Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[psyreporter]

There is no doubt that there are electrophysiological processes in plants, but "[e]lectrical signaling per se is not neurology" (U. Lüttge—see below!). There are relevant structural and functional dissimilarities, in the light of which the application of neuro-terms and neuro-talk to plants is incorrect and inacceptable unless it is regarded as metaphorical.

What about the occurrence of neurotransmitter chemicals?

Neurotransmitters, neuroregulators and neurotoxins in the life of plants
Recent evidence has shown that neurologically active compounds play an important role in the physiology of higher plants.
https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pd ... 41/P06-034

[Consul]

What about the occurrence of neurotransmitter chemicals?

Neurotransmitters, neuroregulators and neurotoxins in the life of plants
Recent evidence has shown that neurologically active compounds play an important role in the physiology of higher plants.
https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pd ... 41/P06-034

Whatever physiological role certain molecules play in plants which also play the role of neurotransmitters in animals, it cannot be the same role of neurotransmitters. Like "plant neurobiology", "plant neurochemistry" is a misleading misnomer simply because…

QUOTE>
"Plants have no defined nervous system." (p. 16)

"[P]lants do not possess a nervous system." (p. 77)

"A plant ‘brain’ is certainly a metaphor because Darwin recognized that plants have no nerves or nervous system, and he makes this very clear." (p. 155)

"Plants are obviously organisms that lack both a nervous system and a brain." (p. 201)

(Trewavas, Anthony. Plant Behaviour and Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.)
<QUOTE

By the way, that said, Trewavas also says that "intelligent behaviour can be observed in organisms and cells that do not possess a nervous system." (p. 221)

[Pattern-chaser]

What do you think of the study that shows that plants may have something similar to neurons in their root system?

There is no doubt that there are electrophysiological processes in plants, but "[e]lectrical signaling per se is not neurology" (U. Lüttge—see below!). There are relevant structural and functional dissimilarities, in the light of which the application of neuro-terms and neuro-talk to plants is incorrect and inacceptable unless it is regarded as metaphorical.

Metaphorical or simply speculative? It's all very well defending scientific rigour, but if you are completely successful in this aim, you will prevent any and all significant scientific progress. Discussions concerning the sentience or consciousness of plants, living things very different from ourselves, must (given the state of current knowledge) be speculative, vague and general, or "metaphorical", if you will.

It might be a mistake to look for some direct equivalent of a human brain in plants. It might be that plant intelligence, if there is such a thing, depends on a different physical platform than humans use. Speculatively, maybe these something-similar-to-neurons interconnect via fungal mycelia to form a network that might be capable of mentation? Such a sentience could extend across countries, or even the whole world, via the fungal 'internet' that is mycelia. I do not assert this, nor do I present it as scientific data, or as a scientific hypothesis. I just offer it as an idea. Sooner or later, this idea, or another equally unlikely-looking one, will turn out to be a worthwhile advance. And many such ideas will be discarded too, after due consideration. But progress cannot occur without speculation and creative idea-making. So, for me:

Vive speculation!

[Consul]

Metaphorical or simply speculative? It's all very well defending scientific rigour, but if you are completely successful in this aim, you will prevent any and all significant scientific progress. Discussions concerning the sentience or consciousness of plants, living things very different from ourselves, must (given the state of current knowledge) be speculative, vague and general, or "metaphorical", if you will.

It might be a mistake to look for some direct equivalent of a human brain in plants. It might be that plant intelligence, if there is such a thing, depends on a different physical platform than humans use. Speculatively, maybe these something-similar-to-neurons interconnect via fungal mycelia to form a network that might be capable of mentation? Such a sentience could extend across countries, or even the whole world, via the fungal 'internet' that is mycelia. I do not assert this, nor do I present it as scientific data, or as a scientific hypothesis. I just offer it as an idea. Sooner or later, this idea, or another equally unlikely-looking one, will turn out to be a worthwhile advance. And many such ideas will be discarded too, after due consideration. But progress cannot occur without speculation and creative idea-making. So, for me:

Vive speculation!

I'm not against metaphysical speculation per se, but the scientifically interesting question is what should be adopted as the comparatively most plausible and most justified working hypothesis, on whose basis scientists should be doing their daily job. As far as plant biology (botany, phytology) is concerned, it really shouldn't be part of its theoretical basis that plants are capable of phenomenal consciousness aka subjective experience/sentience, because it's an empirically unwarranted and wildly implausible hypothesis.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm not against metaphysical speculation per se, but the scientifically interesting question is what should be adopted as the comparatively most plausible and most justified working hypothesis, on whose basis scientists should be doing their daily job.

That may be the "scientifically interesting" view, but what of other views? This topic is a philosophical one, aired on a philosophy forum. Why would we be constrained by what working scientists do in their everyday professional lives? This topic clearly (?) does not offer anything that is suitable for scientific investigation. Yet. Maybe never. But without new ideas, there can be no progress. So why don't we stop looking for reasons why this is not a worthwhile topic, and (for now) consider the merits of the idea expressed in the topic title? We can look at its demerits later, if it proves worthy of further investigation. I'm thinking of something like Edward de Bono's hats. Let's stick, initially, to the yellow and green hats? The black hat can follow later, when we need it.

As far as plant biology (botany, phytology) is concerned, it really shouldn't be part of its theoretical basis that plants are capable of phenomenal consciousness aka subjective experience/sentience, because it's an empirically unwarranted and wildly implausible hypothesis.

It's not "empirically unwarranted", it's speculative. As for "wildly implausible", it's difficult to see how you can claim this for something that has not been properly investigated yet. There is insufficient information to conclude that it's impausible; that's just your opinion. Your unjustified opinion. Maybe you'll prove to be right, but that lies in the future. We'll see.

[Consul]

That may be the "scientifically interesting" view, but what of other views? This topic is a philosophical one, aired on a philosophy forum. Why would we be constrained by what working scientists do in their everyday professional lives? This topic clearly (?) does not offer anything that is suitable for scientific investigation. Yet. Maybe never. But without new ideas, there can be no progress. So why don't we stop looking for reasons why this is not a worthwhile topic, and (for now) consider the merits of the idea expressed in the topic title? We can look at its demerits later, if it proves worthy of further investigation. I'm thinking of something like Edward de Bono's hats. Let's stick, initially, to the yellow and green hats? The black hat can follow later, when we need it.

Animism and panpsychism aren't new ideas; they are old hats! So is phytopsychism, the view that plants are subjects of mentality/experientiality. For example, in 1848 Gustav Fechner published a book titled Nanna oder über das Seelenleben der Pflanzen (Nanna or On the Mental Life of Plants).

As for the relevance of science to theory choice in metaphysics:

QUOTE>
"One important methodological principle of mine is that an important guide to metaphysical truth is plausibility in the light of total science."

(Smart, J. J. C. "Atheism and Theism." In: J. J. C. Smart and J. J. Haldane, Atheism and Theism, 2nd ed., 6-75. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. p. 6)
<QUOTE

[Terrapin Station]

That may be the "scientifically interesting" view, but what of other views? This topic is a philosophical one, aired on a philosophy forum. Why would we be constrained by what working scientists do in their everyday professional lives? This topic clearly (?) does not offer anything that is suitable for scientific investigation. Yet. Maybe never. But without new ideas, there can be no progress. So why don't we stop looking for reasons why this is not a worthwhile topic, and (for now) consider the merits of the idea expressed in the topic title? We can look at its demerits later, if it proves worthy of further investigation. I'm thinking of something like Edward de Bono's hats. Let's stick, initially, to the yellow and green hats? The black hat can follow later, when we need it.

Animism and panpsychism aren't new ideas; they are old hats! So is phytopsychism, the view that plants are subjects of mentality/experientiality. For example, in 1848 Gustav Fechner published a book titled Nanna oder über das Seelenleben der Pflanzen (Nanna or On the Mental Life of Plants).

As for the relevance of science to theory choice in metaphysics:

QUOTE>
"One important methodological principle of mine is that an important guide to metaphysical truth is plausibility in the light of total science."

(Smart, J. J. C. "Atheism and Theism." In: J. J. C. Smart and J. J. Haldane, Atheism and Theism, 2nd ed., 6-75. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. p. 6)
<QUOTE

Well, yeah, lots of stuff that's ridiculous to believe has been around for a long time. Just look at religion.

[Pattern-chaser]

Something I just came across while surfing:

In The Songs of Trees, award-winning nature writer David Haskell repeatedly visits a dozen trees around the world, exploring the trees' connections with webs of fungi, bacterial communities, cooperative and destructive animals, and other plants. In doing this he shows that every living being is not only sustained by biological connections, but is made from these relationships, and that holding a networked view of life enriches our understanding of biology, human nature, and ethics.

The book is entitled "The Songs of Trees: Stories from Nature's Great Connectors" by David George Haskell, and the Amazon page I took the quote from is here.

[Pattern-chaser]

That may be the "scientifically interesting" view, but what of other views? This topic is a philosophical one, aired on a philosophy forum. Why would we be constrained by what working scientists do in their everyday professional lives? This topic clearly (?) does not offer anything that is suitable for scientific investigation. Yet. Maybe never. But without new ideas, there can be no progress. So why don't we stop looking for reasons why this is not a worthwhile topic, and (for now) consider the merits of the idea expressed in the topic title? We can look at its demerits later, if it proves worthy of further investigation. I'm thinking of something like Edward de Bono's hats. Let's stick, initially, to the yellow and green hats? The black hat can follow later, when we need it.

Animism and panpsychism aren't new ideas; they are old hats! So is phytopsychism, the view that plants are subjects of mentality/experientiality.

OK, so the idea is not new. But it also has not been sufficiently explored to discover things that could be more formally investigated. Not yet, that is. Maybe that will come. But for now:

• What of views other than scientific ones?
• Why should we be constrained by what working scientists do?
• Why don't we consider the merits of the idea expressed in the topic title?

[Gee]

Animism and panpsychism aren't new ideas; they are old hats! So is phytopsychism, the view that plants are subjects of mentality/experientiality.

OK, so the idea is not new. But it also has not been sufficiently explored to discover things that could be more formally investigated. Not yet, that is. Maybe that will come. But for now:

This is not true. Science is working on the communication between other life forms; the discovery of pheromones happened in the 1960's, not so long ago.

• What of views other than scientific ones?

Other views are fine. That is not what Consul was complaining about. Consul was arguing because arjand repeatedly reported views that were clearly NOT science, but were presented as science. And you backed up these false statements.

Why should we be constrained by what working scientists do?[*]

We are not, but science is constrained by the scientific method -- OR IT IS NOT SCIENCE. Science, philosophy, and religion all study knowledge and all have different methodologies that provide information. You can not use religion's methodology and then call the results science, then use those results in support of a premise in philosophy. Doing this goes beyond speculation, it goes beyond armchair philosophy, it actually produces garbage.

Why don't we consider the merits of the idea expressed in the topic title?[/list]

I actually tried to, but found that there was not enough discipline in the thought processes that produced the ideas along with too many invalid premises.

Some of the ideas that I questioned are as follows:

Meaningful relationships between plants and us: My home has a meaningful relationship between the walls and the roof. If one removes the walls, the roof will fall and probably break. This "meaningful relationship" does not mean that the walls and roof communicate or talk.

Plants "talk" to us: Plants do communicate, science has proven this, but plants do not talk.

Plants are conscious: Yes they are conscious in that they are aware of the need to survive and continue, as is evidenced by survival instincts. This does not mean that they think. It does not mean that they have a "will". It does not mean that they have ideas that they try to transmit to other species. They do not have human consciousness.

Clearly the original poster, and every other poster that I have read here, has no idea of the complexity of the concept of "self", as the original poster seems to misunderstand it, and no one else questioned that misunderstanding.

No one has even considered what is required for a specie to be moral. Nor considered that emotion is necessary. Nor considered that a life form needs the ability to conceptualize in order to experience emotion. Generally speaking, it is well accepted that a brain is required in order to conceptualize.

These are some of the issues that would have to be addressed in order for me to seriously consider the idea expressed in the topic title.

Gee

[psyreporter]

Why don't we consider the merits of the idea expressed in the topic title?[/list]

I actually tried to, but found that there was not enough discipline in the thought processes that produced the ideas along with too many invalid premises.

Some of the ideas that I questioned are as follows:

Meaningful relationships between plants and us: My home has a meaningful relationship between the walls and the roof. If one removes the walls, the roof will fall and probably break. This "meaningful relationship" does not mean that the walls and roof communicate or talk.

The meaning that you indicate would merely apply to the human that lives in the house. Without the human, the roof in relation to the house would be a technical statement.

The indicated meaningful relationship in the OP is different in that the meaning is not derived from the human by itself, or from the plant by itself, but from an interaction between a plant and a human (from something in between of both that spans into the future).

Plants "talk" to us: Plants do communicate, science has proven this, but plants do not talk.

On what basis could one pose such a statement to be conclusive?

Plants signal stress like animals do: with neurotransmitters
https://www.zmescience.com/science/biol ... r-0425634/

Plants are conscious: Yes they are conscious in that they are aware of the need to survive and continue, as is evidenced by survival instincts. This does not mean that they think. It does not mean that they have a "will". It does not mean that they have ideas that they try to transmit to other species. They do not have human consciousness.

The concept "idea" as it is perceived by humans is not likely to be transferred by plants out of themselves, however, when a plant touches the reality of a human and becomes part of its actuality perhaps something is possible by which ideas that are formed by the human are sensible in relation to its interaction with a plant. By this (a shared dream) symbiosis would be explainable. The plant serves the dream of the animal by becoming a vital part of the animal. The result would be a shared purpose and it could explain the creation of "the purpose" of nature (Gaia philosophy).

Clearly the original poster, and every other poster that I have read here, has no idea of the complexity of the concept of "self", as the original poster seems to misunderstand it, and no one else questioned that misunderstanding.

At base, I merely stated that when it is considered a fact that plants "talk" that the presence of a 'self' is evident.

No one has even considered what is required for a specie to be moral. Nor considered that emotion is necessary. Nor considered that a life form needs the ability to conceptualize in order to experience emotion. Generally speaking, it is well accepted that a brain is required in order to conceptualize.

Is emotion necessary for morality? I beg to differ. Emotion as it is perceived by humans is essentially a functional biochemical process in response of something that precedes that process, something of which it can be stated that it is real.

A plant may have formed a different system by which that which precedes the senses is valued in relation to its 'self'.

If a plant does not have a 'self', how could it develop a symbiosis with animals? For symbiosis to be possible, the plant must be aware of the interests of others (animals) before it can develop in a way that serves that other. (In most cases) it is not the other that is creating something in the plant. The plant is giving it.

Why are flowers beautiful for animals/humans? Is it plausible to assume that the beauty of flowers is an accident?

These are some of the issues that would have to be addressed in order for me to seriously consider the idea expressed in the topic title.

Gee

Considering the recent scientific discoveries that plants may have something similar to neurons, there is a basis to consider that plants may in fact be capable of intelligence and thus it would be relevant to question whether plants deserve moral consideration.

(2016) Neurons show the path: tip-to-nucleus communication
Source: Oxford Academic Journals

[Consul]

Plants don’t have feelings and aren’t conscious, a biologist argues: Lincoln Taiz and colleagues lament the rise of ‘plant neurobiology’

"Taiz’s team argues that plant consciousness doesn’t even make sense from an evolutionary point of view."

[psyreporter]

Plants don’t have feelings and aren’t conscious, a biologist argues: Lincoln Taiz and colleagues lament the rise of ‘plant neurobiology’

"Taiz’s team argues that plant consciousness doesn’t even make sense from an evolutionary point of view."

It is an opinion piece.

Lincoln Taiz is peeved. Over the last decade or so, the retired plant biologist has watched the rise of the field of “plant neurobiology” with growing dismay.
...
But the chances of that are “effectively nil,” Taiz and colleagues write in an opinion piece in the Aug. 1 Trends in Plant Science.

Foundation for her opinion:
“There’s nothing in the plant remotely comparable to the complexity of the animal brain,” says Taiz, of the University of California, Santa Cruz. “Nothing. And I’m a plant biologist. I love plants” — not because plants think like humans, he says, but for “how they live their plant lives.”

While the general status quo may be (or has been for the past +50 years) that consciousness originates in the animal brain, it appears that increasingly the status quo of science is moving away from that idea with more serious mainstream consideration of Panpsychism as an example.

The following research may be an example of an available clue that consciousness per se may not require a complex animal brain.

QUOTE>
Consciousness is a property of the universe that is filtered by the brain

According to the decades-long research of Dr. Peter Fenwick (Cambridge, UK), a highly regarded neuropsychologist who has been studying the human brain, consciousness, and the phenomenon of near death experience (NDE) for 50 years consciousness cannot be an emergent property of the brain and its metabolism. Fenwick believes that consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity.

In Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it. As odd as this idea might seem at first, there are some analogies that bring the concept into sharper focus. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -the-brain
<QUOTE

If Dr. Peter Fenwick's idea is correct, plants may simply have developed a different mechanism to filter the consciousness property of the Universe.

With regard to emotions. What is the purpose of emotions? There is evidence that one can think pain away. Does that make pain per se less relevant for human life? Pain as an emotion is functional in the complex existence of an animal. From the perspective of a plant, what is of utmost importance is likely very different from that of an animal but that doesn't mean that the essence of pain and other emotions are not applicable to a plant within their unique scope of existence.

Imagine a forest fire. “It’s unbearable to even consider the idea that plants would be sentient, conscious beings aware of the fact that they’re being burned to ashes, watching their saplings die in front of them,” Taiz says. The horrifying scenario illustrates “what it would actually cost a plant to have consciousness.”

The roots of plants reside underground. What is atop the plant is essentially a part of their body that can be replaced. It is why forests recover quickly after a forest fire.

What makes pain relevant? If the human experiences a high stress event it receives an adrenaline shot by which the human does not feel pain and acquires a certain superhuman strength.

When plants would be capable of experiencing something in the scope of the essence of pain and other emotions, there is no reason to assume that they cannot switch off that sense under a high stress event, with forest fires being a factor that is essential for the vitality of forests and some plants even counting on it. For example, some flowers only bloom after a forest fire.

These flowers only bloom after forest fires
https://eu.redding.com/story/life/home- ... 364114001/

At question would be: does the capacity of plants to switch off their senses in a high stress event make their experience irrelevant? The fact that humans can switch off pain in high stress events does not seem to affect morality so why would such be applicable to morality of plants?

When it concerns morality in general, it would be about determining the need and applicability of a base level of respect. If plants are conscious creatures that are capable of fulfilling a vital role in animal life, not just for what has been but for what may come, then perhaps it is important to provide plants with a certain attention/respect that will enable them to perform well/better. If the concept of a shared dream between a plant and an animal is essential, it may be important to shape culture so that such potential can exist and advance. The concept of the discovery of a "shared purpose" may be essential for nature to prosper.

[Pattern-chaser]

Consul was arguing because arjand repeatedly reported views that were clearly NOT science, but were presented as science. And you backed up these false statements.

Backed up? I remember saying that I thought the ideas being expressed were more spiritual than scientific.

Why should we be constrained by what working scientists do?[*]

We are not, but science is constrained by the scientific method -- OR IT IS NOT SCIENCE.

True. But so what? This is a philosophy topic in a philosophy forum. If it fails to adhere rigidly to scientific principles, that doesn't seem to be a problem. The central point is that we agree: there is no need for us, here, in this topic, to be constrained by what working scientists do. It has no relevance to this discussion.

Meaningful relationships between plants and us: My home has a meaningful relationship between the walls and the roof. If one removes the walls, the roof will fall and probably break. This "meaningful relationship" does not mean that the walls and roof communicate or talk.

Plants "talk" to us: Plants do communicate, science has proven this, but plants do not talk.

Professional engineers often refer to computers (not) talking to one another. No-one understands them to be asserting that computers produce sounds in the air capable of being interpreted as words. If plants communicate, then they are talking, in everyday parlance. No confusion results; none is intended either. Yours is a non-objection, I think?

Clearly the original poster, and every other poster that I have read here, has no idea of the complexity of the concept of "self", as the original poster seems to misunderstand it, and no one else questioned that misunderstanding.

Now I think you are on truly shaky ground. You seem to be saying that there are things, important and significant things, that most of us here do not understand. You also seem to imply that you do understand these important and complex matters. Like I said: shaky ground.

These are some of the issues that would have to be addressed in order for me to seriously consider the idea expressed in the topic title.

I suggest that you place too high an importance on how significant your willingness to consider these ideas might be, to others. If you don't wish to consider these ideas, don't. If you wish to take part in the discussion, please do. But please don't lay out your conditions for acceptance or participation. You really aren't that important. I'm not sure anyone is.

[Terrapin Station]

Plants don’t have feelings and aren’t conscious, a biologist argues: Lincoln Taiz and colleagues lament the rise of ‘plant neurobiology’

"Taiz’s team argues that plant consciousness doesn’t even make sense from an evolutionary point of view."

It is an opinion piece.

Lincoln Taiz is peeved. Over the last decade or so, the retired plant biologist has watched the rise of the field of “plant neurobiology” with growing dismay.
...
But the chances of that are “effectively nil,” Taiz and colleagues write in an opinion piece in the Aug. 1 Trends in Plant Science.

Foundation for her opinion:
“There’s nothing in the plant remotely comparable to the complexity of the animal brain,” says Taiz, of the University of California, Santa Cruz. “Nothing. And I’m a plant biologist. I love plants” — not because plants think like humans, he says, but for “how they live their plant lives.”

While the general status quo may be (or has been for the past +50 years) that consciousness originates in the animal brain, it appears that increasingly the status quo of science is moving away from that idea with more serious mainstream consideration of Panpsychism as an example.

The following research may be an example of an available clue that consciousness per se may not require a complex animal brain.

QUOTE>
Consciousness is a property of the universe that is filtered by the brain

According to the decades-long research of Dr. Peter Fenwick (Cambridge, UK), a highly regarded neuropsychologist who has been studying the human brain, consciousness, and the phenomenon of near death experience (NDE) for 50 years consciousness cannot be an emergent property of the brain and its metabolism. Fenwick believes that consciousness actually exists independently and outside of the brain as an inherent property of the universe itself like dark matter and dark energy or gravity.

In Fenwick’s view, the brain does not create or produce consciousness; rather, it filters it. As odd as this idea might seem at first, there are some analogies that bring the concept into sharper focus. For example, the eye filters and interprets only a very small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum and the ear registers only a narrow range of sonic frequencies. Similarly, according to Fenwick, the brain filters and perceives only a tiny part of the cosmos’ intrinsic “consciousness.”

Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/bl ... -the-brain
<QUOTE

If Dr. Peter Fenwick's idea is correct, plants may simply have developed a different mechanism to filter the consciousness property of the Universe.

With regard to emotions. What is the purpose of emotions? There is evidence that one can think pain away. Does that make pain per se less relevant for human life? Pain as an emotion is functional in the complex existence of an animal. From the perspective of a plant, what is of utmost importance is likely very different from that of an animal but that doesn't mean that the essence of pain and other emotions are not applicable to a plant within their unique scope of existence.

Imagine a forest fire. “It’s unbearable to even consider the idea that plants would be sentient, conscious beings aware of the fact that they’re being burned to ashes, watching their saplings die in front of them,” Taiz says. The horrifying scenario illustrates “what it would actually cost a plant to have consciousness.”

The roots of plants reside underground. What is atop the plant is essentially a part of their body that can be replaced. It is why forests recover quickly after a forest fire.

What makes pain relevant? If the human experiences a high stress event it receives an adrenaline shot by which the human does not feel pain and acquires a certain superhuman strength.

When plants would be capable of experiencing something in the scope of the essence of pain and other emotions, there is no reason to assume that they cannot switch off that sense under a high stress event, with forest fires being a factor that is essential for the vitality of forests and some plants even counting on it. For example, some flowers only bloom after a forest fire.

These flowers only bloom after forest fires
https://eu.redding.com/story/life/home- ... 364114001/

At question would be: does the capacity of plants to switch off their senses in a high stress event make their experience irrelevant? The fact that humans can switch off pain in high stress events does not seem to affect morality so why would such be applicable to morality of plants?

When it concerns morality in general, it would be about determining the need and applicability of a base level of respect. If plants are conscious creatures that are capable of fulfilling a vital role in animal life, not just for what has been but for what may come, then perhaps it is important to provide plants with a certain attention/respect that will enable them to perform well/better. If the concept of a shared dream between a plant and an animal is essential, it may be important to shape culture so that such potential can exist and advance. The concept of the discovery of a "shared purpose" may be essential for nature to prosper.

What a completely crap article re Fenwick. "But according to the decades-long research of Dr. Peter Fenwick"--what research? They present none of it, no mention of any of it. Nothing. It's simply a stupid "idea" piece, pretty much akin to horrible new age writing.