i am more than willing to engage on any positive claim you want to make (i probably agree with a lot of them). what i’m not willing to do is tolerate personal attacks and dogpiling.

bye

calling me names doesn’t change the truth

Plants can’t think.

you already showed why this claim can’t be proven

you keep talking about things that have nothing to do with the veracity of what Ive said

it seems like you know that what I’ve been saying is true, but you just don’t like that I’m right.

i have never said plants think or are conscious. I’m saying you can’t prove they don’t, and you helpfully explained why what I said is true.

so? that has nothing to do with whether plants can think

they’re allowing that it still could be proven, but objecting to the theories they showed in this paper

> it does not prove plants aren't conscious

Because a negative can't be proven.

plants can’t think.

you know this can’t be proven

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

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.

so you seem to understand that what I said is true

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.

they are not conscious.

you can’t prove such a claim