URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       True Left
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Ancient World
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 16174--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Antropocentricism: The Most Dangerous Ideology in the World
       By: Guess88 Date: October 24, 2022, 9:26 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote]Freeganism is just another term for scavenging[/quote]
       [quote]Predation is part of canine food procurement but dogs are
       mostly scavengers by nature. Long dead, rotting, putrefied and,
       of course, revolting carrion has always been the fast food of
       canine cuisine. An abundance of nutritious dog food in your home
       can't trump instinct.[/quote]
  HTML https://www.abqjournal.com/789269/dogs-are-natural-scavengers-food-seekers.html
  HTML https://communityimpact.com/uploads/images/2019/12/13/25102.png
       Good chance that if you enjoy Vodka 'nobility' is lost upon your
       essence for all of time and your true spirit is just Turanian!
       :) (Although, the same cannot be said for all potato consumers
       obviously!).
       #Post#: 18372--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Antropocentricism: The Most Dangerous Ideology in the World
       By: $@#! Lawn mower! Date: March 11, 2023, 5:17 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       What Plants Are Saying About Us
       [quote]Your brain is not the root of cognition.[/quote]
       [quote]...
       “Who knew plants do stuff?” I marveled. Suddenly plants seemed
       more interesting. When the pandemic hit, I brought more of them
       home, just to add some life to the place, and then there were
       more, and more still, until the ratio of plants to household
       surfaces bordered on deranged. Bushwhacking through my
       apartment, I worried whether the plants were getting enough
       water, or too much water, or the right kind of light—or, in the
       case of a giant carnivorous pitcher plant hanging from the
       ceiling, whether I was leaving enough fish food in its traps.
       But what never occurred to me, not even once, was to wonder what
       the plants were thinking.
       ...
       To understand how human minds work, he started with plants.
       I was, according to Paco Calvo, guilty of “plant blindness.”
       Calvo, who runs the Minimal Intelligence Lab at the University
       of Murcia in Spain where he studies plant behavior, says that to
       be plant blind is to fail to see plants for what they really
       are: cognitive organisms endowed with memories, perceptions, and
       feelings, capable of learning from the past and anticipating the
       future, able to sense and experience the world.
       It’s easy to dismiss such claims because they fly in the face of
       our leading theory of cognitive science. That theory goes by
       names like “cognitivism,” “computationalism,” or
       “representational theory of mind.” It says, in short, the mind
       is in the head. Cognition boils down to the firings of neurons
       in our brains.
       And plants don’t have brains.
       “When I open up a plant, where could intelligence reside?” Calvo
       says. “That’s framing the problem from the wrong perspective.
       Maybe that’s not how our intelligence works, either. Maybe it’s
       not in our heads. If the stuff that plants do deserves the label
       ‘cognitive,’ then so be it. Let’s rethink our whole theoretical
       framework.”
       ...
       But Calvo wasn’t convinced. Computers are good at logic, at
       carrying out long, precise calculations—not exactly humanity’s
       shining skill. Humans are good at something else: noticing
       patterns, intuiting, functioning in the face of ambiguity,
       error, and noise. While a computer’s reasoning is only as good
       as the data you feed it, a human can intuit a lot from just a
       few vague hints—a skill that surely helped on the savannah when
       we had to recognize a tiger hiding in the bushes from just a few
       broken stripes. “My hunch was that there was something really
       wrong, something deeply distorted about the very idea that
       cognition had to do with manipulating symbols or following
       rules,” Calvo says.
       ...
       Plants can distinguish self from non-self, stranger from kin.
       Plants’ abilities to sense and respond to their surroundings
       lead to what seems like intelligent behavior. Their roots can
       avoid obstacles. They can distinguish self from non-self,
       stranger from kin. If a plant finds itself in a crowd, it will
       invest resources in vertical growth to remain in light; if
       nutrients are on the decline, it will opt for root expansion
       instead. Leaves munched on by insects send electrochemical
       signals to warn the rest of the foliage,2 and they’re quicker to
       react to threats if they’ve encountered them in the past. Plants
       chat among themselves and with other species. They release
       volatile organic compounds with a lexicon, Calvo says, of more
       than 1,700 “words”—allowing them to shout things that a human
       might translate as “caterpillar incoming” or “*$@#, lawn mower!”
       Their behavior isn’t merely reactive—plants anticipate, too.
       They can turn their leaves in the direction of the sun before it
       rises, and accurately trace its location in the sky even when
       they’re kept in the dark. They can predict, based on prior
       experience, when pollinators are most likely to show up and time
       their pollen production accordingly. A plant’s form is a record
       of its history. Its cells—shaped by experience—remember.
       Chat? Anticipate? Remember? It’s tempting to tame all those
       words with scare quotes, as if they can’t mean for plants what
       they mean for us. For plants, we say, it’s biochemistry, just
       physiology and brute mechanics—as if that’s not true for us,
       too.
       Besides, Calvo says, plant behavior can’t be reduced to mere
       reflexes. Plants don’t react to stimuli in predetermined
       ways—they’d never have made it this far, evolutionarily
       speaking, if they did. Having to deal with a changing
       environment while being rooted to one spot means having to set
       priorities, strike compromises, change course on the
       fly...[/quote]
       Entire article:
  HTML https://nautil.us/what-plants-are-saying-about-us-264593/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
       #Post#: 21491--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Antropocentricism: The Most Dangerous Ideology in the World
       By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 13, 2023, 9:30 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Crocodiles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> humans:
  HTML https://www.yahoo.com/news/crocodiles-were-played-sound-human-090031238.html
       [quote]Nile crocodiles were found to react to the cries of baby
       bonobos, chimpanzees, and humans — and they appear to be able to
       detect degrees of distress, research published in Proceedings of
       the Royal Society B, the Royal Society's main
       biological-research journal, found.
       Researchers played the crocodiles audio recordings of infants
       crying and discovered they were drawn to those that seemed the
       most distressed.
       ...
       The researchers compared the findings to another study in which
       researchers played the same cries for a group of humans. The
       study found that humans and crocodiles use different criteria to
       judge distress in other species and that humans' judgment tends
       to be less accurate.
       While humans primarily responded to the pitch of the cries,
       crocodiles responded based on levels of "deterministic chaos,
       harmonicity, and spectral prominences."
       The authors noted that crocodiles could recognize the distress
       levels of species very distantly related to them.[/quote]
       This is consistent with my theory that language use reduces
       empathy.
       #Post#: 22303--------------------------------------------------
       Re: True Left breakthrough: folkish imperialism
       By: le pen Date: September 22, 2023, 7:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://news.sky.com/story/pack-of-crocodiles-save-dog-stranded-in-river-instead-of-eating-it-12967211
       Crocodiles save dog stranded in river instead of eating it - in
       possible case of 'emotional empathy'
       [quote]
       The giant reptiles have a reputation for being "opportunistic
       predators" - but chose to nudge the dog to safety, in what
       scientists say may be "sentient behaviour suggestive of
       cross-species empathy".
       A report published in the Journal of Threatened Taxa outlines
       how a young dog was observed being chased by a pack of feral
       dogs and entered the shallow waters of the Savitri River, in
       India's Maharashtra.
       The dog had not spotted the three mugger crocodiles floating
       nearby, which began edging closer to what appeared to be certain
       prey.
       The adult reptiles - described by the Wildlife Institute of
       India as "opportunistic predators" - instead pushed the dog to
       safety using their snouts.
       They even guided him to an area of the riverbank that wasn't
       occupied by the feral pack, allowing the dog to make a safe
       escape on land.
       It was an action the journal said may have been down to
       "sentient behaviour suggestive of cross-species empathy".
       The "curious" incident was uncharacteristic of the crocodiles.
       capacity of one species to experience the emotional feelings of
       another species merits recognition.
       [/quote]
       #Post#: 23619--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Antropocentricism: The Most Dangerous Ideology in the World
       By: WesternWomen Date: November 11, 2023, 3:47 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/inspired-by-muhammad/
       #Post#: 25893--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Antropocentricism: The Most Dangerous Ideology in the World
       By: rp Date: April 11, 2024, 6:27 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/posts/13712/revisions
       Has the West produced anything even remotely comparable in terms
       of philosophical output? And yet Westerners claim to want to end
       "speciecism" (despite inventing the concept of "species"
       itself!).
       #Post#: 26909--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Antropocentricism: The Most Dangerous Ideology in the World
       By: robots Date: July 1, 2024, 5:51 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You English robotic clones make it hard for me to feel sorry for
       you for too long, you people got some nerve calling me a dumb
       animal with your t-rays. It's better to be an animal than a
       judeo christian golem-robot, animals live in closer relation to
       the truth than biological robots.
       #Post#: 29347--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Medical decolonization
       By: rp Date: February 11, 2025, 5:35 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_animal_testing#:~:text=The%20history%20of%20animal%20testing,perform%20experiments%20on%20nonhuman%20animals.
       [Quote]
       The history of animal testing goes back to the writings of the
       Ancient Greeks in the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, with Aristotle
       (384–322 BCE) and Erasistratus (304–258 BCE) one of the first
       documented to perform experiments on nonhuman animals.[1] Galen,
       a physician in 2nd-century Rome, dissected pigs and goats, and
       is known as the "Father of Vivisection."[2] Avenzoar, an Arabic
       physician in 12th-century Moorish Spain who also practiced
       dissection, introduced animal testing as an experimental method
       of testing surgical procedures before applying them to human
       patients.[3][4] Although the exact purpose of the procedure was
       unclear, a Neolithic surgeon performed trepanation on a cow in
       3400-3000 BCE.[5] This is the earliest known surgery to have
       been performed on an animal, and it is possible that the
       procedure was done on a dead cow in order for the surgeon to
       practice their skills.
       [/Quote]
       *****************************************************
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page