Plants and animals die even if the animals don't eat them, which is why in "Primary Perception" Backster talks about plants "wanting to be eaten" to be part of a "higher order", similar to how we view our own eventual death.
Thus the importance of doing a prayer before eating anything if you should want to maximize the lack of suffering to
1. Alert the organism about to be consumed so it can faint and not be hurt,
2. Increase your awareness of the totality of the process, which activates gratitude, and
3. Enables the maximum amount of light qualia to enter into your body, especially with careful chewing and enjoyment of the food, maximizing the intake of the light (sensations) of the experience. (As is talked about in one of the insights of The Celestine Prophecy).


No one has reviewed this piece of content yet
  earned 50.0¢
Miss me with this superstitious crap. Don't call it science, please.
   1mo ago
25.0¢ 25.0¢
  earned 25.0¢
I appreciate your care for science and the scientific method, @karol.
Thank you.
I see that you are wanting to keep the quality of science writing up, as you said in your first post, and I think that's wonderful. The new breakthroughs in science that are yet still permeating the world have a number of paradigm shifts to still meet with.
What are you referring to as being superstitious, @karol?
I'm asking because Einstein did not like the "spooky action" of quantum mechanics, and thought that "God does not play dice", and now almost all physicists believe that "God" does.
That's why I think that there's a heavy undercurrent of anti-science in the scientific community today that amounts to bigotry and prejudice, which Backster faced quite a bit of. Accordingly, I do consider this science. More importantly, it's a stark break from the science of before, and due to the nature of the assumption of there being an "objective observer", this new science is seen as quackery and pseudoscience.
I readily agree that it has been used for much quackery and pseudoscience, and I rally against that as well. I do think it is science, and that is why I categorize it as such.
I think it's extremely understandable that you rally against it, as it stands in such stark contrast to what has been, and has been used so often to promote quackery; it's a new way of perceiving the world, and we have for so long, and very profitably, used the current scientific paradigm to navigate the world.
   1mo ago
  earned 0.0¢
Thank you for your response @anarchospiritualist. This is not science because Backster claims were checked by others and no one could replicate his findings and he hasn't been following the scientific method - no control group. These are 50 years old claims that were already heavily discussed. It's not new. Holding on to already negatively falsified claims is called pseudoscience by definition.
Sources that did experiments disproving Backsters claims:
Kenneth Horowitz, Donald Lewis and Edgar Gasteiger. (1975). Plant Primary Perception: Electrophysiological Unresponsiveness to Brine Shrimp Killing. Science, 189. pp. 478-480.
Kmetz, John. (1975). An Examination of Primary Perception in Plants. Parapsychology Review, 6. p. 21.
Schwebs, Ursula. (1973). Do Plants Have Feelings?. Harpers. pp. 75-76. As for quantum physics, please don't use ideas that you don't understand. Also in your second article, where you used Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Don't do that, please.
   1mo ago