OOTS #1227 - The Discussion Thread

[hamishspence]

Tsukiko already homebrewed the Wight raising spell; could she have homebrewed the personalities of the Wights the spell created? I don't know if Wight Lore is as fleshed out as vampire lore in Oots.

Vampire lore in OOTS fits fairly closely with Complete Divine:

The souls of characters who die in specific ways sometimes become undead. Those driven to suicide by madness become allips, while humanoids destroyed by absolute evil become bodaks. As with ghosts, the soul creates a new body, whether it's incorporeal such as an allip's or corporeal such as a bodak's. The soul is twisted toward evil if it wasn't already. The new undead creature retains some general memories of its former life, but doesn't necessarily have the same mental ability scores, skills, feats or other abilities. Not every suicide victim becomes an allip, and not everyone destroyed by absolute evil becomes a bodak; as with ghosts, the exact nature of the transformation is unknown. Similarly, liches are characters who've voluntarily transformed themselves into undead, trapping their souls in skeletal bodies.

Some undead such as wights and vampires create spawn out of a character they kill, trapping the soul of the deceased in a body animated by negative energy and controlled by a malign intelligence. Sometimes the undead creature can access the memories of the deceased (vampires, spectres, ghouls, and ghasts can) and sometimes they can't (as with shadows, wraiths and wights).

The "malign intelligence" controlled Durkon, with Durkon's soul trapped within, and accessed Durkon's memories.

So, using this, the same principle would apply - soul of original being is trapped within, malign intelligence is in charge - only this time, no memories.

Malack's malign intelligence came from Nergal's domain, Durkon*'s malign intelligence came from Hel's - here, it would come from the domain of the Southern Pantheon's "deity of the undead" (Maybe Rat?) unless the character came from somewhere else.

[Goblin_Priest]

If the rules for Psionics can be taken as definitive for the meaning of the word "sentient" in a D&D context, then Int 1 is "sentient" and Int 3 is "has humanlike sentience".

However, other sources seem to favour calling Int 2 creatures like animals "not sentient" - so it depends which source you use.

I am under the impression that somewhere in the core books, sentience is defined as being int of 3 or more. Best I could find with a quick search was the entry for intelligence that says: "A creature of humanlike intelligence has a score of at least 3."

Tsukiko already homebrewed the Wight raising spell; could she have homebrewed the personalities of the Wights the spell created? I don't know if Wight Lore is as fleshed out as vampire lore in Oots.

Huh I never realized you couldn't make a wight with Create Undead or its Greater version.

[One Skunk Todd]

Redcloak himself says the only feedback he gets is that he still has spells the next day.

True, but Redcloak now knows information that the Dark One does not(at least according to Thor) that will presumably get passed to the DO(unless RC is trying to withhold information.)

[Dion]

For some reason, I thought sentience required intelligence, wisdom, and charisma of at least one.

I don’t know where I got that idea, though.

[Good Coyote]

For some reason, I thought sentience required intelligence, wisdom, and charisma of at least one.

I don’t know where I got that idea, though.

I've never heard this idea before but I really like it. A non-sentient robotic entity could have high intelligence for the purpose of skill rolls but not really be a person. I can't think of examples for isolated high wisdom or charisma. (Maybe a high wisdom nature spirit that is more an expression of the land than an actual person?) But it makes sense to require some ability to know, to understand, and to have a personality.

Can't be used for actual dnd rules arguments, but will keep in mind to suggest as a houserule if I'm ever in a campaign where it makes sense.

[bunsen_h]

One in-universe note about what makes paladins fall:

And what's the one act that we know--through direct empirical evidence--can cause a paladin to be stripped of his powers? Killing their defenseless liege lord!

Of course, that's the opinion of a character, which may not be definitive.

[Silent Wrangler]

On the Serini and Tsukiko befriending shunned creatures being Good or not: Tarquin and Malack, I think, should be a way better example than Tsukiko.
That said, IMHO genuinely befriending outcasts from your society is not inherently Good act. I say "outcasts" because honestly it doesn't matter what the outcast is, as long as it is a person. What matters is the exact circumstances of being an outcast and being a friend.
Whether shunning is on just grounds ("you're a troll" alone is obviously not, but "you killed five villagers in the last week" is)
How exactly the friendship is formed: befriending someone you don't know to be an outcast, saving them, getting saved yourself or Stockholm syndrome when they kidnap you all have different bearing on Goodness of the friendship.
How strong your friendship is, what exactly are you ready to do for each other etc.
Just like almost any action.

[hamishspence]

For some reason, I thought sentience required intelligence, wisdom, and charisma of at least one.

I don’t know where I got that idea, though.

Given the way Int 0, Wis 0, and Cha 0 are described:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAb...ilityScoreLoss

Intelligence 0 means that the character cannot think and is unconscious in a coma-like stupor, helpless.
Wisdom 0 means that the character is withdrawn into a deep sleep filled with nightmares, helpless.
Charisma 0 means that the character is withdrawn into a catatonic, coma-like stupor, helpless.

it's fair to say that without at least 1s in all 3, a creature is effectively nonfunctional.

[Good Coyote]

I did notice on just finishing a complete reread - Serini technically was pointing directly at Lien when she said "If you can tell me why, I'll let you go." (bolded emphasis added)

Lien did not give the answer why, so perhaps "how to lie to a paladin" is to "not technically lie but be a stickler to details." Even though he was wrong, Girard's opinion that Soon would interfere with other Gates was based on the idea that he could come up with some justification that would let him do it without feeling like he was actually losing his honor. It's possible that some of the resentment in the group was about a time that Soon talked his way around the letter of the law (or of his word) in order to do what he felt was right.

(Similar to when Durkon was like "well I count 'able to be picked by a rogue' as a mechanical defect." Which is interesting, since he was also lying to a paladin at the time.)

To be clear: Offering this more as an explanation for the "how to lie to a paladin" line, since I remember a brief discussion upthread about whether or not paladins have any particular advantage against being lied to that she could be referring to. Maybe it's more about showing paladins what she views as a taste of their own medicine. Not as an argument that it's not fair to say that she lied, or anything like that.

[arimareiji]

I've never heard this idea before but I really like it. A non-sentient robotic entity could have high intelligence for the purpose of skill rolls but not really be a person. I can't think of examples for isolated high wisdom or charisma. (Maybe a high wisdom nature spirit that is more an expression of the land than an actual person?) But it makes sense to require some ability to know, to understand, and to have a personality.

Can't be used for actual dnd rules arguments, but will keep in mind to suggest as a houserule if I'm ever in a campaign where it makes sense.

I'd venture that a lot of animals have significant wisdom and/or charisma, even if they don't have human-style intelligence per se. Examples abound of different cultures and mythologies attributing these traits to specific animals. (Plus: Would the majority of traditional "pets" have been adopted as such if they had zero charisma, or could they be trained if they had zero wisdom?)

And I also really like the notion that having all three qualifies a being as sentient in some fashion. (I'd add "Whether or not their mentation and communication are exactly like ours", but that's not unlikely just me.)

Spoiler: collapsed for space

Show

I did notice on just finishing a complete reread - Serini technically was pointing directly at Lien when she said "If you can tell me why, I'll let you go." (bolded emphasis added)

Lien did not give the answer why, so perhaps "how to lie to a paladin" is to "not technically lie but be a stickler to details." Even though he was wrong, Girard's opinion that Soon would interfere with other Gates was based on the idea that he could come up with some justification that would let him do it without feeling like he was actually losing his honor. It's possible that some of the resentment in the group was about a time that Soon talked his way around the letter of the law (or of his word) in order to do what he felt was right.

(Similar to when Durkon was like "well I count 'able to be picked by a rogue' as a mechanical defect." Which is interesting, since he was also lying to a paladin at the time.)
[/snip]

<feeling excessively silly><bizarro world> Oh crud, you just proved that Durkon is evil!

Because only evil people would ever lie to paladins for ANY reason, you know. Even once. And if it was on a technicality, you've also proven Serini is lawful evil. </bizarro world></feeling excessively silly>

(^_~)

_{Edit: Fixing typo}

[bunsen_h]

<feeling excessively silly><bizarro world> Oh crud, you just proved that Durkon is evil!

Because only evil people would ever lie to paladins for ANY reason, you know. Even once. And if it was on a technicality, you've also proven Serini is lawful evil. </bizarro world></feeling excessively silly>

(^_~)

In one of the bonus pages in War and XPs, two of Miko's fellow paladins lie to her in order to get out of spending the evening with her. She seems to inspire that kind of thing.

[CountDVB]

I did notice on just finishing a complete reread - Serini technically was pointing directly at Lien when she said "If you can tell me why, I'll let you go." (bolded emphasis added)

Lien did not give the answer why, so perhaps "how to lie to a paladin" is to "not technically lie but be a stickler to details." Even though he was wrong, Girard's opinion that Soon would interfere with other Gates was based on the idea that he could come up with some justification that would let him do it without feeling like he was actually losing his honor. It's possible that some of the resentment in the group was about a time that Soon talked his way around the letter of the law (or of his word) in order to do what he felt was right.

(Similar to when Durkon was like "well I count 'able to be picked by a rogue' as a mechanical defect." Which is interesting, since he was also lying to a paladin at the time.)

To be clear: Offering this more as an explanation for the "how to lie to a paladin" line, since I remember a brief discussion upthread about whether or not paladins have any particular advantage against being lied to that she could be referring to. Maybe it's more about showing paladins what she views as a taste of their own medicine. Not as an argument that it's not fair to say that she lied, or anything like that.

Alternately, it could be Girard projecting since he couldn't understand how Lawful characters worked and Serini might have had a better understanding.

[Ruck]

I think there may be some confusion between sentient and sapient, which are often used interchangeably in the real world (even though they technically are different) but I think have even more distinct meanings in D&D. Animals are sentient; humans are sapient. And free will requires sapience, although whether "sapient" vs. "free-willed sapient" is a distinction in D&D, I'm not sure. (Obviously it does distinguish between free-willed undead and undead that are not free-willed, which is why comparing Serini to the trolls and Tsukiko to her wights doesn't work.)

[Good Coyote]

Alternately, it could be Girard projecting since he couldn't understand how Lawful characters worked and Serini might have had a better understanding.

Girard definitely did not understand Lawful characters, but it's possible that what he didn't understand was the difference between LG (or Lawful Evil ) Durkon declaring pickable locks a "mechanical defect" in order to protect his companions (which might have been something Soon would do) and breaking an oath that was made in full knowledge of what the oath would entail purely out of a busybody nature or buyer's oathmaker's remorse (which as it turned out was not something Soon ever did).

Serini likely has a better understanding, if only because it'd be very difficult to have a worse one. Girard didn't comment on Serini's position in the betting pool, so it's even possible that she won.

[Anitar]

Serini likely has a better understanding, if only because it'd be very difficult to have a worse one. Girard didn't comment on Serini's position in the betting pool, so it's even possible that she won.

I wonder how Girard did react to that. After all, the alarm didn't go off within the twelve weeks he expected-- or at any other point in his lifetime.

My guess? Of course he would never have changed his mind and admitted that Soon was keeping his word. Instead, he concluded that they didn't trust him enough to use the coordinates he offered them, and went snooping around the desert on their own.

[arimareiji]

I think there may be some confusion between sentient and sapient, which are often used interchangeably in the real world (even though they technically are different) but I think have even more distinct meanings in D&D. Animals are sentient; humans are sapient. And free will requires sapience, although whether "sapient" vs. "free-willed sapient" is a distinction in D&D, I'm not sure. (Obviously it does distinguish between free-willed undead and undead that are not free-willed, which is why comparing Serini to the trolls and Tsukiko to her wights doesn't work.)

Good points. Helpful link, for anyone who might want more details.

A possibly-amusing quibble: At least when I took Latin, I was taught that sapientia meant "wisdom" (with "good judgment" being heavily implied). So there's one more factor in favor of it requiring more than just INT.

I wonder how Girard did react to that. After all, the alarm didn't go off within the twelve weeks he expected-- or at any other point in his lifetime.

My guess? Of course he would never have changed his mind and admitted that Soon was keeping his word. Instead, he concluded that they didn't trust him enough to use the coordinates he offered them, and went snooping around the desert on their own.

He probably liked the way he phrased it better.

[Riftwolf]

Given the way Int 0, Wis 0, and Cha 0 are described:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAb...ilityScoreLoss

Intelligence 0 means that the character cannot think and is unconscious in a coma-like stupor, helpless.
Wisdom 0 means that the character is withdrawn into a deep sleep filled with nightmares, helpless.
Charisma 0 means that the character is withdrawn into a catatonic, coma-like stupor, helpless.

it's fair to say that without at least 1s in all 3, a creature is effectively nonfunctional.

One problem is d&d is really inconsistent with what constitutes a creature or not. Regular plants aren't considered alive for some reason (probably to prevent Vegan Barghests), even if they'd fit the bill for mindless, charismaless creatures (plants do have some level of wisdom as they can react to their surroundings). I'd argue golems should have no Charisma, even if they're intelligent and perceptive. They'd become similar to computers in that respect.
Wisdom 0 is a harder concept to fix, the only thing that comes to mind is a 'I have no mouth yet I must scream' scenario with an intelligence that has no means of interacting with the outside world.
Problems arise from rules like 'undead have bonus hit points from charisma' in Pathfinder, meaning zombies and skeletons have a base charisma of 10.

[Fyraltari]

One problem is d&d is really inconsistent with what constitutes a creature or not. Regular plants aren't considered alive for some reason (probably to prevent Vegan Barghests), even if they'd fit the bill for mindless, charismaless creatures (plants do have some level of wisdom as they can react to their surroundings). I'd argue golems should have no Charisma, even if they're intelligent and perceptive. They'd become similar to computers in that respect.
Wisdom 0 is a harder concept to fix, the only thing that comes to mind is a 'I have no mouth yet I must scream' scenario with an intelligence that has no means of interacting with the outside world.
Problems arise from rules like 'undead have bonus hit points from charisma' in Pathfinder, meaning zombies and skeletons have a base charisma of 10.

Relevant.10

[Metastachydium]

One problem is d&d is really inconsistent with what constitutes a creature or not. Regular plants aren't considered alive for some reason (probably to prevent Vegan Barghests),

Yes, it's plenty creepy and it makes no sense whatsoever.

even if they'd fit the bill for mindless, charismaless creatures (plants do have some level of wisdom as they can react to their surroundings).

While plant cognition is, sadly, underresearched, it has been demonstrated that plants have a memory and (thus) are capable of learning. They are not mindless, not even by D&D's narrow definitions. (Also, plants are beautiful, so they have physical attractiveness and, arguably, personal magnetism, which means they do not lack Charisma either.)

[hamishspence]

I'd argue golems should have no Charisma, even if they're intelligent and perceptive. They'd become similar to computers in that respect.

Mindless golems are Charisma 1, which sort of fits - just as animals have sentience but not "humanlike sentience" golems have Charisma, but not humanlike Charisma.

[Goblin_Priest]

Yes, it's plenty creepy and it makes no sense whatsoever.



While plant cognition is, sadly, underresearched, it has been demonstrated that plants have a memory and (thus) are capable of learning. They are not mindless, not even by D&D's narrow definitions. (Also, plants are beautiful, so they have physical attractiveness and, arguably, personal magnetism, which means they do not lack Charisma either.)

Computers are capable of memory.

Arguably, minerals and by extension geological formations are capable of memory.

I don't think the glaciers can be argued to not be mindless despite that we can argue that they have memory.

Some primitive life forms even have external memory, according to some scientists anyhow.

[arimareiji]

Mindless golems are Charisma 1, which sort of fits - just as animals have sentience but not "humanlike sentience" golems have Charisma, but not humanlike Charisma.

This post caused a great disturbance in the Force - as if millions of Commander Data slashfic writers cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced. (^_~)

[Metastachydium]

Computers are capable of memory.

Arguably, minerals and by extension geological formations are capable of memory.

I don't think the glaciers can be argued to not be mindless despite that we can argue that they have memory.

Some primitive life forms even have external memory, according to some scientists anyhow.

In D&D mindless means 'Intelligence is a nonability'. In D&D Intelligence means 'the ability to reason and learn'. By this definition, if an organism is capable of learning (which plants are), it should have an Intelligence score and it should not be dismissed as mindless. (And yes, by this definition an artifical neural network shouyld have an Intelligence score, but that's beside the point.)

[Goblin_Priest]

In D&D mindless means 'Intelligence is a nonability'. In D&D Intelligence means 'the ability to reason and learn'. By this definition, if an organism is capable of learning (which plants are), it should have an Intelligence score and it should not be dismissed as mindless. (And yes, by this definition an artifical neural network shouyld have an Intelligence score, but that's beside the point.)

Are they? Because if the monster manual doesn't give them an int score, then by RAW, I guess they are just unable to reason and learn.

Also, by RAW, vermin are mindless. Because... I don't know. Wasps have been shown to be able to recognize faces, so... they can learn. Bees of all sorts can be trained. Still classed as mindless in D&D.

Arguments about plant learning are pendantic, in my opinion. As I said above, you could use those same arguments to argue that rock has memory. I don't think the existence of some "memory" mechanisms suffices to put them on the same level of higher organisms.

[Metastachydium]

Are they? Because if the monster manual doesn't give them an int score, then by RAW, I guess they are just unable to reason and learn.

Also, by RAW, vermin are mindless. Because... I don't know. Wasps have been shown to be able to recognize faces, so... they can learn. Bees of all sorts can be trained. Still classed as mindless in D&D.

I said should be, because that would be consistent with how they define Intelligence. The fact that vermin being mindless doesn't make much more sense doesn't change that.

Arguments about plant learning are pendantic, in my opinion. As I said above, you could use those same arguments to argue that rock has memory. I don't think the existence of some "memory" mechanisms suffices to put them on the same level of higher organisms.

1. When you show me a rock which can be conditioned to, say, react to certain particular stimuli via autonomous movement of a given sort, I'll concede that point. Sadly, that's quite unlikely to happen.
2. The idea that plants are by default „lower” organism annoys me to no end. Plants and animals are of comparable complexity, they are just vastly different from each other which makes studying plant cognition a harder task than studying animal cognition.

[Goblin_Priest]

I said should be, because that would be consistent with how they define Intelligence. The fact that vermin being mindless doesn't make much more sense doesn't change that.



1. When you show me a rock which can be conditioned to, say, react to certain particular stimuli via autonomous movement of a given sort, I'll concede that point. Sadly, that's quite unlikely to happen.
2. The idea that plants are by default „lower” organism annoys me to no end. Plants and animals are of comparable complexity, they are just vastly different from each other which makes studying plant cognition a harder task than studying animal cognition.

Well, what kind of conditioning are you talking about? I hope you're not talking about stuff like Mimosa pudica or Dionaea muscipula. Movement does not require sentience. That kind of "memory" can be achieved by inorganic entities or otherwise non-living entities. Glaciers that record atmospheric composition. Sedimentary ground recording various events. Stuff that takes its shape once more when exposed to heat or moisture. "Memory" can apply to a whole lot of things when defined loosely. Having a broad enough definition so that it fits plants, but also fits non-living entities, isn't good enough for me.

Edit: example of mineral with "memory" that reacts to external stimuli. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI-qAxKJoSU[/URL]

[Metastachydium]

[QUOTE=Goblin_Priest; 24961968] Well, what kind of conditioning are you talking about? I hope you're not talking about stuff like Mimosa pudica or Dionaea muscipula. Movement does not require sentience. That kind of "memory" can be achieved by inorganic entities or otherwise non-living entities. Glaciers that record atmospheric composition. Sedimentary ground recording various events. Stuff that takes its shape once more when exposed to heat or moisture. "Memory" can apply to a whole lot of things when defined loosely. Having a broad enough definition so that it fits plants, but also fits non-living entities, isn't good enough for me.

Edit: example of mineral with "memory" that reacts to external stimuli. this article which appeared in Science and examines how plants adapt to stress factors. I'd watch a rock do that. Like it or not, plants (unlike your dumb glaciers and rocks with their „memory”) are complex organism with electric and chemical impulses carrying information in them in a way analogous to how the nervous system works. Your „counterexamples” are simply not comparable, and I find your attempts at demonstrating that some complex living organisms resemble glaciers and rocks more closely than they resemble specimens of the „so very superor kingdom” just because they are not animals positively disturbing.

[Goblin_Priest]

There were e.g. experiments were plants were taught to associate (artificial) wind with light and began growing towards sources of wind even when a source of light was not present. You could also check out this article which appeared in Science and examines how plants adapt to stress factors. I'd watch a rock do that. Like it or not, plants (unlike your dumb glaciers and rocks with their „memory”) are complex organism with electric and chemical impulses carrying information in them in a way analogous to how the nervous system works. Your „counterexamples” are simply not comparable, and I find your attempts at demonstrating that some complex living organisms resemble glaciers and rocks more closely than they resemble specimens of the „so very superor kingdom” just because they are not animals positively disturbing.

Your formating is broken, and the link you gave is actually the youtube video I linked to.

Complexity is in the details. Often, the closer you look at something, the more complex it will appear.

Plants are certainly more complex than, say, prokaryotes, and moreso than a mineral or other naturally occurring non-organic entity.

The only arguments I've seen in favor of plant sentience reek of confirmation bias and moving the goalpost. Just because plants are more complex than they would otherwise appear to some on the surface, doesn't mean they share the same level of sentience an animal would.

That you are disturbed by an opinion shared by the vast majority of mankind, through history and today still, I can do little about.

[Metastachydium]

Your formating is broken, and the link you gave is actually the youtube video I linked to.

Sorry about that. Here's the correct link.

Complexity is in the details. Often, the closer you look at something, the more complex it will appear.

Yup. Humans are barely more complex than a virus. You're just deluding yourself by looking too closely.

Plants are certainly more complex than, say, prokaryotes, and moreso than a mineral or other naturally occurring non-organic entity.

We are talking about at times positively huge multicellular organisms with complex chemical and electrical signalling paths, a double circulatory system and the like. „Yeah, they are a lot like bacteria just a bit more complex” is a huge understatement.

The only arguments I've seen in favor of plant sentience reek of confirmation bias and moving the goalpost. Just because plants are more complex than they would otherwise appear to some on the surface, doesn't mean they share the same level of sentience an animal would.

This is an underresearched subject, and like I said, one that is difficult to research since plants are vastly different from animals. I haven't seen any good arguments against plant cognition being a thing that did not rely on stuff like „plants don't have an animal brain and animal cognition is tied to the brain” i.e. disregarding the aforesaid discrepancies, however.

That you are disturbed by an opinion shared by the vast majority of mankind, through history and today still, I can do little about.

That's a non-argument. Yes, „different means inferior” is a very popular line of thought in general, but that only makes it more disturbing.

[Goblin_Priest]

Sorry about that. Here's the correct link.



Yup. Humans are barely more complex than a virus. You're just deluding yourself by looking too closely.



We are talking about at times positively huge multicellular organisms with complex chemical and electrical signalling paths, a double circulatory system and the like. „Yeah, they are a lot like bacteria just a bit more complex” is a huge understatement.



This is an underresearched subject, and like I said, one that is difficult to research since plants are vastly different from animals. I haven't seen any good arguments against plant cognition being a thing that did not rely on stuff like „plants don't have an animal brain and animal cognition is tied to the brain” i.e. disregarding the aforesaid discrepancies, however.



That's a non-argument. Yes, „different means inferior” is a very popular line of thought in general, but that only makes it more disturbing.

Are computers sentient?

Your article barely says anything. The two main points I'm seeing are "epigenetics" and "stress memory" (in overlapping ways).

Inanimate objects can be argued to have "stress memory". "Recording" prior stresses and heaving differently to said stress in the future is nothing special. I'm no glass expert so I might have some of the names wrong, but aside from that memory alloy I linked to above, we can think of tampered glass. It can resist strong shocks, but said shocks can then fragilize it and make it break easily. This is basically "stress memory", as used in the context of plants. Bend a wire of metal and it comes back into shape, do it again, enough times, and it won't. Same with springs, or the plug on the usb charger, or a light bulb. Expose it to the same "stress" enough and eventually it breaks down, or "reacts". It "learned". In the same manner as the plant, anyways, wich is a pretty ridiculous claim to my eyes.

As for the epigenetic component, that's not unique to plants. Epigenetics apply to everything that has genetics. If we don't consider the phenomenons described in the article to be part of human sentience, why should we use them to argue plant sentience?

I mean, as per your source: "A key player in this process is RNA turnover, which may compete with the epigenetic machinery to circumvent memory formation." Nowhere do I see the authors arguing in favor of plant sentience.

Just because these people use the term "memory", doesn't mean they believe that plants have actual human-like memory. It's just analogous enough to convey ideas without needing to make a new word up specifically for that. Like "memory foam". Is anyone arguing that memory foam is sentient?

We know fairly well the importance of the brain to animals, and humanity, even if there is still much to learn. We know some ways of tinkering with it to alter an individual, such as mechanically (lobotomy) or chemically (anti-depressants), for example. We know how the absence of brain activity will turn someone into a vegetable (pun intended). The brain is quintessential to our concept of sentience. Now, if you want to come and say "yea, but there's also this other thing, that works on totally different mechanics, but also qualifies as being the same thing despite being very different", then the burden of proof is on you. Have you even considered the implications of your allegation? If plants are sentient, then would you grant them the same rights as are conferred to other sentient beings? Plant cruelty protection laws? Make it illegal to kill weeds in a field? Start a new diet movement that forbids eating any living entity, proposing a purely mineral diet? What are you suggesting, exactly?

And heck, you are the only one using the word "superior". I don't like that word, as it suggests ranking on a common scale. Plants and animals are, as the saying goes, "apples and oranges". I would say that it is precisely this vision that you hold that would allow one to rank one as superior to the other, while I argue that they are simply dissimilar. Plants are essential to mankind. One can respect their value and their roles without conferring them the status of sentient beings.

I like plants, actually. I've studied them. I work with them. I can be quite passionate about plants. But sentient is one way I would not describe them.