But back to it, threads like this really bring out the dumbest people, I would put them on par with flat earthers, based on my experience with them. Plants are sentient in the literal interpretation of the word, but interpreting it in that manner just confuses people that don't understand the meaning of the words used to describe sentience, thus arguments like "plants are sentient", lead people to equivocating that with some type of intelligence or level of awareness, or better yet, an ability to experience subjectivity.
Guys, simply put, there is a big difference between being alive and being conscious, a brain dead person is alive, but they are not conscious and aren't capable of achieving it without some sort of insane medical advancement. So when people act like response to stimuli equals intelligence or ability to experience subjectivity, understand that's like saying a calculator is sentient. Think about it, your calculator responds to touch, it can perceive the difference between one input and another. So I can make it fit the literal interpretation of the word but you as a "plants are sentient" person would think that nonsensical. But my approach is the same, a literal interpretation of the word thus the granting of sentience as a trait to the device.
This is like the google AI thread, in the realm of philosophy, "sentience" is typically treated as the ability to experience subjectivity. So the differential from what I experience and what you experience. And with that, presumably some necessary components to achieve that, such as, a central nervous system. And I'm using philosophy here because the guy I responded to and many others in here are using this trait "sentience" to draw moral conclusions and considerations from.
Now with all of that that, we can begin to distinguish moral considerations based on the capacity to experience subjectivity, and with that most would agree that an adult human > child > animals (not all) > infant > fetus > the fertilized egg following conception.
Now where do you think plants fit on that scale of moral consideration? And do you realize a common trait between a majority of them, the rest with potentiality, they all have a central nervous system, a fukking brain. So do you see how silly it is to watch people suggest plants are of moral consideration and not just that, but somehow vegans are at a fault because "plants are sentient", disregarding the common smooth brained misinterpretation of veganism, which is actually about harm reduction, not harm elimination.
Got damn, the pain I endure with these topics, you guys should consider my moral weight versus that of a plant and stop making them.
Guys, simply put, there is a big difference between being alive and being conscious, a brain dead person is alive, but they are not conscious and aren't capable of achieving it without some sort of insane medical advancement. So when people act like response to stimuli equals intelligence or ability to experience subjectivity, understand that's like saying a calculator is sentient. Think about it, your calculator responds to touch, it can perceive the difference between one input and another. So I can make it fit the literal interpretation of the word but you as a "plants are sentient" person would think that nonsensical. But my approach is the same, a literal interpretation of the word thus the granting of sentience as a trait to the device.
This is like the google AI thread, in the realm of philosophy, "sentience" is typically treated as the ability to experience subjectivity. So the differential from what I experience and what you experience. And with that, presumably some necessary components to achieve that, such as, a central nervous system. And I'm using philosophy here because the guy I responded to and many others in here are using this trait "sentience" to draw moral conclusions and considerations from.
Now with all of that that, we can begin to distinguish moral considerations based on the capacity to experience subjectivity, and with that most would agree that an adult human > child > animals (not all) > infant > fetus > the fertilized egg following conception.
Now where do you think plants fit on that scale of moral consideration? And do you realize a common trait between a majority of them, the rest with potentiality, they all have a central nervous system, a fukking brain. So do you see how silly it is to watch people suggest plants are of moral consideration and not just that, but somehow vegans are at a fault because "plants are sentient", disregarding the common smooth brained misinterpretation of veganism, which is actually about harm reduction, not harm elimination.
Got damn, the pain I endure with these topics, you guys should consider my moral weight versus that of a plant and stop making them.