Consciousness of plants

[Grim]

In evolutionary terms some plant-like cells, as in eukarya (i.e. single celled organisms), able to reproduce sexually without consciousness eventually evolved consciousness after millions of years of division. I would say that plants are much closer to consciousness than your average rock, or even much closer than say: any given eukaryote.

[Bernard]

In evolutionary terms some plant-like cells, as in eukarya (i.e. single celled organisms), able to reproduce sexually without consciousness eventually evolved consciousness after millions of years of division. I would say that plants are much closer to consciousness than your average rock, or even much closer than say: any given eukaryote.

I consider most large trees to have more awareness than an insect. A rock is not a self contained entity. You can split it and its qualities will hardly change. Split a tree and it ceases to grow. The cells in it die, etcetera.

[chaz wyman]

... I'm not sure what plants would do with awareness, or if it is meaningful to characterise them in that way.

It was tenuous and essentially I agree with you that being alive does not entail being conscious or aware in the sense that we use the terms. I was just trying to get my head around what people mean when they say a plant, etc is conscious or has a form of consciousness. Is it that they are using aware as a term for having senses? I'd always thought that being conscious was the being aware of having senses, not just the having of them, that just appears to be being alive.

I get that. I was actually agreeing with you.

[chaz wyman]

Just to clear my position for Bernie.

Consciousness is only found in living things
But not all living things are conscious.

Although it can be clearly shown that plants respond to their environment. This is not the same as awareness. Although it appears that a plant will move to the light, this does not imply awareness any more that the fact that a billiard ball seems to 'be aware' of another ball striking it and as a consequences moving.

A plant has autonomic systems that cause it to 'behave" in certain predictable ways. It seems as if they 'detect' gravity to grow in the opposite direction for example. But whilst his looks like consciousness, it would render the word pretty meaningless as we try to characterise what that quality is in humans.

[chaz wyman]

In evolutionary terms some plant-like cells, as in eukarya (i.e. single celled organisms), able to reproduce sexually without consciousness eventually evolved consciousness after millions of years of division. I would say that plants are much closer to consciousness than your average rock, or even much closer than say: any given eukaryote.

I consider most large trees to have more awareness than an insect. A rock is not a self contained entity. You can split it and its qualities will hardly change. Split a tree and it ceases to grow. The cells in it die, etcetera.

I disagree. An ant can be aware of a threat to its self and protect itself by fighting.
It can move and detect a food source, move to that food source and take it back to the colony.
What can a tree do - what can it do that approximates consciousness?

[Bernard]

Thanks for clearing your position there Chaz. I see where you are coming from and the argument is familiar to me, and indeed very reasonable. As per your example with the ant, then one could equate the competition of roots and the competition for light as factors that suggest some form of rudimentary consciousness. An ant doesn't just voluntarily seek out food; it is following commands that may be chemical, vibrational, optical etcetera. I would also recommend back to the Mancuzo video at the head of the thread for contemplation of possible sensory input in plants.

Humans are the only voluntary animals hereabouts, and that voluntary nature extends to consciousness. Volunteering is of course due to our ability to reflect: we can reflect on being conscious, other creatures not so... imo. I don't mean it to have any particular bearing... just out of interest... but angiosperms emerged around 150 million years ago whereas many insects are older than that - ants being around the same time as flowering plants.

As to Arising's rapid inquiry into the differences of meaning between terms like awareness and consciousness: its a good point. I concede that it would be more appropriate to consider the possibility of plant awareness than it is to consider possibilities of plant consciousness, as consciousness connotes cerebral activity a more than does awareness.

Okay, so as we stand, living things are not necessarily conscious. Do they all though have sensory inputs - and are those sensory inputs necessarily detected by any given living thing; that is, perceived by them? If perceived, and not mitigated by the lack of any neural functionary capable of doing so, does that perceiving instantly perpetuate awareness? or is that still later? And what anatomical faculty gives rise to consciousness? Is it only to do with the cerebral cortex?

[chaz wyman]

Thanks for clearing your position there Chaz. I see where you are coming from and the argument is familiar to me, and indeed very reasonable. As per your example with the ant, then one could equate the competition of roots and the competition for light as factors that suggest some form of rudimentary consciousness.

Roots grow where they can, they do not defend themselves nor do they recognise the presence of other roots as fora as I know. The tree can 'compete', but not in an active or aware sense. It is only an anthropomorphisation to call it competition.

An ant doesn't just voluntarily seek out food; it is following commands that may be chemical, vibrational, optical etcetera. I would also recommend back to the Mancuzo video at the head of the thread for contemplation of possible sensory input in plants.

True. But that is a problem for our conception of consciousness. It might be that we are not actually controlling what WE do, but are an observer to our determined actions. So rather than bestow consciousness on an ant or a tree, this is a case here we might have to diminish the significance to higher animals. So rather than say a computer is happy we might have to say that humans are only exhibiting happiness.

Humans are the only voluntary animals hereabouts, and that voluntary nature extends to consciousness. Volunteering is of course due to our ability to reflect: we can reflect on being conscious, other creatures not so... imo. I don't mean it to have any particular bearing... just out of interest... but angiosperms emerged around 150 million years ago whereas many insects are older than that - ants being around the same time as flowering plants.

Who says we are really voluntary anyway? Consciousness might be the ability to observe, nothing more. There are some disturbing neurological experiments that show we do not make actually any conscious choices.


As to Arising's rapid inquiry into the differences of meaning between terms like awareness and consciousness: its a good point. I concede that it would be more appropriate to consider the possibility of plant awareness than it is to consider possibilities of plant consciousness, as consciousness connotes cerebral activity a more than does awareness.

But to be aware you would need to have an organ of awareness. A tree has no CNS, no brain.


Okay, so as we stand, living things are not necessarily conscious. Do they all though have sensory inputs - and are those sensory inputs necessarily detected by any given living thing; that is, perceived by them?

Plants don't have the equipment.

If perceived, and not mitigated by the lack of any neural functionary capable of doing so, does that perceiving instantly perpetuate awareness? or is that still later? And what anatomical faculty gives rise to consciousness? Is it only to do with the cerebral cortex?

If you shine a light on a single leaf, it is only THAT leaf that moves to orient it self to the light. The 'tree" is not aware.

[Bernard]

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1] When a zombie is poked with a sharp object, for example, it does not feel any pain though it behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or tell us that it is in intense pain).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombies


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGu682Yh8UU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN9lT8Vc ... re=related

[chaz wyman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGu682Yh8UU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN9lT8Vc ... re=related

"Emergence" is not and never will be a "hot area of science". It is too vague a concept for science

You would do well to listen, though, when he says "consciousness emerges from the brain."

[Bernard]

Yes, I did notice that sentence, but you see - and ya gonna love me even better now - I'm not so sure that a tree hasn't got something equating a mind... I DID NOT SAY BRAIN! I DID NOT!!

[chaz wyman]

Yes, I did notice that sentence, but you see - and ya gonna love me even better now - I'm not so sure that a tree hasn't got something equating a mind... I DID NOT SAY BRAIN! I DID NOT!!

Duhh! You said CONSCIOUSNESS. and HE SAID that is from BRAINS!!

It's pointless going on.
What do you think 'mind' is anyway?

[The dun]

I got half way through the thread and I just have to say...some people and I'm not pointing any elbows...are far superior and there is no limit to their great knowledge. we shouldn't try to argue any thing with these people but instead save our energy to hold them high in the air like the winners they are. BIG OL' ADABOY to those and to the rest who don't fall into stubborn conformity SHAME ON YOU! SHAME ON YOU!

[Bernard]

Duhh! You said CONSCIOUSNESS. and HE SAID that is from BRAINS!!

It's pointless going on.
What do you think 'mind' is anyway?

The mind is where we are aware of thoughts; the thoughts are not necessarily our own. I'm sure trees have thoughts, but not with words or images.

[chaz wyman]

Duhh! You said CONSCIOUSNESS. and HE SAID that is from BRAINS!!

It's pointless going on.
What do you think 'mind' is anyway?

The mind is where we are aware of thoughts; the thoughts are not necessarily our own. I'm sure trees have thoughts, but not with words or images.

Where?? where where??

[Bernard]

Its associated with the brain of course.

Okay, I'm done.