Do Plants Feel?

[Noaidi]

Storm, Painted Wolf

I too have my doubts about this experiment. A bit more searching indicates that it's not the type of music per se that plants respond to (the 'new age' hypothesis), it's the vibrations produced. If my pupil still wants to do this, I'll get her to use a monotone emitted from a signal generator (using various volumes and frequencies) rather than subject the poor seedlings to 8 hours of Slipknot.

Found this paper, which seems to be popular. Haven't read it all yet, but from what I gather, it's got some relevance for studying mechanoperception in plants:

A unified hypothesis of mechanoperception in plants -- Telewski 93 (10): 1466 -- American Journal of Botany

 

[Storm]

Oh, I wasn't citing MythBusters as conclusive proof of anything. Just thought it was a fun anecdote to share.

 

[Noaidi]

I read the Mythbusters article earlier today, and it made several points questioning the validity of the experiments. I think the experiments fall into the 'allowable' category (for my purposes); they just need to be a bit more rigorous.

 

[bain-druie]

I think that given the limited knowledge we possess about consciousness in our own species, it behooves us to assume there's a lot more we don't know about consciousness in general and in other species particularly. Neurology is a field that is growing exponentially, and the more we discover the more we realize there is left to discover. Consciousness is a very complex, elusive subject. I really don't feel we are qualified given our scope of knowledge to rule out consciousness in any living thing.

Basically, I don't think it's scientifically proven yet either way whether or not plants 'feel' or have consciousness. This may not be a question science will be able to answer for a long time; so we are left with our opinions, which are based on experience and what knowledge we do have.

That said, I believe that plants do feel. I can't prove it to anyone else, but I believe I have enough evidence (not proof, just evidence) to justify what I intuitively feel in this case.

For instance, our August seminar on the Druid board was about why trees twist when they grow; the upshot revealed that trees have a kind of 'memory' that teaches them to adapt their growth patterns based on past experience. Thus you have one species of tree that, based on environment, will grow individuals with four completely different growth patterns, to the point that intraspecies identification is not easy.

This and the experiences I've had with plants leads me to be comfortable with my assertion that plants do have feelings; they do not express them as we do, nor do they feel as we do, but what they do feel and what they do express is no less valid because we do not understand it yet.

 

[Noaidi]

For instance, our August seminar on the Druid board was about why trees twist when they grow; the upshot revealed that trees have a kind of 'memory' that teaches them to adapt their growth patterns based on past experience. Thus you have one species of tree that, based on environment, will grow individuals with four completely different growth patterns, to the point that intraspecies identification is not easy.

Interesting. What do you mean by adapting their growth patterns based on past experience? Is the growth pattern of an individual tree not just a combination of its genetics and the specific environment in which it grows? Do you have any references I could follow up?

 

[bain-druie]

Interesting. What do you mean by adapting their growth patterns based on past experience? Is the growth pattern of an individual tree not just a combination of its genetics and the specific environment in which it grows? Do you have any references I could follow up?

Yes, you can say that the growth pattern is 'just' a combination of genetics and environment; we're still having that Nature plus Nurture debate in human psychology circles as well, though, so to me it still does not necessitate a difference in *quality* per se, so much as a difference in *type*. Again, just my opinion, no proof!

The seminar I was referring to was written by one of our members. Here is the link: The Druid Grove • View topic - August Seminar: How trees grow, or: Why do they twist?

This is the quote I was thinking of in referring to tree memory:

"Interestingly enough, trees are able to sense the kind of wind shear and snow burden even during dormant times. A study in which branches were weighed down in winter showed that trees increased the twist of grain and branch thickness in the following summer, for up to several years afterwards. They had “remembered” that there was a hard winter where branches were twisted more than usual, and reacted to it. So we can say that trees are never really inactive, even in winter, and have a memory that will be activated during the growth seasons." - Aylyn, August seminar

 

[painted wolf]

I think that these words don't mean anything.

Plants have basic responsive cells but nothing resembling a nervous system.

Neither do most animals... yet they do just fine. Jellyfish for example, have no brain, but they have eyes and can see and respond. They process information and we don't know how they do it.

As animals we take a nervous system for granted... but there is no reason to think that it is the only system that can work.

I'm not saying that plants are the same as animals, but they are far more complex/ "advanced" than most people realize.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I never said most animals feel, either. Survival, for most organisms, has nothing to do with brains.

No, they don't process 'information'. Information is reliant on consciousness, which means a recursive pattern system. If you don't have this, you have no information. What Jellies have is some kind of complicated chemical response system. Just like bacteria.

So the ability to see isn't processing information? They can use their "true" eyes (retina,cornea, lens) to see color and shapes but that isn't information?

And here I thought information was environmental cues being received that needed to be processed and reacted to.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

ok... how about processing stimuli then. Since information is clearly a loaded word.

Jellies and plants are capable of processing and responding to stimuli. While neurons are clearly specialized cells, there is no reason that other cells can't multitask and do some of the same work. Much like sponges have cells that perform both reproduction and secretion of structural elements.

Again, such processing need not be conscious.... we do the majority of our stimuli processing without thought.

Feeling is simply the response to stimuli, usually denoted as pressure, but other similar stimuli can be added. Plants respond to such negative stimuli in ways to prevent damage to themselves and their cohorts.
This meets the basic definition of "feeling".

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I never suggested that it ponders it's fate or composes poetry... just that it responds to it in a way that is analogous to the majority of the animal kingdom.

However there is some research to suggest that plants to "decide" on what strategy to use for various situations. For example, if being munched do you release more toxins into your leaves or do you release ant/wasp attracting pheromones. Or, if your cohort is being munched which do you do.
Digital Documents Repository: Item 10113/81
Self-recognition affects plant communication and defense - Karban - 2009 - Ecology Letters - Wiley Online Library

Proactively preventing/reducing harm to ones self is showing an "opinion" or "caring" not to be injured.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

No. It can't even be called harm.

Harm is damage to an organism that kills or damages cells and potentially threatens that organisms life and/or reproductive fitness.

wa:do

 

[Rio Sabinas]

For one view of this topic you might read....

The Secret Life of Plants
by-Peter Tompkins & Christopher Bird

Amazon shows 69 reviews of the book.