Living organisms, by definition are conscious, so plants can rightly be considered conscious. I would say that this is the primary proof of plant intelligence and in fact, the intelligence of all living organisms.

Living organisms, by definition are conscious, so plants can rightly be considered conscious.

. A while back someone remarked that they didn't know if plants had spirits.

Plants don't have spirits, plants are spirits.

Think about when you are communicating with a Plant. How do you communicate with it? Through words, through sight, sound, smell, tapping Morse code on its stem? No, you communicate with it by a ... feeling, a sense, an intuition. This is how Plants communicate among themselves -- not with thoughts, but with the direct interplay of spiritual energies. Ripples interplaying with ripples, no boundaries.

A plant senses the beings around it directly. It doesn't have thoughts, it doesn't have concepts, it doesn't have symbolic language to manipulate. It doesn't have what humans sometimes call "reason." A Plant doesn't think. Thinking puts you at a remove from what you are thinking about. A plant feels what is around it directly.

Let us say we see a fellow human, hear, smell, and touch him. Then let us say that you get a sudden feeling, an understanding, of who he really is, deep inside. That direct contact tells you much more than the animal physical senses ever could. That is the kind of direct sense that plants have of you, and of the other life around them. And that direct sensing, unmediated by thoughts and concepts, is the language of spirit.

Ayahuasca, among other things, makes us much more sensitive to the language of Spirit. That makes us more like Plants, because we start being able to communicate like Plants, by directly sensing the spiritual energies around us and responding to them.

Plants do not have these energies, they are these energies. The physical three-dimensional plant, the beautiful intricate patterns of Plant form that our eyes see, is a collaborative creation between us and the Plant being. The plant does not perceive itself in the way that we perceive it. The plant does not perceive a "physical" world in the same way that we do with our animal senses. Our senses are not witnesses of a world outside of them, but co-creators of the world we know as humans.

And the plant doesn't perceive us humans in the way that we perceive ourselves, as three-dimensional beings. It perceives us directly, as swirling patterns of energy.

Most plants, though, are limited in their ability to interpret or understand human energies. Most plants have no more idea of what it is like to be a human than most humans have about what it is like to be a plant. Ayahuasca, however, is a Plant with a unique sophisticated understanding of humans, and that is why she acts as a go-between and translator between the Plant world and the Human world.

That is not true. Living organisms with a nervous system exhibits conscious states but those without simply are reactionary in their processes. IE sunlight causes plants to grow.

This is a completely fundamentalist scientific viewpoint and is the only one that can be rationally concluded at the moment.

Believe me I have pondered whether trees may be conscious or form part of a consciousness as I chopped away at them in search for DMT.

The problem lies within our focus and reach of evidence. How can an ant know about a human if not by their antennae and sense of smell only?

Likewise, if these trees were connected to higher dimensions and formed part of a collective conscious state or formed part of their own conscious state then we would have no way to tell as we currently do not have the technology or sensory apparatuses. Therefore, we can only rationally conclude that plants are NOT conscious by what we can observe and test. They appear only as cause and effect mechanisms.

A nervous system is what is required to produce conscious states even though we are yet to prove how it does this or whether it can be replicated within synthetic machines. Nonetheless, this is the observable data and to dismiss it is plain foolish.

My own opinion is that all molecules including neurotransmitters form part of a hyper-dimensional communication network and that is why they are found in trees and human brains. We may be connected to a larger framework at hand that utilizes our neurotransmitters and molecular makeup in ways which we can not fathom. Such a concepts can imply conscious states from trees but there is no way to prove it.

Nicotinia attenuata, a type of wild US tobacco, is usually pollinated by hawkmoths. To lure them in, it opens its flowers at night and releases alluring chemicals. But pollinating hawkmoths often lay their eggs on the plants they visit and the voracious caterpillars start eating the plants. Fortunately for the plant, it has a back-up plan. It stops producing its moth-attracting chemicals and starts opening its flowers during the day instead. This simple change of timing opens its nectar stores to a very different pollinator that has no interest in eating it – the black-chinned hummingbird.

Danny Kessler from the Max Planck Institute first noticed the tobacco plant’s partner-swapping antics by watching a population of flowers that was overrun by hawkmoth caterpillars. Nearly every plant was infested. To Kessler’s surprise, around one in six flowers started opening between 6 and 10am, rather than their normal business hours of 6 and 10pm. To see if the two trends were related, Kessley deliberately infested plants from another population with young hawkmoth larvae.

From his laboratory near Florence, Mancuso and his team explore how plants communicate, or "signal," with each other, using a complex internal analysis system to find nutrients, spread their species and even defend themselves against predators. Their research continues to transform our view of plants from simple organisms to complex ecological structures and communities that can gather, process and -- most incredibly -- share important information. https://www.ted.com/speakers/stefano_mancuso

That is not true. Living organisms with a nervous system exhibits conscious states but those without simply are reactionary in their processes. IE sunlight causes plants to grow.

This is a completely fundamentalist scientific viewpoint and is the only one that can be rationally concluded at the moment.

Believe me I have pondered whether

I'm not certain that a nervous system is a prerequisite for consciousness...

What about jellyfish? They don't have a brain or a central nervous system* yet most would consider jellyfish conscious.
(*while the jellyfish has no brain or central nervous system it has a loose "nerve net" )

My opinion is that all living forms posses some level of consciousness...and it's a higher level of consciousness than we give plants credit for.

This is incredibly difficult for most people to wrap their heads around, and if one only has a very rudimentary background knowledge of plant biology and plant functioning, and even more important, if one has a rudimentary view of what consciousness is, these concepts will seem absurd.

Animals communicate through behaviors, plants communicate through chemistry...
(People often assume that all compounds produced by plants are as poisons, while this is not the case, plants produce just as many compounds to attract life-forms as they do to repel them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYIWZuFsb60
In the link above the wild tobacco plant dedicates loads of energy towards producing specific chemical compounds, when being destroyed by a certain larva they can release this compound in the form of a trichome, the larva eats the trichomes and the hidden chemical weapon in them, when the larva eat this chemical, they emit a smell attracting predator birds which eat them, this plant can also switch is pollinators in a very complex and intentional manner.

The plant is obviously conscious of its surroundings, and of the parasites and pollinators surrounding it, they are aware of the chemical conditions around them as well as environmental conditions.

Stefano Mancuso founded something called "the study of plant neurobiology"


Plant roots behave like foraging animals (watch the 7 minute clip in the link above)
http://rmpbs.pbslearning...arth.geol.tec.food/food/
ecologist James Cahill describes how root growth in plants follows patterns similar to those of animal foraging, how plants identify and select their food sources in the first place, and what that selection suggests about their level of behavior.



-eg

Quoted for truth. Thanks entheogenic-gnosis for all this lovely information.

The ability of plants to produce chemicals for their own benefit is absolutely fascinating and I think that this ability is more evidence of plant intelligence. Plants produce a variety of different compounds like bioflavonoids, alkaloids, polyphenols, terpenes etc. They do not do this in a haphazard, random way, rather they do this in a deliberate way in order to thrive in the harsh natural environment and to spread.

Another topic of consideration is how plants form beneficial relationships with other organisms. For instance, legumes form symbiotic relationships with Rhizobe bacteria. http:// http...7114/

Another example is the relationship between pine and birch trees and fungi in the Amanita genus. Most plants, in fact share a mycorrhizal relationship with fungi.

My whole shtick is that plants, like all living organisms have evolved certain advanced processes to survive and propagate in their natural environment and that this implies an intelligence of some sort.

By Dr. Mercola

Human arrogance has always assumed we are evolutionarily superior to plants, but it appears that modern science may be the antidote to this egocentric view.

Researchers in the UK have discovered an extensive underground network connecting plants by their roots, serving as a complex interplant communication system... a “plant Internet,” if you will.

One organism is responsible for this amazing biochemical highway: a type of fungus called mycorrhizae. Researchers from the University of Aberdeen devised a clever experiment to isolate the effects of these extensive underground networks.

"I believe that mycelium is the neurological network of nature. Interlacing mosaics of mycelium infuse habitats with information-sharing membranes. These membranes are aware, react to change, and collectively have the long-term health of the host environment in mind. The mycelium stays in constant molecular communication with its environment, devising diverse enzymatic and chemical responses to complex challenges." ― Paul Stamets, Mycelium Running: How Mushrooms Can Help Save the World
http://www.greenmedinfo....-earths-natural-internet

The remarkable conclusions from this study, published last May, are the latest shoots in a growing thicket of data revealing the unexpectedly complex ways that plants exchange information with one another. Researchers are unearthing evidence that, far from being unresponsive and uncommunicative organisms, plants engage in regular conversation. In addition to warning neighbors of herbivore attacks, they alert each other to threatening pathogens and impending droughts, and even recognize kin, continually adapting to the information they receive from plants growing around them. Moreover, plants can “talk” in several different ways: via airborne chemicals, soluble compounds exchanged by roots and networks of threadlike fungi, and perhaps even ultrasonic sounds. Plants, it seems, have a social life that scientists are just beginning to understand. http://mobile.the-scient...article/38727/plant-talk

It's an information superhighway that speeds up interactions between a large, diverse population of individuals. It allows individuals who may be widely separated to communicate and help each other out. But it also allows them to commit new forms of crime.
No, we're not talking about the internet, we're talking about fungi. While mushrooms might be the most familiar part of a fungus, most of their bodies are made up of a mass of thin threads, known as a mycelium. We now know that these threads act as a kind of underground internet, linking the roots of different plants. That tree in your garden is probably hooked up to a bush several metres away, thanks to mycelia.
The more we learn about these underground networks, the more our ideas about plants have to change. They aren't just sitting there quietly growing. By linking to the fungal network they can help out their neighbours by sharing nutrients and information – or sabotage unwelcome plants by spreading toxic chemicals through the network.
In mycorrhizal associations, plants provide fungi with food in the form of carbohydrates. In exchange, the fungi help the plants suck up water, and provide nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen, via their mycelia. Since the 1960s, it has been clear that mycorrhizae help individual plants to grow.
Fungal networks also boost their host plants' immune systems. That's because, when a fungus colonises the roots of a plant, it triggers the production of defense-related chemicals. These make later immune system responses quicker and more efficient, a phenomenon called "priming". Simply plugging in to mycelial networks makes plants more resistant to disease.
But that's not all. We now know that mycorrhizae also connect plants that may be widely separated. Fungus expert Paul Stamets called them "Earth's natural internet" in a 2008 TED talk. He first had the idea in the 1970s when he was studying fungi using an electron microscope. Stamets noticed similarities between mycelia and ARPANET, the US Department of Defense's early version of the internet
http://www.bbc.com/earth...s-have-a-hidden-internet

Story at-a-glance -
Plants are capable of communicating with each other via extensive and complex networks, and can warn each other of the presence of pests. In response, the plants will mount natural defenses against the infestation
When a bug such as a caterpillar chews on a plant’s leaf, the plant “hears” the vibrations of the chewing, and produces chemicals to defend itself from further harm
These chemicals are also what give a plant many of its medicinal qualities, such as glucosinolates, which have anti-cancer properties, and other antioxidants
This research even suggests that minor pest attacks may play an important role in encouraging plant growth that have higher levels of (to humans) important nutrients
http://articles.mercola....plant-communication.aspx

How aware are plants? This is the central question behind a fascinating new book, “What a Plant Knows,” by Daniel Chamovitz, director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences at Tel Aviv University. A plant, he argues, can see, smell and feel. It can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way. A plant can even be said to have a memory. https://www.scientificam...-think-daniel-chamovitz/

http://www.livescience.c...ees-talk-with-sound.html can plants hear?

Animals communicate with behavior, plants communicate through chemistry...

Are psychedelic plants producing neurotransmitters and variations of neurotransmitters in an attempt to communicate with intelligent mammal life-forms?

Did consuming neurotransmitter similar compounds in plants cause our proto-human ancestors to begin to produce neurotransmitters endogenously, resulting in the "big bang of the brain" which science has difficulty explaining?

Those two above questions are pretty far out there, just quick thoughts, so let's return to science for a moment and place our imaginations on hold...

Thanks for the McKenna link, below a series of excerpts regarding research on the topic are listed:











The research goes on and on...

You know how you can look into the past and think "I can't believe that people once thought the earth was flat" I feel people in the future will look back at people from our time and think "I can't believe they thought plants were unconscious"

I think as we understand life, and the nature of consciousness, all of this will become obvious, consciousness is an intrinsic aspect of living matter ...

-eg

Thanks for all this great info entheogenic-gnosis! Real food for thought.

I basically agree with everything said in the above post. As to whether plants helped humans evolve, I definitely think so. We know that the bulk of primates' diet is fruit, and these fruits contain essential nutrients as well as secondary metabolites which have numerous health benefits. I think that this diet, along with other factors, is what pushed forward human evolution. https://www.google.co.za/amp/www...ent=ms-android-hms-vf-za

http://swilhite.weebly.com/huma...-psychoactive-drugs.html

Those links you posted were fantastic entheogenic-gnosis! The stuff about mycelia was particularly interesting. Mycelia are absolutely amazing. You know, the largest living organism is the mycelial network of a particular species of fungus, the Armillaria solipides, which covers an area of 3.7 square miles! This mycelial network was estimated to be between 1900 and 8650 years old! Imagine that! http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/...st-organism-in-the-world

That stuff about plants communicating with each other and sensing their environment is also very interesting. Joe Rogan talked about it in one of his podcasts. He mentioned a study in which the scientists found that plants that were being eaten by herbivores signaled other plants further away and these plants and these plants then produced chemicals to defend themselves. There was also another study where they played a recording of a caterpillar munching on a leaf to a plant and the plant started producing defensive chemicals. http://www.pri.org/stories/2014...w-you-think-about-plants

I fully agree with what you said in the last portion of your post. I think it's only a matter of time before the concept of plant intelligence becomes mainstream.

We are so entangled with plant life that our present physical form, neurotransmitters, and higher functioning would not be possible without plants...

Without the oxygen produced by plants we could not exist on earth, without their food we could not exists on earth, and without the amino acids plants give us through diet our brains would not function...

The "big bang of the brain" is almost certainly has some relation to diet and chemicals located in plants, though most would not accept this notion...

Though think about it:

...Plants provide us with oxygen to breathe, food to eat, cloths to wear, material for our homes, drugs and medicines, and essential amino acids, as well as much more.

... essential amino acids are compounds we must derive from our diet, without the essential amino acid tryptophan from plants, we could not produce serotonin, melatonin, pinoline, etc... without out tyrosine and Phenylalanine we would not be able to produce dopamine, adrenaline, or nor-adrenaline, our neurotransmitter production is dependant on plants and the amino acids they produce...so is is so strange to think that the plants are intentionally offering us the means for higher brain function? Are psychedelics which are related to tryptamine and phenethylamine neurotransmitters the next step in this process?

Ok, I'm going into "speculation mode" so I will stop here...

For me, plant consciousness is an experiential reality. This is my subjective experience.

The "big bang of the brain" is almost certainly has some relation to diet and chemicals located in plants, though most would not accept this notion...

Ok, I'm going into "speculation mode" so I will stop here...

And it's not just the notion, it's the reasoning to start. By the logic of this argument, every species that eats certain plants and/or chemicals will have a "brain explosion"? What about dolphins?


Thank you. Lets not have this all over again.

For the first two thirds of our history, the size of our ancestors' brains was within the range of those of other apes living today. The species of the famous Lucy fossil, Australopithecus afarensis, had skulls with internal volumes of between 400 and 550 milliliters, whereas chimpanzee skulls hold around 400 ml and gorillas between 500 and 700 ml. During this time, Australopithecine brains started to show subtle changes in structure and shape as compared with apes. For instance, the neocortex had begun to expand, reorganizing its functions away from visual processing toward other regions of the brain.
The final third of our evolution saw nearly all the action in brain size. Homo habilis, the first of our genus Homo who appeared 1.9 million years ago, saw a modest hop in brain size, including an expansion of a language-connected part of the frontal lobe called Broca's area. The first fossil skulls of Homo erectus, 1.8 million years ago, had brains averaging a bit larger than 600 ml.

From here the species embarked on a slow upward march, reaching more than 1,000 ml by 500,000 years ago. Early Homo sapiens had brains within the range of people today, averaging 1,200 ml or more. As our cultural and linguistic complexity, dietary needs and technological prowess took a significant leap forward at this stage, our brains grew to accommodate the changes. The shape changes we see accentuate the regions related to depth of planning, communication, problem solving and other more advanced cognitive functions https://www.scientificam...has-human-brain-evolved/