• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    3 days ago

    read that study. it does not prove plants aren’t conscious. it casts doubt on the existing claims that they are.

    in the conclusion, they explicitly allow for the possibility that it may be proven that plants are conscious.

    • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      it does not prove plants aren’t conscious

      Because a negative can’t be proven.

      it casts doubt on the existing claims that they are.

      Because evidence does not support those claims.

      Theists use this same fallacious logic to pretend it’s acceptable to worship bronze age death gods.

      Let’s all use our brains, please.

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      good catch. also the end of this so-called study has a bunch of bunk too:

      Data availability

      Not applicable.

      Compliance with ethical standards

      Conflict of interest

      The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      Ethics approval

      Not applicable.

      Consent to participate

      All authors consent.

      Code availability

      Not applicable.

      i cant imagine how this thing got printed. it looks like something rfk junior spat out.

      All that is missing is working out topless in some blue jeans with raw milk in a hot tub and kid rock smaking himself in the face failing a mic drop.

    • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      in the conclusion, they explicitly allow for the possibility that it may be proven that plants are conscious.

      Do they? Please provide a quote, I’m not seeing anything like that in the conclusion.

      Here’s the other thing: even if you are correct (which is not likely based on evidence), consuming plants instead of meat still reduces suffering. Eating plants directly is more efficient than eating animals that eat plants.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        even if you are correct (which is not likely based on evidence), consuming plants instead of meat still reduces suffering. Eating plants directly is more efficient than eating animals that eat plants.

        this has nothing to do with what I e been saying at all, and I am correct, as you explained in your other comment

            • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              This doesn’t prove your claim, which you have failed to substantiate at all.

              As I said, it’s the same cancerous, selfish inability to acknowledge what is most likely true that theists exhibit.

              Do you believe a purple unicorn lives on the moon? I don’t. We have never observed a unicorn of any color, on earth or on the moon. Similarly, we have never observed plant consciousness, despite many attempts. Does that prove there is not a purple unicorn on the moon? No. But if you tell me there is without evidence, without knowing yourself, you’re lying to me. Lies cost lives.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        In conclusion, we feel we must speak forcefully: plant neurobiologists have become serial speculationists. The ratio of speculation to data in their oeuvre is astronomically high. If they want to form a sensible hypothesis and then test it with real experiments, that is fine, but the prolific speculating and fantasizing need to stop.