which is the amazing part of life.
I don't say anything about thinking and awareness of what is amazing in life.
If you can't see the difference, then too bad. I'm sure most people on here can.

[The Drunk Girl]

As I said, The Drunk Girl, read properly.

Oh excuse me. It's what you consider. Still doesn't help your argument.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

As I said, The Drunk Girl, read properly.
I clearly state that it is the thinking and awareness which is the amazing part of life.
I don't say anything about thinking and awareness of what is amazing in life.
If you can't see the difference, then too bad. I'm sure most people on here can.

[pramjockey]

As I said, The Drunk Girl, read properly.
I clearly state that it is the thinking and awareness which is the amazing part of life.
I don't say anything about thinking and awareness of what is amazing in life.
If you can't see the difference, then too bad. I'm sure most people on here can.

:ummm:


I'd beg to differ. That life happens at all is amazing. Consciousness is interesting, but not "the amazing part."

[Donkey]

:ummm:


I'd beg to differ. That life happens at all is amazing. Consciousness is interesting, but not "the amazing part."

Existence itself is amazing. Life is just the likely result of a complex system.

[pramjockey]

Existence itself is amazing. Life is just the likely result of a complex system.

True enough. The universe/multiverse blows my mind the more I learn about it.

[Michael]

As I said, The Drunk Girl, read properly.
I clearly state that it is the thinking and awareness which is the amazing part of life.
I don't say anything about thinking and awareness of what is amazing in life.
If you can't see the difference, then too bad. I'm sure most people on here can.

Watch your civility please.

[The Drunk Guy]

I'm going to say that plants aren't life. Now, you can't use science, logic, or any other form of truth to convince me otherwise.

[Donkey]

I'm going to say that plants aren't life. Now, you can't use science, logic, or any other form of truth to convince me otherwise.

By golly, you may have a point.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

I'm going to say that plants aren't life. Now, you can't use science, logic, or any other form of truth to convince me otherwise.
I have never denied that plants reproduce.
I have never denied that they have genes.
I've never denied that they follow light.
I've never denied one thing that science.

But I do believe that when people use the word 'life' in daily discourse, they are usually referring, in their minds, to something that plants don't have.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Watch your civility please.
Michael,
I don't know what you mean - I never called anyone any names.
Someone implied that I was digging myself into a whole, and I told them that if they didn't understand what I meant, that was too bad, and that I was sure most on here did understand.

I think both statements were perfectly acceptable, but I think you singling out one over the other looks like bias.

And if you have a problem with this post, then I suggest you ban me now, since I will always defend myself if I feel unjustly treated, however trivially.

[Non Sequitur]

But I do believe that when people use the word 'life' in daily discourse, they are usually referring, in their minds, to something that plants don't have.

But since when is that authoritative? What people "have in their minds" is rarely the actually definition of a thing.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

But since when is that authoritative? What people "have in their minds" is rarely the actually definition of a thing.
Well, I personally think that what people "have in their minds" does actually have a powerful claim to the title of a definition.

[Donkey]

Well, I personally think that what people "have in their minds" does actually have a powerful claim to the title of a definition.Yes. It is "a" definition. Specifically, in this case, it is the wrong definition.

Though I would give average folks a lot more credit than you would. Pretty much everybody knows that plants are living things.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Yes. It is "a" definition. Specifically, in this case, it is the wrong definition.

Though I would give average folks a lot more credit than you would. Pretty much everybody knows that plants are living things.
That's your opinion, 't'would be a dull forum were't not for diversity of opinion ;)

[pramjockey]

Well, I personally think that what people "have in their minds" does actually have a powerful claim to the title of a definition.

But to what end? "What people have in their minds" is often at a complete disconnect from anything resembling reality. People, regardless of nation, are woefully under-educated about the natural world around them. They think that whales are fish. They think that volcanoes are one or several gods getting angry. They think that the oceans are bottomless.

That a large group of people think something doesn't make it true.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

But to what end? "What people have in their minds" is often at a complete disconnect from anything resembling reality. People, regardless of nation, are woefully under-educated about the natural world around them. They think that whales are fish. They think that volcanoes are one or several gods getting angry. They think that the oceans are bottomless.

That a large group of people think something doesn't make it true.
Rather than quibble over the meaning of the word 'life' let's think rather about whether or not self-consciousness is the crowning glory of life. I say it is.

[dilettante]

But to what end? "What people have in their minds" is often at a complete disconnect from anything resembling reality. People, regardless of nation, are woefully under-educated about the natural world around them. They think that whales are fish. They think that volcanoes are one or several gods getting angry. They think that the oceans are bottomless.

That a large group of people think something doesn't make it true.

Well, really, when it comes to the definition of words, it kinda does...
I can't think of a higher authority for what a word means than the collective definition of the people who use it.

That is to say, if [almost] everyone uses a given word to mean X, and a dictionary states that it really means Y, then in my book it's the dictionary that's wrong (it probably needs to be updated).

That said, of course, I'm pretty sure the vast, vast, vast majority of people define "life" in such a way that it includes plants. A trickier possibility might be something like fire! :)

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Well, really, when it comes to the definition of words, it kinda does...
I can't think of a higher authority for what a word means than the collective definition of the people who use it.

That is to say, if [almost] everyone uses a given word to mean X, and a dictionary states that it really means Y, then in my book it's the dictionary that's wrong (it probably needs to be updated).

That said, of course, I'm pretty sure the vast, vast, vast majority of people define "life" in such a way that it includes plants. A trickier possibility might be something like fire! :)
dilletante, I agree with everything you say.
My own policy is that if a person is speaking their native language, then their definition of a given word, is as good a definition as any other.

However, with this particular 'life' debate, it's a slightly different situation, since most people agree that plants are life, but at the same time, I personally feel that when the word 'life' is used on a daily basis, it's normally about a certain something which doesn't really apply to plants. That's what I think anyway.

I also think that the word 'life' carries with it a certain specialness, which is only really prevalent among animals.

We see computers get more and more advanced, but we mock the idea that they can ever be anything like us. And the reason for that is quite simple - they lack self-consciousness, just like plants.

[Donkey]

The title of this thread should be "Do plants have theory of mind."

Then the answer "no" would be more realistic. But then, mosquitos and cats don't really have ToM either.

[pramjockey]

Well, really, when it comes to the definition of words, it kinda does...
I can't think of a higher authority for what a word means than the collective definition of the people who use it.

That is to say, if [almost] everyone uses a given word to mean X, and a dictionary states that it really means Y, then in my book it's the dictionary that's wrong (it probably needs to be updated).

That said, of course, I'm pretty sure the vast, vast, vast majority of people define "life" in such a way that it includes plants. A trickier possibility might be something like fire! :)

So, if the vast majority of people think that whales are fish, whales suddenly grow gills?

[Michael]

Well, really, when it comes to the definition of words, it kinda does...
I can't think of a higher authority for what a word means than the collective definition of the people who use it.

That is to say, if [almost] everyone uses a given word to mean X, and a dictionary states that it really means Y, then in my book it's the dictionary that's wrong (it probably needs to be updated).

That said, of course, I'm pretty sure the vast, vast, vast majority of people define "life" in such a way that it includes plants. A trickier possibility might be something like fire! :)

That rule actually applies to English - and it is apparently unique in that respect. English language dictionaries merely state how the word is used - they do not offer authorative definitions. If the usage of the word changes over time, the dictionaries need to be updated. That's why I've always scoffed at attempts to argue the 'authorative' meaning for a word by citing some dictionary definition. That's backwards! :lol:

[dilettante]

So, if the vast majority of people think that whales are fish, whales suddenly grow gills?

Not quite. But, if the vast majority of people define "fish" as "any creature with fins that swims underwater," then that's what the word "fish" means. And thus whales are "fish" (or would be in that scenario).

[NickKIELCEPoland]

That rule actually applies to English - and it is apparently unique in that respect. English language dictionaries merely state how the word is used - they do not offer authorative definitions. If the usage of the word changes over time, the dictionaries need to be updated. That's why I've always scoffed at attempts to argue the 'authorative' meaning for a word by citing some dictionary definition. That's backwards! :lol:
It applies to all languages in one way or another. The French word tete (head) originally meant cooking pot (testa- Latin for cooking pot, caput- Latin for head). But Roman soldiers used testa as a slang term for head, and as we have seen, French dictionaries have abided by those informal Roman soldiers.

http://wordinfo.info/unit/3465/s:caenum
caput
Head.The Latin or Romance languages often adopted Roman camp slang instead of the correct Latin word. Caput was "head" in Latin, but the Roman legionaries used testa, a round cooking pot, jokingly for "head".
This ancient slang migrated into French as tete and into Italian as testa. The correct Latin word for "head" (caput) survives as capo in Italian and is an American Mafia idiom for "head man" or "chief".

[pramjockey]

Not quite. But, if the vast majority of people define "fish" as "any creature with fins that swims underwater," then that's what the word "fish" means. And thus whales are "fish" (or would be in that scenario).

Ugh

Fair enough.

:p

[Michael]

It applies to all languages in one way or another. The French word tete (head) originally meant cooking pot (testa- Latin for cooking pot, caput- Latin for head). But Roman soldiers used testa as a slang term for head, and as we have seen, French dictionaries have abided by those informal Roman soldiers.

http://wordinfo.info/unit/3465/s:caenum
caput
Head.The Latin or Romance languages often adopted Roman camp slang instead of the correct Latin word. Caput was "head" in Latin, but the Roman legionaries used testa, a round cooking pot, jokingly for "head".
This ancient slang migrated into French as tete and into Italian as testa. The correct Latin word for "head" (caput) survives as capo in Italian and is an American Mafia idiom for "head man" or "chief".

Citation from the French Language Academy please.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Citation from the French Language Academy please.

I don't know how to get hold of such a citation, but here's something.

"The Latin for 'head' is caput, which appears as Spanish cabeza and Portuguese cabeca. But the French word for 'head' is tete, and the Itailian is testa; these come from the Latin testa, which meant 'brick, pot, pitcher'; clearly this was a slang word for head (like our nut and block), perhaps soldiers' slang. The word caput has however descended into French, as chef, and into Italian, as capo, both meaning 'chief, leader'."

BARBER, Charles: The Story of Language, London, Pan Books Ltd, 1964.
Charles Barber was a Doctor, and senior lecturer in English at the University of Leeds.

[Michael]

I don't know how to get hold of such a citation, but here's something.
I was referring to the fact that the spelling & definition of words of the French language are authoratively determined by the French Academy. There are similar bodies for various other languages.

I can well imagine some people don't care or ignore their rulings, as they certainly don't have legal enforcement, but they do presume to make those rulings.

Edited to add: Btw, I'm not trying to suggest that English is 'special' or that other languages are inferior - not at all. I'm only trying to assert that English is by definition a completely bastard language were there are no official rules and there really has never been any official rules. It is fluid and flexible and changes on an almost daily basis. And this is not unique, only the degree and pace of it. But I do believe that the inherent flexibility and mutability of the language is part of its strength and utility on a world scale.

[cshaun]

I definitely think that plants are life because they are so full of energy and soul keeping our mother earth in a perfect equilibrium. Plants balance our air - the air we breathe - the air we couldn't live without. Therefore, they are life... life all around us. Every plant delivery (http://www.serenataplants.com/petals/Plant_delivery_.htm) of oxygen kind of proofs this statement for me, personally because my life couldn't be without the life of plants. Is that actually understandable?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2863
Yes, I think animals feel something very similar to familial love. However, I think they feel anger, as well. That goes along with tribalism to an extent.

I don't know....I've seen cats and dogs express almost all of these...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Plutchik-wheel.svg
Perhaps they feel all our emotions, but they are simply unable to convey them. :shrug:


;)

And bees, too - they can certainly get angry.

[FixingTheFuture]

We all have our opinions, So Im going to take your opening question literal and define what is believed and respected as scientific fact.

I am not saying that life can't mean other things IE "That milk has a shelf life of 2hours."

Biology is the study of "life" and Biology studies multi-cellular organisms as well as single cellular organisms -Which both Humans and plants are therefore Plants are considered to be "life" I believe you are confused with the fact that they are intelligent life or not. Plants are not intelligent in our eyes as humans... This is simply the simple act of using ones point of view to explain something. the plant doesn't seem to have an organ for thought such as our brain, but the plants genetics hold memory of the previous life that existed in that strain of plant through the respected process of evolution... Yes plant is considered "life" In the English language and as far as every respected science that exists today I believe they have all agreed plants are "life" due to their biology as a cellular organism.

A More technical way to explain why scientists have agreed that they are "life" is because they undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, respond to stimuli, reproduce, and posess a capacity to grow. They also, as stated above, They go through the process of natural selection in order to adapt to their surroundings. Plants have alot in common with you and I, For instance, We are both water based, We both metabolize food for fuel in order to grow and survive, and both plants, humans, animals, & reptiles all have a cellular form that makes us all what we are today.

I also believe your philosophy on this matter relates more to consciousness and less to existence itself. Your perception on religion, souls, and whether or not there is an afterlife all can have a very strong affect to your opinion and by your comment i would suggest you probably don't believe simple organic objects or cellular organisms have souls or can contain a consciousness... *I hope i was of some help to your answer as I noticed that this thread has turned into more of a debate and less of an answer into plant life. -Josh

[NickKIELCEPoland]

We all have our opinions, So Im going to take your opening question literal and define what is believed and respected as scientific fact.

I am not saying that life can't mean other things IE "That milk has a shelf life of 2hours."

Biology is the study of "life" and Biology studies multi-cellular organisms as well as single cellular organisms -Which both Humans and plants are therefore Plants are considered to be "life" I believe you are confused with the fact that they are intelligent life or not. Plants are not intelligent in our eyes as humans... This is simply the simple act of using ones point of view to explain something. the plant doesn't seem to have an organ for thought such as our brain, but the plants genetics hold memory of the previous life that existed in that strain of plant through the respected process of evolution... Yes plant is considered "life" In the English language and as far as every respected science that exists today I believe they have all agreed plants are "life" due to their biology as a cellular organism.

A More technical way to explain why scientists have agreed that they are "life" is because they undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, respond to stimuli, reproduce, and posess a capacity to grow. They also, as stated above, They go through the process of natural selection in order to adapt to their surroundings. Plants have alot in common with you and I, For instance, We are both water based, We both metabolize food for fuel in order to grow and survive, and both plants, humans, animals, & reptiles all have a cellular form that makes us all what we are today.

I also believe your philosophy on this matter relates more to consciousness and less to existence itself. Your perception on religion, souls, and whether or not there is an afterlife all can have a very strong affect to your opinion and by your comment i would suggest you probably don't believe simple organic objects or cellular organisms have souls or can contain a consciousness... *I hope i was of some help to your answer as I noticed that this thread has turned into more of a debate and less of an answer into plant life. -Josh
No, you weren't of any help. This whole text is the biggest load of wool I have ever read, with the odd obvious fact thrown in.

[dilettante]

We all have our opinions, So Im going to take your opening question literal and define what is believed and respected as scientific fact.

I am not saying that life can't mean other things IE "That milk has a shelf life of 2hours."

Biology is the study of "life" and Biology studies multi-cellular organisms as well as single cellular organisms -Which both Humans and plants are therefore Plants are considered to be "life" I believe you are confused with the fact that they are intelligent life or not. Plants are not intelligent in our eyes as humans... This is simply the simple act of using ones point of view to explain something. the plant doesn't seem to have an organ for thought such as our brain, but the plants genetics hold memory of the previous life that existed in that strain of plant through the respected process of evolution... Yes plant is considered "life" In the English language and as far as every respected science that exists today I believe they have all agreed plants are "life" due to their biology as a cellular organism.

A More technical way to explain why scientists have agreed that they are "life" is because they undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, respond to stimuli, reproduce, and posess a capacity to grow. They also, as stated above, They go through the process of natural selection in order to adapt to their surroundings. Plants have alot in common with you and I, For instance, We are both water based, We both metabolize food for fuel in order to grow and survive, and both plants, humans, animals, & reptiles all have a cellular form that makes us all what we are today.

I also believe your philosophy on this matter relates more to consciousness and less to existence itself. Your perception on religion, souls, and whether or not there is an afterlife all can have a very strong affect to your opinion and by your comment i would suggest you probably don't believe simple organic objects or cellular organisms have souls or can contain a consciousness... *I hope i was of some help to your answer as I noticed that this thread has turned into more of a debate and less of an answer into plant life. -Josh

Actually, I think the technical definition is an excellent one, since it provides a clear and objectively discernible list of criteria.

Thanks :)

[Michael]

We all have our opinions, So Im going to take your opening question literal and define what is believed and respected as scientific fact.

I am not saying that life can't mean other things IE "That milk has a shelf life of 2hours."

Biology is the study of "life" and Biology studies multi-cellular organisms as well as single cellular organisms -Which both Humans and plants are therefore Plants are considered to be "life" I believe you are confused with the fact that they are intelligent life or not. Plants are not intelligent in our eyes as humans... This is simply the simple act of using ones point of view to explain something. the plant doesn't seem to have an organ for thought such as our brain, but the plants genetics hold memory of the previous life that existed in that strain of plant through the respected process of evolution... Yes plant is considered "life" In the English language and as far as every respected science that exists today I believe they have all agreed plants are "life" due to their biology as a cellular organism.

A More technical way to explain why scientists have agreed that they are "life" is because they undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, respond to stimuli, reproduce, and posess a capacity to grow. They also, as stated above, They go through the process of natural selection in order to adapt to their surroundings. Plants have alot in common with you and I, For instance, We are both water based, We both metabolize food for fuel in order to grow and survive, and both plants, humans, animals, & reptiles all have a cellular form that makes us all what we are today.

I also believe your philosophy on this matter relates more to consciousness and less to existence itself. Your perception on religion, souls, and whether or not there is an afterlife all can have a very strong affect to your opinion and by your comment i would suggest you probably don't believe simple organic objects or cellular organisms have souls or can contain a consciousness... *I hope i was of some help to your answer as I noticed that this thread has turned into more of a debate and less of an answer into plant life. -Josh

That's a great post Josh and an excellent contribution to the discussion.

The whole issue here seems to turn on the definition of life itself. Certainly plants, trees and even plankton are alive - I can't imagine anyone debating that.

I think consciousness is the real line of dispute. Many people assert that most of the larger mammals have a consciousness equivilent to humans. This is highly debatable.

[Donkey]

That's a great post Josh and an excellent contribution to the discussion.

The whole issue here seems to turn on the definition of life itself. Certainly plants, trees and even plankton are alive - I can't imagine anyone debating that.

I think consciousness is the real line of dispute. Many people assert that most of the larger mammals have a consciousness equivilent to humans. This is highly debatable.

None of the research I have seen puts any non-humans on the level of humans. Some (chimps, dolphins, etc.) come a lot closer than others, and some seem to have certain elements that others don't.

[FixingTheFuture]

No, you weren't of any help. This whole text is the biggest load of wool I have ever read, with the odd obvious fact thrown in.

You have to know how to read in order to understand it... It's okay though do you have voice chat? Ill read it to ya =P ; ) -PLAYN ROUND



As well as the word Consciousness being used i wasn't referring to the intelligence of the animal just the fact that the animal can observe things in a similar manner... They may use the same senses as us to observe their world although they won't understand it the way we do.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

You have to know how to read in order to understand it... It's okay though do you have voice chat? Ill read it to ya =P ; ) -PLAYN ROUND



As well as the word Consciousness being used i wasn't referring to the intelligence of the animal just the fact that the animal can observe things in a similar manner... They may use the same senses as us to observe their world although they won't understand it the way we do.

Yes, you've sussed it - I'm a vulgar ignoramus who does everything in a hurry, and complete misses the bigger things - well, no! I carefully, and slowly read that bullshit, and it was very clear that you were far more interested in lecturing, than in the actual question that was posed - if you had studied that debate which you seem to think was such an unfortunate consequence of my question, you would have had more of an inkling as to what I was getting at - so plants have a memory from an earlier life, computers have a memory, are they life???

[Donkey]

Yes, you've sussed it - I'm a vulgar ignoramus who does everything in a hurry, and complete misses the bigger things - well, no! I carefully, and slowly read that bullshit, and it was very clear that you were far more interested in lecturing, than in the actual question that was posed - if you had studied that debate which you seem to think was such an unfortunate consequence of my question, you would have had more of an inkling as to what I was getting at - so plants have a memory from an earlier life, computers have a memory, are they life???

Are you being intentionally rude?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Are you being intentionally rude?
I consider a lot of what you say as being rude, so I will not talk about rudeness with you.
I was Catholic for many years and never had a problem with homosexuality. Your reduction is stupid.
:wanker:


.

[The Drunk Guy]

I consider a lot of what you say as being rude, so I will not talk about rudeness with you.

So who will you talk to about rudeness? You obviously need to talk to someone because you're getting out of control.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

So who will you talk to about rudeness? You obviously need to talk to someone because you're getting out of control.
Well not you. You fall into the same category as Donkey.

[The Drunk Girl]

FTF, I hope that one person's comments do not reflect on the rest of us.

Btw, welcome! :)

[The Drunk Guy]

Well not you. You fall into the same category as Donkey.

That's fine. I fully realize I can be a real asshole when I want to be. But I don't typically lash out at someone for attempting to aid me, even if they misunderstand my meaning entirely.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

That's fine. I fully realize I can be a real asshole when I want to be. .
Exactly - so don't bloody come on here lecturing people - it's called hypocrisy.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

FixingtheFuture, I am sorry for being rude to you.

[FixingTheFuture]

Yes, you've sussed it - I'm a vulgar ignoramus who does everything in a hurry, and complete misses the bigger things - well, no! I carefully, and slowly read that bullshit, and it was very clear that you were far more interested in lecturing, than in the actual question that was posed - if you had studied that debate which you seem to think was such an unfortunate consequence of my question, you would have had more of an inkling as to what I was getting at - so plants have a memory from an earlier life, computers have a memory, are they life???

I apologize for coming across as lecturing anyone. I believe you were asking the opinions of this community which i have recently joined. I enjoy submersing myself into these on-the-edge discussions. I learn alot from other people and the way they think...

Surely you can tell the difference between a computer and a plant? I never said that plants have a memory from another life, They have a genetic memory for lack of better wording... Computers do not evolve on their own due to the "Memory" they have plants and animals do... I consider plants and animals to be living "things" due to their genetic make-up as you should already have discovered.

I understand many people thinking others are being rude... We are all adults here right? Some topics can get heated due to conflict in interest and philosophy thats why this community exists right? Ripping eachothers heads off about the things they say in debate or discussion would be ignorant to say the least. I believe taking things to personally may be the major fault in this topic of discussion. Anyways i was just trying to make for more intellectual conversation about your abstract question. If I hurt your feelings or come across as rude then let me know... I believe if anyone should be here in this community it should be the people who can handle the discussions in which i believe it welcomes...

Please correct me if anyone doesn't believe these things above to be true!

Nick the irony is in your very own signature...

You can rest assured that my feelings will never be compromised by any such discussions. Don't hesitate to say vulgar, unprofessional, etc things to me in the heat of a discussion because you will be able to enjoy the heat from that fire as well =P

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Nick the irony is in your very own signature...


Please show me what I've said that suggests I don't abide by my signature?

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Nick the irony is in your very own signature...


I see your point.

[shekib82]

Most people assume that plants are life.
And there's no denying that no animals can survive without plants.
But to say that plants are actually life strikes me as rather odd.

If they discovered that there was another planet that was covered in trees, flowers and whatever, I'd be like... big deal... until they'd found the first animal. Once they'd discovered an animal, then I'd truly feel that we aren't alone in this universe, even if it was a mere insect, or mosquito.

Trees wouldn't make me feel that we had company elsewhere in the universe.

What do people think?

Plants are life, although I would only consider us no alone in the universe if they found an intelligent being somewhere else in the universe.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Plants are life, although I would only consider us no alone in the universe if they found an intelligent being somewhere else in the universe.
I'd be truly amazed if a mosquito was discovered. It would mean that there was a brain somewhere else, thinking and feeling and reacting, however primitive those thoughts and feelings and reactions. If a forest full of oak tress was found, I'd be quite impressed, but it wouldn't have quite the same effect.

[Donkey]

I'd be truly amazed if a mosquito was discovered. It would mean that there was a brain somewhere else, thinking and feeling and reacting, however primitive those thoughts and feelings and reactions. If a forest full of oak tress was found, I'd be quite impressed, but it wouldn't have quite the same effect.

It would, in fact, not mean that.

[The Drunk Girl]

It would, in fact, not mean that.

Ah yes! Look at jellyfish.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Ah yes! Look at jellyfish.
That hardly answers the question about whether plants are life or not.

[The Drunk Girl]

That hardly answers the question about whether plants are life or not.

I have previously answered your question to no avail.

[Greendruid]

That hardly answers the question about whether plants are life or not.

We've already answered your 'question', you just don't want to hear the answer.

[rstones199]

A human being and a Banana Tree has a 60% genetic match.

So yes, planets are life as they are made up of DNA also.

[Michael]

A human being and a Banana Tree has a 60% genetic match.

So yes, planets are life as they are made up of DNA also.

Excellent point. :)

[Greendruid]

I've been waiting since last Thursday for this to become available to the public on the internet:

Smarty Plants (http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episode/smarty-plants-uncovering-the-secret-world-of-plant-behaviour.html#)

The Nature of Things is hosted by iconic Canadian biologist and TV personality David Suzuki. I think it addresses some of the deepest misunderstandings humans have about plants. Misunderstandings about abilities in plants, I might point out, that druids have known about for thousands of years. And Nick, it's a TV show so you don't have to read a long and boring article on the topic :thumbsup:

[NickKIELCEPoland]

I've been waiting since last Thursday for this to become available to the public on the internet:

Smarty Plants (http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episode/smarty-plants-uncovering-the-secret-world-of-plant-behaviour.html#)

The Nature of Things is hosted by iconic Canadian biologist and TV personality David Suzuki. I think it addresses some of the deepest misunderstandings humans have about plants. Misunderstandings about abilities in plants, I might point out, that druids have known about for thousands of years. And Nick, it's a TV show so you don't have to read a long and boring article on the topic :thumbsup:
Haha :) Thanks. ;)