On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:45:51 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:

The message
from Stephen Howard contains these words:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:16:49 +1000, "Helen" wrote:

Recently I saw a programme about whether or not plants have feelings - some
said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they were sure
they did. What do you think?

I think it unlikely.
Evolution makes use of whatever advantages it can lay its hands on -
and in the case of animals it's made very good use of the range of
feelings that we might term 'instincts'.

Had the same been true for plants then you might find that your
courgettes would kick you in the shins when you tried to pick
them...or your sweet peas slap you round the face when you tried to
cut the blooms.
They've been around a great deal longer than us, so it's fair to
assume that if they haven't evolved in this fashion by now then they
never will.

What about nettles, thorny things and poisonous plants? They might not
be able to kick you in the shins (though I've met docks that could
wrestle a grown man to the ground) but they have evolved a means to
resist "attack".

That's true - but the system they've evolved is an 'always on' one.
The presence of 'feelings' would surely give rise to a range of
defence/attack mechanisms that would be brought into play at
discretion, in reaction to certain conditions...in the same way that a
little terrier can be a cute, fluffy ball of fun one minute, and a
mass of sharp, pointy teeth the next ( or is that just my dog? ).

Having said all that, I'm pretty sure my Heliotropes are sulking...

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:45:51 +0100, Janet Baraclough..
wrote:


The message

from Stephen Howard contains these words:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:16:49 +1000, "Helen" wrote:

Recently I saw a programme about whether or not plants have feelings - some
said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they were sure
they did. What do you think?


I think it unlikely.
Evolution makes use of whatever advantages it can lay its hands on -
and in the case of animals it's made very good use of the range of
feelings that we might term 'instincts'.

Had the same been true for plants then you might find that your
courgettes would kick you in the shins when you tried to pick
them...or your sweet peas slap you round the face when you tried to
cut the blooms.
They've been around a great deal longer than us, so it's fair to
assume that if they haven't evolved in this fashion by now then they
never will.

What about nettles, thorny things and poisonous plants? They might not
be able to kick you in the shins (though I've met docks that could
wrestle a grown man to the ground) but they have evolved a means to
resist "attack".


That's true - but the system they've evolved is an 'always on' one.
The presence of 'feelings' would surely give rise to a range of
defence/attack mechanisms that would be brought into play at
discretion, in reaction to certain conditions...in the same way that a
little terrier can be a cute, fluffy ball of fun one minute, and a
mass of sharp, pointy teeth the next ( or is that just my dog? ).

Having said all that, I'm pretty sure my Heliotropes are sulking...

Regards,



If I may steal an idea from an ancient philosopher, how do you know that
nettles do not sting unless something brushes against them?

--
Please do not reply by Email, as all
emails to this address are automatically deleted.

In article , Broadback
writes in answer to someone else

That's true - but the system they've evolved is an 'always on' one.
The presence of 'feelings' would surely give rise to a range of
defence/attack mechanisms that would be brought into play at
discretion, in reaction to certain conditions...in the same way that a
little terrier can be a cute, fluffy ball of fun one minute, and a
mass of sharp, pointy teeth the next ( or is that just my dog? ).

If I may steal an idea from an ancient philosopher, how do you know that
nettles do not sting unless something brushes against them?

What about Venus fly trap, which ignores a prod with a pencil, but
reacts to a live and buzzing fly?

OK, you may say that is mechanical, but then so are all our senses when
you look at them closely enough.

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:39:33 +0100, Kay
wrote:

In article , Broadback
writes in answer to someone else

That's true - but the system they've evolved is an 'always on' one.
The presence of 'feelings' would surely give rise to a range of
defence/attack mechanisms that would be brought into play at
discretion, in reaction to certain conditions...in the same way that a
little terrier can be a cute, fluffy ball of fun one minute, and a
mass of sharp, pointy teeth the next ( or is that just my dog? ).

If I may steal an idea from an ancient philosopher, how do you know that
nettles do not sting unless something brushes against them?

You mean in the sense that they leap out and jump you?
Could be right there...I always seem to end up getting stung, even
when I know exactly where the nettles are.

What about Venus fly trap, which ignores a prod with a pencil, but
reacts to a live and buzzing fly?

That it can discriminate is perhaps down to a array of finely honed
sensors. I'd bet it wouldn't do so well with, say, an artist's
brush...unless it reacts to a range of frequencies that might be set
up by the beating of an insect's wing?

OK, you may say that is mechanical, but then so are all our senses when
you look at them closely enough.

True...in the sense that there's a reaction to a stimulus, but having
an emotional response is an entirely different kettle of fish ( and
thereby hangs yet another debate ).

Regards ( currently consoling a depressed courgette ),



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

In article , Stephen Howard
writes
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:39:33 +0100, Kay
wrote:

What about Venus fly trap, which ignores a prod with a pencil, but
reacts to a live and buzzing fly?

That it can discriminate is perhaps down to a array of finely honed
sensors. I'd bet it wouldn't do so well with, say, an artist's
brush...unless it reacts to a range of frequencies that might be set
up by the beating of an insect's wing?

No it's a very simply arrangement - it has several hairs, rather like
cats' whiskers, and more than one of them has to be touched in sequence
to trigger the response.

OK, you may say that is mechanical, but then so are all our senses when
you look at them closely enough.

True...in the sense that there's a reaction to a stimulus, but having
an emotional response is an entirely different kettle of fish ( and
thereby hangs yet another debate ).

Regards ( currently consoling a depressed courgette ),




--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 09:41:26 +0100, Kay
wrote:

In article , Stephen Howard
writes
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:39:33 +0100, Kay
wrote:

What about Venus fly trap, which ignores a prod with a pencil, but
reacts to a live and buzzing fly?

That it can discriminate is perhaps down to a array of finely honed
sensors. I'd bet it wouldn't do so well with, say, an artist's
brush...unless it reacts to a range of frequencies that might be set
up by the beating of an insect's wing?

No it's a very simply arrangement - it has several hairs, rather like
cats' whiskers, and more than one of them has to be touched in sequence
to trigger the response.

Aha.. that's why I figured the artist's brush would probably trigger a
response.

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

"Kay" wrote in message
...
What about Venus fly trap, which ignores a prod with a pencil, but
reacts to a live and buzzing fly?

snip

You have to touch the hairs in the trap twice to trigger it. It saves the
plant wasteing energy on something that isn't alive.

--
Regards,
Alan.

Preserve wildlife - Pickle a SQUIRREL to reply.