Can Plants Possess Consciousness?

  • Thread starter elwestrand
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Plant
In summary, the conversation discusses the flaws in evolutionary theory and how it does not account for consciousness or the complex behaviors and adaptations of plants. The speaker also shares a personal experiment where they believe they communicated with plants and observed their individual behaviors. The conversation raises questions about the origins of life and consciousness and challenges the idea that physical properties can fully explain these concepts.
  • #1
elwestrand
86
0
No one hears this.

They go on and on about evolution, oblivious to the fact that evolutionary theory does not deal with consciousness one way or another. If the conclusion is that plants can be fully explained in evolutionary terms and therefore are mere "automations," then why does that not apply to human beings who can also be fully explained in similar terms? Of course evolutionary theory itself is flawed. I have not been able to get a anyone to explain how plants have unconsiously developed poisions, thorns and other mechanisms to avoid being eaten. Or how fruit bearing plants have designed an ingenious way to spread their seeds and survive. The evolutionary answer is "accidentally" over millions of years of random mutations. If true, why do we not observe failures in this pattern? For example, according to evolutionists, the venus fly trap "accidentally" mutated into an insect devouring plant, apparently it is a stroke of luck for it that "flys" even exist! All evolutionists avoid tacking these questions and refer me to someone else or merely say "read Darwin." Apparently they have not read Darwin; in "Origin of species," he has an entire chapter devoted to problems in his theory. We must accept t that the Orchid flowers know what their polinating insects look like, and they know what scents and colors appeal to the insects, simply because they have a wide range of senses by which to know and insight into insects, which obviously requires sentience.

Evolutionary theory is like Newtonian physics. It apparently explains life, but it has no idea why or how life exists. What physical property distinguishes a dead cell from a living cell? Science does not know, yet it maintains that it is reduceable to physical properties. If the "life force" is reduceable to chemical properties, then it should be a very simple matter to take dead cells and make then alive again. This is common sense. Science must answer these basic questions before tackling sentience.

Furthermore, We know plants have senses. It is a biological fact. There is no physical law that dictates that the plant's root will grown down and its leaves will follow sunlight. It is not magnetism at work! Moreover, the "common sense" argument that plants have no mind because they have no brain is fundamentally flawed. For one reason, our precious "Science" has no explanation why HUMANS are conscious. Science pinpoints it to the brain, but has no speculation for why or how a brain generates consciousness at all. Science does not deal in consciousness because it is a mystery to it. It has left it to philosophy.

In truth, Consciousness does not originate in the brain, the brain is not the CAUSE for consciousness, it is merely an interface for it. If life cannot be explained physically, then why should consciousness? Animals need hearts to live. Plants have no heart, yet they are alive through different principles. Similarly, why should an absence of a brain imply that a plant has no mind? What reason is there against the explanation that plants have a mind through different principles? I have never received an answer to this, and I never will from someone who doubts plant sentience. We know that plants have senses. In animals, senses do not work without being connected to a neurological system. The fact that plants have senses is evidence of a "mind" that operates though differernt principles.

I postulated that a seedling knows which direction to grow its root, by sensing gravity. I planted some Mung beans and placed a fine nylon net over the soil (the kind that Oranges come in), then I inverted the pot and hung it. The roots should grown down right? (even though to survive they should grown up). I telepathically communicated to the seeds, telling them how to grown. Each seed reacted differently, as an individual. One started to grow down, then immediately turned and grew upwards. The second seed grew horrizontally. The third root was the slowest to grow and it just grew down. I then planted a seed normally, not inverting the pot. (this seed was among one that I telepathically told to grow up). This seed grew its root up from the start, completely oblivious to gravity; It grew for about three forths of an inch, then it immediately turned, made a hook and started growing downward! But it didn't get very far. It soon died.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by elwestrand
No one hears this.

They go on and on about evolution, oblivious to the fact that evolutionary theory does not deal with consciousness one way or another. If the conclusion is that plants can be fully explained in evolutionary terms and therefore are mere "automations," then why does that not apply to human beings who can also be fully explained in similar terms? Of course evolutionary theory itself is flawed. I have not been able to get a anyone to explain how plants have unconsiously developed poisions, thorns and other mechanisms to avoid being eaten. Or how fruit bearing plants have designed an ingenious way to spread their seeds and survive. The evolutionary answer is "accidentally" over millions of years of random mutations. If true, why do we not observe failures in this pattern? For example, according to evolutionists, the venus fly trap "accidentally" mutated into an insect devouring plant, apparently it is a stroke of luck for it that "flys" even exist! All evolutionists avoid tacking these questions and refer me to someone else or merely say "read Darwin." Apparently they have not read Darwin; in "Origin of species," he has an entire chapter devoted to problems in his theory. We must accept t that the Orchid flowers know what their polinating insects look like, and they know what scents and colors appeal to the insects, simply because they have a wide range of senses by which to know and insight into insects, which obviously requires sentience.

Evolutionary theory is like Newtonian physics. It apparently explains life, but it has no idea why or how life exists. What physical property distinguishes a dead cell from a living cell? Science does not know, yet it maintains that it is reduceable to physical properties. If the "life force" is reduceable to chemical properties, then it should be a very simple matter to take dead cells and make then alive again. This is common sense. Science must answer these basic questions before tackling sentience.

Furthermore, We know plants have senses. It is a biological fact. There is no physical law that dictates that the plant's root will grown down and its leaves will follow sunlight. It is not magnetism at work! Moreover, the "common sense" argument that plants have no mind because they have no brain is fundamentally flawed. For one reason, our precious "Science" has no explanation why HUMANS are conscious. Science pinpoints it to the brain, but has no speculation for why or how a brain generates consciousness at all. Science does not deal in consciousness because it is a mystery to it. It has left it to philosophy.

In truth, Consciousness does not originate in the brain, the brain is not the CAUSE for consciousness, it is merely an interface for it. If life cannot be explained physically, then why should consciousness? Animals need hearts to live. Plants have no heart, yet they are alive through different principles. Similarly, why should an absence of a brain imply that a plant has no mind? What reason is there against the explanation that plants have a mind through different principles? I have never received an answer to this, and I never will from someone who doubts plant sentience. We know that plants have senses. In animals, senses do not work without being connected to a neurological system. The fact that plants have senses is evidence of a "mind" that operates though differernt principles.

I postulated that a seedling knows which direction to grow its root, by sensing gravity. I planted some Mung beans and placed a fine nylon net over the soil (the kind that Oranges come in), then I inverted the pot and hung it. The roots should grown down right? (even though to survive they should grown up). I telepathically communicated to the seeds, telling them how to grown. Each seed reacted differently, as an individual. One started to grow down, then immediately turned and grew upwards. The second seed grew horrizontally. The third root was the slowest to grow and it just grew down. I then planted a seed normally, not inverting the pot. (this seed was among one that I telepathically told to grow up). This seed grew its root up from the start, completely oblivious to gravity; It grew for about three forths of an inch, then it immediately turned, made a hook and started growing downward! But it didn't get very far. It soon died.


^
|
Yellow and blue may make green but drugs and theology do not make reality.
 
  • #3
If the conclusion is that plants can be fully explained in evolutionary terms and therefore are mere "automations," then why does that not apply to human beings who can also be fully explained in similar terms?
Because humans are not plants. And there is no sharp line, as far as we can see, between automaton and sentient. Plants may indeed have a degree of consciousness. Can you prove otherwise?

It is the converse that appears illogical. How can we say that any other human is conscious, as I am, without pointing to physical similarity? How can we account for plant unconsciousness, without pointing to physical dissimilarity?

Nobody understands consciousness. We simply made models.

If true, why do we not observe failures in this pattern?
Failures don't live very long. And some of our genetic diseases are failures.

(It is interesting that creationists don't seem to talk to each other. There was another one the other day telling me that the effects of failure means evolution cannot occur. Shame we can't get the two to cancel out...)

he has an entire chapter devoted to problems in his theory.
Evolution has gone waaay past Darwin. Look up co-evolution for the solution to the bees + orchids problem.

It apparently explains life, but it has no idea why or how life exists.
And something does? What may I ask is that?

If the "life force" is reduceable to chemical properties, then it should be a very simple matter to take dead cells and make then alive again.
It is hard to specify a point at which a cell is dead. Cell dead is exceedingly messy - it doesn't just switch off, it often self-destructs, making you have to recreate a lot of structures. But yes, "dead" things can be made into what we think of as life. Bacteria can exist for a long time in an effectively dead state.

Science doesn't presume life to be chemical. It may be chemical, or it may be subjective, or it may be an unique entity. Science tells us that we can understand it.

There is no physical law that dictates that the plant's root will grown down and its leaves will follow sunlight.
Er... yes there is. Look up plant growth hormones (eg. auxins - its a basic biology experiment), and the way they react to light, or gravity.

I telepathically communicated to the seeds, telling them how to grown.
Ok, so this is satire. For a moment I thought you were serious. Heh.
 
Last edited:

Related to Can Plants Possess Consciousness?

1. What is plant sentience?

Plant sentience refers to the ability of plants to perceive and respond to their environment, much like animals do. This includes the ability to sense and react to stimuli, communicate with other plants, and exhibit complex behavior.

2. How do we know if plants are sentient?

Scientists use a variety of methods to study plant sentience, including observing their responses to stimuli, measuring changes in gene expression, and studying their communication and social behavior. While there is still much debate on the extent of plant sentience, there is growing evidence to suggest that plants do possess some level of consciousness.

3. Do all plants have the same level of sentience?

Just like in animals, the level of sentience in plants can vary greatly. Some plants, like venus flytraps, exhibit more complex behaviors and responses to stimuli compared to other plants. Additionally, different species of plants may have different levels of sentience depending on their evolutionary history and environmental factors.

4. Can plants feel pain?

There is no conclusive evidence that plants feel pain like animals do. While they do have the ability to sense and respond to stimuli, it is not clear if they experience pain in the same way that animals do. However, some studies have shown that plants can release chemicals that act as painkillers when they are injured, suggesting that they may have some level of self-preservation.

5. How does plant sentience impact agriculture and farming practices?

The concept of plant sentience has raised ethical concerns in the agricultural industry, as some argue that plants should be treated with the same level of respect and consideration as animals. This has led to the development of more sustainable and humane farming practices, such as using organic and biodynamic methods that prioritize the well-being of plants and their environment.

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
212
Views
41K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
856
Replies
1
Views
875
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
135
Views
21K
Replies
64
Views
16K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
71
Views
14K
Back
Top