Voyager275 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 New studies show that plants might have feelings and maybe even be able to think. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 What studies? By who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kibble Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Plants don't really have brains, or dense clusters of information-transferring cells do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SargeRho Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Plants are known to communicate chemically with each other, as well as being able to "hear" being chewed on. It doesn't require a nervous system. But it's very doubtful that it'd ever get anywhere close to even basic animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Random Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Define "sentience", "feelings" and "think". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smjjames Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Also define 'plant', especially when talking about extraterrestrial life forms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fchurca Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Those "studies" don't mean too much.Flytraps are the fastest-"thinking", if that applies, plants. They take at least one second to decide whether to close or not depending on the presence or not of stimulus. That gives a peak information processing rate of 1 bit per second. The lightest flytraps weight around 10g, so that gives a peak rate of 100 bits/second/kg, or a sentience quotient of +2 (log10(I/M), I: informacion processing rate in b/s, M: mass in kg). Take into account that once it's closed, the flytrap will stop to digest its prey, which lowers that dramatically. Plants react even more slowly to other stimulus and can weight up to a couple millions times that, most have a SQ around -2. Now compare to the SQ of a human at about +13 (taking only the brain).Now imagine being a supercivilization harnessing the power of entire stars. I'll let a fellow named Robert Freitas who has spend more time than me pondering the issue take the lead.At present, human scientists are attempting to communicate outside our species to primates and cetaceans, and in a limited way to a few other vertebrates. This is inordinately difficult, and yet it represents a gap of at most a few SQ points. The farthest we can reach in our "communication" with vegetation is when we plant, water, or fertilize it, but it is evident that messages transmitted across an SQ gap of 10 points or more cannot be very meaningful. What, then, could an SQ +50 Superbeing possibly have to say to us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lajoswinkler Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 New studies show that plants might have feelings and maybe even be able to think. What do you think?No study shows anything like that. It's complete ......... Plant physiology is one of the most thoroughly examined fields of science and there is none, I repeat, none evidence to support any notion of that.Yes, cells do communicate (it's what makes them alive), but there is no higher level communication whatsoever. Even the simplest animals like cnidarians are way more developed than plants with obvious action potential generation capabilities like venus flytraps, and cnidarians don't even have any form of central nervous system.No sentience, no feelings, no thinking. Just more or less developed reaction to stimulus, always pathetic compared to the most primitive multicellular animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBlueGaming Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I would love to see a study showing this, as well as watch the authors win a Nobel prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voidryder Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Look I know that this is going to be controversial and probably end up with people insulting each other, so before a Mod inevitability closes this thread, I thought I would ask my philodendron, Margaret what she thought. After looking really annoyed, she said she would get back to me right after she finished helping my cat with her calculus homework. I'll let you know what she says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lincourtl Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 New studies show that plants might have feelings and maybe even be able to think. What do you think?Almost makes me nostalgic for the National Enquirer of the 1970s. Generoso Pope's legacy lives on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vger Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I don't see how processing speed has any impact on whether or not something is capable of sentience.I can't help but think of the Ent in the Lord of the Rings films who said, "If it doesn't take a long time to say something, it probably isn't worth saying."This isn't to say that plants necessarily fit the bill. But comeon... if computers were sentient, would the iPods be claiming that the Apple II's didn't classify? Based on the response in this thread, I guess the answer would be yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dispatcher Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 My plants seem to prefer classical music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordFerret Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I seem to remember an article from long ago about philodendron plants being wired up with bioelectric sensors which would show a reaction when a human stood next to the plant and imagined setting it on fire. The same study also noted reactions occurring when an open flame was brought next to the plant (mechanically with no human nearby). Google isn't helping me find anything on that article in particular, however, I did find these...http://www.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/478.shorthttp://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.2002.91.1.173?journalCode=pr0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerikBalm Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I seem to remember an article from long ago about philodendron plants being wired up with bioelectric sensors which would show a reaction when a human stood next to the plant and imagined setting it on fire.So... umm.... not just thinking plants, but telepathic mind reading plants too...Weren't you the guy believing some form of free-energy device had been invented and covered up?Did you read the link you posted?Inspection of the data and analysis by two statistical methods revealed no relationship between brine shrimp killing and electrical "responsiveness" of philodendron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert VDS Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 I seem to remember an article from long ago about philodendron plants being wired up with bioelectric sensors which would show a reaction when a human stood next to the plant and imagined setting it on fire. The same study also noted reactions occurring when an open flame was brought next to the plant (mechanically with no human nearby). Google isn't helping me find anything on that article in particular, however, I did find these...http://www.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/478.shorthttp://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.2002.91.1.173?journalCode=pr0The test you are thinking of was conducted by Cleve Backster. He hooked plants up to a lie detector and the machine showed a pattern which looked like if it was a human subjected to short emotional stimulation.Many have repeated Backster's experiment, all with negative results.Also the Mythbusters tested this in their show. They also came up with negative results after eliminating interference with the machine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YNM Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Not the kind of sentience that human have. But surely they can respond to stimuli, even giving stimuli to other plants. Not to mention phytoplankton... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lajoswinkler Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 (edited) Not the kind of sentience that human have. But surely they can respond to stimuli, even giving stimuli to other plants. Not to mention phytoplankton...Phytoplankton is not plants. Plants are Plantae.Phytoplankton is photosynthetic free floating organisms and vast majority (basically a rule) is very tiny, microscopic algae (Eukaryota) and photosynthetic bacteria (Cyanobacteria, purple bacteria, ...).Sentience is in no way connected to Plantae. Not "a kind of". None.I see some people here mention the possible long time it takes for the communication, and comparing us to highspeed communicating species which could (but would not) consider us as nonsentient beings, but no. That is a false comparison.By all standards, a freshly removed human kidney has more "sentience" becuase it actually has nerves, but it's a misuse of the word. Sentience is a higher order function. We can not twist the word to fit our expectations. Sentience requires nervous infrastructure and certain qualities of it. There is absolutely no trace of anything like that in Plantae, just like there is no trace of it in Fungi.People sticking needles in plants, burning their leaves and watching the dials go mad, then claiming plants suffer are nothing more than quacks. That is no science, and anything they do has already been done and was thoroughly investigated and explained by others during the enormous period. Plant physiology is way better investigated simply because plants won't run away and are relatively low maintenance organisms.I seem to remember an article from long ago about philodendron plants being wired up with bioelectric sensors which would show a reaction when a human stood next to the plant and imagined setting it on fire. The same study also noted reactions occurring when an open flame was brought next to the plant (mechanically with no human nearby). Google isn't helping me find anything on that article in particular, however, I did find these...http://www.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/478.shorthttp://www.amsciepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/pr0.2002.91.1.173?journalCode=pr0Such claims would, if proven, mean a revolution in the whole natural science. That would be absolutely huge. It's funny how such quacks always aim so high, and always end up so low. Why not starting with something simple? Nooo, let's try to overturn everything. Edited June 15, 2015 by lajoswinkler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotius Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Not the kind of sentience that human have. But surely they can respond to stimuli, even giving stimuli to other plants. Not to mention phytoplankton...Single cell organisms are capable of detecting external stimuli, and reacting to them - but no one proclaims an amoeba intelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainDreamer Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 New studiesRed flag.Whenever I read the news and I see this word usually it is referring to a single sketchy paper at best, and complete fabrication at worst.Either case, plants are important and should be protected for the eco system, whether they are sentient or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John FX Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Myself I am of the opinion that they do not have cognition. They respond to stimuli but are not aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 @lajoswinkler Where is the line between just reacting to stimuli and sentience?How "dumb" can an organism be and be called sentient? What's the most complex reaction to a stimuli you would still call not sentience?Oxford dictionary defines the word sentient as "Able to perceive or feel things". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lajoswinkler Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 @lajoswinkler Where is the line between just reacting to stimuli and sentience?How "dumb" can an organism be and be called sentient? What's the most complex reaction to a stimuli you would still call not sentience?Oxford dictionary defines the word sentient as "Able to perceive or feel things".Oxford dictionary is hardly an authority on physiology. Dictionaries often fail miserably when it comes to natural sciences because they're made by people who usually have no way of understanding what's correct and what's not among the related concepts.It boils down to twisting the word meanings (or using different languages where such words have different meanings) and using that confusion to make ill advised definitions and claims.What does it mean "to perceive" and what does it mean "to feel"?It's neccessary to distinguish basic response to stimuli (excitability) and higher order functioning, which is not just the sum of all responses. It's an emergent property. There are several steps of higher order functions, and the last one is what humans have. None of them is merely a sum.Even basic response to stimuli isn't at the bottom. Physical reactions are at the bottom - interactions of electrical fields. Then go the chemical ones - arranged fields creating molecular infrastructure. Sum of chemical reactions yields a higher property in bacteria - metabolism. After that goes taxis. For example positive phototaxis in photosynthetic flagellate bacteria: cells are actively moving towards the positive gradient of the light. Or positive chemotaxis when cells move along the increasing matter concentration gradient.There isn't a line between excitability and sentience - there are several steps of order. Plants are very low on that ladder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordFerret Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 So... umm.... not just thinking plants, but telepathic mind reading plants too...Weren't you the guy believing some form of free-energy device had been invented and covered up?Did you read the link you posted?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.The test you are thinking of was conducted by Cleve Backster. He hooked plants up to a lie detector and the machine showed a pattern which looked like if it was a human subjected to short emotional stimulation.Many have repeated Backster's experiment, all with negative results.Also the Mythbusters tested this in their show. They also came up with negative results after eliminating interference with the machine.Yes! I do believe that was it. I couldn't remember, it was a long time ago when I'd run across the article, like maybe late 60's or early 70's.... anything they do has already been done and was thoroughly investigated and explained by others ...Such claims would, if proven, mean a revolution in the whole natural science. That would be absolutely huge.The funny thing about Science, is that it never ends - even when you think you've got all the answers. snippetDictionaries often fail miserably when it comes to natural sciences because they're made by people who usually have no way of understanding what's correct and what's not among the related concepts.That's a pretty bold statement. Based on it then, the same could be said of the majority of science text books out there - all sciences, or any topic for that matter. Do you understand what goes into the making of a dictionary, one such as the Oxford English?... the research and verifications and 'authorities' involved? Have you ever published anything?Regarding the OP, for the record: I never said anything about believing in such - only that I'd once read an article about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lajoswinkler Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 The funny thing about Science, is that it never ends - even when you think you've got all the answers.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.That's a pretty bold statement. Based on it then, the same could be said of the majority of science text books out there - all sciences, or any topic for that matter. Do you understand what goes into the making of a dictionary, one such as the Oxford English?... the research and verifications and 'authorities' involved? Have you ever published anything?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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts