Philosophy Discussion Forums

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 7:01 am At question is: do plants in general deserve a similar moral status as an animal in general if it is said that plants have a 'self' and are capable of meaningful interaction with animals?

Yes, of course. If plants come so close to 'life' as we understand it, as you describe, of course they should be recognised as the 'equal' of animals.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 8:11 am

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 7:01 am Of plants it is said that they are capable of meaningful interaction (talking) and that they are essentially slow animals with a 'self'.

It is said (presumably non-metaphorically, otherwise it would be irrelevant) by whom, and on what justificational basis?

The status quo of science that reaches the mainstream news, e.g. New York Times:

Do Plants Have Something To Say?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/styl ... -talk.html

At question is not the validity of the science, although if it can be proven that plants are not intelligent / not conscious, then it could be an argument.

If plants are considered conscious and capable of real-time meaningful interaction with humans, what would the implications be for the moral status of plants?

Gaia philosophy may be relevant when considering morality for plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_philosophy

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 9:46 am

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 7:01 am At question is: do plants in general deserve a similar moral status as an animal in general if it is said that plants have a 'self' and are capable of meaningful interaction with animals?

Yes, of course. If plants come so close to 'life' as we understand it, as you describe, of course they should be recognised as the 'equal' of animals.

It would still be at question "what does a plant want?". From that perspective plants are likely to differ greatly from animals. Perhaps like the microbiome, plants want to be part of human existence. They provide food and perhaps they want to share in a dream beyond what exists (i.e. a meaningful relationship or friendship).

Why would a plant want to talk with a human? Why would a plant want to express intelligence to a human?

A question that may be relevant: Why do philosophers seek wisdom and consider the fulfilment of their quest the highest purpose of human life?

It may be that the same is valid for plants and animals and that a desire to amaze with intelligence or with beauty could lead to a state of fulfillment of the highest purpose of life. The lasting benefit would be the forming of a friendship, not for what existed, but for what may come.

Providing evidence of meaningful interaction between plants and animals may be difficult. What could the concept meaning between a human and a plant possibly entail? Would a plant want to say "Hi!" or would it communicate something of a different nature, possibly something that is applicable only to a specific type of plant and a human in the context of a shared existence?

If a plant would intend to communicate "Yes, I see you" or "Yes, I am intelligent in relation to you" how would one be able to provide evidence for "meaning" in any form of communication that may occur? What is "you" that the plant could observe and respond to? The indicated communication cannot consist of mere functional information because the "you" that is referenced is an active observer that is relative only to a moment in time, and relative only to the meaning that could exist between a plant (a self) and a human (an other self).

Meaning in communication relative to a self is derived from the potential to go beyond what exists, thus beyond what can be proven to exist beforehand.

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 11:10 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 8:11 am

It is said (presumably non-metaphorically, otherwise it would be irrelevant) by whom, and on what justificational basis?

The status quo of science that reaches the mainstream news, e.g. New York Times:

Do Plants Have Something To Say?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/styl ... -talk.html

At question is not the validity of the science, although if it can be proven that plants are not intelligent / not conscious, then it could be an argument.

If plants are considered conscious and capable of real-time meaningful interaction with humans, what would the implications be for the moral status of plants?

Gaia philosophy may be relevant when considering morality for plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_philosophy

Unfortunately I can't read the Times article due to the paywall.

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 11:10 am Gaia philosophy may be relevant when considering morality for plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_philosophy

This is my personal view. When asked about my beliefs, I call myself a Gaian Daoist.

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 11:10 amThe status quo of science that reaches the mainstream news, e.g. New York Times:

Do Plants Have Something To Say?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/styl ... -talk.html

QUOTE>
"Monica Gagliano says that she has received Yoda-like advice from trees and shrubbery. She recalls being rocked like a baby by the spirit of a fern. She has ridden on the back of an invisible bear conjured by an osha root. She once accidentally bent space and time while playing the ocarina, an ancient wind instrument, in a redwood forest. “Oryngham,” she says, means “thank you” in plant language. These interactions have taken place in dreams, visions, songs and telekinetic interactions, sometimes with the help of shamans or ayahuasca."
<QUOTE

That's not "the status quo of science"—that's a bunch of unscientific baloney!

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 11:15 am Perhaps like the microbiome, plants want to be part of human existence.

The rest of your post contains some interesting ideas, that I will shortly read again, and spend some time considering. But this (above) seems odd to me. The microbiome "wants to be part of human existence"? "Plants want to be part of human existence"? Why would any sentient species want to support or aid the plague species that is destroying the world we all share? Surely sentient creatures would wish to oppose humanity in every way that they can? [Gaia again! ]

Consul wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 11:41 am That's not "the status quo of science"—that's a bunch of unscientific baloney!

Quite so! It's more a spiritual perspective than a scientific one. There is more than one way to perceive the world.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 11:39 am

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 11:10 am Gaia philosophy may be relevant when considering morality for plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_philosophy

This is my personal view. When asked about my beliefs, I call myself a Gaian Daoist.

I'm more like a Zen Satanist.

Consul wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 11:41 am

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 11:10 amThe status quo of science that reaches the mainstream news, e.g. New York Times:

Do Plants Have Something To Say?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/styl ... -talk.html

QUOTE>
"Monica Gagliano says that she has received Yoda-like advice from trees and shrubbery. She recalls being rocked like a baby by the spirit of a fern. She has ridden on the back of an invisible bear conjured by an osha root. She once accidentally bent space and time while playing the ocarina, an ancient wind instrument, in a redwood forest. “Oryngham,” she says, means “thank you” in plant language. These interactions have taken place in dreams, visions, songs and telekinetic interactions, sometimes with the help of shamans or ayahuasca."
<QUOTE

That's not "the status quo of science"—that's a bunch of unscientific baloney!

From what I understand it is her personal journey/history by which she envisioned/discovered scientific tests. Psychoactive mushrooms and the like may provide an ability to connect with plants. It can be considered irrelevant.

Her tests were published and on that basis mainstream media have published about her results. Are the test results questionable?

There are many studies from other scientists that claim the same. On that basis it could be stated that a certain status quo of science finds the idea that plants are conscious plausible.

The root system of plants contain many neurotransmitters that are also present in the human brain, including dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin and histamin. Recent discoveries indicate that the root system of plants can grow many billions of cells at the tips of its roots that function similar to brain neurons. For some plants, it would result in an amount of neurons that could rival that of the human brain.

Recent surprising similarities between plant cells and neurons
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884105/

Perhaps it is a scientific clue that plants may physically have what is required for intelligence.

As it appears there is a basis to consider plant morality.

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 2:01 pmFrom what I understand it is her personal journey/history by which she envisioned/discovered scientific tests. Psychoactive mushrooms and the like may provide an ability to connect with plants. It can be considered irrelevant.

Her tests were published and on that basis mainstream media have published about her results. Are the test results questionable?

There are many studies from other scientists that claim the same. On that basis it could be stated that a certain status quo of science finds the idea that plants are conscious plausible.

The root system of plants contain many neurotransmitters that are also present in the human brain, including dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin and histamin. Recent discoveries indicate that the root system of plants can grow many billions of cells at the tips of its roots that function similar to brain neurons. For some plants, it would result in an amount of neurons that could rival that of the human brain.

Recent surprising similarities between plant cells and neurons
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884105/

Perhaps it is a scientific clue that plants may physically have what is required for intelligence.

* Psychoactive substances can make people believe that Jesus is talking to them, but delusions or hallucinations aren't veridical evidence.

* Depending on how "intelligence" is defined—there being many different definitions in the academic literature—, plants may have some form of intelligence; but if they do, their intelligence doesn't entail or require subjective experience/sentience.

* If "consciousness" means "phenomenal consciousness" aka "subjective experience", then you won't find many biologists who seriously believe that plants are conscious beings.

* There are some similarities between the electrophysiology of plants and the neurophysiology of animals, but they are outweighed by the dissimilarities between them.

QUOTE>
"Plants Neither Possess nor Require Consciousness.

Abstract: In claiming that plants have consciousness, 'plant neurobiologists' have consistently glossed over the remarkable degree of structural and functional complexity that the brain had to evolve for consciousness to emerge. Here, we outline a new hypothesis proposed by Feinberg and Mallat for the evolution of consciousness in animals. Based on a survey of the brain anatomy, functional complexity, and behaviors of a broad spectrum of animals, criteria were established for the emergence of consciousness. The only animals that satisfied these criteria were the vertebrates (including fish), arthropods (e.g., insects, crabs), and cephalopods (e.g., octopuses, squids). In light of Feinberg and Mallat's analysis, we consider the likelihood that plants, with their relative organizational simplicity and lack of neurons and brains, have consciousness to be effectively nil."

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31279732
<QUOTE

Consul wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 2:31 pm * Psychoactive substances can make people believe that Jesus is talking to them, but delusions or hallucinations aren't veridical evidence.

* Depending on how "intelligence" is defined—there being many different definitions in the academic literature—, plants may have some form of intelligence; but if they do, their intelligence doesn't entail or require subjective experience/sentience.

* If "consciousness" means "phenomenal consciousness" aka "subjective experience", then you won't find many biologists who seriously believe that plants are conscious beings.

* There are some similarities between the electrophysiology of plants and the neurophysiology of animals, but they are outweighed by the dissimilarities between them.

In the case of investigating communication with plants or plant intelligence, there may be plausability in exploring the methods that Dr. Gagliano has explored.

I personally do not use drugs and do not intend to explore it but I do not believe that the usage that is mentioned in the article on NYT is a reason to deny her test results, considering that the results were published. Many animals seek psychoactive plants. Perhaps it does serve a purpose to connect with plants in a special way, thus for the ability to form a bond with plants/nature.

QUOTE>
Plants were inching their way into her life. In 2010, she traveled to Peru for the first time to work with a plant shaman called Don M.

To communicate with plants, Dr. Gagliano followed the dieta, or the shamanic method in the indigenous Amazonian tradition by which a human establishes a dialogue with a plant. An icaro, or medicine song, is said to be shared by the plant, as well as visions and dreams, and the plant’s healing knowledge becomes a part of the human. It’s not fun, she warned.

As a white woman on a journey through sampled bits of sacred rituals, Dr. Gagliano speaks thoughtfully and often about the legacies of colonialism, capitalism and exploitative New Age trends, which certainly includes the rise in ayahuasca retreats. A term like “shaman” can now bring to mind its plunder by an unpopular modern archetype — the personal-growth-obsessed wellness devotee, dreamily trailing sage in circles around her unvaccinated children.

But Dr. Gagliano’s journey, her supporters say, is rooted in a desire to challenge dominant assumptions.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/styl ... -talk.html
<QUOTE

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

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 11:48 am

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 11:15 am Perhaps like the microbiome, plants want to be part of human existence.

The rest of your post contains some interesting ideas, that I will shortly read again, and spend some time considering. But this (above) seems odd to me. The microbiome "wants to be part of human existence"? "Plants want to be part of human existence"? Why would any sentient species want to support or aid the plague species that is destroying the world we all share? Surely sentient creatures would wish to oppose humanity in every way that they can? [Gaia again! ]

By asking the question why you essentially provide evidence for potential. Humans could make a mistake, but as is evident from your post, it may not intend to do so.

If nature has a purpose then humans may hold exceptional potential to serve nature's purpose well.

Considering the risks involved with exponential growth, it will be increasingly important to 'think before you act'. The dumb "grow at all costs" mentality of the industrialization era should likely be replaced if humans want to survive.

Philosophy and morality may play a vital role in the next 100 years.

arjand wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 4:38 pmWhat 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.

Recommended reading: Plant Neurobiology: No Brain, No Gain?

QUOTE>
"Plants continually gather information about their environment. Environmental changes elicit various biological responses. The cells, tissues, and organs of plants possess the ability to become excited under the influence of environmental factors. Plants synchronize their normal biological functions with their responses to the environment. The synchronization of internal functions, based on external events, is linked with the phenomenon of excitability in plant cells. The conduction of bioelectrochemical excitation is a fundamental property of living organisms.
The conduction of bioelectrochemical excitation is a rapid method of long distance signal transmission between plant tissues and organs. Plants promptly respond to changes in luminous intensity, osmotic pressure, temperature, cutting, mechanical stimulation, water availability, wounding, and chemical compounds such as herbicides, plant growth stimulants, salts, and water potential. Once initiated, electrical impulses can propagate to adjacent excitable cells. The bioelectrochemical system in plants not only regulates stress responses, but photosynthetic processes as well. The generation of electrical gradients is a fundamental aspect of signal transduction."

(Volkov, Alexander G. Plant Electrophysiology: Theory and Methods. Berlin: Springer, 2006. Preface)

"Although there have recently been attempts to extend the terminology of animal neurobiology to plants, including the concept of 'the synapse' (Baluška et al. 2005), there is no evidence that synaptical transmission, involving the release of chemicals from synaptic vesicles at intercellular interfaces, is involved in the propagation of an action potential from cell-to-cell in plants."

(Spanswick, Roger M. "The Role of Plasmodesmata in the Electrotonic Transmission of Action Potentials." In Plant Electrophysiology: Signaling and Responses, edited by Alexander G. Volkov, 233-248. Berlin Springer, 2012. p. 241)

"Electric Signaling: Ever since the discovery of electrical responses to stimulation in plants, obscure ideas about plants’ neurology were brought up (e.g., Tomkins and Bird 1973). This was always strongly provocative when one considers neurology as the study of nerve systems inferring foresight, intention, and consciousness to be restricted to the realm of cognitive behavior of (higher) animals. Astonishingly using such terminology plant neurobiology quite recently even comes up as a new move in plant biology (e.g., Trewavas 2003, 2005 ; Baluska et al. 2004, 2005; Brenner et al. 2006; Gurovich and Hermosilla 2009, with a rebuttal by Alpi et al. 2007). All kinds of interactions and communications involving plant cells are called “synapses” (Baluska et al. 2005). However, plants do not have neurons as specialized cells transmitting nerve impulses.

Reference is made to Charles and Francis Darwin. They discovered and in controversy with the dominating German plant physiologist Julius von Sachs, they rightly maintained that the kalyptra of the root tip is the site of perception of the gravitational stimulus eliciting gravitropical bending of roots (Darwin 1880, 1909). It is now known that electrical signaling is involved. The so-called geo-electric effect first described by Brauner and Bünning (1930) was confirmed by Stenz and Weisenseel (1991 , 1993). An electrical field is built up in the root under gravitational stimulation and the root is bending towards the lower physical side which is more positive. Very detailed studies by the group of Andreas Sievers (e.g., Behrens et al. 1985) then unraveled the interaction of cushions of endoplasmatic reticulum with the amyloplasts serving as statoliths in the cells of the kalyptra. This generates an asymmetric distribution of membrane potentials and a polarization forming electrical fields and eliciting electrical signals followed by gravitropical bending. While it is evident that perception and primary signaling reside in the kalyptra, it is much too far reaching to conclude that the root tip functions like a brain (Baluska et al. 2004) and to appeal to Charles Darwin for support of such a postulation. Charles Darwin tended to compare roots and also moving plant tendrils with earthworms having tiny brains in their tips. However, evidently the Darwins were not aware of the current progress in genuine neurobiology. Therefore it is not fair to quote them as authorities for plant neurobiology. Electrical phenomena are a basic and general property of all living proteo-lipid biomembranes. Clearly membrane-electrical properties evolved earlier than the organs of a nervous system (Volkov 2000). However, the crevasse between the functions of electrical signaling in plants and bona fide neuronal activities in (higher) animals is so deep that it is misleading to draw analogies (Alpi et al. 2007). Electrical signaling per se is not neurology. On the other hand, by no means whatsoever this permits defending the error of taking plants as merely modular organisms with denying them the quality of being unitary individuals (Haukioja 1991). Rejecting the term “plant neurobiology” does not at all distract from the fascination inherent in much work that is currently performed on electrical signaling in plants and its importance for integrated whole-plant functioning."

(Lüttge, Ulrich. "Whole-Plant Physiology: Synergistic Emergence Rather Than Modularity." In Progress in Botany 74, edited by Ulrich Lüttge, Wolfram Beyschlag, Dennis Francis, and John Cushman, 165-190. Berlin: Springer, 2013. p. 170)
<QUOTE