The Plant Consciousness Wars

Group of biologists tries to bury the idea that plants are conscious

Taiz believes the rise of plant neurobiology is driven by the environmental crisis that poses an ever-increasing threat to life on Earth.
“They want to raise people’s consciousness about plants as living organisms and reach them on an emotional level. I’m very sympathetic to the motivations, but it is clouding their objectivity. They have to be prepared for the fact that plants may not have consciousness,” he said. “It’s bad science. It takes the whole scientific enterprise and reduces its credibility.”

But Gagliano is having none of it. “If we think we already know how things are and fail to continuously question our own assumptions, but construct our claims on a system of beliefs we are dearly attached to, then we are in deep trouble and miss the opportunity for true scientific discovery to occur.

“Miserably, this opinion piece seems yet another missed opportunity, one that makes strikingly no headway towards a better scientific understanding of what consciousness is.”

Group of biologists tries to bury the idea that plants are conscious

A slightly more detailed article. https://www.cell.com/trends/plant-science/fulltext/S1360-1385(19)30126-8?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS1360138519301268%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

If you don't mind my asking what's attractive about plants having consciousness? If that is your point of view.

If you don't mind my asking what's attractive about plants having consciousness? If that is your point of view.

An interesting question.

I suppose it might have several angles.

One, that there is no cut-off point, like a cliff-edge, (I get that with my digital TV reception, either perfect reception one day or none at all the next), but rather a continuum, more like the analogue signal, which can get weaker until they are lost on the background noise, rather than actually disappear. But that's just an analogy. So maybe we can't point at one life-form and say 'conscious' and point at another and say 'not conscious'. I'm not saying consciousness is or isn't like that, I don't know.

A second idea, hinted at in the opening post, of having respect for the world we live in, nowadays it is reflected in environmentalism, but it has other outlets in for example Native American beliefs. In some of those types of traditions, the line was not drawn at what we call 'living' nowadays, but it included everything, the earth, the sky, the rivers, the oceans.

Perhaps a third is that maybe the entire cosmos is pervaded by some level of consciousness. I don't mean this quite in the panpsychist sense, but maybe more like the physicists idea that there is no such thing as empty space (the quantum vacuum). Perhaps similarly there nowhere which is devoid of consciousness.

What I've expressed here goes beyond the plant world, but maybe reflects more of my own ideas. I think, again as a personal perspective, that humans like to have hierarchies, where we place things in order of importance. But maybe that is too anthropomorphic, and the world itself is not obliged to conform to our expectations. Maybe for example we might pick up radio signals from space, some alien civilisation, but perhaps if we could go there and meet that culture, we might consider the senders to be plants.

An interesting question.

I suppose it might have several angles.

One, that there is no cut-off point, like a cliff-edge, (I get that with my digital TV reception, either perfect reception one day or none at all the next), but rather a continuum, more like the analogue signal, which can get weaker until they are lost on the background noise, rather than actually disappear. But that's just an analogy. So maybe we can't point at one life-form and say 'conscious' and point at another and say 'not conscious'. I'm not saying consciousness is or isn't like that, I don't know.

A second idea, hinted at in the opening post, of having respect for the world we live in, nowadays it is reflected in environmentalism, but it has other outlets in for example Native American beliefs. In some of those types of traditions, the line was not drawn at what we call 'living' nowadays, but it included everything, the earth, the sky, the rivers, the oceans.

Perhaps a third is that maybe the entire cosmos is pervaded by some level of consciousness. I don't mean this quite in the panpsychist sense, but maybe more like the physicists idea that there is no such thing as empty space (the quantum vacuum). Perhaps similarly there nowhere which is devoid of consciousness.

What I've expressed here goes beyond the plant world, but maybe reflects more of my own ideas. I think, again as a personal perspective, that humans like to have hierarchies, where we place things in order of importance. But maybe that is too anthropomorphic, and the world itself is not obliged to conform to our expectations. Maybe for example we might pick up radio signals from space, some alien civilisation, but perhaps if we could go there and meet that culture, we might consider the senders to be plants.

I normally pick out passages to quote but I have to say that I agree with just about all of this.

[Laird]

From the article in the OP, quoting the authors of the paper:

“There is no evidence that plants require, and thus have evolved, energy-expensive mental faculties, such as consciousness, feelings, and intentionality, to survive or to reproduce.”

Sounds familiar. Echoes of the debate over psi...

If you don't mind my asking what's attractive about plants having consciousness?

How is its attractiveness relevant? Surely the important question is whether or not it's true?

I think it is true. It is "attractive" in that it broadens the scope of life. It is "unattractive" in that it broadens the scope of our ethical concern, and imposes serious obligations on us that we currently are far from meeting.

In some of those types of traditions, the line was not drawn at what we call 'living' nowadays, but it included everything, the earth, the sky, the rivers, the oceans.

You mean animism, I think, which in my view has a lot to recommend in it. I am not exactly sure how, ultimately, to distinguish animism from panpsychism though, except that perhaps the former has more of a spiritual connotation.

How is its attractiveness relevant? Surely the important question is whether or not it's true?

Indeed.

You mean animism, I think, which in my view has a lot to recommend in it. I am not exactly sure how, ultimately, to distinguish animism from panpsychism though, except that perhaps the former has more of a spiritual connotation.

Perhaps. I'm wary though of taking names (xxxism) which lead to definitions which lead to understandings, created by those outside of the tradition. How things are viewed and described from within the tradition would surely be very different.

From the article in the OP, quoting the authors of the paper:


Sounds familiar. Echoes of the debate over psi...


How is its attractiveness relevant? Surely the important question is whether or not it's true?

I think it is true. It is "attractive" in that it broadens the scope of life. It is "unattractive" in that it broadens the scope of our ethical concern, and imposes serious obligations on us that we currently are far from meeting.


You mean animism, I think, which in my view has a lot to recommend in it. I am not exactly sure how, ultimately, to distinguish animism from panpsychism though, except that perhaps the former has more of a spiritual connotation.

Indeed.

Attractiveness. A definition and synonyms: appealing, arousing (interest)
Plant consciousness must be attractive otherwise it would not have some people whom take a serious interest in it to try to find it.
But I do agree a reverent approach for the natural world is a good one. But I'll stop short of finding plant consciousness attractive.

Is the question of plant consciousness really one that is open to scientific investigation?

Is the question of plant consciousness really one that is open to scientific investigation?

It depends on how science usually tests for consciousness, I suppose.

Though 'science' isn't an entity, so it would depend on individual scientists, or groups thereof perhaps.