Opinion
Lab

See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.

Gender

AGREEDISAGREE
Male
Female
Non-binary
Log in to see how you compare
Share to
https://www.parlia.com/o/plants-are-conscious

6 comments

For
**TL;DR: Science shows that plants can _lose_ consciousness, therefore they must be conscious to begin with** In a study by [K Yokawa et. al.](https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/122/5/747/4722571#109802828), scientists found that plants can seem to lose consciousness. In their experiment, they exposed pea plants, garden cress, and Venus Fly Traps to various anaesthetics used in human surgery, which rendered the plants unresponsive to usual stimulus. As these chemicals wore off over a few hours, the plants appeared to ‘wake up’, and once again became active. [Dr Frantisek Baluska](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/science/plants-consciousness-anesthesia.html) compares the effects of anaesthetics on plants and humans; anaesthetics disrupt electrical activity across neurons in the human brain just as they disrupt the transmission of cellular material across plant membranes, which causes both to become unresponsive. If plants can lose consciousness, is therefore stands that they must have consciousness to begin with. Of course, this bold statement ultimately comes down to how you define consciousness. These results do not suggest that plants have feelings or can philosophise about their own consciousness, but they do imply that plants have a kind of intelligence. As [we still can’t explain what causes consciousness](https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143), I think that plants can be considered conscious to a degree.
··
Paralyzing a plant's ability to react to stuff via anesthetic doesn't automatically make that a loss of CONSCIOUSNESS... We can strategically give you drugs that can basically shut off all sensation and motor skills in one of your arms. Just because the arm is completely nonresponsive to the rest of the system doesn't mean that it's not attached to a conscious person. Just because the plant loses the ability to send signals doesn't mean it's a conscious person at all. It just means signals can't be sent.
··
willwebb4y ago
I don't think these examples are referring to consciousness in a very meaningful way, although I appreciate you understand the debate around what consciousness even is. I can turn off my smoke alarm, and it will not respond to stimulus (smoke). This does not mean the smoke alarm is conscious once I turn the power back on.
··
Against
This contention hinges on how you define consciousness. One of the aspects of consciousness, is intelligence. Intelligence could be reasonably defined as: "Intelligence is the ability to think, to learn from experience, to solve problems, and to adapt to new situations." Although a plant (like the venus flytrap) can "outwit" a fly and trap it and eat it, the venus fly trap cannot vary it's methodology, to catch a fly. It's ability to catch a fly, is due to a reaction to physical stimulus. Plants are not conscious because, they lack the ability to use experience, to learn new ways of solving problems.
··
Benbrack5y ago
I like this statement, but I wonder if intelligence and consciousness come hand in hand, or rather one that leads to another. There are specific psychological capabilities that are fundamentally connected to consciousness. Here, it becomes critical to define how consciousness is interpreted, as methodologies across cognitive science, including neuroscience, evolutionary biology or mind philosophies occur across theoretical landscapes. Intelligence varies, a spectrum that is defined on our on intelligence, therefore, does cognitive ability need to uphold our standards to be considered conscious? This argument can be seen within David Gamez’ study of ‘The Relationship between intelligence and consciousness in Natural and Artificial Systems.’ Here, they draw the conclusion that “Intelligence is a purely functional property; consciousness is not…” Despite relationships between both intelligence and consciousness, current theories are not defining enough to highlight a striking connection. Thus, the difference between physical and conscious states needs to be considered regarding ‘how you define consciousness’.
··
For
ELW3y ago
The criteria that characterises all living things is: **M**ovement **R**espiration **S**ensitivity **G**rowth **R**eproduction **E**xcretion **N**utrition Sensitivity means sensitivity to stimuli. Sensitivity to stimuli requires and, therefore, demonstrates consciousness. It is irrelevant to the prompt how meaningful such consciousness is, only that it is demonstrated.
··
Sign up or log in to post a comment.
Are we missing an argument?
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!