Plant Sentience

[Albert VDS]

It's also rather easy to figure out if a living thing has feelings. Subject it a stimuli and record any activity to it in the plant.

If the reaction is repeatable(in other subjects or the same plant) then you can say it has feelings.

The thing is, plants don't need feelings to survive. It would also be rather terrible for the planet if it would feel pain and it couldn't do anything about it.

They also don't think, there is no place in the plant it uses to ponder about things. If there was, we would have found it ages ago.

Even if they think very slow.

[PakledHostage]

I did read something once in a Douglas Adams book about a bowl of petunias having a thought... Does that count?

[LordFerret]

You never know everything, but that does not mean you know nothing. Plant physiology is an extremely, thoroughly investigated subject and there is not a single shred of evidence to support those claims.

So you hold science as "you never know all the answers", yet you hold Oxford English infallible? I guess I'm not the one making bold statements.

I perfectly understand the amount of work that goes into making something like that, but that's because there's a lot of stuff to do.

I've seen plenty of crap in various dictionaries and encyclopedias. Textbook myths, obsolete values, etc.

The least errors are usually encountered in narrow subject books, as opposed to books on everything.

I never suggested that there was. Still, as far as science in plant physiology, there will always be more - you're always at the beginning of the study.... for example: When will we be able to produce photosynthesis in the laboratory (without the plant)?

Infallible, no. The current accepted definition, yes.

[Kryten]

I never suggested that there was. Still, as far as science in plant physiology, there will always be more - you're always at the beginning of the study.... for example: When will we be able to produce photosynthesis in the laboratory (without the plant)?

It's been done, with artificial membranes. It's proteins, not magic.

Infallible, no. The current accepted definition, yes.

Not the scientific one, so useless in this context.

[Scotius]

I remember a fragment of an old sci-fi novel. An artist was very excited about the idea she dreamed up - a living, intelligent galaxy. With stars, nebulae and black holes as "nerve centers" and radio waves connecting them. She imagined such "creature" as a most intelligent being ever - a mind the size of a galaxy. Then one of listeners - a physicist, shredded her fantasy to bits by simply pointing that due to the size of said galaxy, even at lightspeed it would need millions of years to finish a thought as simple as "I exist". Needless to say, she was very put-off Yeah, scientists can be killjoys, but usually they are right.

[LordFerret]

That sounds like Deep Thought lol.

[vger]

It's also rather easy to figure out if a living thing has feelings. Subject it a stimuli and record any activity to it in the plant.

We certainly can and have recorded reactions to stimuli in plants. Chemically, some plants can even react to the distress of other plants.

Edited June 16, 2015 by vger

[*Aqua*]

This "feeling" you all are talking about, what is it?

Is feeling a physical perception? (eg. your nerves are signaling pain after you cut your finger = you "feel" pain)

Is feeling a summary of perceptions? (eg. you worked hard -> exhausted, maybe pain, etc. = you "feel" beat up)

Is feeling an abstract interpretation of one or more perceptions? (eg. it's dark, you are alone, etc. = you "feel" fear)

Is feeling a social or maybe a chemical reaction to circumstances? (eg. you "feel" in love)

All of above?

None of them?

[Kryten]

We certainly can and have recorded reactions to stimuli in plants. Chemically, some plants can even react to the distress of other plants.

If we're reducing it to 'reacts to stimuli' then every organism is sentient. It becomes meaningless.

[Fel]

If we're reducing it to 'reacts to stimuli' then every organism is sentient. It becomes meaningless.

That's because this, again, is philosophy.

The "really big question" is if sentience is something that is modeled after humans, or a state of being in itself.

i.e. Slime mold is fascinating as it appears to act as if it is capable of independent thought but it utterly lacks that "brain" organ we're so proud and attached to. Do we rationalize that the intelligence displayed by slimemold is "just chemical" and hence meaningless, while neglecting that our own intelligence is little more than "just ion pumps, electrical impulses, and some chemical interactions."

(While I would have greatly preferred to have read the study in question, it wouldn't have changed the arguing of its validity)

[KerikBalm]

Yes, I read the links I posted, which is why I posted them. And for the record, the 'device' I described had nothing to do with 'free energy' - that was your incorrect interpretation of it. FYI - The very same said device, a much smaller version, is currently being used by the US Navy to power its High-Energy Laser.

So you posted a link that shows evidence contrary to your claims?

As to the other point, I don't remember much about your claims of this power source, just that it seemed far fetched.

Care to refresh my memory what this device is that you claim is powering a high energy laser?

Is the 2nd part of what I said more or less true? that you claim there is someone preventing widespread use of the device for economic gains?

[lajoswinkler]

It's also rather easy to figure out if a living thing has feelings. Subject it a stimuli and record any activity to it in the plant.

If the reaction is repeatable(in other subjects or the same plant) then you can say it has feelings.

The thing is, plants don't need feelings to survive. It would also be rather terrible for the planet if it would feel pain and it couldn't do anything about it.

They also don't think, there is no place in the plant it uses to ponder about things. If there was, we would have found it ages ago.

Even if they think very slow.

Feeling is a synonim for emotion. Cats have feelings. Crocodiles have, too, but primitive ones because that's all their kind of brain allows. Humans have the most developed ones, far better developed than any other animal because we have the most developed neocortical matter.

Sensation is something else. And yet, plants don't even have sensations because sensation requires input data processing. Most animals have sensations, some of which result in reflex movements.

Plants don't have processing and they don't even have peripheral nervous system.

Plants are just responsive to stimuli in a bit more developed way than an amoeba is to a concentration gradient of H₃O⁺ cations. That's what makes them alive. They respond to stimuli, having nastic movements (nondirectional) and tropisms (directional).

If you zap the plant with high voltage it will "faint" right in front of your eyes. That's not because it's sad, but because it's lost its turgor, pressure created by osmosis.

I never suggested that there was. Still, as far as science in plant physiology, there will always be more - you're always at the beginning of the study.... for example: When will we be able to produce photosynthesis in the laboratory (without the plant)?

Infallible, no. The current accepted definition, yes.

As Kryten said, photosynthesis has been performed. We know details of that metabolic pathway and much more.

I had to learn this chart. One of the most annoying things ever.

[vger]

Feeling is a synonim for emotion. Cats have feelings. Crocodiles have, too, but primitive ones because that's all their kind of brain allows. Humans have the most developed ones, far better developed than any other animal because we have the most developed neocortical matter.

Sensation is something else. And yet, plants don't even have sensations because sensation requires input data processing. Most animals have sensations, some of which result in reflex movements.

Plants don't have processing and they don't even have peripheral nervous system.

Plants are just responsive to stimuli in a bit more developed way than an amoeba is to a concentration gradient of H₃O⁺ cations. That's what makes them alive. They respond to stimuli, having nastic movements (nondirectional) and tropisms (directional).

I hope you realize that this is basically the same kind of argument that gets used to say that humans "don't have a soul." We're nothing more significant than a conglomerate of bio-electric impulses and chemical reactions.

Unfortunately, truly being able to prove whether or not this happens in other life forms, would require being able to subjectively become one. We would have enough of a hard time figuring out if squirrels ever contemplate their own existence, to say nothing about a tree.

If an alien race were to study humans, if they were complex enough, they might be able to make the same conclusions that you are. "How can they be sentient? They don't even have fleeblebrox glands." An advanced race would probably look at our brain no differently than you are looking at the entire plant. Quite obviously, some creatures don't need centralized processing in order to function, even ones that hunt and forage. just like an entire plant organism, the brain is ultimately just a big colony of cells. For me anyway, the question of sentience is too subjective to prove or disprove that other lifeforms, even single-celled ones, are capable or incapable of it. To use our own physiology as a gauge of whether or not other lifeforms are capable of it, seems no less limited than "it's only a living thing if it has carbon in it."

Edited June 16, 2015 by vger

[Kryten]

I hope you realize that this is basically the same kind of argument that gets used to say that humans "don't have a soul."

They don't, sorry.

Unfortunately, truly being able to prove whether or not this happens in other life forms, would require being able to subjectively become one. We would have enough of a hard time figuring out if squirrels ever contemplate their own existence, to say nothing about a tree.

We can subject to squirrels to e.g. the mirror test, and it's at least theoretically possible for them to do so as they have a central nervous system. Plants have no central processing and will show the exact same behaviour as isolated parts. We could lop off your arm and pump electricity into it and it'd 'respond to that stimulus'-are you going to say your arm is independently sentient?

EDIT:

As to the other point, I don't remember much about your claims of this power source, just that it seemed far fetched.

Care to refresh my memory what this device is that you claim is powering a high energy laser?

Is the 2nd part of what I said more or less true? that you claim there is someone preventing widespread use of the device for economic gains?

Here's the thread. He claims it's not free energy because it would need to be kept cold... which just goes to show he doesn't understand how conservation of energy works.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Kryten

[KerikBalm]

Feeling is a synonim for emotion. Cats have feelings. Crocodiles have, too, but primitive ones because that's all their kind of brain allows. Humans have the most developed ones, far better developed than any other animal because we have the most developed neocortical matter.

I think you're over-reaching here.

There are a number of other animals that have very well developed neocortical matter. Elephants, dolphins and other ceteceans, other apes, etc.

All have been observed to have greiving behavior for example.

Also crocodiles actually have one of the more developed nervous systems among the traditional reptiles.

Birds for that matter don't even have a neocortex - that is a mamallian invention. Yet they have something functionally similar but independently derived- often called the avian neocortex.

Many birds are quite intelligent and display many signs of emotions as well.

You can't really objectively measure how well developed our feelings are relative to other animals.

Sure, there are some relatively objective tests... but what happens when the animals pass the same ones that humans do?

ie in dolphins, apes, parrots, elephants, etc?

Sensation is something else. And yet, plants don't even have sensations because sensation requires input data processing. Most animals have sensations, some of which result in reflex movements.

Again over broad... even a single cell has data processing, where inputs from multiple surface receptors are integrated and lead to a response.

Plants don't have processing and they don't even have peripheral nervous system.

You don't need to have a nervous system to process data... but such a system certainly can aid faster and more complex processing.

I had to learn this chart. One of the most annoying things ever.

I doubt you learned the entire chart.

You probably learned about photosystem 1 and 2, the krebs cycle, and carbon fixation.

And its surprising that if you would learn that entire chart, you'd get the very first step wrong on another thread...

You can see it right there, H2O being split by photosystem 2 in the presence of light.

[lajoswinkler]

Look at all these sentient legs having feelings and .....

[KerikBalm]

Here's the thread. He claims it's not free energy because it would need to be kept cold... which just goes to show he doesn't understand how conservation of energy works.

Yea, LOL, he's definitely claiming a free-energy device:

they also made a device which in essence was a perpetual motion machine

...

- it would run... generating current to power itself, and then some. The energy generated by just one of these units was enough to power NYC

[LittleBlueGaming]

I hope you realize that this is basically the same kind of argument that gets used to say that humans "don't have a soul." We're nothing more significant than a conglomerate of bio-electric impulses and chemical reactions.

It sounds like you think that automatically discredits the argument. I've never seen any evidence to suggest we are more than that.

Unfortunately, truly being able to prove whether or not this happens in other life forms, would require being able to subjectively become one. We would have enough of a hard time figuring out if squirrels ever contemplate their own existence, to say nothing about a tree.

If an alien race were to study humans, if they were complex enough, they might be able to make the same conclusions that you are. "How can they be sentient? They don't even have fleeblebrox glands." An advanced race would probably look at our brain no differently than you are looking at the entire plant. Quite obviously, some creatures don't need centralized processing in order to function, even ones that hunt and forage. just like an entire plant organism, the brain is ultimately just a big colony of cells. For me anyway, the question of sentience is too subjective to prove or disprove that other lifeforms, even single-celled ones, are capable or incapable of it. To use our own physiology as a gauge of whether or not other lifeforms are capable of it, seems no less limited than "it's only a living thing if it has carbon in it."

I don't think that's a valid thought experiment. As intelligence/sentience becomes more powerful, the being has more ability to distinguish gradients. We don't look at great apes who communicate with us through sign language and say 'They have no intelligence or sentience, they can't even speak English!'. Instead, we realize that their abilities are more advanced than plants, but less advanced than our own. An advanced race would look at us and recognize that we have written, verbal, and non-verbal communication skills. If they analyzed our biology they would recognize that we have a central nervous system, etc etc etc.

[vger]

It sounds like you think that automatically discredits the argument. I've never seen any evidence to suggest we are more than that.

More specifically I was doing it means because we can't even properly gauge ourselves. If you take away the immortality aspect, "soul" and "sentience" are essentially the same thing.

[LittleBlueGaming]

More specifically I was doing it means because we can't even properly gauge ourselves. If you take away the immortality aspect, "soul" and "sentience" are essentially the same thing.

I'd say we can't fully gauge ourselves, but that doesn't mean we don't know a lot about ourselves.

If you take away the immortal-soul aspect, then soul simply doesn't exist. It's just replaced by biochemistry, and sentience is explained by that same biochemistry.

[Fel]

Plants have no central processing and will show the exact same behaviour as isolated parts.

Cockroaches have no central processing and will show the same behaviour as... DIE... stop escaping... ignore the argument all you want, but central nervous system is something that describes what we OBSERVE to be a prerequisite for intelligence IN OURSELVES.

We could lop off your arm and pump electricity into it and it'd 'respond to that stimulus'-are you going to say your arm is independently sentient?

But isn't it? We haven't defined sentient in a concrete matter yet, now we're just using pathos attacks to claim superiority over our own body, but does your sentience beat your own heart? Does your sentience inform you when you are hungry, when your arm feels tired? Is your body what controls you, or are you controlling your body.

After all, multi-cellular organisms came to being, not to be your SLAVES but to have increased SURVIVAL. That means your functions, in fact all multi-cellular organisms' functions, are performed in act of protecting the largest collection of independent organisms. The "self preservation" instilled in yourself, what point is it if the only aspect of your body that matters is your brain? You see, your body is the sentient part, your mind only acts in service to it.

Oh, I'm bored now. But that you all think you can argue philosophy with "science" is amusing, if not ignorant. You really can't because "sentience" is not a scientific term, its a human term, and reflects upon our xenophobia, our need to distance ourselves from things that are not like us.

[KerikBalm]

Cockroaches have no central processing

Yes they do.

But isn't it? We haven't defined sentient in a concrete matter yet,

Then do so... untill then, you can just keep on typing and typing, and it will be of no relevance whatsoever.

At least science can explain objective behaviors.

[lajoswinkler]

You don't include "soul" in the equation as much as you don't include "zbwaglüpf". What's "zbwaglüpf"? What's "soul"?

[Kryten]

Cockroaches have no central processing and will show the same behaviour as... DIE... stop escaping... ignore the argument all you want, but central nervous system is something that describes what we OBSERVE to be a prerequisite for intelligence IN OURSELVES.

Cockroaches have centralised brains like most other insects. You can get some quite complex reflexes, but the tales of them continuing as normal after being decapitated are urban legends. Even if they were true, that'd just mean a relatively diffuse ganglia network; still a CNS, and a far cry from a plant.

[Fel]

Cockroaches have centralised brains like most other insects. You can get some quite complex reflexes, but the tales of them continuing as normal after being decapitated are urban legends. Even if they were true, that'd just mean a relatively diffuse ganglia network; still a CNS, and a far cry from a plant.

Meh, then I go back to my classic of slime mold, wonderful stuff.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Slime+mold+intelligence

* Note to self though, I really should go back and read the studies on cockroach intelligence. My recollection is that they had a primitive "sort of like, but not exactly" CNS. Different enough that I thought it'd matter, at least.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Fel