OccultForum.org

http://thespiritscience.net/2014/05/31/ ... telepathy/


Check this out!

Yeah, I remember watching some stuff about Cleve on Youtube. Mellen Thomas Benedict promotes his work heavily. The Bo Derek story was probably my favorite.

This is fantastic!

Great find.

The spirit science? Seriously?

What would you know? Turns out plants have more feelings than we do. Cute.

isis.auset5 wrote:What would you know? Turns out plants have more feelings than we do. Cute.

What would I know? Well, cells and microorganisms are part of my daily bread same as the huge complex of life called "organic machinery". If I wouldn't know, how the basis of cell-to-cell communication in animals and plants works, I would be a poor researcher, wouldn't I?

Well, a reaction is not automatically a feeling. Problem is the lack of an efficient nerve structure. Also the article above states only that there is some sort of reaction. Nothing more (and this mysterious telepathy thingy, which is doubted as the study is criticized for very unsientific performance.... as he is an interrogation specialist and not an expert for plants and their chemical behaviour this is honestly no surprise to me).

Of course plants show reaction to any attack on the organism, any organism has to show some sort of biochemical and weak electric reaction, otherwise there would be no way to coordinate treatment and repair in the organism. I allow myself to be sceptical, especially since the study on which the claim is based is already several decades old and a repetation with a state of the art equipment would be apropriate. The used polygraph method isn't really something one would call reliable in comparison to modern EEG or MRT (since we have no nervous system MRT is most likely useless anyway).

Since so far none of his results could be properly reproduced in other labs, this should make you thinking, shouldn't it?

Ramscha

Ramscha wrote:

isis.auset5 wrote:What would you know? Turns out plants have more feelings than we do. Cute.

What would I know? Well, cells and microorganisms are part of my daily bread same as the huge complex of life called "organic machinery". If I wouldn't know, how the basis of cell-to-cell communication in animals and plants works, I would be a poor researcher, wouldn't I?

Ramscha ... I wasn't talking to anyone in particular, I was just throwing it out there, like 'oh look at that!' ... Sorry if you took it the wrong way, it was just an expression.

isis.auset5 wrote:

Ramscha wrote:

isis.auset5 wrote:What would you know? Turns out plants have more feelings than we do. Cute.

What would I know? Well, cells and microorganisms are part of my daily bread same as the huge complex of life called "organic machinery". If I wouldn't know, how the basis of cell-to-cell communication in animals and plants works, I would be a poor researcher, wouldn't I?

Ramscha ... I wasn't talking to anyone in particular, I was just throwing it out there, like 'oh look at that!' ... Sorry if you took it the wrong way, it was just an expression.

Sorry for that, as english is not my mother tounge I tend to take things too literally. [happy2]

But aside the personal part, I am still sceptical since the study was not reproducable so far and the documentation and performance were.... unsientific. It would be amazing if there would be some clear evidence since the plant to plant communication is still a field with low real knowledge as far as I know. If there is something new comming up this would be awesome.

Nah I get it, we're both kind of in the same boat when it comes to that.

Anyway, my entire original message was sarcastic. It's not cute. I am every bit as skeptical as you, and I don't study microorganisms (or even organisms in general). I mean ... plants mourn everything? Not even the most sensitive person on Earth mourns hot water falling down the drain. No.

I wish I could expand on this, but you basically said everything already. I only had the mourning thing left.

Ramscha wrote: Since so far none of his results could be properly reproduced in other labs, this should make you thinking, shouldn't it?

Besides the article, there was a video. Myth busters DID reproduce his results (even though it looked like they weren't expecting to). The reaction to attack isn't so surprising... but the obvious reaction to the thought of an attack is.

manofsands wrote:

Ramscha wrote: Since so far none of his results could be properly reproduced in other labs, this should make you thinking, shouldn't it?

Besides the article, there was a video. Myth busters DID reproduce his results (even though it looked like they weren't expecting to). The reaction to attack isn't so surprising... but the obvious reaction to the thought of an attack is.

As I mentioned:

The used polygraph method isn't really something one would call reliable in comparison to modern EEG or MRT (since we have no nervous system MRT is most likely useless anyway).

But it seems I have to correct my assumtion about the MRT, those methods seemingly are also used in plants (with sucess).

Just to clarify my position on this. I obviously don't think plants have the same kind of consciousness we do. There are an infinite gradient of consciousness. Some in Theosophy give consciousness to everything, even bedrock, though it is a kind of sleepy simple consciousness. There are bugs I've observed that barely seem alive. They will stay in the same position for days until stimulated by hunger or the environment, otherwise they are happy to be a rock.

The test with a polygraph on a plant is just a fortunate fluke. The equipment used doesn't test changes in the nervous system, which the plant has none of; it tests change in conductivity on the skin. Where as a reaction to a lie a person unconsciously starts to sweat just a little bit. I'm sure plants don't sweat either. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure they even determined what on the plant actually caused a change. The only point is, there was a change. And it is a reoccurring change that happens with specific stimulus. If we were to use more modern equipment which tests different variables, there may have been no results at all.

As a funny side note. Under the article there were a list of comments. One of the first was "Vegetarians are going to starve!"

[happy2]

I don't see why it is such a difficult thing to consider as being possible.

I believe plants do have feelings. Not necessarily what we would recognize as such. I believe they also have thought, though again, maybe not what we would recognize as thought.

After all, what exactly does science and psychology say about magick? Because you know, if the science points to plants probably not having feelings or thoughts as we recognize them, then surely they don't have feelings or thoughts at all. Under any circumstance.

manofsands wrote:
As a funny side note. Under the article there were a list of comments. One of the first was "Vegetarians are going to starve!"

[happy2]

That means I am gonna die? Fuck! [crymore]

The test with a polygraph on a plant is just a fortunate fluke. The equipment used doesn't test changes in the nervous system, which the plant has none of; it tests change in conductivity on the skin. Where as a reaction to a lie a person unconsciously starts to sweat just a little bit. I'm sure plants don't sweat either. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure they even determined what on the plant actually caused a change. The only point is, there was a change. And it is a reoccurring change that happens with specific stimulus. If we were to use more modern equipment which tests different variables, there may have been no results at all.

That is definitly what I meant above. Undoubtly a plant reacts to a stimulus of injury just as we do (wounds are closed, tissue starts to regenerate, etc.).
But Taeo already made the point:

I don't see why it is such a difficult thing to consider as being possible.

I believe plants do have feelings. Not necessarily what we would recognize as such. I believe they also have thought, though again, maybe not what we would recognize as thought.

The claims the article makes (yes, I just call it "claims", becuase what I think about the source and its relevance I already pointed out....) clearly point onto the level "same reaction, same thinking, supernatural something....". I don't doubt that plants have a sort of consciousness, some sort of drive (otherwise they wouldn't be categorized as organism), but I find it ridicolous to what extend this is blown up by the articel, it is too much like rainbow press.

Ramscha wrote:

manofsands wrote:
As a funny side note. Under the article there were a list of comments. One of the first was "Vegetarians are going to starve!"

[happy2]

That means I am gonna die? Fuck! [crymore]

After all, what exactly does science and psychology say about magick? Because you know, if the science points to plants probably not having feelings or thoughts as we recognize them, then surely they don't have feelings or thoughts at all. Under any circumstance.

You would be surprised what sciences says about magick [wink] I already wrote a thread regarding the matter psychology and magick and why magick works according to a basic psychological fundament.

Regarding the eternal conflict between science, magick and religion (and mysticism, if you want), I think the cyberpunk Pen-and-paper-series "Shadowrun" has a very interesting setting regarding the role of magic and science. It is worth a look, but to much to explain it in a post. It is best if you take a look by yourself:
http://shadowrun.wikia.com/wiki/Magic

Just follow the linked words of interest , additionally google will help

Ramscha wrote:

Regarding the eternal conflict between science, magick and religion (and mysticism, if you want), I think the cyberpunk Pen-and-paper-series "Shadowrun" has a very interesting setting regarding the role of magic and science. It is worth a look, but to much to explain it in a post. It is best if you take a look by yourself:
http://shadowrun.wikia.com/wiki/Magic

Just follow the linked words of interest , additionally google will help

Do (did) you play Shadow run, Ram!?

manofsands wrote:

Ramscha wrote:

Regarding the eternal conflict between science, magick and religion (and mysticism, if you want), I think the cyberpunk Pen-and-paper-series "Shadowrun" has a very interesting setting regarding the role of magic and science. It is worth a look, but to much to explain it in a post. It is best if you take a look by yourself:
http://shadowrun.wikia.com/wiki/Magic

Just follow the linked words of interest , additionally google will help

Do (did) you play Shadow run, Ram!?

Yes

Nice! and D&D too I'd assume. Books n dice... not one of the video games.

I invariably played a magic-user... while in life I've yet to embrace it entirely. Hmp.

....Cleric-Monk.. >.>

After re-reading the article, I can see a few eyebrow cocking statements. I suppose I'm accustomed to reading articles with an eye for the goods, as what I took from the article is that plants respond to thought... which is pretty badass.

That shadowrun link is pretty amazing. Also, what is the title of the thread you mention?

Streetsam Gnome with a shotgun. [grin2]

manofsands wrote:Nice! and D&D too I'd assume. Books n dice... not one of the video games.

I invariably played a magic-user... while in life I've yet to embrace it entirely. Hmp.

Nope, no D&D.

That shadowrun link is pretty amazing. Also, what is the title of the thread you mention?

http://www.occultforum.org/forum/viewto ... =9&t=36009

Here it is [message]