What is the general consensus on plants being conscious?

I've started thinking about how plants behave & it seems to me like they are aware of their enviornment & what is happening around them.

For example, some plants flower only during the night, trees drop their leaves during the winter, some plants even go brown in the winter & freeze over yet still come back in full color when the summer comes. Plants have even evolved defense mechanisms to defend against being eaten & methods of spreading seed via animals.

I think consciousness needs a brain at least. Do plants have brains?

I don't think a brain is neccessary to be conscious. I may be wrong. But plants respond to the enviornment around them.
Could this not be considered conscious? One way or another they are aware of time of day & seasons changing & respond in a way that is beneficial to them.
How would they be able to respond in the way they do without being conscious of the temperature, light, etc.?

I may be wrong too. But..

If I connect a temperature sensor with a switch to lightbulp and program it to switch on the lightbulp at a certain temperature. Is the lightbulp conscious then, as it reacts to it's environment?

I think it depends on what your definition of concioussness is.

This all depends on how one defines conscious. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscious
I do not think of plants as conscious, but there are several different behaviors exhibited by plants; I think of these behaviors as automatic bio-mechanical processes in reaction to certain things. When a Venus Flytrap captures a fly, it isn't necessary for it to think about capturing it, or tactics to do so.
Mind of Plants (Video).
Plant Sentience.
Do plants feel pain?

Exactly.

Taken from Cosmic Spores link



For me "controlled thought" is a keyword here.

Responsiveness to changes in the environment isn't necessarily a sign of consciousness.

your all making very good points here.
I like the lightbulb analogy

The plant sentience thread is more along the line of my thoughts. Maybe i should have used sentient in place of conscious.
I think we're missing an important part of the picture though. Normally i'm very much about scientific evidence & proof, but i can't shake the thought plants are in some way intelligent.

Hehehe...the ones I have are dumb. They grow directly into the hot HPS light source in injure themselves. Again and again. They just don't learn it.

Umm, "controlled thought" is very difficult for an observer to confirm/deny in a subject, especially if the two do not share a conceptual framework. That definition reeks of "human exceptionalism": something needs eyes, legs and culture to lay claim to consciousness. Well, we would say that wouldn't we!

Let's come at the OP's question a different way:

Why did plants and microorganisms evolve all of the substances more complex lifeforms later came to rely on as neurotransmitters e.g. serotonin? Probably because they had neural networks of their own to attend to, but they just didn't terminate in a blob of gray jell-o, like ours do.

Now, armed with that knowledge, what springs to mind when you look at this?



You won't find consciousness anywhere in that picture or this post, but then, we haven't even located consciousness in our own brains, so why exactly should we presume to know where others keep theirs?!

No. I'd say it would need the ability to recieve input and send output. But that's not the only thing that's needed.



I'd say cause evolution proved those mutations working well.



Personal speculation:

I think that consciousness can only occour in a system of very high complexity. It isn't sufficient just to have a brain aka signal processing device. The signal processing device also has to have a certain level of complexity to be able to reach a conscious state.

There is no "consensus", although there is a large group of the materialist persuasion that dismiss the possibility instead of admitting that we don't know.

I guess it depends what your definition of consciousness is really. If you look at consciousness as a spectrum of awareness, then it seems to me like a very narrow view to conclude that consciousness requires a brain, and cannot manifest through any other means.

Many things without brains exhibit levels of awareness (even some single celled organism's behavior has been related to that of a canine). Our human-based view likes to measure everything up against ourselves, and it would admittedly be very difficult to conceive of what a tree's form of consciousness might be (Although with psychedelics it seems possible imo ). Our self-imposed barriers on how nature must work are almost always having their hinges blown off at one point or another. And we don't even know what consciousness "is".

Plants also communicate and interact with their environment not through physical movement and audible language like us, but through extremely complex biochemistry (and who knows what else)...Responding to threats, warding off predators, attracting species, navigating obstacles, perceiving light and so on. Almost all of this behavior escapes our surface-level view of ecosystems and plants, as we're inevitably geared to recognizing awareness and behavior in relation to the kind we display. Vines can perceive strong branches vs. weak ones and avoid a disaster this way, which is one of the many things about them that we don't yet understand as far as I know.

Gibran and joedirt have some interesting thoughts on this page regarding consciousness
https://www.dmt-nexus.me...osts&t=57568&p=4

Some interesting stuff on plants I have lying around in bookmarks

http://phys.org/news/201...intelligent-assumed.html
http://www.scribd.com/do...g-plants-of-aphid-attack
http://www.haaretz.com/p...rough-the-roots-1.417723
http://www.newscientist....others.html#.VLaC_CvF98E
http://www.medicaldaily....-crucial-survival-240775

This funny little article talks about a Mimosa that seems to "remember" whether or not a trained stimulus was a threat and responds accordingly http://sploid.gizmodo.co...-and-remember-1501861478

None of this proves anything but it is fascinating to consider. And then there is mycelium...somewhat similar to a neural network and a very fascinating candidate.

So...what's your definition?

Hahaha...that's nice. But wrong.

Especially this:



I would say it could be correct in the following form:

In fact, they must concede that any system composed of anything that can emulate a digital computer, when sufficiently complex and properly designed, can reach a conscious state. NOT "is conscious".

Consciousness is...


...A string of letters people use to stand for different ideas


But really, I don't have a single set in stone definition. Self-reflective awareness? Ability to make decisions? Complexity of connection, electro-chemical signalling, and the ability to respond to external stimulus? Vast Active Living Intelligence System? Take you're pick.

We've studied the brain heavily and still don't know much about consciousness...so to assume we can deduce the requirements for consciousness seems very premature.

Yeah I would agree there, after re-reading your post. It should have read "CAN reach a conscious state". But that result is still more or less the same: That system has the possibility of reaching consciousness by the mere fact that it's complex, regardless that it is sophisticated plumbing

I guess that's why he said "when sufficiently complex and properly designed", because he was talking about it emulating a computer that we would classify as conscious. So it sounds like we're just splitting hairs over his exact wording.

There is no diffence in that sentece. If something has reached a conscious state, it's conscious.

I think that complexity is one but maybe not not THE ONLY requirement.

What are you're requirements for consciousness?

[quote=universecannon
But really, I don't have a single set in stone definition. [/quote]

Me neither.




Would be my best bet.



No. Think of automated trading systems.



No. Think of the internet.



No. Think of a plant. *gg*




I don't get this. (Language barrier)



Does that mean we shouldn't try?