![]() I mean, not that this should all be entirely his responsibility to explain, but he could at least act like the questions are interesting.Īnd yet: tell a gardener, especially certain flaky-crunchy environmental types of gardeners, 3 that plants have feelings and that wanting a plant to do better will cause it to do better, and a lot of them will agree with you and tell you they've observed that very thing. ![]() 2 Nor has Backster, or anybody else, proposed any way around this lack-of-a-brain problem: for all of Backster's theorizing about "primary perception," he has yet to propose any actual physical receptor in the plant that receives the signal and leads to the actual physical response, or come up with an idea about what is being transmitted between organisms, or even come up with an explanation for why the electrical conductivity of a leaf should be changing at all. Why does primary perception seem to just automatically make sense to so many people? We all know, after all, that in order to have thoughts and perceive the world around us, we have to have a brain and nervous system, 1 and even Backster isn't arguing that plants have nervous systems. See photo-related disclaimer in Part I, if you have not done so already. This final section is mostly not about Cleve Backster at all, and is instead about the part of Backsterism that I find most interesting: his audience. ![]() So far, I've more or less described what Cleve Backster's claims are, with respect to primary perception, and tried to show why they're less impressive than they first sound. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |