(2018-01-05 2:25)StarDolphin Wrote: depends on what you mean by think. plants respond to their encironment, theres a cool video i always remember about plants. it was about a girl that placed sensors on a plant and recorded their reactions to stimuli and turned those signals into sound. she went on about how plants may not have a nervous system like animals but they have a kind of system , gets info and shares nutrients to nearby younger needy trees and communicate their status through array of underground connected network of fungi, it was so beautiful :3
Oh, my specialization is microbiology, I know more about mycorrhiza and the way plants respond to their environment (and the tomato studies you've talked about) than probably most people on this forum. But these reactions you are talking about are not perception, there is no internal state anywhere in the plant to represent the image of the outside world that the plants interact with. It's like how your liver can respond by processing alcohol without being aware of the pint you drank the other day, it's a cellular response (and one of the basic things that cells do, in general, plant, fungi, bacterial, animal and all).
In fact it is this aspect that makes the entire argument of plant therianthropy so unconvincing. While it is conceivable that a plant may have some idea of itself, and the world around it, in some limited manner, this state would be so far removed from anything that we humans are capable of perceiving of the plant that it would be impossible to recognize those sensations as being similar to what say, an oak would experience, without anthropomorphizing the plant to a great degree. An oak has no perception of it's visual appearance or sense of touch to recognize where it's roots go, it has no sense of how it's leaves sway in the wind, other than perhaps a sense of air humidity around it's leaves and a concept of day and night. It does not struggle to reach the light, instead it senses dim light and instinctivelly grows faster in it. It has no feeling whatsoever on the surface of it's bark and it's wood is dead to it similar to how us humans regard our nails. These are again things we can determine with certainty by studiying their anatomy. There is nothing a human would see as oaklike in the "experiences" of an oak.
For example in wolves, the equivalent of this would be for someone to consider themselves a wolf therian, because they are proud and wild or because they are vicious -- because this is how humans perceive wolves to be, this is how we anthropomorphize the wolf's reasons for acting. Sure the experience is real and I have no right to call it invalid, but I think we will all agree this is not therianthropy. It is no different for plankin.
P.S.: I've looked up this essay
to see if I can find anything in the descriptions of the experiences, that a plant might theoretically be capable of sensing. I may have to read it again, but I don't see much.
I agree that even tough I knew I was a wolf therian for most of my life, I too am guilty of finding things about me that are wolflike, after having already learned from books and media, that those things are what wolves do, but in this essay I can see nothing else. It even contains many of the popular misconceptions about plants from BBC documentaries. Again, not invalidating the experience, it just isn't the same thing as the therianthropy I've experienced -- it's not the experience of being the entity. It's more like a kind of psychological kinship with the idea of what the entity must be.
I can accept that there is a group of people out there, maybe the otherkin, that consider this to be what their experience is, but I'm not okay with it being equated to what the concept of therianthropy is.