I don't mean to sound condescending, but if you knew anything about the discussion at hand, you would know that Cleve Backster claimed that a plant responded to a polygraph as soon as he thought about doing harmful things to the plant. The results were not duplicate-able and the Mythbusters proved it and therefore "In order for an experiment to be called legitimate, the results MUST be duplicate-able." (please log in to view the image)
you just spoke the obvious, so why are you staring at your middle finger, ah, it's intended for you dear, don't do that to yourself, totally abusive and unfriendly.
(I shouldn't even bother trying to do this but...)
The myth that plants have a spirit/consciousness comes from the polygraph results Cleve Backster presented. Since they were not duplicate-able, they are not valid results...it is not speaking the obvious, just WHY the results are NOT valid and THEREFORE that point* cannot be presented as a legitimate fact.
*I know you have a hard time getting points so I will make it quite clear: Plants do not have a verifiable spirit based off of a polygraph test.
Now that that is out of the way...did you just fart and smell it and then feel empathy for its spirit, Czarnia?
A person wouldn't have to be an empath to know how much mental anguish such posts cause me.
And I think you are trying to hard to make the article fit your preconceived notions regarding "empathy" and the like. "The article mentioned empath and empath is more spiritual then scientific."
It doesn't work that way.
Oh, and by the way, I just looked at the first article again and they do not use the word "empath" once, they speak of empathy. And your perception of "empaths" is very much different from the scientifically defined and observable phenomenon known as "empathy" and the ability to "empathise", none of which is has any real connection to the spiritual.
The Islamic one about plants feeling pain also doesn't mention the word empath.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
Is that a response to what I said? I know full well it is an article. I am not sure why that needs to be reiterated.
You said the link is scientific and that it used the word empath. It did not. The word was not used once. Empathy was. It talked about empathy observed in caged mice.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
No, I just think it's getting no where, at the same time, destoryed a potentially good conversation on current science relating rat's experiences with humanity and possiblities.
I never said the article was about empath, I think my OP spoke of empathy.
And regarding the spiritual aspect of empathy, I believe in the spirit, so it's my place to label or connect spiritual with physical, most religions do it all the time, and they are thousands of scientists from all over this world that are religious and contribute a great amount to the science/discipline.
And I didn't state that the plants were empaths, someone else mentioned it, and that information is common as well, but decided to provide a link (i worked with him, not against him).
This is just no longer positive.
I think you're attempting to put me on the defense, for something as simple as a unique study, and it's annoying, so I'll just ignore your posts about this study.
"...one mouse recognizes and adopts the emotional state of another. Surprisingly, this only occurred if the mice knew each other—that is, if they had been cagemates for at least two weeks...required for a mouse to familiarize itself with the pheromones of another mouse
"Both of those things, ultimately, are suggestive of empathy," said Jeffrey Mogil, a psychology professor and one of the study's lead authors"
IF you want to debate the actual science, you should talk to the author of the book/researcher.
__________________
Last edited by Czarina_Czarina on Aug 31st, 2007 at 09:56 PM
What are you trying to say there? Do you even know what you really meant to say?
Ambiguous pronoun reference of "its". What is "its"? You can only use 'its" IF you have referenced what "its" is at one point or another.
I destroyed a "potentially good conversation on current science relating rat's experiences with humanity and possibilities? That doesn't make much sense...did I destroy a conversation "relating rat's experiences with humanity and possibilities"? You can't just throw words out there at random and expect them to make sense; you actually HAVE to think about what you type BEFORE you type it. Rethink EXACTLY what you were trying to say and then use direct NOUNS to what subject you are referring to and stop trying to sound educated and mystic.
If you agree with an idea or principle, you have to defend the idea IF you bring it up on a message board. (You went above and beyond that, you started a friggin' thread!)
Ignoring people who do not agree with you is just plan [insert random insult word relating to the lack of intelligence] IF that person is debating with you civilly like Imperial_Samura is.
Yet you felt is was somehow relevant to point out it was an article.
The article wasn't about rats experiences with humanity, it was about empathy observed within caged specimens, potential explanations for the phenomenon and possible uses it might have in human applications.
Just like when I pick up a copy of New Scientist and read about study on an Influenza virus it isn't about "the virus experience with humanity" it is about study of something, the findings, and potential outcomes.
I am happy to discuss the science, but you were changing what the article was saying and claiming it somehow was using mystical words.
Why? I was simply making an observation?
Is it: Czarina_Czarina can say as she wishes =
Imperial Samura points out a flaw in an argument =
But you said:
It did not. You were trying to justify a position by claiming scientists where using that word, when they didn't. Your idea of an empath is very much different from a person, or a mouse, being able to empathise.
What does that have to do with, as you keep pointing out, the article? It doesn't mention the spiritual, it connects pheromones and visual stimuli to a form of sub-empathy going on with caged mice.
And I am sorry, but I don't think it is your place to label or connect the spiritual with the physical. I mean where does one get the qualifications/authority/employment to do that?
You can express an opinion, sure, but unless you are willing or able to back it up with some cold, hard facts, then it is not something with a great deal of validity.
What? I haven't said a thing is wrong with a study, I find this study interesting. I have been trying to defend the study from your appraisals of it as saying things like "empath". Please do not try and imply that the observations I made reflect on the article. Because, in fact, they are saying "you are reading things from the article that aren't there".
Because what I have done is point out that you can't make up your own conclusions about the study somehow indicating spiritual matters while erroneously claiming it mentioned "empaths" which it didn't.
I don't have a problem with the science, I am questioning your misinterpretation of the article and thus the science. If you want to take such a stance you have to support it.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
Last edited by Imperial_Samura on Sep 1st, 2007 at 12:02 AM
we have different debating styles, and as a few days ago, as you may have noticed, I haven't been the same, I think your style puts me in the position of defense, however, don't find that I use the same style, nothing wrong, to each his own....interesting questions though. Makes one wonder, what's your major (or just PM it to me if you don't mind)?
i haven't studied viruses in depth since i was about 12, and we covered a lot of what i had studied throughout high school. i can't recall a lot of the information. i know that when i did study a virus, it was with respect to it's own environment and how it effected it's neighboring area.
__________________
Last edited by Czarina_Czarina on Sep 1st, 2007 at 01:16 AM
plus, it was a psychologist that used the word empathy in the article, and yes, i did use the word empath, but not directly related to the article, again, seems like your questioning style is to invoke a permission on my part or that i need to defend myself, which takes away from the beauty of the discussion, which is the study of rats having empathy.
__________________
Last edited by Czarina_Czarina on Sep 1st, 2007 at 01:21 AM
KMC Community Forums
Aug 30th, 2007 03:25 PM
