Plants are very lowly sentient through structures that are the plant-counterparts to animalian neurons.
They communicate with other plants and they sense what can be described as "pain."
But, I don't think arguing on the sentience of an unprotected kingdom will further this discussion.
The discussion on animal welfare seems to be an emotional one alone. As long as our mirror neurons aren't firing in response to the perceived pain animals feel, all is millhouse.
This is why, I believe very few care about plant welfare. They have no mouths with which to scream, so we believe (or make ourselves believe) that they aren't in pain. That they are too dumb to feel pain (this parallels sinisterly with the cruelty of psychological medicine in the 20th century).
Not to mention how silly it is to care about plant welfare... or is it? There have been little studies done on how the constant slaughter of plants affects the secondary factors (maturation speeds, yield, etc. -- as apposed to the primary: deforestation, etc.).
However, I don't think there ever will be such advances in this field. Perhaps because they have no way of polluting this discussion with emotions, unlike their animal counterpart.
I've learned these arts as well, to hear the ebb and flow of what goes on around me. Many times, I can feel the data going on the wire, and the emotion it carries. Standing in our data center's networking room, I can feel thousands of voices, like a cacophony all unawares that they too are projecting emotions. Some of us can hear.
But in learning how to hear, I also learned how to listen to other things we wouldn't normally consider sentient. Plants. I found I've been able to hear them, and their talk. It's not words per se, but more of word-pictures. And the more I do so, I come to the understanding that Chomsky was indeed correct, but also wrong: emotion is the underlying language.
How do I prove this? I don't. I can't, at this time. These techniques were taught to me, along with my innate abilities. I doubt even an fMRI would be able to pick up on these, until long after my brain processed them. But what then?
I've also been attempting to find a way to connect whatever that emotion energy I'm feeling is. If it's not matter, it must be energy.. or something else. I'm not ready to say there's a something else yet... So it must be a type of energy that we can measure, no? I know I've pissed off enough other pagans and occultists, but my primary goal is to bridge these two disparate (scientific vs esoteric) into a unified theory. Or barring that, a way to "view" this energy. Because once we can sense it, we can manipulate.
But alas, I figure I'll be downvoted or worse yet, ignored. I certainly don't hold a publicly acceptable view for sure.
And I believe this is what could hold you back, atleast in public acceptance (if you're even aiming for this -- and not just discovery among the "initiated").
I'm sorry I can't offer you anymore words, getting a taste of the esoteric after all of this time away has left me in shock.
So, may you succeed in your journey and if there's anyway I may assist, I would oblige.
They still are out there, but most have gone the anti-technology, anti-science.. almost hippie like. To most of them, it's all flowers and happy auras, and vibes. That sort of stuff. In my opinion, they are a dead end. It's all circle this, good vibes that. And absolutely no proof, no scientific work on understanding the underlying nature. Nothing.
> And I believe this is what could hold you back, atleast in public acceptance (if you're even aiming for this -- and not just discovery among the "initiated").
Nahh, I obviously don't talk about this at work. It can easily be seen as "Religion". No sense in alienating people. If they are intent on discussing it, I invite them to a coffee shop, a bookstore/cafe, a quieter bar and talk.
Then again, I do have to be careful in whom I talk with. Obviously, these ideas are exactly mainstream. And, many of them can have very deleterious paths (cults, single-mindedness, magus-itis). Last thing I want to do is get someone who is weaker-willed into something they cannot handle. Primarily, I don't want to be responsible for someone else's failures.
> I'm sorry I can't offer you anymore words, getting a taste of the esoteric after all of this time away has left me in shock.
> So, may you succeed in your journey and if there's anyway I may assist, I would oblige.
Thank you much for the kind words.
There are a few ways to help, and they be primarily information. I'm blessed with an ample amount of money and goods. It's mind I need.. Thought. Ideas. Creativity.
Primarily, this "woo woo" area, Ill call it magic. The problem is that the only way to sense it is to be trained in it. And how do you know if someone is trained? Its a chicken and egg problem. The way out of this, is to develop some sort of sensor that can "sense" whatever this is. Once a sensor is made, then ideally it would provide a way to prove/disprove these claims. Not only that, but we in the engineer class (yes, systems engineer as well) would also be able to experiment in making devices to manipulate this energy. With appropriate feedback from the sensors, we could start mastering this other realm.
I've a few ideas how to do this.
1. Auras. Some people see it naturally. Some can be trained to see it. What is it? Is it EM? What frequencies? Is it magnetic domain, or electric domain, or both? Could a camera detect this? What if you could adjust the response frequencies in the CCD to different areas?
2. Remote sensing. This would require time and lots of money at an fMRI. Would entail in self-selecting people whom claim to have these gifts. Fraught with false positives, given fMRI tech. Open ended investigation on peoples' brains. Not likely.
3. Emotion. Is it possible to sense emotion? I believe yes. We all have felt it, someone staring at us. Someone angry, and we don't know why. Dread that makes a room thick. What's going on, and why? Is this measurable? If no devices, can we use people to detect (and then measure with equivalent of lie detector electronics, to bypass verbal means)?
But these are diffuse ideas, and none are terribly good. But given my computer science, engineering, IoT sensor net, and biological backgrounds, It's all I have. If you have other ideas, I'd be very much interested in knowing or collaborating. I don't even need much of citation. I'd rather enable the occult for the masses, by means of science.
If you'd like to get ahold of me, you can email me clow_reed@protonmail.com
Sincerely,
But given that what we perceive is in most cases so heavily filtered through what we believe, I'm not sure this is necessarily a conceptual mistake.
Envisioning something in the minds eye isn't necessarily a sense but it's pretty close. I do think it's a good idea to regard envisioning as property of our own mind however rather than relating it entirely to external phenomenon. Which should also be more widely practiced with perceptions in general IMOP.
The key out of this mind-trap is unbiased 3rd parties.
For example, consider this. You're by yourself. You do something "magical". It conjures an invisible dragon around you. It has a distinct shape and look. Ok. So this is in your head, as per your comment above.
Now, you go to the local book store, and you meet some friends. You're not talking about any of your private practices. One friend looks at you and your shoulder and says, what's with the dragon thing around you?
Is it really there? Someone else selected 2 unique details about it out of nothing. Or, did your subconscious chose the reality that someone chose to say that to you, reaffirming your belief? Or what? Mere coincidence? (There is no such thing as coincidence in this world, only the inevitable.)
How many times one must go through with "interesting" happenings with others, whom have no clue what you're doing? We will never receive 100% proof.. But then again, a zero knowledge proof doesn't provide 100% certainty.
But also we sometimes correlate things that aren't necessarily correlated because we are just walking talking shitting correlation machines and it's what we do.
I don't mean to say "all in your head" like it's a bad thing though. My opinion is that most things are at the end of the day so I hope it's not offensive.
Heh :) I don't quite attribute humans to a complicated form of a calculator, but I get the sentiment. People thought back in the early 1900's, that people were not much more than really complicated mechanical systems, like clocks. Now, It's computers. I still think that's too simplistic.
> I don't mean to say "all in your head" like it's a bad thing though. My opinion is that most things are at the end of the day so I hope it's not offensive.
No, not at all! I had to first consider that wasn't the case for me. Consider it a sanity check. "Am I just seeing bullshit because I want to?" Probably. Can I disprove this? Yes. The key to disprove, is kind of a double blind test - you don't say anything, and someone else confirms... The only better test I could think of, is if someone else devised a ritual for you, and you conducted it, and you noted effects and happenings.
That's easy to prove. Have people send certain kinds of data and then name the emotion. You could upend several sciences and also be rich.
So why don't you?