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 16:29:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2864 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> 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?
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.
> Come on, now, really.
> Deer don't have recreational sex,
Cite.
> humans do. While hormones CAN affect humans,
And do. All the time. Every second of every day of every year of your life.
Period.
> humans can generally have/not have sex whenever they feel like it.
I won't argue this because I beleive it to be fruitless. But I will say that I
don't think it's quite that clear cut.
> > 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
Well, I've had several people (starting with my mother) try to tell me that
plants have feelings. They universally refer to "those studies." Yeah, right.
I'll read them with an open mind if someone can ever really produce said
studies. But I've been waiting for about 23 years with no results.
the
> 70s or 80s - in one, the researcher THOUGHT about dipping the leaf of a plant
So not only are they sensory, but they are telepathic? Uh-huh.
> You might be able to prove "just reacting biochemically" on the second
experiment
I might be able to prove that those "experiments" were falsified and completely
irreproducable.
> I can't remember the plants used, unfortunately. I THINK philodendrons
> in at least one experiment.
Interestingly, philodendrons were the subject presented to me in earlier
examples too, so that must be 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.
I don't believe that so I shan't try to prove it to you. I do think that an
animalian CNS is the only thing on earth that leads to sentience.
(BTW, plants reacting
> "biochemically" can be equated to animals CNS transmitting sequences - after • all,
> OUR CNS is simply a chemical pathway).
Right, but then we're back to being non self determinant and we might as well
throw in the towel on everything.
> The "magic" in my mind is self-awareness
Hard to define.
> and changing the environment to suit the
> organism, rather than the other way around.
Like beavers?
And, we've changed over the years to suit the environment.
> Very few organisms on Earth fit that criteria.
Only if you define changing the environment so strictly as to purposely rule
out other organisims.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
