User Controls
Posts by Obbe
-
2018-03-09 at 11:41 PM UTC in What has this community done for you?It opened my mind when I was younger.
Now I feel like it's a bad habit I should quit. -
2018-03-09 at 11:21 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think
Originally posted by Daily Kill thyself
No. I don't deserve that. I didn't do anything wrong here. I posted a documentary I thought was interesting and that I thought other people here might also like to watch. Almost immediately the insults started. So, I started citing research that had demonstrated that plants do have intelligence, do process information, sense their environment, communicate, etc. At no point did I even state my own opinion, all I did was post the information. And the shitposters just kept shitposting. No counter arguments. Just shit posting. Captain Falcon even started shit posting that he doesn't have any intelligence. And Fox tried pulling the semantics card and then turned around and said I was the one playing with semantics.
I'm not going to kill myself. I'm going to keep living life, keep sharing the things I like and if you guys want to shit all over it, well, I suppose that just makes you shitty people. -
2018-03-09 at 7:24 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think…plant blindness – a tendency to overlook plant capacities, behaviour and the unique and active environmental roles that they play. We treat them as part of the background, not as active agents in an ecosystem.
Some reasons for plant blindness are historical – philosophical hangovers from long-dismantled paradigms that continue to infect our thinking about the natural world. Many researchers still write under the influence of Aristotle’s influential notion of the scala naturae, a ladder of life, with plants at the bottom of the hierarchy of capacity and value, and Man at the peak. Aristotle emphasised the fundamental conceptual divide between immobile, insensitive plant life, and the active, sensory realm of animals. For him, the divide between animals and humankind was just as stark; he didn’t think animals thought, in any meaningful way. After the reintroduction of such ideas into Western European education in the early 1200s and throughout the Renaissance, Aristotelean thinking has remained remarkably persistent.
It’s often adaptive for humans to treat plants as object-like, or simply enhancement them out
Today, we might call this systematic bias against non-animals zoochauvinism. It’s well-documented in the education system, in biology textbooks, in publication trends, and media representation. Furthermore, children growing up in cities tend to lack exposure to plants through interactive observation, plant care, and a situated plant appreciation and knowledge by acquaintance.
Particularities of the way our bodies work – our perceptual, attentional and cognitive systems – contribute to plant blindness and biases. Plants don’t usually jump out at us suddenly, present an imminent threat, or behave in ways that obviously impact upon us. Empirical findings show that they aren’t detected as often as animals, they don’t capture our attention as quickly, and we forget them more readily than animals. It’s often adaptive to treat them as object-like, or simply enhancement them out. Furthermore, plant behaviour frequently involves chemical and structural changes that are simply too small, too fast or too slow for us to perceive without equipment.
As we are animals ourselves, it’s also easier for us to recognise animal-like behaviour as behaviour. Recent findings in robotics indicate that human participants are more likely to attribute properties such as emotion, intentionality and behaviour to systems when those systems conform to animal or human-like behaviour. It seems that, when we’re deciding whether to interpret behaviour as intelligent, we rely on anthropomorphic prototypes. This helps to explain our intuitive reluctance to attribute cognitive capacities to plants. -
2018-03-09 at 7:10 PM UTC in The Retardest Thread: Fashionably Late Edition.
Originally posted by Malice It’s interesting how realistically dreams can recreate sensations. Not having smoked weed before bed and being close to waking likely increased this effect.
In the dream I was able to give myself a blowjob. At first it felt much more like sucking a cock than getting blown, which is what people generally report, but since I wasn’t limited by my flexibility I was able to hook my arms behind my legs and start thrusting into my mouth and it felt pretty good, a lot more like what getting a blowjob feels like. It really felt like my cock was getting stimulated by a mouth and tongue despite never actually having experienced that. I came into my own mouth and could feel my cock pulsing while having an orgasm and my mouth getting cum shot into it.
I woke up afterward and the first thing I did was check whether I’d had a wet dream. I thought I hadn’t, but later realized I did. Dangit.
Now get a college girl to do that. -
2018-03-09 at 5:19 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think
Originally posted by Fox Paws For someone who claims to have an “open mind”, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you change your views about anything. I can’t think of one instance where you said some shit on this forum, someone debated you about it, and you ended up saying “you know what, you might be right, I never thought of it like that.”
For example there is nothing I can say that will convince you that plants are not intelligent. Sure we can go back and forth, like we’ve already started to, but it will eventually devolve into an endless semantic debate. The rainbow thread is another example.
I’ve kinda just gotten bored of seeing this pattern play out
I'm getting tired of even trying at all. I can't post anything without being cyber bullied by you fucks.
If you can post something that actually shows plants are not intelligent at all I will consider it. Unlike how you did not consider any of the information I posted demonstrating plants do have intelligence. I fucking hate you fox. I try to be a good person, share my interests and you fucks shit all over it every single time. -
2018-03-09 at 5:11 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think
-
2018-03-09 at 4:45 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and ThinkI can't even make a thread about something I think is interesting without you faggots shit posting all over it. What's even the point? Fuck you all.
-
2018-03-09 at 4:42 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think
-
2018-03-09 at 4:35 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think
Originally posted by Slaynk Please kill the thread. Fact is, if they don't want to talk to the tree out back, that's ok ya know? It's like high school. Some people just don't talk to other people you know
If some people don't want to hear about X we shouldn't talk about X? I don't agree with that. Especially on a "free speech" forum. -
2018-03-09 at 4:34 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think
-
2018-03-09 at 2 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and ThinkWhat does it even mean to say that a mallow can learn and remember the location of the sunrise? The idea that plants can behave intelligently, let alone learn or form memories, was a fringe notion until quite recently. Memories are thought to be so fundamentally cognitive that some theorists argue that they’re a necessary and sufficient marker of whether an organism can do the most basic kinds of thinking. Surely memory requires a brain, and plants lack even the rudimentary nervous systems of bugs and worms.
However, over the past decade or so this view has been forcefully challenged. The mallow isn’t an anomaly. Plants are not simply organic, passive automata. We now know that they can sense and integrate information about dozens of different environmental variables, and that they use this knowledge to guide flexible, adaptive behaviour.
Plants also communicate with one another and other organisms, such as parasites and microbes, using a variety of channels– including ‘mycorrhizal networks’ of fungus that link up the root systems of multiple plants, like some kind of subterranean internet. Perhaps it’s not really so surprising, then, that plants learn and use memories for prediction and decision-making.
https://aeon.co/essays/beyond-the-animal-brain-plants-have-cognitive-capacities-too -
2018-03-09 at 1:46 PM UTC in gay ass mom' gonna take the day off now i cant cheif :ffuu:You can walk to the park by yourself and smoke there.
-
2018-03-09 at 1:47 AM UTC in urge to kill everyone you walk byOk. Think you'll be alright?
-
2018-03-08 at 11:33 PM UTC in Okay Nintendo, you winMy friend gave me his old Wii U a couple months ago. It's been cool.
-
2018-03-08 at 11:11 PM UTC in My cat fucked up his leg.
-
2018-03-08 at 9:15 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think
-
2018-03-08 at 9:14 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think
-
2018-03-08 at 9:13 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think
Originally posted by Fox Paws Look it here I can cite stuff too:
“The definition of intelligence is controversial.[6]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence#Definitions
[6] S. Legg; M. Hutter. "A Collection of Definitions of Intelligence". 157: 17–24. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1565458
If there is no agreed upon definition for intelligence, why do you say plants cannot be intelligent? -
2018-03-08 at 7:27 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think
Originally posted by Fox Paws I never said they make decisions.
There is obviously data showing they can sense their environment etc, as you’ve provided. That doesn’t prove your claim that this can be called intelligence. THAT would be semantics.
Nice try
According to this plants do fit the definition...
https://niggasin.space/thread/21377?p=3#post-362877 -
2018-03-08 at 7:17 PM UTC in How Plants Communicate and Think
Originally posted by Fox Paws When arguing semantics it’s important to me to establish a baseline.
But that’s alright I didn’t feel like talking about it anyways.
So you are just arguing semantics? In other words, you agree that these plants sense their environment, process the information and make decisons, you just don't want to call that intelligence (for some reason).
