Even thinking 'intentionally' acting, this does not mean consciousness.
Plants act according to the laws of nature and chemistry. Acacia's among other plants use chemical signals to communicate with each other, but this is no more than humans excreting pheromones to communicate with each other. Indeed we even communicate using body language which is a sub-conscious process and response to information.

I'd even argue that the only creatures that could be consciousness as we do, would be animals that have a hypothalamus

Consciousness according to the dictionary is


It is of course a very human orientated egotistical definition and to go strictly by this definition then no plants are not conscious as far as we know (which is very little) but of course they aren't if we try to define them in human/mammalian terms.
I think the key part of this definition is 'awareness of one's own existence'... which is no doubt where the future studies will focus on and it will be very interesting to see what is discovered.

However it has been proven that plants are aware of their environment and sensations and that they can act and communicate with intent, whether this is intent that has been determined by critical thought or genetic programming is irrelevant the actions are carried out for a purpose. Barberry Experiment
We know so very little about consciousness of our own kind let alone a completely different organism..

Heres an interesting article..Quantum mechanics and plants now I know this doesnt prove anything but it does show the complexities that we are only just scratching on the surface of.

Who sais a brain and a central nervous system like our own is the only proof of an organism having a consciousness?
Who sais plants cannot think and make conscious decisions like we do? ( ever seen "the secret life of plants"?)
Who sais 1 celled organisms DON'T feel pain when they're attacked by bacteria?


Just because we don't recognise the behaviours of plants as equally conscious and thought-through as our own, doesn't mean they can't be. A seed germinates and grows to the surface, around rocks, in between roots of trees. It will grow it's roots into areas where most nutrients are and it's leaves into areas where most sunlight is. Who knows they might do that every bit as consciously as we build our house near a river for transport, fishing and washing; to optimise our survival chances.

There's no reason to assume they are any less conscious than us. They grow/live on such a different timescale. SO much slower than us. But if you were to watch "the secret life of plants" their behaviour and movements seem alot more like our own; Conscious. Touching, feeling with their young tendrils to see where they can grow and where they can't. Strangling the roots of other plants that compete with them for nutrients and sunlight.

If a huge alien organism, that lived on a timescale about 5 times faster than that of humans, observed humans and their behaviour, they might also conclude that humans are merely instinctual creatures that have no consciousness.
I would have to say they're wrong.

It is entirely possible, even likely if you ask me, that plants are highly conscious creatures.
There is no substantial proof to prove either way, so until then I find it more logical to assume they are highly conscious beings.





And as such, being added perspectives of a plant/fungal organism, the revelations received in plant based psychedelic experiences are not Bullshit to me. They hold real value, are applicable to life and have been amazingly truthfull every time.

I would deem these revelations to be of an entirely different nature than those "revelations" that people may have on a Meth binge. These are delusions, often caused by a lack of sleep resulting from Meth use. An exhausted mind sees a blurred version of reality.

Plant Psychedelics have allways sharpened my view of reality. Allowed me to look past egoic bariers and see deeply into myself. This allowed me to self-diagnose psychological ills that my Ego kept hidden from my sight. As the psychedelic would wear off I would maintain awareness of the ills I've discovered in myself. This way they've had a lasting effect, even if I only took a psychedelic once a year. They are catalysts stimulating further self-realisation, without requiring constant redosing to maintain that perspective. This gives psychedelic plants & the experiences/realisations they induce value.

When I think of a Meth or Ketamine binge attained "revelation" they're usually the kind of "insight" that doesn't stand up to scruiteny when they're sober again. Their insights are not applicable to reality, because they're impractical and irrational. A sleep deprived or heavily sedated/dissociated mind is irrational and makes poor judgement; As such it's "insights" will be of little value.

Exactly ^

Although, much more insightful than meth, psychedelics definitely have the capability of causing delusions! Other than that, your post really resonates with my current belief system

Oh absolutely true. You can allways overdo psychedelics: Take too much of them in 1 go or take them too frequently. And yes this will most certainly delude people. I've seen it happen to many, though most of them were also using ketamine, amphetamines and other rubbish so it's hard to tell which is the real culprit.

I generally find that when taking a significant, yet modest dose of psychedelics my mind became infinitely clearer.
Push it past a certain point and the mind will become foggier and more prone to delusion again.

Psychedelics causing delusion are generally a sign of the user taking too much too often and in some cases is an indication that the user is psychologically too instable to be using Psychedelics. But IME this just doesn't happen in responsible, not too high doses. Meth, Ketamine and Amphetamine use does this period; even with low doses and infrequent use. At least this is my experience with people who snorth/smoke this rubbish. Someone having a genuine, lasting realisation on any of these 3 substances is defenitely an exception to the rule.


But let's not digress too far from DMT experiences and wether or not they're delusional bullshit

Agreed....Well it seems to me that to some people DMT experiences are delusional BS, and to others it's not. We are just too complex to try to put everyone in the same category. What's true for one person can be false for another...Case closed

I don't think anyone here has totally excluded the possibility of these ideas being true. Though, consciousness in plants would require a system analogous to the brain and CNS. Analogous means that it performs very similar tasks, but evolved separately. For instance, the swim bladder in fish could be considered analogous to the extra fat that marine mammals have because both provide buoyancy.

Anything is possible. Santa Claus might really give gifts to every child on Earth on Christmas Eve. But is this probable? Not at all. How do we know? We have enough knowledge to make an accurate estimate. Just like with plants. We know enough to say with accuracy that plants surely have some very low level of consciousness but the likelihood of plants being self aware and able to act with conscious intent is miniscule if not negligible.



Is the plant supposed to grow directly through the rock and roots? I'm pretty sure that the matter in plant roots can't occupy the exact same space that other matter is occupying. And I'm pretty that most plants don't have the tools necessary to drill through rocks. Large roots can pry their way through rocks, but this doesn't count.



What are you talking about? Many plants complete their whole life cycle in less that a year. Have you ever heard of an annual plant. Then there are biennial plants. And even most perennial plants don't live on timescales much different from us. Plus, plants grow very fast. A redwood can grow more than 4ft per year under the right conditions.

You just can't make a simple comparison of the timescale on which plants grow versus humans. And if anything, plants grow on much faster timescales in general than humans or animals. This would be required in order to maintain the ecological efficiency of energy transfer down trophic levels. If plants didn't grow faster than animals, animals would end up consuming all the plants.


Actually there is a lot of proof that plants aren't highly conscious. The general lack of behavior is one that jumps out. The seeming lack of any sort of organs or systems that would be required for high levels of consciousness is more proof. And these observations have been replicated billions of times and for every plant that we know of. If you want to ignore the evidence in order to believe your romantic idea that is in no way logical, then that is your choice.


It hasn't been proven. That study is just proof that one plant has some limited capacity for awareness that we've never understood before. That doesn't mean that the plant knows that it is performing any behavior. And this behavior is still too simple to be convincing proof that this one plant species is more than just its genetic programming. This says nothing about plants as a whole.

Also, it isn't irrelevant whether or not the intent is caused by conscious thought. If plants were aware of their own existence but unable to perform any task by their own will, then none of it matters. That would mean plants are not consciously communicating with us, which is one of the main beliefs held by partakers of DMT. They would essentially be robots with no control over their actions.

And if their is no conscious intent, then there is no purpose. Purpose implies conscious intent. There might be a reason for the actions, but that reason would just be that natural selection selected for plants with a genetic code that causes them to act and react in the ways that we observe. The reason is that the behavior or trait increases the fitness of the plant.

Like I already said earlier, people can and do say the same thing in regards to humans... and yet, we are conscious (or so we think, at least).



This is an assumption. We don't even understand what consciousness is...And correlation does not imply causation.



What does "real" or "BS" even mean here?

Aya and meth are two completely different things with completely different effects on humans, and the illusory umbrella term "drugs" that we use to draw a mostly irrelevant connection between them doesn't change this fact. Are all the insights meaningful upon sober reflection? Not necessarily. But regardless, IMO it makes no sense to assume that we should attribute the same level of authenticity to the possible insights gained from their use because of the mere fact that they are both 'drugs'. "Drugs" is a concept.

They have completely different effects on humans. Ayahuasca is a plant concoction that has a number of well documented beneficial effects - along with a vast history of thousands upon thousands of reports of people gaining meaningful insight into their lives, even insight that can be confirmed by those around them; look at the addicts or people with PTSD who it has helped through catalyzing insight into their past and behavior, for example. The same can't really be said for something like meth, which has completely different physical and mental affects in its users (not to say no one has ever had a good insight while on it). Should we also assume that the ideas gained from huffing gasoline and marijunana stand on an even playing field as well? and that it is hypocritical to think that the insights from one hold a higher chance of being meaningful/beneficial/accurate than the other? all because we could shove them into the same mental category we call "drugs"?

Exactly ^

Again, all of this could apply to our consciences as well. Looks can be deceiving.

You keep bringing up points that I agree with, but did you miss the post where I explained that that at least for me there is the central assumption that we have free will and that if you don't believe we do then you can pretend that I'm talking about the illusion of free will. Looks can be deceiving, but you can't deny that there is at least the illusion of free will and conscious intent and that plants do not display this illusion in any currently measurable way.


This is a very reasonable assumption. Especially if you let the "some kind" part be as open ended as possible. Maybe the hypothetical source of plant consciousness in the physical realm isn't as centralized as in animals. In fact it couldn't be or else we would have found it by now. But there has to be something analogous to the CNS, a point that I've made in a few posts now.

Also we don't have to totally understand consciousness to be able to recognize it. This is especially true if you just define it as self awareness and the ability to act with conscious intent or the illusion of conscious intent. These can be tested for without any knowledge of the mechanism that cause them, assuming we know how to test for them (which we don't know for plants if plants actually are self aware and able to act at least with the illusion of conscious intent).

Also correlation may not imply causation, but careful observation and testing has determined that in creatures with a brain, the brain is the main cause of consciousness and without the brain there is no significant consciousness. If you shut down the peripheral nervous system, the mind is still self aware but cannot control the body in order to perform any intentional behaviors. Plants must also have something that causes their consciousness and if they have advanced consciousness then this source must be very complex.


I never made this claim based on both meth and aya being drugs. I don't attribute the same level of possible authenticity to the insights gained from either drug to the mere fact that they are both "drugs". I base it on the fact that it is not possible to prove the authenticity of the revelations caused by either drugs. And I mean this with specific regards to insights into the spiritual realm or the supernatural. Not about the measurable benefits or insights about the physical world.

The shadow people seen by a meth addict could be just as real as an entity seen during an aya ceremony. If you gain an insight that is not replicable in the physical world and not applicable to the physical world while under the influence of huffed solvents, then that insight is on the same field as an entity telling you that there is a spiritual realm while on aya. You can't prove either to be true or false, and for all you know, maybe gasoline enhances some inherent ability in the brain that allows us to access "spiritual realms".

That's pretty much the definition that I think everyone has been using in this discussion. That is definitely the definition I've been using, along with the addition of being able to act with conscious intent or the illusion of it.


Not if you believe in objective truth. Your statement holds for the statement, "My favorite color is green." This is true for some people and not others. But now consider the statement, "Typical sand is composed mainly of quartz." Without getting picky about the word "typical", the truth of this statement is independent of the individual. The difference here is that the first statement is a matter of personal taste (an opinion) and the second statement is an empirical fact based on many millions of replicable observations in the physical world.

The belief that meth induced delusions are less real than DMT induced revelations is also just an opinion. I can understand the the thought process that leads to this opinion. Meth is dangerous and bad for the health. So it is wrong to take meth and therefore all things associated with meth are wrong. I generally agree with this.

Now what if you replaced meth with Datura. All the above ideas about meth hold true for Datura in the eyes of many people. But on the other hand, many native cultures have held Datura to be a sacred gate to the spiritual world for many hundreds of years. This is the opinion of their culture. I've also heard that aboriginal Australian cultures considered psilocybe mushrooms to be poison. This is their cultural opinion. So who is right? I say that it is impossible to determine who is right because these are matters of opinion.

You may believe that DMT provides revelations and meth causes unreal delusions, but this is your opinion and if you are honest with yourself you will admit that you don't know whether this is true or not. It is a hypocritical belief but you are entitled to this belief and no one can prove you wrong.


Do you not see the inconsistency in these statements. You seem to be claiming that psychedelics create a mindset that is practical and rational. What is rational about the belief that a spiritual entity is contacting you or that you have entered a spiritual plane of existence referred to as "hyperspace"? What's practical about fearing completely harmless objects? The mind often makes poor judgements while under the influence of psychedelics.

Who are you to say that dissociatives can't lead to true "revelations". Dissociatives teach many people the exact same lessons as psychedelics. I've never experienced as strong an expression of what love is as I have from one of my experiences with DXM. And DXM has been the most effective tool to help me deal with the idea of my mortality. Dissociatives also rival DMT in their ability to seemingly transport you to realms completely removed from consensual reality and to contact entities. Are you saying that these "revelations" hold less truth than those of DMT. For me, DXM has taught me far more than DMT has so far. And if you look at any forum that deals with dissociatives, you'll see that many people gain valuable insight from these drugs. Not everyone, but still many.

Plus, it's not like insights have to come from some external source. The mind alone is capable of producing its own insights without the help of altered states of consciousness. And these insights can occur at any time. How do you know that insights from DMT don't just come from your own mind helped along with the altered point of view provided by DMT?

To be 'conscious in the way we are' (which is what I was addressing specifically), would require the components of the brain that contribute to our 'conscious' thought and decision making process.
My suspicion is when the brain needs to make more advanced 'decisions' that need involvement of the hypothalamus' circuitry, then that contributes to an experience of conscious decision making. (For example, you may shift your body position sub-consciously in response to sensory input such as muscle fatigue, but to make decision to go and get a massage would require a more advanced process of synapses that occur in the hypothalamus)


I'm pretty sure that plant 'decision making' is a product of chemisty. It's not like a plant can 'decide' "I'm not going to drink water today", or "today I might take a day off from photosynthesis", or "I don't like Bob the Acacia downwind, I'm going to exclude him from my chemical signalling processes"



Well, there's no good reason or evidence to believe that plants or single-celled organisms are 'as conscious as us'. We make decisions all the time based on sensory input that does not even make it into conscious thought. (eg the phenomena "blind sight" is an example, where people respond to visual input, without even being aware of it)

[/quote]


I Think your statement holds alot of truth.

We are all here to learn lessons. Every substance has the ability to alter perception and potentially teach the person a lesson necessary for their personal evolution. DMT can teach you the same thing as Meth, it just depends on where you are in your development. But there are things that meth cannot offer, but DMT can.

I do believe that dissociatives generally teach different lessons than lets say mescaline, or Psylocybin. It completely depends on the person though. Drugs like meth and ketmamine tend to be very addictive for the common person, and easy to abuse, and once addiction kicks in, lessons are not learned as easily...but at the end of the addiction, if it comes, there are generally major lessons to be learned.

I do believe in objective truth. But there is no such thing as objective truth for humans, or any other being that is manifested. Only the source, The All, The Absolute, which is God, the unmanifested knows objective truth. Because it IS the law. It is the all, the evrything that has been and will be IN the unmanifested state.

Take for example your quartz analogy. We can only see maybe 1/billionth of the electromagnetic spectrum. So how we would choose to define ''quartz'' is completely subjective. Another being that can see/hear/feel on a completely different wavelength would interpret what you refer to as quartz in a different way, because it would see something different. AND we can only imagine how the molecules of quartz might look to some incredibly advanced being. So in my eyes, there is no objectivity there. One might consider it to be an objective truth for all of us that operate on this tiny wavelength spectrum, because we all ( or most) would see the same thing, therefore we could communicate it as fact. But the truth remains that all truths are but half truths...

The chemical composition of sand is not going to change based on what wavelengths of light you can see. No offense, but your response is non-sense.

You have no idea how ridiculous that sounds.
Unfortunately there is no reasoning to people that do not value reason

I would take the time to clarify my point further, because it is not non-sense, but you seem to be so close minded that I'm not going to waste my time. No offense

Actually, I know exactly how ridiculous it sounds to certain people. Reasoning IS based off of your Subjective experience. There is nothing objective about YOUR experience, therefore it is very difficult to compare it to my subjective experience.

And by the way. I HIGHLY VALUE REASON

As I read this I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes:

"Every sentient entity in the multiverse is both an observer and an object of perception, and the source from which they emanate is the Primary Observer, which is unadulterated Consciousness itself. Before emanation, perception can not take place because perception involves both an observer and that which is observed."

and

"[The universe is apparently] constructed (and thus in such as way as to be able) to see itself. But in order to do so, evidently it must first cut itself up into at least one state which sees, and at least one other state which is seen. In this severed and mutilated condition, whatever it sees is only partially itself...But, in any attempt to see itself as an object, it must, equally undoubtedly, act so as to make itself distinct from, and therefore, false to, itself. In this condition it will always partially elude itself." (55)

"Thus consciousness is prior to observation. Combine this logical necessity with emanation and we see that whatever the Cosmic Mind imagines cannot be separated from its source. It follows then, that as the matter-energy created within this explosive act of imagination expands and fragments, becoming ever more complex, each emerging monad of fresh awareness perceives as a subjective fractal of the objective One Mind in whatever dimension it finds itself. Hence universe becomes Multiverse."

"What better way for "God" to know himself than to divide his awareness so that "he" can observe objectively as creator and subjectively as creation?"

The Cracking Tower by Jim DeKorne