Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too

I dont know about the multiple brains, I think thats false, but the old cut an earthworm into pieces and each one grows into a new worm is patently false. An old urban myth. Sometimes you can cut one "in half" and the front end will repair and continue to live but the back end as far as I know never grows a head, or repairs and continues on with life.

Mostly it has to do with how much damage is done and where its cut.

It's not false, it has more than one, if you deprive the worm of all of them it will die, it gorws back because it still has a brain. Without a brain small as it is, it can't preform because there are no functions.

Organisms with central nervos sistem have a very big problem, they can not self sustain. If you chop of your leg and you close the wound, your leg will die off even if you do that.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by watcher73

Yes I have heard that before. I have also heard they seek out specific plants or grasses.

Everyone knows about catnip, but that's a genetic thing that makes them go crazy with it. They will eat cat grass as well and it's even sold in small containers at some pet stores. They will chew on that as opposed to other plants they aren't supposed to eat, but again, it's not a main component of their diet.

The thing is that cats have a unique requirement for taurine. As far as I know, plants offer no nutritional value to cats at all and do not contain taurine. Muscle meats are where the taurine is as well as the animal proteins they need. Without sufficient amounts of taurine, cats are susceptible to a plethora of health problems such as premature deafness, blindness and heart disease as a couple examples.

Fair enough on your dog quote.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Kratos1220]

This is not true. Like I said, it will swim even in a deep coma.

Don't think it will, sorry. If it's brain is not on alert before it's head
gets taken off it won't do anything.

That's because the spinal cord controls the swimming motion,

As in a mechanical feauture, sure. When it wants to swim first things first, the brain tells the frog let's go for a swim and the spinal chord controls it's movment.

Not the brain

Yes the brain.

. I'm sure doing some research on this phenomena on the net will clarify what I'm saying. Pull it out of water, cut of it's head... there's no motion. Nothing. Drop it in water, it will start to swim. Then destroy it's spinal cord. Drop it in water. No swimming.

I just did and it turns out I was right.
It has brains in the spine, brains are still brains, just a neuron tho.
The smaller brain( lower neuron)dies as it remains with out oxigen as the frog swims. I think this explains it very well.

en.wikipedia.org...
Descending tracts involve two neurons: the upper motor neuron (UMN) and lower motor neuron (LMN) [4]. A nerve signal travels down the upper motor neuron until it synapses with the lower motor neuron in the spinal cord. Then, the lower motor neuron conducts the nerve signal to the spinal root where efferent nerve fibers carry the motor signal toward the target muscle. The descending tracts are composed of white matter. There are several descending tracts serving different functions. The corticospinal tracts (lateral and anterior) are responsible for coordinated limb movements[5].

Nou how absurd is plants being aware, you tell me.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78

I dont know about the multiple brains, I think thats false, but the old cut an earthworm into pieces and each one grows into a new worm is patently false. An old urban myth. Sometimes you can cut one "in half" and the front end will repair and continue to live but the back end as far as I know never grows a head, or repairs and continues on with life.

Mostly it has to do with how much damage is done and where its cut.

It's not false, it has more than one, if you deprive the worm of all of them it will die, it gorws back because it still has a brain. Without a brain small as it is, it can't preform because there are no functions.

Organisms with central nervos sistem have a very big problem, they can not self sustain. If you chop of your leg and you close the wound, your leg will die off even if you do that.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by pepsi78]

The common earthworm, the one you probably find in your garden, is an Annelid worm...and no it won't survive you chopping it, let alone turning into two worms (even though it is made up of repeating segments). Many of the free-living (non-parasitic) flatworms (P: Platyhelminthes, C:Turbellaria) are capable of regenerating wounded tissue and, reproducing asexually by binary fission, so being cut in half can result in two clones. Actually, experiments on Turbellarians involving various incomplete cuts into the worm have resulted in individuals developing two heads, or two tails etc. Some of the parasitic worms are capable of budding off reproductive segments...contributing to their great success as parasites inside the bodies of a variety of host animals.

Like I said, not earthworms.

Originally posted by jem78

Originally posted by pepsi78

That is simply because the frog wanted to move in that direction before you cut off it's head, it's doing the last known comand given by the brain, repeats it.

Now cut off the head while the frog is in deep comma,it's body won't run anywhere, wonder why ? No commands before head gets taken off.

This is not true. Like I said, it will swim even in a deep coma. That's because the spinal cord controls the swimming motion, not the brain. I'm sure doing some research on this phenomena on the net will clarify what I'm saying. Pull it out of water, cut of it's head... there's no motion. Nothing. Drop it in water, it will start to swim. Then destroy it's spinal cord. Drop it in water. No swimming.

I edited my last post to you with some more questions that clarify what I'm getting at. If you don't mind having another look.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by jem78]

Here's the follow-up I made (sorry for reposting). Again, your statement about frogs is incorrect. The frog's swimming has nothing to do with the last command given by the brain. It will start swimming again after death & a period of non-movement (without brain commands).

So where is the frog's center of awareness? Obviously it's distributed between the brain & spinal cord, at least for a certain function... for a certain duration the spinal cord controls swimming while the other organs start dying after the brain goes. Does this make a frog a non-entity?

Which brings us to the tree.

Where's the tree's center of awareness? Considering the frog, I wouldn't automatically assume plants don't have "awareness" just because they lack an animal-like brain. It may be that a tree's "central awareness" is contained in no single organ, such as a brain works for humans, but is distributed throughout the plant, more like a nervous system is in humans. Instead of feeding back to a "main hub" brain organ, the parts just communicate directly to each other. I'm trying to understand why this difference would make a living thing a non-entity as you say. Just because it operates with a feedback loop that works differently from yours?

People have a very hard time grasping the concept that we are animals just like all the others. We maybe of a higher form or intellect but we are biologically a animal on this planet like a monkey,mouse,cow,deer, etc. etc.

Every time I sit on the toilet I'm reminded of that fact.

Originally posted by pepsi78

I just did and it turns out I was right.
It has brains in the spine, brains are still brains, just a neuron tho.
The smaller brain( lower neuron)dies as it remains with out oxigen as the frog swims. I think this explains it very well.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by pepsi78]

So the frog has more than one brain? Okay I can go with that premise if you'd like.

So suppose this: Perhaps the whole plant IS the brain or "the awareness" as you call it. Human brains can sustain a certain amount of damage and continue to function. Same can be said for plants. So plants are total-brained entities, rather than single- or multi-brained entities (your words) like the frog. Just because a plant operates with a least dispersed feedback loop, this makes it less "aware"?



[edit on 29-12-2009 by jem78]

Here's the follow-up I made (sorry for reposting). Again, your statement about frogs is incorrect. The frog's swimming has nothing to do with the last command given by the brain. It will start swimming again after death & a period of non-movement (without brain commands).

If you read my previos post you will notice it has a brain the spine.
It's why it swims, I did not know it had a brain in the spine and asumed that it's just what a chicken does.

So where is the frog's center of awareness? Obviously it's distributed between the brain & spinal cord, at least for a certain function... for a certain duration the spinal cord controls swimming while the other organs start dying after the brain goes. Does this make a frog a non-entity?

lower motor neuron in the spinal cord

It has a brain the spine.

A nerve signal travels down the upper motor neuron until it synapses with the lower motor neuron in the spinal cord

A signal from the brain must first be transmited.

Where's the tree's center of awareness?

In the brain here it is.

The spinal cord is a long, thin, tubular bundle of nervous tissue and support cells that extends from the brain. The brain and spinal cord together make up the central nervous system.

Considering the frog, I wouldn't automatically assume plants don't have "awareness" just because they lack an animal-like brain.

Yes except that you are not right about the frog, and that you are beating around the bush.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78

Yes except that you are not right about the frog, and that you are beating around the bush.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by pepsi78]

I'm beating about the bush? No, I'm just asking certain questions to make a point. And you're stalling on the path to my conclusion. I'll reiterate it.

So the frog has more than one brain? Okay I can go with that premise if you'd like.

So suppose this: Perhaps the whole plant IS the brain or "the awareness" as you call it. Human brains can sustain a certain amount of damage and continue to function. Same can be said for plants. So maybe plants are total-brained entities, rather than single- or multi-brained entities (your words) like the frog. Just because a plant operates with a least dispersed feedback loop, this makes it less "aware"?

edited to add your statement for reference (that frogs have more than one brain):

"It has brains in the spine, brains are still brains, just a neuron tho.
The smaller brain( lower neuron)dies as it remains with out oxigen as the frog swims. "

[edit on 29-12-2009 by jem78]

reply to post by watcher73

please understand
very often science fiction renders science fact
researcher Paul Stamets has discovered that mushroom mycelia,
like the tree of souls in avatar,
join links through 'mycelial running' creating a network,
which unifys entire forests and ecosystems into network,
which one may call conscious by standard applied in this thread for plants.
if the concept supports truth it is so

We are One


LOVE




[edit on 29-12-2009 by awake1234]

So suppose this: Perhaps the whole plant IS the brain or "the awareness" as you call it. Human brains can sustain a certain amount of damage and continue to function. Same can be said for plants. So maybe plants are total-brained entities, rather than single- or multi-brained entities (your words) like the frog. Just because a plant operates with a least dispersed feedback loop, this makes it less "aware"?

Except that cell plants do not have neurons or central nervous sistem and are not capabile of such things. There are plants that have a form of neves but in the form like your nerve fom below you tooth, it's not capable of feeling anything without a central prossesing unit to tell the nerve it hurts. It's not evem a nerve, it's a membrane. It chanels the reactions but without feeling. In a more direct answer it makes reaction to chemicals faster. Most of the plants don't have this just a few taller herbs.
Cells in plants are not cababile of generating pain and even more harder awarnes. What they are cabable of is to set off chemical reactions for defence, just like antibodies do. There is no just or wrong, or feelings, it's just what they do.




[edit on 29-12-2009 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by awake1234
reply to post by watcher73

 

please understand
very often science fiction renders science fact
researcher Paul Stamets has discovered that mushrooms,
like the tree of souls in avatar
for links through 'mycelial running' creating a network
which unifys entire forests and ecosystems in a network
which one may call conscious by standard applied in this thread for plants
and what, if not concepts/ideas, forms basis of fact and supports truth

We are One


LOVE


[edit on 29-12-2009 by awake1234]

Thanks but I mentioned mycorrhizae about 10 pages ago. This is nothing like the movie avatar.

And because we don't quite have enough to divide us, we needed this thread to heat up the war between the eaters.

Really, we need to debate the morality of what we eat?

reply to post by watcher73


thanks for the information
mycorrhizae less evolved symbiotic communication than that portrayed in the Avatar movie
that was not mentioned for scientific value, rather for inspirational value
the semblance of the mycelial running,
which if not perturbed by mechanations,
could potentially develop into such a symbiotic network resembling the tree of souls.
the primary point is that information is energetic,
and is transduced among species within the field of consciousness~


LOVE

Originally posted by awake1234
reply to post by watcher73

 

thanks for the information
mycorrhizae less evolved symbiotic communication than that portrayed in the Avatar movie
that was not mentioned for scientific value, rather for inspirational value
the semblance of the mycelial running,
which if not perturbed by mechanations,
could potentially develop into such a symbiotic network resembling the tree of souls.
the primary point is that information is energetic,
and is transduced among species within the field of consciousness~


LOVE

Sounds like you maybe only superficially read about Paul Stamets work. Did you know that he discovered the largest organism on earth is a fungus underground "covering" 2700 acres or hectares, cant remember which? Anyway, later it was discovered that this symbiotic fungus had also previously killed the entire forest 3-4 times in order to feed itself?

Nothing like the movie Avatar, or an imaginary tree of souls.

edit: also i dont know if you think it makes you sound cool or more mystical or something but could you type in more complete sentences, at some points you get a bit hard to understand, thanks.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by watcher73]

Originally posted by watcher73

I dont know, first of all pigs have been shown to be as smart if not smarter than dogs.

I quite agree. I would view pigs as being morally more important than dogs for that very reason. Personally I wouldn't eat either of them.

Secondly whats more morally important the being that can do all the things listed, or the being that nourishes it?

If you look at it from say a cows point of view I'm sure you would find the grass you eat more important if not more moral than the person who is going to eat the cow.

From the cow's point of view the grass only has value in so far as it nourishes the cow itself. As such it is clear that the cow has more moral value than the grass. However, I would argue that even a person who eats meat is of more moral worth than the cow not least because they are actually capable of making such moral distinctions.

Plants rarely ever harm anyone or anything that isnt trying to hurt them. How more moral can it get than that?

But that fact is not due to any moral decision on the plants part. A plant is not a moral entity in the same way that a person is. That is, it cannot use reason to decide what is right or wrong, nor does even have a concept of right or wrong. It simply does what it does (which is not much).

This is why the the argument that, because animals eat other animals then it's ok for humans to do so, holds no water with me.

I'm not a vegetarian because I believe animals are equal to humans but because we are different. That is, humans have a concept of right or wrong and are able to make decisions based on moral considerations. When a lizard eats a fly or a lion eats a zebra the act is neither right nor wrong because the predator does not have the capacity to make the distinction. However, humans do have that capacity and so when they kill an animal without consideration of the rightness or wrongness of that act they are actually behaving immorally, in my opinion.

Originally posted by pepsi78

Except that cell plants do not have neurons or central nervous sistem and are not capabile of such things. There are plants that have a form of neves but in the form like your nerve fom below you tooth, it's not capable of feeling anything without a central prossesing unit to tell the nerve it hurts. It's not evem a nerve, it's a membrane. It chanels the reactions but without feeling. In a more direct answer it makes reaction to chemicals faster. Most of the plants don't have this just a few taller herbs.
Cells in plants are not cababile of generating pain and even more harder awarnes. What they are cabable of is to set off chemical reactions for defence, just like antibodies do. There is no just or wrong, or feelings, it's just what they do.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by pepsi78]

Okay... so the plant has membranes and chemical reactions to register/generate input & output to drive it's self-preservation functions, rather than human neurons or a human's sense of "just or wrong or feelings" to drive it's preservation. It's all still "1's and 0's" operating in different ways to sustain life. To say that a plant's unique type of "0" it registers when fatally wounded is not valued by some more centralized part of the plant, and thus plants aren't "feeling" is incorrect. The plant's initial registered "0" that causes the chemical reaction IS the plant's "feeling". It doesn't need confirmation from a more centralized organ to have occured. Leading back to my notion that plants are highly simplistic total-brained feedback loops.

Originally posted by awake1234
could potentially develop into such a symbiotic network resembling the tree of souls.
the primary point is that information is energetic,
and is transduced among species within the field of consciousness~

Plants are edible computers. The basic symbiotic relation evolves from the fact that our bodies are now what those plants used to be. The research done into Cannabis has been one area that has proved this. The neural receptors/activators found in Cannabis 'just fits' in our brains. We are not the only one, as there are other species, mainly marine, that have the same kind of receptors. This isn't proof to how we are created, but it is proof that plants do manufacture the same organic parts.

As for the other comment made by somebody else in the thread about the need for meat... uhm... there is something on our bones besides skin? Try to starve yourself and see if your body doesn't eat itself.

Originally posted by watcher73
I have seen two different supposed carnivores, cats and dogs, munch on grass of their own free will.

And what happens afterwards? They puke. Wonder why?

Originally posted by Nutter

How is eating bugs vegan?

It is in my mind, nearly impossible not to eat the occasional bug.

Originally posted by Nutter

I've also heard from a couple sources that oral sex is a good source to b12

.

Again. How is this vegan?

How is this not vegan?

Originally posted by Nutter
Again. Not purely vegan if you eat meat sometimes. Correct?

Did i say they were?

Originally posted by Nutter
Then why are vegan babies dieing of malnutrician?

Not fed enough, its a common thing in the vegan world. Alot of vegans are pretty retarded imo (this coming from a vegan)