AGRICULTURE IS ALIVE

t.brainlet

I STUDIED LATIN FOR SIX YEARS. SENTIO, I FEEL. SAPIENS, WISE. YOU CAN'T JUST FUCKING SWAP THEM. IT'S ABSOLUTE DEGENERACY.

Seriously, how do we describe something that can feel physical sensations? We can't because nobody studies Latin any more.

Attached: 579345798.jpg (800x800, 153K)

>Sapines
woah anthropocene much?

We use the word "sensate." I don't think you studied Latin.

At least match declension and go with sapio

IT'S CONJUGATION NOT DECLENSION. Fuck I'm not even Latin user and that triggers me.

>sensate

Barely anyone uses the word outside the medical field. And besides, that's another etymological soul-destroyer. Comes from sensatus which means thinking, not feeling. There are no wojaks that can express my rage right now.

And we are talking about something that can think, not feel you absolute mongoloid.

>Seriously, how do we describe something that can feel physical sensations?
>We use the word "sensate.
>And we are talking about something that can think, not feel you absolute mongoloid
Yea Forums

Well, if we're talking about things that can think, THEN WHERE'S THE WORD FOR FEELING, WHICH IS THE EXACT QUESTION I WAS ASKING, YOU DRIBBLING SUBHUMAN.

PS: merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sensate

Yea Forums is not sentient

Attached: 1521165940063.gif (498x372, 868K)

Words change their meaning. Etymological faith and sense are easily corrupted. No amount of prescriptivist enthusiasm will extirpate lazy use of language. I will continue to let people use "sentient" improperly and know what they mean in spite of that, if it doesn't bother you too much.

READ WORDSWORTH

The words don't mean anything particular outside of obvious distinctions unless you give a definition.

>Latin definitions are relevant whatsoever to an English word or even to Romance languages

i don't understand

I hate how people read so much and come up so far in their studies but end up falling for the almost panpsychism sentience (sapience? yeah whatever) meme. That plants and fungi can communicate and exchange nutrients and informations has even become a sci-fi trope (Avatar, Resident Evil 7, Star Trek discovery), and they might even constitute, or rather correspond, to complex systems with emergent properties, but that does not equate our own emergent property of conscience, not by a long shot.

By that logic Capital would be a heck of a living being because its emergent property arrives at the expense of nonlinear combinations of billions of what are also complex systems (humans). That does not mean it's alive like us (so this is quite bad wording) neither that it can act out like we do, even if it might be capable of "acting out" in elaborate manners that we simply can't, because it's not fucking sentient in the way those authors mean, i.e like humans.

In short, this book and other "pop sci" about complex systems are fine, but remarkably fall short when it comes to drawing analogy. We need more people who can explain that these apparent sentient actions come out of self-consistency of complex systems, with the emergent effect retroactively modifying the elements who cause it to begin with. I guess I should shut up and write myself about this instead of complaining on a random Japanese format forum.

Attached: 35087342_2107663899487652_5937609823624364032_n.jpg (500x500, 37K)

Its not pop sci you retarded mongoloid.
>He don't believe that Capital is alive and sentient and sent itself from the future
lmao absolute homosexual

you misunderstand me and, by all indication, the subject
i am not op
i do not concur with op. agriculture--whatever he meams by that--is not sentient. neither is it sapient. it lacks the proper, as you put it, 'networks' to be either.
but plants do send and receive information, both to subsystems within their organism, to other organisms, including other plants, and to the environment. this communication is achieved through a form of semiosis, as all communication. this does not require consciousness, just as your comouter does notnrequire consciousness to semd and recieve information from the network it is currently communicating with and connecting you, its sentient, though maybe not so sapient, user to the rest of us.

have you read either? they aren't similar in any major way

though, actually, no
fuck you, i reject your metaphysical framework, and your misinterpretation of the facts, anf your construal of what is to be explained.
human feeling and human mentality are just superbly complex forms of a much more basoc engagement, subject to environment.
why contort language amd distort our meaning when we already possess the vocabulary for what it is we're trying to say?
so, yes, plants feel. they do not feel in the same manner, nor (probably) with the same intensity, as humans. but they are not distinct from i.e. 'emergent from' the universe, and neither are we.

You have said nothing I disagree with, I am absolutely sure I understood what you meant. Nevertheless, this does not keep people like Morton (and other very suspect professors of "object oriented philosophy") of constantly claiming there is an underlying, perhaps even spiritual/supernatural, structure to a system once it becomes large enough to present emergent properties. Morton even speaks of "hyperobjects", of which one example would be (not only mine, not only yours) the full network of every computer connected to the internet. This thing, to Morton, is supposedly ever encompassing and even transcendental of our basic notions of signification. Ugh.

Perhaps I should have worded myself better. I do know a complex array of communications does not require consciousness, but that [communication implies consciousness when in scale] is the "natural conclusion" to a lot of people including and specially pop sci writers (sorry, pop philosophy ). There is no misunderstanding in my part about plants, what angers me is the misunderstanding in OP. Also 10/10 for the lowkey aggression

>I haven't read it so its wrong
never change

I fail to see how our current understanding of consciousness would separate it from other complex emergent systems. Many would stipulate that capital is an intelligent network that functions largely on the order of signs to self propagate, just as plants develope information networks and properties beneficial to humans in order to survive and spread. Life consists of complex systems which compete/interact. Obsessing over the capabilities of a single person as compared to a plant or something seemingly immaterial such as information does not mean that they do not employ complex strategies to self-propagate (even more effectively than people).

baseos et rutilus catapotii

What the fuck is this dude’s problem?

Attached: D64B1183-3628-462E-A2AA-A2C2B6B31AF3.jpg (768x432, 62K)

it's the mongol blood telling him to slay everyone around him

People cut down trees, and he really liked trees.

I was gonna read it but his books got checked out of the library the same day.

Related:

>Gravity is archonic.

>something something the element of earth, confounded and oblivious, correlates with sleep, materialist ontology can't remember anything before the collapse into particles like you can't remember what happened right before you fell asleep, beasts are earth's dreams, their instinct is the awful torpor and delirium of dreams, correlates to the function of sensing in the jungian model, materialists are epistemological zombies put to sleep by the wizard newton, etc. etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.

man baaad nature gooood

Finns literally have cultural autism

He is right thought

GUH BIH DUL GAN FEEL
GUH BIH DUL GAN FING
GUH BIH DUL IZ LIVE
GUH BIH DUL ARIBE FRUM FEW CHURR
GUH BIH DUL IZ GOD

Attached: 1551142944526.png (171x266, 43K)

Realism.