Marijuana is a creature not just a plant

Odin*

Well-Known Member
It's funny, the reactions of the self proclaimed "scientists" in this thread. Asserting that "we" (mankind) has it all figured out already. Nothing left to learn, nothing left to "discover", we have all of the answers to every question asked, and all that has yet to be pondered.


Can plants think? <-"Click"

Yes, they can. <-"Click"

Plants are even capable of distinguishing "sounds".
^"Click"


Please, "scientists", I urge you to share your vast knowledge with these Botanists so that they don't waste their time "asking questions" that you already know the answer to.

(Insert "Smart Aleck" response *here*)
 

Michael Huntherz

Well-Known Member
It's funny, the reactions of the self proclaimed "scientists" in this thread. Asserting that "we" (mankind) has it all figured out already. Nothing left to learn, nothing left to "discover", we have all of the answers to every question asked, and all that has yet to be pondered.


Can plants think? <-"Click"

Yes, they can. <-"Click"

Plants are even capable of distinguishing "sounds".
^"Click"


Please, "scientists", I urge you to share your vast knowledge with these Botanists so that they don't waste their time "asking questions" that you already know the answer to.

(Insert "Smart Aleck" response *here*)
Sorry, @Odin* I am not sure what you mean by that. Science is real and science has learned a lot about the nature of our universe, but science certainly does not have the answer to every question, and no scientist would claim otherwise. The great majority of posts in this thread are vastly ignorant of science, and Botanists are scientists, so I am deeply confused by your post. My concern, though, is that you seem to be asserting an anti-science stance. Being anti-science is a dangerous position to take, for the human species. Anti-science implies a refusal to adapt. Failure to adapt leads to extinction.

Please clarify your position further, so I might understand your intent.
 

Flowki

Well-Known Member
Sorry, @Odin* Being anti-science is a dangerous position to take, for the human species. Anti-science implies a refusal to adapt. Failure to adapt leads to extinction.
That's an interesting angle to take. We are nowhere near the ability to thrive in harmony as a successful species out side of earths atmosphere while a majority of everything science is giving us contributes to the destruction of that atmosphere and echo system. Unless we do a U turn it would seem it's the ability to adapt that is going to lead us to extinction.
 

Michael Huntherz

Well-Known Member
a majority of everything science is giving us contributes to the destruction of that atmosphere and echo system.
That's simply not true. The love of material wealth and individual selfishness is causing the destruction of our environment, not science. That's silly.

You may have that perception because you have been exposed to some kind of anti-science bias. Science does not have an agenda to destroy the ecosystem, nor does it inherently contribute to our planet's livable atmosphere

My "angle to take" is based on empirical data, not opinion. It isn't an angle, it is demonstrably true.

Most of the work being done to find sustainable solutions to the big problems of humanity and our planet's living ecosystems is being done by scientists, using the scientific method, to do science.
 

Flowki

Well-Known Member
That's simply not true. The love of material wealth and individual selfishness is causing the destruction of our environment, not science. That's silly.

You may have that perception because you have been exposed to some kind of anti-science bias. Science does not have an agenda to destroy the ecosystem, nor does it inherently contribute to our planet's livable atmosphere

My "angle to take" is based on empirical data, not opinion. It isn't an angle, it is demonstrably true.

Most of the work being done to find sustainable solutions to the big problems of humanity and our planet's living ecosystems is being done by scientists, using the scientific method, to do science.
Probably the only thing you done all day today that did not derive from a scientific experiment is breath. The modified food you eat, the packaging it's in, the car you drove to work, the elevator you took to your floor, the toilet you took a shit in, etc. All of that derived from science, attained from burning fossil fuel. Science itself does not destroy things, why would you even suggest that?.. it's a made up name to represent the process of humans who stumble along finding things out by fking up and taking notes. Don't put it up there as if it's some holy spirit, it's not. It is a instrument.

Science that lead to every child in the western world owning a wide screen tv, Ipad and mobile phone is not destroying the echo system?. Is it the parents fault for buying it, the sellers fault for selling it, scientists fault for making it possible or governments fault for allowing it?. Don't you own a car, micro wave, phone, computer, maybe a grow room too?. Tell me how you are not part of the problem, playing for team fuck science right in the pussy. What about these scientists you are defending, the experiments they are doing right now. Where did they get the tools to do them, what is powering them?.

While we may be working toward good science, the fact is that all current science (or use of) up to this date was made possible by the abuse of the planets resources. When the majority of civilized world is using echo friendly means to create more echo friendly goods then we are stepping off the merry go round of shitty science. The only reason I dislike science is because we should have been at that point ages ago. We are not robots programed to always do the right thing. Some humans will always use things in the wrong way and it only takes a hand full to kill billions, thnx to ''science''.

I accept what science is, I use it's process or product all the time. Does not change the fact that it has done more harm than good so far.
 
Last edited:

Odin*

Well-Known Member
The great majority of posts in this thread are vastly ignorant of science...
This is what I was referring to when I said "self proclaimed scientist". Some are disputing the possibility of "plants with a conscience" and referencing "Science" to support their view. This is nonsense, especially when new research contradicts that "opinion". Plants send, receive, and "store" information on a much greater scale than "we" previously thought possible.

I'm sure our "RIU Scientists" are aware that plants create and use many of the same neurotransmitters that we do. Also, an area of the plant originally believed to be "irrelevant" is now believed to be the "core" of it's central nervous system.

Now, I'm not suggesting that you sit down and have a conversation with your plants while lighting up their "sister", just pointing out that "we" don't know everything, and as our knowledge base expands, our minds are opened to concepts and possibilities previously believed to be impossible/improbable.

Not in opposition to "science", I was making a point and using "science" to support the opinion that I shared earlier...

...Before asserting that plants don't "think", be mindful of your interpretation of "cognizance" VS alternative levels of "thought" and "consciousness". Read up on Ophiocardyceps, might change the way you "think" about shit (anyone catch the double entendre there?)...:bigjoint:
 
Last edited:

Odin*

Well-Known Member
That's an interesting angle to take. We are nowhere near the ability to thrive in harmony as a successful species out side of earths atmosphere while a majority of everything science is giving us contributes to the destruction of that atmosphere and echo system. Unless we do a U turn it would seem it's the ability to adapt that is going to lead us to extinction.

Michael Marde, of the University of the Basque Country in Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain;

"the sessile nature of plants means they don't exist in opposition to the place they grow. Rather, they become a focal point for myriad organisms... Maybe we can use that model for ourselves, to temper a little bit the excessive separation from our environment that has led in large part to the profound environmental crisis we find ourselves in."
 

Odin*

Well-Known Member
I feel like banning the word xanaxc cxanax xannax should be against the law

I hear ya. I called a Plummer because my toilet had a problem with aspergers after a party. He said I should call a psychiatrist, I told him he was a shit Plummer, but then realized that's why I called in the first place.
 

tstick

Well-Known Member
Ever since this discussion reignited my interests in the subject of "plants being creatures" , I've been thinking about the way some plants run a spectrum of terpenes as they begin to become ready for pollination...Some of the ideas presented in this thread and via some of the video material posted on this thread make me think that some cannabis plants might be changing their terpene profiles in order to "check" which combination of odors will attract an appropriate pollinator to it....

Like, maybe it starts out with a set of terpenes that smell like boiled cauliflower...nothing happens, so it adds/subtracts some different terpenes and begins to smell like sweet, grape cool-aid....nothing happens...it changes, again...this time it smells like creosote or something that might attract a different insect or animal....nothing happens....it then changes into a smell like rotting road kill skunk that has a fragrance so strong, it can be smelled from a long distance...In the absence of ANY pollinator (as is the case in most cannabis grow ops), the female plants continue to change and try to tune into what might be around them. And, funny enough...Guess who is around?....

We humans seem to LOVE the smells it makes that cannabis generates Humans are attracted by perfumes/pheromones just like bees are....WE are the ones who now tend to the cannabis plant and we are undoubtedly its number one pollinator....We are!!...These damn plants have bamboozled us!....and we love it!!!....It's very much a fair trade-off for most of us who use cannabis...and ESPECIALLY those of us who grow our own!

I am just completely fascinated by all this! I think it's fantastic!
 

tstick

Well-Known Member
I've got an old 5 gallon glass water bottle on a metal stand. I've been trying to find a use for it for years. I think I may have found it!
I know right? This is an inspiration! Plus, in keeping with the theme of this thread, I can't help but see that bottle as a metaphor for the Earth...how we are all contained within our "bottle garden"...

Could it be reasoned that this guy's bottle plant has remained SO consistent in it's lighting and temperature, that it has somehow measured the best way to grow at a rate where it doesn't take OR give more than its environment can accommodate? The thing has already lived longer than some people! It certainly has lived longer than most animal species live...And life will try its best to stay alive...Is that somehow a conscious adaptation?

Why doesn't this plant just "mindlessly" grow and choke itself to death in a matter of days or weeks? Maybe it IS aware of its environment and maybe it does have built-in adaptive qualities that allow it to reach an equilibrium...what else can you say? All life on Earth is striving to stay alive...all having the ability to make adjustments that allow that design (whichever one you name) to continue living.
 

xxMissxx

Well-Known Member
hehehe this is a fun thread...
what about Cleve Backster.... ???

"Backster founded the CIA's polygraph unit shortly after World War II.[citation needed] The Backster School of Lie Detection is located in San Diego, California, and is the longest running polygraph school in the world.[citation needed] The school was originally founded in New York City in 1960, shortly after Backster left his position with the Central Intelligence Agency. It trains policemen to use the polygraph or "lie detector" test.[8]

Backster's study of plants began in the 1960s, and he reported observing that a polygraph instrument attached to a plant leaf registered a change in electrical resistance when the plant was harmed or even threatened with harm. His work was inspired by the research of physicist Jagadish Chandra Bose, who claimed to have discovered that playing certain kinds of music in the area where plants grew caused them to grow faster.[9] Bose used a crescograph to measure plant response to various stimuli and demonstrated feeling in plants. From the analysis of the variation of the cell membrane potential of plants under different circumstances, he hypothesized that plants can "feel pain, understand affection etc" and wrote two books about it in 1902 and 1926.

In February 1966, Backster attached polygraph electrodes to a Dracaena cane plant, to measure at first the time taken for water to reach the leaves. The electrodes are used to measure galvanic skin response and the plant showed readings which resembled that of a human. This made Backster try different scenarios, and the readings went off the chart when he pictured burning the leaf, because according to him, the plant registered a stress response to his thoughts of harming it.[10] He conducted another similar experiment where he observed a plant's response to the death of a brine shrimp in another room; his results convinced him that plants demonstrated telepathic awareness. He argued that plants perceived human intentions, and as he began to investigate further, he also reported finding that other human thoughts and emotions caused reactions in plants, which could be recorded by a polygraph instrument. He termed the plants' sensitivity to thoughts "Primary Perception", and published his findings from the experiments in the International Journal of Parapsychology in 1968.[11] Soviet scientists invited Backster to the first Psychotronic Association conference in Prague in 1973 and his paper was entitled "Evidence of Primary Perception at a Cellular Level in Plant and Animal Life".[12] After 1973, he further experimented on yoghurt bacteria, eggs and human sperm and he claimed his results showed "primary perception" could be measured in all living things.[10]
 

tstick

Well-Known Member
This is fucking awesome! U learn something new every day!! So in conclusion how the plant came out with that strategy?
You know...a lot of times, when I watch this video, it seems very clear that it's not just evolution and time and random selection that would be able to write a script like this...It has to be something more. It's just SO strange to think about what is actually happening....A plant...this particular orchid species....has become an almost exact copy of another creature. One is immobile and set in the ground, unable to move around. The other is very mobile and able to travel and "communicate" with other orchids in the area via pollination. And, yet, there are no other similar plants anywhere around the specific area where this orchid species and wasp species reside. This is the only thing even remotely like it. Why didn't other plants in that area, also adapt in similar ways -i.e., mimicking insects? And, believe it or not, there are several other orchid species in different parts of the world, that have adapted themselves to work this same way -except that, in one example, the orchid looks like a fly....another one looks like a bee...one looks like a big, white moth...guess what pollinates that flower in nature? -a big, white moth!

Maybe the pollen is like little "software" packages that plug into the drive inputs of some other creatures who carry that pollen from plant-to-plant....Maybe we all have some form of drive input....Maybe the drive input for cannabis to communicate with humans is the relationship between the human pulmonary system and the trichome...or trichomes and terpenes...etc. We inhale the information, it disperses into our blood, goes to our brain and causes specific, chemical reactions to happen that "instruct" us on a subconscious level to form a synergism between it and us. And possibly, through this synergism, its chemicals can add protection against other chemicals and/or reactions in us that would cause us harm. Maybe that's why it has become such a medicinally-beneficial plant to humans...? It's something to think about! :) If you DO entertain this idea for just a second, then it does appear that cannabis is trying to make friends with us!

There has to be a way that plants and other creatures are exchanging information with each other...has to be. If this wasp/orchid relationship doesn't prove it, then nothing will!

One day, down he road, marijuana growers may start to resemble the marijuana plants they grow...Or, visa-versa!!!! ;)
 

Chunky Stool

Well-Known Member
Funny thread....but...interestingly, I was just watching some stuff about the memory of water and how water can take on different shapes under the stimulation of sound. I suppose if you remove the human consciousness aspect from the interpretation, it might be possible that the water in the plant is "responding" to the frequencies of other vibrations around it?

I do believe there are forces in nature that humans cannot fathom. After all, plant life has been an Earthling a lot longer than humans have. I don't think it's completely out of the question that plants figured out ways to "communicate" (for lack of a better term) with other creatures on some level because just look at the care we have come to give the plant when growing it. We grow it for the "reward" that awaits us at the end. It seems to be able to produce chemicals that cause us to like it so much that, for generations, people were willing to risk going to prison to grow it.


People don't yet know everything about everything. I believe it IS possible that plants can communicate with some people on some level.
My plants have developed a stutter: "Need more cal-mag..."
 
Top