The Plant Consciousness Wars

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.

The idea that carbon emissions from thawing permafrost are accelerating isn't attractive, but there are scientists who still pursue that line of thought, because they think it's true. You don't have to find an idea attractive to be interested in pursuing it.

The idea that carbon emissions from thawing permafrost are accelerating isn't attractive, but there are scientists who still pursue that line of thought, because they think it's true. You don't have to find an idea attractive to be interested in pursuing it.

You did read the synonym and definition, yes? Your splitting hairs ya know. Anyway thanks for an answer.

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

If panpsychism is within the purview of science...

The suggestion that plants may have some level of consciousness would certainly not appeal to some scientists who insist that consciousness is purely a product of neuronal activity in the brain. The fact that plants do not have synapses, etc., is evidence enough for them to declare that plants therefore cannot be conscious. So plant consciousness is not only unattractive, any evidence of such would be a serious challenge to their (and Steve001's) narrow worldview.

Once again, Wikipedia describes this view as being the view of the "vast majority" of researchers in the field:

The ideas behind plant neurobiology were criticised in a 2007 article published in Trends in Plant Science by Amedeo Alpi and 35 other scientists, including such eminent plant biologists as Gerd Jürgens, Ben Scheres, and Chris Sommerville. The breadth of fields of plant science represented by these researchers reflects the fact that the vast majority of the plant science research community rejects plant neurobiology as a legitimate notion. Their main arguments are that:

1. "Plant neurobiology does not add to our understanding of plant physiology, plant cell biology or signaling".
   
2. "There is no evidence for structures such as neurons, synapses or a brain in plants".
   
3. The common occurrence of plasmodesmata in plants "poses a problem for signaling from an electrophysiological point of view", since extensive electrical coupling would preclude the need for any cell-to-cell transport of ‘neurotransmitter-like’ compounds.
   

The authors call for an end to "superficial analogies and questionable extrapolations" if the concept of "plant neurobiology" is to benefit the research community. Several responses to this criticism have attempted to clarify that the term "plant neurobiology" is a metaphor and that metaphors have proved useful on previous occasions.

[Laird]

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

I think so, yes. Science can't provide a definitive answer, but then, we can't even provide a definitive answer as to whether other humans are conscious. But science can be used to provide us with relevant evidence upon which to base a strong inductive conclusion that plants are conscious in the same way that we inductively conclude that other human beings are conscious: that is, that they behave in ways that seem to indicate it, especially when that behaviour is familiar to us as conscious beings.

Some of the scientific evidence which supports this conclusion includes that:

• Plants can apparently telepathically read people's intent and respond accordingly, as discovered by Cleve Backster and replicated by Mythbusters in their 61st episode.
  
  
  
• Plants can be anaesthetised by an anaesthetic (ether) that works on humans with a central nervous system, as evidenced by the mimosa plant, which no longer curls up its leaves when touched after having been exposed to ether.
  
• Some plants recognise kin through their roots, and modify their behaviour accordingly, for example by not competing so much for root space with relatives. This is familiar to us as humans who consciously favour our families.
  
• "Mother" trees supply nutrients (carbon in particular) through mycorrhizal networks to younger trees, in effect taking care of the youngsters around them, as researched by Professor Simard and discussed in the short online video, Do trees communicate.
  
  
  
• Plants make sounds and respond to them, for example by growing closer to a familiar source of clicks.
  

I think so, yes. Science can't provide a definitive answer, but then, we can't even provide a definitive answer as to whether other humans are conscious. But science can be used to provide us with relevant evidence upon which to base a strong inductive conclusion that plants are conscious in the same way that we inductively conclude that other human beings are conscious: that is, that they behave in ways that seem to indicate it, especially when that behaviour is familiar to us as conscious beings.

Some of the scientific evidence which supports this conclusion includes that:

• Plants can apparently telepathically read people's intent and respond accordingly, as discovered by Cleve Backster and replicated by Mythbusters in their 61st episode.
  
• Plants can be anaesthetised by an anaesthetic (ether) that works on humans with a central nervous system, as evidenced by the mimosa plant, which no longer curls up its leaves when touched after having been exposed to ether.
  
• Some plants recognise kin through their roots, and modify their behaviour accordingly, for example by not competing so much for root space with relatives. This is familiar to us as humans who consciously favour our families.
  
• "Mother" trees supply nutrients (carbon in particular) through mycorrhizal networks to younger trees, in effect taking care of the youngsters around them, as researched by Professor Simard and discussed in the short online video, Do trees communicate.
  
• Plants make sounds and respond to them, for example by growing closer to a familiar source of clicks.
  

Yes, I suppose plant telepathy, if confirmed, would potentially be a way of investigating plant consciousness scientifically. Though we'd need to be sure it was telepathy rather than a form of psychokinesis/Direct Mental Interaction with Living Systems or whatever.

For me, the trouble with the other evidence you mention is that it could be seen as a kind of instinctive behaviour rather than conscious behaviour.

My question was partly motivated by the scepticism in some quarters about whether artificial intelligence could be conscious. In a sense the AI sceptics are arguing against inferring consciousness from behaviour, even if it mimics human behaviour very closely.

[Laird]

My question was partly motivated by the scepticism in some quarters about whether artificial intelligence could be conscious. In a sense the AI sceptics are arguing against inferring consciousness from behaviour, even if it mimics human behaviour very closely.

I think the two situations are distinct though.

Plants are living beings whose existence is part of the natural world, just as we are, and so it is reasonable to expect that similarities in behaviour between plants and us are due to similarities in essential nature, including (the potential for a) sentient nature.

Artificial intelligence on the other hand can be reduced to calculation in electronic hardware, and we have no reason to expect that calculation in electronic hardware alone can be associated with consciousness, and in particular with the sort of sensations (of pleasure and suffering) which most qualify a being for ethical consideration. It remains an open question as to whether or not it can.

My question was partly motivated by the scepticism in some quarters about whether artificial intelligence could be conscious. In a sense the AI sceptics are arguing against inferring consciousness from behaviour, even if it mimics human behaviour very closely.

In a way this is what I was getting at in my previous very brief comment about "how we currently test for consciousness". I'm not sure we have any test. Can we be sure that humans are conscious? Even if we get beyond the philosophical  points and move into practical areas, the answer is uncertain. For example the questions around whether someone is brain-dead and the organs may be 'harvested' for transplant, is not entirely clear. There may be rules, guidelines, established practice and so on, but these things are continuously changing.

More specifically, even if someone determined under certain guidelines, to be dead, that doesn't rule out consciousness. I'm thinking of various categories, long term coma, life support, cardiac arrest - we can't definitively rule out consciousness, and there is evidence which raises questions in these areas.

The only real test it seems is that of self-reporting. In the case of plants the question then isn't one of consciousness, but of communication. How does one interview a plant?

For me, the trouble with the other evidence you mention is that it could be seen as a kind of instinctive behaviour rather than conscious behaviour.

And for me, the trouble with instinctive behaviour is that I have not the slightest clue as to how it works. People use words like "hard wired" or "programmed" because we are used to talking about computers, algorithms and, yes, AI but what does the programming, how is it stored and what is the operating system? Does DNA code behaviour?

Instinct is know-how without the need for learning. A spider knows how to spin a web without being taught. Knowledge is a kind of intelligence and intelligence is something we associate with consciousness - don't we?

Michael Gazzaniga, "The Mind's Past", 1998:

The baby does not learn trigonometry, but knows it; does not learn how to distinguish figure from ground, but knows it; does not need to learn, but knows, that when one object with mass hits another, it will move the object …

The vast human cerebral cortex is chock full of specialized systems ready, willing and able to be used for specific tasks. Moreover, the brain is built under tight genetic control … As soon as the brain is built, it starts to express what it knows, what it comes with from the factory.

And the brain comes loaded. The number of special devices that are in place and active is staggering. Everything from perceptual phenomena to intuitive physics to social exchange rules comes with the brain. These things are not learned; they are innately structured. Each device solves a different problem … the multitude of devices we have for doing what we do are factory installed; by the time we know about an action, the devices have already performed it.

The above was quoted in a Scientific American article discussing human savants. A passage worthy of mention when it comes to instinct is this from the author of the article:

Finally, the animal kingdom provides ample examples of complex inherited capacities beyond physical characteristics. Monarch butterflies each year make a 2,500-mile journey from Canada to a small plot of land in Mexico where they winter. In spring they begin the long journey back north, but it takes three generations to do so. So no butterfly making the return journey has flown that entire route before. How do they “know” a route they never learned? It has to be an inherited GPS-like software, not a learned route.

Oscine birds such as such as sparrows, thrushes and warblers learn their songs from listening to others. Suboscine species, such as flycatchers and their relatives, in contrast, inherit all the genetic instructions they need for these complex arias. Even if raised in sound-proof isolation, the suboscine birds can give the usual call for their species with no formal training or learning. There are so many more examples from the animal kingdom in which very complex traits, behaviors and skills are inherited and innate. We call those instincts in animals, but we haven’t applied this concept to the complex inherited skills and knowledge in humans.

Do that mean :l every time i go vegan bcs i feel bad when i eat to much meat, im still a monster