12 ms·

The case against plant consciousness

108 points by Hooke 7y ago

plutonorm 7y ago
This just sounds like a member of the old guard being uncomfortable with progress. His arguments dont seem very strong, questions over why plants would have such a capacity. Then some hand waving about alternative explanations for experimental results. Probably just another case of the dismantling of human exceptionalism making people uncomfortable.
- JackFr 7y ago
  Or it sounds like someone very familiar with the literature who's uncomfortable with some hyperbolic claims in his field. Someone who is comfortable attributing consciousness to arthropods is probably comfortable with dismantling human exceptionalism.
  - shawnz 7y ago
    The literature of what, philosophy of mind? This question is not relevant to his field, which is psychiatry.
- MisterOctober 7y ago
  Yep -- I remember reading a review of "Plant-Thinking" around the time it was published that said something like "The critics who deride [the notion of plant-consciousness as expressed in the book] do so in language that demonstrates exactly the hierarchical, essentialist attitudes that the book looks to expose and dismantle"
- haberman 7y ago
  If his arguments are weak, it should not be necessary to buttress counterarguments with speculation about his motives.
- dbt00 7y ago
  Or perhaps exceptional claims (plants have brains we just can’t see them) require exceptional evidence.
  - blancheneige 7y ago
    Like the exceptional claim that human consciousness resides in the brain despite documented evidence of remote viewing [1], terminal lucidity [2], memories of past lives [3], etc.? Maybe it's time these "scientists" start doing actual science instead of sticking to their ultra-materialist dogma. [1] https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/air1995.pdf https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/air1995.pdf [2] https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/01/NDE61_terminal-lucidity-JNMD.pdf https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploa... [3] https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/publications/academic-publications/children-who-remember-previous-lives-academic-publications/ https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/publications/aca...
    - pixelbash 7y ago
      Without leaning one way or the other I've always wondered what neuroimaging one of these experiences would look like. If nothing obvious is happening and the imagee reports a rich and detailed experience it might be persuasive.
      - blancheneige 7y ago
        Indeed. Severe cases of hydrocephalus [1], for example, where an otherwise functional individual is missing large portions of their brain may provide partial answers. [1] https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/12/Discrepancy-between-cerebral-structure-and-cognitive-functioning-JNMD.pdf https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploa...
  - dade_ 7y ago
    Not so exceptional, the centriole is essentially the eye and brain of a cell. If cells are able to leverage quantum mechanics like our retina, chlorophyll, bird magnetoreception, and olfaction, then why not for memory or computation? Essentially neurons aren't a simple switch, but rather contain a processor & memory in themselves.
- sdegutis 7y ago
  When people reject novelty theories like this, it's usually because basic intelligence tells us it's so unlikely to be either true or useful that it's not worth considering.
rendall 7y ago
I'm sure that "consciousness" is carefully defined in the paper, but, from the article "...whether plants can think, learn, and intentionally choose their actions..." is a much easier position to debate than whether plants are in some sense aware of themselves, their environment and others like themselves, which is what I think of when I hear "consciousness".
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Honest question: it what sense can anything that exists in an environment be said to not be aware of it? How do you define "awareness" outside of observed reactions to stimuli, which everything in the universe exhibits to varying degrees of complexity? I submit that what we think of as "consciousness", the awareness of being, is impossible within a model based purely on objectively measurable criteria.
  - rendall 7y ago
    You could very well be right! The term "consciousness" is pretty loaded. Even "awareness" is perhaps too vague and indefinable for scientific discourse.
bin0 7y ago
So here's an interesting question: if plants are conscious, can vegans eat them? And if not, what will they eat? Not trying to troll vegans; if this is different and some one can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.
- krisrm 7y ago
  I'm not a vegan, but if you think of veganism as more of a "harm reduction" approach to eating, it doesn't matter whether you define plants to be conscious or not. As in, it causes relatively more harm to a large number of organisms to eat an animal as food (the animals are presumably going to eat plants anyway), versus cutting out the middle man and just eating plants.
  - bin0 7y ago
    Fair enough. I guess not all vegans will be homogeneous here either; I'm assuming some are in it for harm reduction, some for ecology, some for the "animals cute" factor. Oh well. I appreciate the insight.
    - krisrm 7y ago
      Certainly! And yeah - I'm sure there's a whole range of perspectives. Probably the idea that plants might be defined as "conscious" bothers some people, but I just can't understand that frame of mind. What are you going to do about it... starve?
      - viklove 7y ago
        I think the point is that the line between animals and plants would become arbitrary if plants were indeed conscious and could feel pain. Why eat plants but not animals then?
        s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        I think that line would become blurred, but there would still be room for a variety of views. There's still the level of consciousness and intelligence to look at. I eat everything but octopus/calamari. I think they are too intelligent to eat. I've seen smart cows, and if I didn't grow up eating beef and it wasn't such a great source a protein, I would cut it out too and just eat chicken. For me it's where do I draw the line of intelligence of what I want to eat. The less likely the animal can comprehend what's going on, the easier I feel about it.
MisterOctober 7y ago
Those interested in this topic may wish to check out Michael Marder's "Plant-Thinking" [2013] -- on the philsophical rather than scientific end of the spectrum, but thought-provoking.
anon_z88 7y ago
While I agree with his reasoning based on his definition of consciousness, I am not sure if this is the most appropriate way of defining consciousness. We still do not properly understand it, thus we cannot define it. While I try to stray from vague or ambiguous interpretations, I do think it's significant to point that out. Let's look at the generic definition: * consciousness - "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." * awareness - "knowledge or perception of a situation or fact." While a plants' consciousness may not be COMPLEX, it does not mean the absence of conscious. There are things such as cellular intelligence which we know is exhibited in even the smallest of prokaryotes and eukaryotes cells. At the most abstract interpretation I think consciousness can be defined as a closed system that contain both input and output, in which information is gathered and alters some component of the system itself. There was a really interesting article the other day on here about how plants were more adaptive to radiation (specifically in Chernobyl) compared to the regions animal counterparts. To this definition, I think plants exercise consciousness. When we look at life we have to analyze on both the fundamental and complex aspects. Just my 2 cents.
- rotrux 7y ago
  By this definition my air conditioning system is conscious.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikeg8 7y ago
    I don't think so. Being turned on/powered up is not equivalent to being awake. "Awake", at minimum, implies a living subject.
    - JetSpiegel 7y ago
      That is just kicking the definition can down the "living" road.
hirundo 7y ago
If plants have no consciousness does that make them any less worthy of care? Consciousness is nice, I'm glad I have some, but it's just one among many strategies that may help us replicate. Like flight or teeth or roses. An unconscious organism is different than a conscious one but not necessarily lesser in the way that matters: genetic survival. It may be that consciousness is a net positive to us in that it lets us adapt to conditions more quickly. Our genes may last longer than plant genes as a result. But it also burdens us with destructive tendencies that threaten our survival. The jury is out.
- rotrux 7y ago
  > "If plants have no consciousness, does that make them any less worthy of care?" No it doesn't, but that's not what's at debate. The fact anyone needed to be told plants aren't conscious is kind of crazy. There's an insinuation that level-of-consciousness is the measure by which we should judge the importance of organisms. This is an anthropocentric view of life, and a shallow one at that.
rafaelvasco 7y ago
We don't really understand what consciousness is, so no one can say that plants have no consciousness. For me , everything has consciousness, but in varied degrees, or frequencies in a spectrum of existence.
wetpaws 7y ago
Plants don't have consciousness because. They. Don't. Have. Brains.
yes_man 7y ago
A thing being alive (collection of cells being "not dead") and sentient are two different things. If we assume sentience is some kind of concentration of information, then I would assume regular plants' synapses are not complex enough to create a relevant feedback loop of consciousness. Mushrooms and their networks (interconnected myceliums) on the other hand may be a different case.
- anon_z88 7y ago
  This is actually a really interesting comparison. From what I have studied, mushrooms behave similar to a neural network. This is one of the reasons they are so good at revitalizing forests and are seemingly unaffected by viruses. Not to mention their benefits on immune regulation in primates.
bitwize 7y ago
For now. Wait till some superintelligence gives them skrodes.
aidoejebrji 7y ago
>“Feinberg and Mallatt concluded that only vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods possess the threshold brain structure for consciousness. The relationship betwen brain structure and consciousness is so poorly understood that this statement is basically idiotic. We know various ways to affect consciousness in humans. For example, using blunt force or drugs. However, we have no understanding at all of any mechanisms by which matter gives rise to consciousness and we cannot even be sure that matter does give rise to consciousness. And we have no way to evaluate the relationship between matter and consciousness in non-human entities like plants that do not communicate to us in any understandable (to us) way about their consciousness or lack of it. It often amazes me how many people are highly advanced in their own technical fields but fail to grasp the hard problem of consciousness - something that can be understood by a bright kid.
rolph 7y ago
There seems to be a predisposition toward consciousness as a property of nervous systems, or biological systems. in speculation perhaps the concept of consciousness as an emergent property of physical systems should be explored. if consciousness is dependent on persistence of a quantum mechanism it is possible for consciousness to exist as a result of any sufficiently spanning rule parsing interactions; And i'll just leave this right here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183954.Hidden_Order https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183954.Hidden_Order
kingkawn 7y ago
It’s so clear watching them, especially if you use time lapse photography, that they are conscious.
CephalopodMD 7y ago
This relies on the assumption that the authors model of consciousness is "correct" for lack of a better term. If you accept this model, then we should be able to agree on this conclusion, but it's not like this is the only model of consciousness out there. This is just one model of one type of consciousness that we think we can agree on. The truth is, we don't know that plants aren't conscious, just that if they are, they don't use the same mechanisms to experience it. It's like saying that life is impossible on a planet without carbon. It's possible that silicon based life exists it there somewhere, we've just never directly observed it.
azeotropic 7y ago
I'm not sure why having neurons enters into the equation at all when deciding whether something is conscious. This is a hard question and the Feinberg-Mallatt definition of consciousness seems circular. An artificial or alien life form might possess consciousness without having traversed the same evolutionary trajectory as animals, and will probably not possess animal neurons. Even a sufficently diverged animal might use novel strategies for organizing neurons (or alternatives to neurons?) to sense, move, focus attention, and remember.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- crispinb 7y ago
  > I'm not sure why having neurons enters into the equation at all when deciding whether something is conscious. Because neuroscience is bigger business than philosophy.
nabla9 7y ago
They're made out of MEAT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GggK9SjJpuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GggK9SjJpuQ
mikeg8 7y ago
In The Hidden Life of Trees, one cool fact that stuck with me in support of tree consciousness was how trees that are under attack from certain insect species will release pheromones to warn neighboring trees. The neighboring trees will then rapidly increase production of tanins and other defense chemicals to stave of the insect onslaught. pretty cool
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- pedro1976 7y ago
  One could conclude that they have a sense for their community, an us-feelimg. Interesting...
- TTPrograms 7y ago
  That sort of behavior would be expected for even trivial organisms according to kin selection, though.
  - mikeg8 7y ago
    My brief Wikipedia look-up on kin selection makes it seem like it is an evolutionary strategy exclusive to animals. Do you have examples of non animal species or "trivial organisms" that have used this strategy? Edit: just saw a small snippet on plants down the page but if anything, i think kin selection in and of itself is supporting of consciousness. I have a hard time imaging non-conscious subjects exhibiting kin selection.
    - tasty_freeze 7y ago
      > i think kin selection in and of itself is supporting of consciousness Why would you think that? Evolution operates on a population via shaping the distribution of traits via selection. The selection is being done by the environment, not the population, and requires no conscious entity.
      - 7y ago
sebringj 7y ago
I would have to think something like... Plants cannot plan, reason or postulate or conceptualize etc, they can only respond similar to a chemical reaction but with the added complexity of evolution giving them much more nuanced reactions appropriate to specific scenarios... rather than trying to say the word consciousness as that is a loaded concept.
sova 7y ago
Fungal networks act as a communication web. All plants are part fungi. The layer of mycelium in the dirt is both a digestive tract and a lung. We carry our stomachs, intestines, and lungs in sacks called bodies as we walk around, fungi are laid down instead. Fascinatingly, mycelium break down rocks and create soil from stone. Fungal networks will also allow inter-plant communication for insect-warding chemicals to be released, and also fungi will decomposition logs which provide bees with vital Cytochrome P450 action that cleanses their system of virii.
ex3xu 7y ago
For a layman's introduction to the case for plant consciousness, Monica Gagliano and her plant consciousness experiments were featured on Radiolab last year (transcript available): https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/plant-parade https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/plant-parade
- bigiain 7y ago
  I saw her present at a conference recently, and subsequently bought her book. I'm finding it all fascinating, especially the pea plant experiment. I am not well enough informed about the state of the art in either consciousness research/thinking or plant reactions/behaviours, but it's certainly made me acutely aware there's something going on there which doesn't fit in with my mental model of how plants work. I'm going to be following along here for quite some time I suspect...
crispinb 7y ago
I chuckled at the notion that attributing consciousness to plants is 'anthropomorphizing'.
jdreyfuss 7y ago
This article makes two assumptions that need more support. One, that having a particular "threshold brain structure" is a necessary condition for consciousness. And two, that consciousness is a binary, as opposed to a spectrum.
m3kw9 7y ago
To build that case you need most people to agree on what consciousness means first. So far no one still understand fully what it means
lioeters 7y ago
For a remarkable footage showing how plants might fit some definition of "conscious", I recommend the French documentary called Microcosmos. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117040/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117040/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcosmos_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcosmos_(film) Some of the scenes in time-lapse ("fast motion"), you can see how plants reach out their vines and leaves, moving and feeling the world around them. So, at least they seem to have a level of "awareness", by some definition of the term. Anecdotally, I've had countless experiences of what might be called "consciousness" in all living beings - but then again, it depends what one means by that word. Edit: I mean, is a maze-solving slime mold conscious? And what makes human consciousness so uniquely different from slime mold's?
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  Is this the correct film? The links & the wiki page on it talk exclusively about insect interaction. > how plants reach out their vines and leaves, moving and feeling the world around them I could argue cold water dropped into a very hot pan 'spreads out' to 'feel' its environment, 'withdrawing' from the metal where it can.
  - lioeters 7y ago
    A big portion of the film is about insects - it also contains some wonderful footage (with some high-tech macro photography) of plants and the garden where it all takes place. Good point about a water droplet's behavior, how it seems to be "alive" in some aspects - all due to physical/chemical reations. I think it's related to the question of what "alive" means, and how it's different from inert, non-living material. With slime mold, much of its behavior is just like water - spreading, dripping, with surface tension, etc. - but there's definitely a difference (perhaps only subjectively), that an observer would say it "feels its way" toward a food source. I suppose the fact that we ascribe "feeling" to it, means we consider it alive, aware, and perhaps conscious.
    - tempguy9999 7y ago
      > With slime mold... Seems it goes further. "People are irrational. Example: You wouldn’t buy a new dress, or suit, that costs $100 (‘that’s far too much to spend!’) but you would buy one that was $300, but is now ‘reduced’ to $150 (‘but just look at how far down it’s come!’) Sound familiar? You’re not alone, it’s fairly well-known that humans are irrational (at least by those in advertising- some products in supermarkets are never meant to be bought- they’re just there to get you to buy other products more), but are other animals just as irrational?" Turns out slime moulds fall for it too. Full article https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/think-you-re-sometimes-irrational-you-re-not-the-only-one-8211-slime-moulds-are-irrational-too https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/think-y... That really complicates thins. All that said, I am really uncomfortable talking about consciousness in these contexts at all, for obvious reasons. When we can identify and quantify, I'll talk. See my point elsewhere about matchboxes learning. Edit: fixed link
hndamien 7y ago
This discussion appears to have completely ignored the concept of a "sensorium" for a definition of consciousness which seems to me to be the only defining requirement. Whether or not it is possible to externally detect this is an open question. It is hard to imagine that anything with eyes doesn't have this, and yet functioning eyes are clearly not a requirement. The only requirement at all one would assume is integrated information processing - but even that is not necessarily a given.
axilmar 7y ago
In my humble opinion, in a nutshell: There is no such thing as consciousness, i.e. a mechanism that defines consiousness. There is only a simulation process inside organisms that tries to mimic reality in order to predict the outcome of the current situation and subsequently produce a 'get away'-oriented or 'stay'-oriented response. This simulation process' complexity is relative to the complexity of the organism. The more complex the simulation is, the clearer the definition of objects in it is. The clearer the definition of objects is, the clearer the definition of self is. The clearer the definition of self is the higher the degree of 'consciousness' is. I.e. consciousness can be defined as the ability of something to perceive itself. With that definition, it is clear that that ability of self-perception changes from organism to organism. Thus plants have a low ability to perceive themselves, and humans have the highest. If we are searching for the mechanism of consciousness, we will never find it, because it doesn't exist: consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the operations of an organism.

108 points by Hooke 7y ago

This just sounds like a member of the old guard being uncomfortable with progress. His arguments dont seem very strong, questions over why plants would have such a capacity. Then some hand waving about alternative explanations for experimental results. Probably just another case of the dismantling of human exceptionalism making people uncomfortable.

JackFr 7y ago
Or it sounds like someone very familiar with the literature who's uncomfortable with some hyperbolic claims in his field. Someone who is comfortable attributing consciousness to arthropods is probably comfortable with dismantling human exceptionalism.
- shawnz 7y ago
  The literature of what, philosophy of mind? This question is not relevant to his field, which is psychiatry.
MisterOctober 7y ago
Yep -- I remember reading a review of "Plant-Thinking" around the time it was published that said something like "The critics who deride [the notion of plant-consciousness as expressed in the book] do so in language that demonstrates exactly the hierarchical, essentialist attitudes that the book looks to expose and dismantle"
haberman 7y ago
If his arguments are weak, it should not be necessary to buttress counterarguments with speculation about his motives.
dbt00 7y ago
Or perhaps exceptional claims (plants have brains we just can’t see them) require exceptional evidence.
- blancheneige 7y ago
  Like the exceptional claim that human consciousness resides in the brain despite documented evidence of remote viewing [1], terminal lucidity [2], memories of past lives [3], etc.? Maybe it's time these "scientists" start doing actual science instead of sticking to their ultra-materialist dogma. [1] https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/air1995.pdf https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/air1995.pdf [2] https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/01/NDE61_terminal-lucidity-JNMD.pdf https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploa... [3] https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/publications/academic-publications/children-who-remember-previous-lives-academic-publications/ https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/publications/aca...
  - pixelbash 7y ago
    Without leaning one way or the other I've always wondered what neuroimaging one of these experiences would look like. If nothing obvious is happening and the imagee reports a rich and detailed experience it might be persuasive.
    - blancheneige 7y ago
      Indeed. Severe cases of hydrocephalus [1], for example, where an otherwise functional individual is missing large portions of their brain may provide partial answers. [1] https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploads/sites/360/2017/12/Discrepancy-between-cerebral-structure-and-cognitive-functioning-JNMD.pdf https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/wp-content/uploa...
- dade_ 7y ago
  Not so exceptional, the centriole is essentially the eye and brain of a cell. If cells are able to leverage quantum mechanics like our retina, chlorophyll, bird magnetoreception, and olfaction, then why not for memory or computation? Essentially neurons aren't a simple switch, but rather contain a processor & memory in themselves.
sdegutis 7y ago
When people reject novelty theories like this, it's usually because basic intelligence tells us it's so unlikely to be either true or useful that it's not worth considering.

rendall 7y ago

I'm sure that "consciousness" is carefully defined in the paper, but, from the article "...whether plants can think, learn, and intentionally choose their actions..." is a much easier position to debate than whether plants are in some sense aware of themselves, their environment and others like themselves, which is what I think of when I hear "consciousness".

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
Honest question: it what sense can anything that exists in an environment be said to not be aware of it? How do you define "awareness" outside of observed reactions to stimuli, which everything in the universe exhibits to varying degrees of complexity? I submit that what we think of as "consciousness", the awareness of being, is impossible within a model based purely on objectively measurable criteria.
- rendall 7y ago
  You could very well be right! The term "consciousness" is pretty loaded. Even "awareness" is perhaps too vague and indefinable for scientific discourse.

bin0 7y ago

So here's an interesting question: if plants are conscious, can vegans eat them? And if not, what will they eat? Not trying to troll vegans; if this is different and some one can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

krisrm 7y ago
I'm not a vegan, but if you think of veganism as more of a "harm reduction" approach to eating, it doesn't matter whether you define plants to be conscious or not. As in, it causes relatively more harm to a large number of organisms to eat an animal as food (the animals are presumably going to eat plants anyway), versus cutting out the middle man and just eating plants.
- bin0 7y ago
  Fair enough. I guess not all vegans will be homogeneous here either; I'm assuming some are in it for harm reduction, some for ecology, some for the "animals cute" factor. Oh well. I appreciate the insight.
  - krisrm 7y ago
    Certainly! And yeah - I'm sure there's a whole range of perspectives. Probably the idea that plants might be defined as "conscious" bothers some people, but I just can't understand that frame of mind. What are you going to do about it... starve?
    - viklove 7y ago
      I think the point is that the line between animals and plants would become arbitrary if plants were indeed conscious and could feel pain. Why eat plants but not animals then?
      - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
        I think that line would become blurred, but there would still be room for a variety of views. There's still the level of consciousness and intelligence to look at. I eat everything but octopus/calamari. I think they are too intelligent to eat. I've seen smart cows, and if I didn't grow up eating beef and it wasn't such a great source a protein, I would cut it out too and just eat chicken. For me it's where do I draw the line of intelligence of what I want to eat. The less likely the animal can comprehend what's going on, the easier I feel about it.

MisterOctober 7y ago

Those interested in this topic may wish to check out Michael Marder's "Plant-Thinking" [2013] -- on the philsophical rather than scientific end of the spectrum, but thought-provoking.

anon_z88 7y ago

While I agree with his reasoning based on his definition of consciousness, I am not sure if this is the most appropriate way of defining consciousness. We still do not properly understand it, thus we cannot define it. While I try to stray from vague or ambiguous interpretations, I do think it's significant to point that out. Let's look at the generic definition: * consciousness - "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings." * awareness - "knowledge or perception of a situation or fact." While a plants' consciousness may not be COMPLEX, it does not mean the absence of conscious. There are things such as cellular intelligence which we know is exhibited in even the smallest of prokaryotes and eukaryotes cells. At the most abstract interpretation I think consciousness can be defined as a closed system that contain both input and output, in which information is gathered and alters some component of the system itself. There was a really interesting article the other day on here about how plants were more adaptive to radiation (specifically in Chernobyl) compared to the regions animal counterparts. To this definition, I think plants exercise consciousness. When we look at life we have to analyze on both the fundamental and complex aspects. Just my 2 cents.

rotrux 7y ago
By this definition my air conditioning system is conscious.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeg8 7y ago
  I don't think so. Being turned on/powered up is not equivalent to being awake. "Awake", at minimum, implies a living subject.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago
    That is just kicking the definition can down the "living" road.

hirundo 7y ago

If plants have no consciousness does that make them any less worthy of care? Consciousness is nice, I'm glad I have some, but it's just one among many strategies that may help us replicate. Like flight or teeth or roses. An unconscious organism is different than a conscious one but not necessarily lesser in the way that matters: genetic survival. It may be that consciousness is a net positive to us in that it lets us adapt to conditions more quickly. Our genes may last longer than plant genes as a result. But it also burdens us with destructive tendencies that threaten our survival. The jury is out.

rotrux 7y ago
> "If plants have no consciousness, does that make them any less worthy of care?" No it doesn't, but that's not what's at debate. The fact anyone needed to be told plants aren't conscious is kind of crazy. There's an insinuation that level-of-consciousness is the measure by which we should judge the importance of organisms. This is an anthropocentric view of life, and a shallow one at that.

rafaelvasco 7y ago

We don't really understand what consciousness is, so no one can say that plants have no consciousness. For me , everything has consciousness, but in varied degrees, or frequencies in a spectrum of existence.

wetpaws 7y ago

Plants don't have consciousness because. They. Don't. Have. Brains.

yes_man 7y ago

A thing being alive (collection of cells being "not dead") and sentient are two different things. If we assume sentience is some kind of concentration of information, then I would assume regular plants' synapses are not complex enough to create a relevant feedback loop of consciousness. Mushrooms and their networks (interconnected myceliums) on the other hand may be a different case.

anon_z88 7y ago
This is actually a really interesting comparison. From what I have studied, mushrooms behave similar to a neural network. This is one of the reasons they are so good at revitalizing forests and are seemingly unaffected by viruses. Not to mention their benefits on immune regulation in primates.

bitwize 7y ago

For now. Wait till some superintelligence gives them skrodes.

aidoejebrji 7y ago

>“Feinberg and Mallatt concluded that only vertebrates, arthropods, and cephalopods possess the threshold brain structure for consciousness. The relationship betwen brain structure and consciousness is so poorly understood that this statement is basically idiotic. We know various ways to affect consciousness in humans. For example, using blunt force or drugs. However, we have no understanding at all of any mechanisms by which matter gives rise to consciousness and we cannot even be sure that matter does give rise to consciousness. And we have no way to evaluate the relationship between matter and consciousness in non-human entities like plants that do not communicate to us in any understandable (to us) way about their consciousness or lack of it. It often amazes me how many people are highly advanced in their own technical fields but fail to grasp the hard problem of consciousness - something that can be understood by a bright kid.

rolph 7y ago

There seems to be a predisposition toward consciousness as a property of nervous systems, or biological systems. in speculation perhaps the concept of consciousness as an emergent property of physical systems should be explored. if consciousness is dependent on persistence of a quantum mechanism it is possible for consciousness to exist as a result of any sufficiently spanning rule parsing interactions; And i'll just leave this right here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183954.Hidden_Order https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183954.Hidden_Order

kingkawn 7y ago

It’s so clear watching them, especially if you use time lapse photography, that they are conscious.

CephalopodMD 7y ago

This relies on the assumption that the authors model of consciousness is "correct" for lack of a better term. If you accept this model, then we should be able to agree on this conclusion, but it's not like this is the only model of consciousness out there. This is just one model of one type of consciousness that we think we can agree on. The truth is, we don't know that plants aren't conscious, just that if they are, they don't use the same mechanisms to experience it. It's like saying that life is impossible on a planet without carbon. It's possible that silicon based life exists it there somewhere, we've just never directly observed it.

azeotropic 7y ago

I'm not sure why having neurons enters into the equation at all when deciding whether something is conscious. This is a hard question and the Feinberg-Mallatt definition of consciousness seems circular. An artificial or alien life form might possess consciousness without having traversed the same evolutionary trajectory as animals, and will probably not possess animal neurons. Even a sufficently diverged animal might use novel strategies for organizing neurons (or alternatives to neurons?) to sense, move, focus attention, and remember.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
crispinb 7y ago
> I'm not sure why having neurons enters into the equation at all when deciding whether something is conscious. Because neuroscience is bigger business than philosophy.

nabla9 7y ago

They're made out of MEAT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GggK9SjJpuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GggK9SjJpuQ

mikeg8 7y ago

In The Hidden Life of Trees, one cool fact that stuck with me in support of tree consciousness was how trees that are under attack from certain insect species will release pheromones to warn neighboring trees. The neighboring trees will then rapidly increase production of tanins and other defense chemicals to stave of the insect onslaught. pretty cool

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
pedro1976 7y ago
One could conclude that they have a sense for their community, an us-feelimg. Interesting...
TTPrograms 7y ago
That sort of behavior would be expected for even trivial organisms according to kin selection, though.
- mikeg8 7y ago
  My brief Wikipedia look-up on kin selection makes it seem like it is an evolutionary strategy exclusive to animals. Do you have examples of non animal species or "trivial organisms" that have used this strategy? Edit: just saw a small snippet on plants down the page but if anything, i think kin selection in and of itself is supporting of consciousness. I have a hard time imaging non-conscious subjects exhibiting kin selection.
  - tasty_freeze 7y ago
    > i think kin selection in and of itself is supporting of consciousness Why would you think that? Evolution operates on a population via shaping the distribution of traits via selection. The selection is being done by the environment, not the population, and requires no conscious entity.
    - 7y ago

sebringj 7y ago

I would have to think something like... Plants cannot plan, reason or postulate or conceptualize etc, they can only respond similar to a chemical reaction but with the added complexity of evolution giving them much more nuanced reactions appropriate to specific scenarios... rather than trying to say the word consciousness as that is a loaded concept.

sova 7y ago

Fungal networks act as a communication web. All plants are part fungi. The layer of mycelium in the dirt is both a digestive tract and a lung. We carry our stomachs, intestines, and lungs in sacks called bodies as we walk around, fungi are laid down instead. Fascinatingly, mycelium break down rocks and create soil from stone. Fungal networks will also allow inter-plant communication for insect-warding chemicals to be released, and also fungi will decomposition logs which provide bees with vital Cytochrome P450 action that cleanses their system of virii.

ex3xu 7y ago

For a layman's introduction to the case for plant consciousness, Monica Gagliano and her plant consciousness experiments were featured on Radiolab last year (transcript available): https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/plant-parade https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/plant-parade

bigiain 7y ago
I saw her present at a conference recently, and subsequently bought her book. I'm finding it all fascinating, especially the pea plant experiment. I am not well enough informed about the state of the art in either consciousness research/thinking or plant reactions/behaviours, but it's certainly made me acutely aware there's something going on there which doesn't fit in with my mental model of how plants work. I'm going to be following along here for quite some time I suspect...

crispinb 7y ago

I chuckled at the notion that attributing consciousness to plants is 'anthropomorphizing'.

jdreyfuss 7y ago

This article makes two assumptions that need more support. One, that having a particular "threshold brain structure" is a necessary condition for consciousness. And two, that consciousness is a binary, as opposed to a spectrum.

m3kw9 7y ago

To build that case you need most people to agree on what consciousness means first. So far no one still understand fully what it means

lioeters 7y ago

For a remarkable footage showing how plants might fit some definition of "conscious", I recommend the French documentary called Microcosmos. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117040/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117040/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcosmos_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcosmos_(film) Some of the scenes in time-lapse ("fast motion"), you can see how plants reach out their vines and leaves, moving and feeling the world around them. So, at least they seem to have a level of "awareness", by some definition of the term. Anecdotally, I've had countless experiences of what might be called "consciousness" in all living beings - but then again, it depends what one means by that word. Edit: I mean, is a maze-solving slime mold conscious? And what makes human consciousness so uniquely different from slime mold's?

tempguy9999 7y ago
Is this the correct film? The links & the wiki page on it talk exclusively about insect interaction. > how plants reach out their vines and leaves, moving and feeling the world around them I could argue cold water dropped into a very hot pan 'spreads out' to 'feel' its environment, 'withdrawing' from the metal where it can.
- lioeters 7y ago
  A big portion of the film is about insects - it also contains some wonderful footage (with some high-tech macro photography) of plants and the garden where it all takes place. Good point about a water droplet's behavior, how it seems to be "alive" in some aspects - all due to physical/chemical reations. I think it's related to the question of what "alive" means, and how it's different from inert, non-living material. With slime mold, much of its behavior is just like water - spreading, dripping, with surface tension, etc. - but there's definitely a difference (perhaps only subjectively), that an observer would say it "feels its way" toward a food source. I suppose the fact that we ascribe "feeling" to it, means we consider it alive, aware, and perhaps conscious.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    > With slime mold... Seems it goes further. "People are irrational. Example: You wouldn’t buy a new dress, or suit, that costs $100 (‘that’s far too much to spend!’) but you would buy one that was $300, but is now ‘reduced’ to $150 (‘but just look at how far down it’s come!’) Sound familiar? You’re not alone, it’s fairly well-known that humans are irrational (at least by those in advertising- some products in supermarkets are never meant to be bought- they’re just there to get you to buy other products more), but are other animals just as irrational?" Turns out slime moulds fall for it too. Full article https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/think-you-re-sometimes-irrational-you-re-not-the-only-one-8211-slime-moulds-are-irrational-too https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-science/think-y... That really complicates thins. All that said, I am really uncomfortable talking about consciousness in these contexts at all, for obvious reasons. When we can identify and quantify, I'll talk. See my point elsewhere about matchboxes learning. Edit: fixed link

hndamien 7y ago

This discussion appears to have completely ignored the concept of a "sensorium" for a definition of consciousness which seems to me to be the only defining requirement. Whether or not it is possible to externally detect this is an open question. It is hard to imagine that anything with eyes doesn't have this, and yet functioning eyes are clearly not a requirement. The only requirement at all one would assume is integrated information processing - but even that is not necessarily a given.

axilmar 7y ago

In my humble opinion, in a nutshell: There is no such thing as consciousness, i.e. a mechanism that defines consiousness. There is only a simulation process inside organisms that tries to mimic reality in order to predict the outcome of the current situation and subsequently produce a 'get away'-oriented or 'stay'-oriented response. This simulation process' complexity is relative to the complexity of the organism. The more complex the simulation is, the clearer the definition of objects in it is. The clearer the definition of objects is, the clearer the definition of self is. The clearer the definition of self is the higher the degree of 'consciousness' is. I.e. consciousness can be defined as the ability of something to perceive itself. With that definition, it is clear that that ability of self-perception changes from organism to organism. Thus plants have a low ability to perceive themselves, and humans have the highest. If we are searching for the mechanism of consciousness, we will never find it, because it doesn't exist: consciousness is an emergent phenomenon that arises from the operations of an organism.