Plants seem to display quite a bit more sophisticated behavior than this. For example how do they eavesdrop on other plants, or attract preditors to consume the bugs which feed on them. They can also learn from past events and prepare for the future accordingly.

Plant neurobiology is a fascinating field.

http://www.linv.org/imag...sci%202006%20brenner.pdf

Perhaps a central brain isn't required. Plants do seem to be information processors, similar to a computer. Perhaps all of the cells in the plants work together to process information, something like our brain.

Hostile super-intelligent aliens all across the universe are dying to read those words back to you...!

OK, I'll 'fess up. Here's what Salvia explained to me.

Every single cell on Earth has approximately the same, negligible amount of consciousness. Enough for that cell to get by in the world, all going well, but no more.

As cells agglomerate around a shared neural network (spinal column, root-system, flock, swarm etc) so the aggregate consciousness of the system increases.

It is, as universecannon suggested, a spectrum or continuum, and not a binary division.

PS. Steppa, about your plants & the light. Like moths and the moon, they are easily confused by artificial lights, which is reasonable since they evolved to utilize an energy source 93 million miles away.

How do we know that plants are confused by artificial lights? Perhaps they know and are quite happy about it.

I'll think about this. Will take some time. Hope to get at this tomorrow.



Do you think of computers as conscious?

I don't. Not yet.



Do you think consciousness is needed for a cell to live?

No, I don't think computers are conscious..yet. Are plants conscience, idk, but my intuition tells me it's possible.

How can we presume to deduce requirements for something when we don't even have much clue what it is? Sure we can try, which is all well and good, but I'd avoid conclusions. Why come to conclusion that it requires a brain when we really don't know as of yet?

Also, complexity of connections and the quote following it were meant to be one thing.

Regarding the language barrier, V.A.L.I.S. was tongue and cheek and a book by Philip K Dick.

From Steppa's post:



Organisms choose self-destruction only rarely, in my experience, and even then I doubt they're too happy about it.



I think something dead has lost any consciousness it may have once had. A living cell must negotiate its immediate environment to go on living, so a level of consciousness would probably be necessary for that to continue. Hence, consciousness could be an emergent phenomenon of life and/or self-organisation...

A grim reality is that humans self-destruct all the time

There is evidence though that plants can learn, and some of it was linked earlier.

Of course it would be a far different kind of learning than our own.

It's not a conclusion. It's my personall guess based on rational thinking. Something a concious beeing is able to...imho.



I think that I'm unable to answer that as I think that there are different levels of consciousness that exist.

There we have it again. This discussion will remain fruitless if we don't define consciousness.

But I'm 100% sure that only cause something is living this doesn't mean that it's conscious. Think of fainted humans. They live and basically still "work" but they are without consciousness.

Octopi don't have much of a central brain either and they're quite intelligent. Well over half of their neurons are in their tentacles.

In regards to rational thinking you might find studies like this interesting http://phys.org/news/201...intelligent-assumed.html But yeah I don't mean to imply that something is conscious just because it is alive.

And hell, for all we know consciousness may be more primary than matter, with matter being the instrument through which it can manifest in an infinite of ways and amplitudes. We don't have a clue but it's always fun to speculate, especially if you take into consideration deep psychedelic states.

Very interesting indeed. Thanks.



That's for sure and part of why I am here.

I feel that I sometimes rush over some statements. And sometimes my answers may seem more categorial then I want them to do. So please don't take everything I say like it's written in stone. This has to do with me speaking a foreign language and with beeing at work. *g*

No worries . I just like to discuss but I can come off as heated sometimes when I don't mean to. A lot is lost in the translation when words and tone is confined down to text on a screen

I guess a simpler question would be "what evidence would satisfy us that plants are conscious?"..Or, more interestingly, "what evidence would there be if plants were conscious?"

But then of course it all comes back around again to how we define "consciousness"

I doubt any individual plant would qualify as 'conscious,' but I bet a forest is.
Insert neuron/brain analogy here.

The rizophere. I agree. With fungal networks connecting all the plants and trees in the forest, the forest network would contain way more connections than our measly brains.

This makes me wonder, what's the consensus here about whether fungi can be conscious? Also, if consciousness were (and I'm not implying that it is or not) a non-local phenomena, what would that say about the possibility of plants being sentient.

I realize that many don't think plant sentience is a possibility, but perhaps we should remember what a lot of us would have thought before we tried dmt / aya, if some random person told us about the dmt state. Ik I would have thought it impossible. Of course tryptamines have made me rethink what I consider possible. And plants are the very creatures who supply us with these possibility altering compounds.

Plants will grow towards their light source, also known as phototropism.
As for them growing to the light source and injuring themselves;
This is probably because plants are naturally used to their light source being 92,960,000 miles away.

Now to the question "are plants conscious"
The definition of Conscious "aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake."
Google Search.
By that definition, all life is conscious to some degree.

Phototropism (see above) is one of many things that clearly and scientifically demonstrate that plants are conscious to some degree.
I think it's quite clear plants are conscious at basic and more complex levels.

Terence Mckenna talked about observing a vine that was growing up a tree.
The vine covered most of the tree, but did not grow out onto a dead limb.
He asked why?
Then the limb fell.

Today I was running in the woods while pondering this question and I saw birch trees.
They were growing away from the larger trees.
Birch trees are shorter than big oaks and maples.
Were the birch trees growing away from them in hopes of spreading their offspring to a more habital location where larger trees were not consuming most of the light and minerals?

I also noticed someone cut a branch short on a tree limb.
Instead of growing outwards like it would normally do if uninjured, it grew multiple new limbs outwards from an inch before the spot it was cut. It looked like an octopus. It reminded me of DMT for some reason.

There are many different forms and levels of consciousness.
I believe that plants, animals, and humans are conscious in many ways that we cannot scientifically validate at this point in time.

Here's a paper which is anti plant consciousness and criticizes the field of plant neurobiology:

http://www.bashanfoundat...umwald/blumwaldbrain.pdf

Here's a response from the proponents of plant neurobiology:


http://www.linv.org/imag...ds%202007%20Trewavas.pdf

I find all of this fascinating. Of course the old guard will try to suppress the new paradigm. If plants were found to be conscious, intelligent beings, it would open the doors to all sorts of uncomfortable things, ie plant rights.

So...they aren't really awere of their environment? They just do what they are supposed to do. Growing into the direction of the light.




This would also be true for a computer.



How so? It just shows that a sensoric and maybe some kind of feed back is involved. But the actions can still be automated.



I think we wouldn't discuss here then.

And onto the fungi topic, how the heck does cordyceps, a fungus (supposedly a 'lower' being right?) 'control' insects?

Something else that was discussed in another thread, I also find fascinating the idea of plants that produce opioids to make bees 'sluggish' so they stay more in contact with the pollen.. And my thought regarding that was, how much are these substances we are taking and plants we therefore propagate part of the plants' master plan to take over the world?

But yeah great posts and links everybody