Debate : 6262


Off-Topic / Debate / 6262	6261 \| 6263

Subject:	Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Sat, 5 Aug 2000 09:44:52 GMT
Viewed:	2523 times

Christopher Weeks wrote: > > In this light they do not choose to copulate; they are driven to it. > > Do you think that this is different with humans? Do you HONESTLY think human sex drive is the same as deer? Come on, now, really. Deer don't have recreational sex, humans do. While hormones CAN affect humans, humans can generally have/not have sex whenever they feel like it. > > This is interesting to me, since you're asserting the same things about > > animals that I recently asserted about plants, for the same reason, and (to > > the opposing view) for similarly arbitrary reasons. > > I can't put this all together. You asserted that plants are sensory organisms, > and my response was that they're just reacting biochemically. Is that what you > mean? If I REALLY had time, I'd dig out the references for some experiments done in the 70s or 80s - in one, the researcher THOUGHT about dipping the leaf of a plant into steaming hot coffee. Sensors on the plant picked up electrical spikes every time he THOUGHT about it. In another, a researcher walked into a room with several plants in it, picked one, and shredded it to pieces. The next time that same researcher walked into the room, the sensors on the other plants spiked. You might be able to prove "just reacting biochemically" on the second experiment (except that the plants did not spike sensors if OTHER people walked into the room), but please do try to do so on the first, I don't see how you possibly can. I can't remember the plants used, unfortunately. I THINK philodendrons in at least one experiment. > I guess I do see what you mean. I'm asserting that there is something that > magically different about organisms with a CNS and you're asserting that that > magic only happens when you get to the level of humans (for whatever reason). > Right? My problem is you are forcing a CNS as the "magic" - prove to me that a CNS similar to mammals is REQUIRED for any form of sentience. (BTW, plants reacting "biochemically" can be equated to animals CNS transmitting sequences - after all, OUR CNS is simply a chemical pathway). The "magic" in my mind is self-awareness and changing the environment to suit the organism, rather than the other way around. Very few organisms on Earth fit that criteria. -- Tom Stangl ***http://www.vfaq.com/ ***DSM Visual FAQ home ***http://ba.dsm.org/ ***SF Bay Area DSMs

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
(...) Well, that's not what I said, is it? At least not that it's exactly the same. I think that more paralells can be drawn between human and deer motivation than many people seem to think are valid. (...) Cite. (...) And do. All the time. Every (...) (24 years ago, 5-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Responsible Hunting (was Re: We are what we eat. Or is that "whom we eat?")
(...) But it would seem then that you remove meaning from the term 'prey.' By what I think you're saying, all organisms are prey. If so, what point is there in using the term? (...) I think that eating in response to hunger is very different than (...) (24 years ago, 31-Jul-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

149 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search