Is there evidence for the sentience of plants?

[Ivan Seeking]

Essentially, the subject of the book is the idea that plants may be sentient, despite their lack of a nervous system and a brain. This sentience is observed primarily through changes in the plant's conductivity, as through a polygraph, as pioneered by Cleve Backster. The book also contains a summary of Goethe's theory of plant metamorphosis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants

A very popular book back in the 1970s, have any papers been published that support the claims, and if so, have they been refuted?

I remember trying to read it but I couldn't make it all the way through.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Is this like that movie with Wahlberg last year where the plants poisoned people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is this like that movie with Wahlberg last year where the plants poisoned people.

The Happening?

Do we have any fans of The Day of the Triffids?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVXEA7_y344

 

[PlayingMonk]

I've always thought that if plants were sentient they would just be bored to death all the time. Luckily for plants I don't believe they really are. :)

 

[seycyrus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants

A very popular book back in the 1970s, have any papers been published that support the claims, and if so, have they been refuted?

I remember trying to read it but I couldn't make it all the way through.

Thee's a guy who shows up at the APS every year (I think) who talks about plants responding to stimulus and sending out N-waves (or somesuch).

 

[CEL]

Thee's a guy who shows up at the APS every year (I think) who talks about plants responding to stimulus and sending out N-waves (or somesuch).

Are these the N-rays, supposedly discovered by Blondlot?
http://www.skepdic.com/blondlot.html

 

[seycyrus]

Are these the N-rays, supposedly discovered by Blondlot?
http://www.skepdic.com/blondlot.html

I'm sorry. They are W-waves.

http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR9596/BAPSSES96/abs/S0110008.html

 

[LURCH]

These discoveries only support the argument I have ahd against vegiterianism all along; it is wrong to eat plants! At least an animal could try to fight back, or run away.

Plants are living things, just like animals, but they are utterly helpless! And now we have discovered that they are sentient. I'm tellin' you people; stop eating plants!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I did see this paper published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, which is listed in the Thomson index. The paper was published in 1997, long after the book came out.

Abstract:

Views of ‘plant consciousness’ in the literature are classified on a scale ranging from descriptions of plant phenomena using consciousness as a metaphor, to explicit statements that plants are conscious beings. The idea of plant consciousness is far from new, but it has received a new impetus from recent claims by psychics to communicate with plants. The literature surveyed is widely scattered and very diverse, but it can teach us much about the views that various segments of society hold on plant consciousness.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/1997/00000004/00000003/760

 

[robertm]

I remember stumbling across this book back in high school while looking for botany material, I was so excited at first because I thought by "The Secret Life of Plants" it would be describing unique or strange plant species/biology. Oh, how disappointed I was; not to mention the fact that the librarians thought it wise to catalog the book in the botany section.

 

[flatmaster]

Myth busters tried this out a while ago. If I remember, they got some strange results. They did the polygraph in a faraday cage and still got strange results. not sure how statistically significant it was though.

 

[tchitt]

Myth busters tried this out a while ago. If I remember, they got some strange results. They did the polygraph in a faraday cage and still got strange results. not sure how statistically significant it was though.

They couldn't replicate those results any more than that one time.

 

[leroyjenkens]

These discoveries only support the argument I have ahd against vegiterianism all along; it is wrong to eat plants! At least an animal could try to fight back, or run away.

Plants are living things, just like animals, but they are utterly helpless! And now we have discovered that they are sentient. I'm tellin' you people; stop eating plants!

The hypocrisy of some vegetarians really bugs me. I love the ones who claim to not eat any meat. Never. Ever. Never any meat. Then they throw out "and sometimes fish".

Kinda like marijuana advocates claiming marijuana isn't addictive. Never. Never addictive. Not at all. And then "not physically addictive".

 

[GeorginaS]

Abstract:

Views of ‘plant consciousness’ in the literature are classified on a scale ranging from descriptions of plant phenomena using consciousness as a metaphor, to explicit statements that plants are conscious beings. The idea of plant consciousness is far from new, but it has received a new impetus from recent claims by psychics to communicate with plants. The literature surveyed is widely scattered and very diverse, but it can teach us much about the views that various segments of society hold on plant consciousness.


http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/1997/00000004/00000003/760

Emphasis mine.

Those four words pretty much sum of the value of that particular substantiation.

Psychics are pretty lucky in that, given that only they can communicate with astral beings and plants and whatnot, the rest of us can't verify by asking the being in question directly ourselves. It's a neat little arrangement, I figure.

 

[AUMathTutor]

I can talk to plants, too.

Very quiet, usually.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Emphasis mine.

Those four words pretty much sum of the value of that particular substantiation.

Without the ability to read the actual paper, to me that is not clear. I find it surprising that what is seemingly a reputable journal would publish a paper that is entirely dependent on the claims of "psychics". And it doesn't seem to be an analysis of such beliefs, rather a survey of the "field".

I realize that it sounds pretty flakey, but that's not enough to go on.

 

[GeorginaS]

Without the ability to read the actual paper, to me that is not clear. I find it surprising that what is seemingly a reputable journal would publish a paper that is entirely dependent on the claims of "psychics". And it doesn't seem to be an analysis of such beliefs, rather a survey of the "field".

I realize that it sounds pretty flakey, but that's not enough to go on.

Ah, I see now. Okay, the blurb said that as a result of impetus created by new claims by psychics and etc. to explore the area further. Got it.

 

[flatmaster]

I can talk to plants, too.

Very quiet, usually.

Anyone with the ability to speak can talk to plants. What's unknown is if they listen and can they respond.

 

[AUMathTutor]

Maybe they have better things to do than talk to somebody who sits around talking to plants. Just my 2 cents.

 

[HallsofIvy]

I can talk to plants, too.

Very quiet, usually.

Anyone with the ability to speak can talk to plants. What's unknown is if they listen and can they respond.

That reminds of the line from "Henry V"- "You say you can call spirits? Why, so can I or so can any man! But do the come when you do call them?"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ah, I see now. Okay, the blurb said that as a result of impetus created by new claims by psychics and etc. to explore the area further. Got it.

If we can't read the paper, then we really don't know what they are saying. Perhaps they cite evidence.

Are you saying that the journal is not reputable, or are you saying that a reputable journal publishes the claims of psychics?

Look, I'm not defending this stuff, but we hold debunking to the same standards as we do claims. What makes us feel warm and fuzzy has no bearing on our approach.

 

[GeorginaS]

If we can't read the paper, then we really don't know what they are saying. Perhaps they cite evidence.

Are you saying that the journal is not reputable, or are you saying that a reputable journal publishes the claims of psychics?

Look, I'm not defending this stuff, but we hold debunking to the same standards as we do claims. What makes us feel warm and fuzzy has no bearing on our approach.

I’m not quite sure I entirely understand what you’re saying, Ivan, beyond that, I think, somehow I haven’t said something well enough. I’ll expound some.

Evidently the reputable journal detected a rise in the interest/conversation/public dialogue about the consciousness of plants as a result in a rise in claims by psychics who claim to communicate with plants. And the detected rise in public dialogue spurred the reputable journal forward to survey literature from a broader scope of society to see how various segments of society perceive the topic.

And, so, yes, reading the journal article may very well be interesting from the perspective of reading a survey of broader perception about plant consciousness in society at large.

And, so, yes, I admit to a knee-jerk response to people saying that point-blank quackery inciting serious inquiry wherein I can’t fathom why any wide hearing is even being given to psychics et al in the first place. Further pondering causes me to wonder if by credible people responding to non-credible people the latter are encouraged and lent some sort of credibility by association. Then again, should no one save credulous people respond to psychics et al then those people’s trade would flourish even further.

However, as you, Ivan, pointed out, the abstract says that it’s an overview of a larger social view, so it’s rather a sociological look at whom is viewing the consciousness of plants and how. It might be interesting to spring the $29.95 to read the article and see. I wouldn’t anticipate any conclusions about the veracity of the plant sentience claims but only a social perception.

So, I’m not saying that I think the journal’s not credible, and I’m not saying that I think a reputable journal is publishing the claims of psychics. What I attempted to say – in terrible shorthand -- in post #17 was that I didn’t properly digest the sentence in the abstract until you pointed it out to me in your post #16. I hope I did a better job here.