• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Plant feelings

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Many animals get by just fine without brains.
I don't see why plants need a structure devoted to being a brain, when their very nature is to spread the work along the whole organism.
There is no one single organ for breathing, for food production, for reproduction... why should they have a single organ for thought?

wa:do
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Many animals get by just fine without brains.
I don't see why plants need a structure devoted to being a brain, when their very nature is to spread the work along the whole organism.
There is no one single organ for breathing, for food production, for reproduction... why should they have a single organ for thought?

That's right, but it seems that the primary function of a brain is movement. Moving organisms need a guidance system to avoid danger and find food. As guidance systems, brains need to predict probable events. Emotions can be seen as part of the guidance system. We avoid what causes pain and seek what causes pleasure. Plants, being completely sessile, don't really need to expend energy on predicting future events. Hence, they don't have any reason to evolve brains or consciousness.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Jellyfish move about quite well without brains. Some can avoid obstacles.
Even single celled organisms do just fine moving purposefully without brains.

Plants to need to be able to respond to changes in their environment such as predation. Many can communicate to one another and even other species (wasps/ants) to warn them or seek help.

This is a highly developed ability to send and understand information.

wa:do
 

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
All energy "moves". All energy is vibrational and changes form. What guides it? Is it possible that that energy which could be considered "consciousness" is more than just the ability to "think" and "feel", and "predict"? Or perhaps it is simpler than that. Perhaps consciousness is merely the ability to "move" and change form. Is it possible that that vibrational force which holds all energy together and causes it to move is a form of "consciousness"?
 

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
Painted Wolf, I tend to agree with you. Even bacteria needs some form of consciousness in order to move about and do what it does. But what causes that energy to "become" bacteria in the first place? For the energy changes to take place to create bacteria, the simplest of "life" forms, even that energy must have had the "consciousness" to do it. If there was no consciousness, all of existence would be "dead" and "inanimate", but it is not, all of existence "moves". Everything, all energy is "alive".

I do not believe that "consciousness" is confined to those with a brain. The brain is a merely an energy transmitter. But that's my opinion. Sorry, I am not a scientist. It is just a personal theory of mine.
 
Last edited:

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Jellyfish move about quite well without brains. Some can avoid obstacles. Even single celled organisms do just fine moving purposefully without brains.

Yes, there are brainless organic entities that move. They aren't quite as good as we are at avoiding danger or finding food and shelter. We require a lot of food--fuel that creates energy--to run our brains. We are far more complex beings. That is how evolution works. The brainless moving beings form part of the food chain that sustains the more complex ones.

Plants to need to be able to respond to changes in their environment such as predation. Many can communicate to one another and even other species (wasps/ants) to warn them or seek help.
That is anthropomorphic projection on your part. Many machines rely on communication of sorts to run. Various parts of the machine "communicate" information to other parts. That doesn't make the machines sentient. For sentience, you need a rather complex brain, although I must acknowledge that some Artificial Intelligence research is trying to create sentience in machines. There are reasons why you might want a robot to be aware of its environment and its own condition or "health". When you work with robots, you realize why motile beings with brains developed self-awareness. Plants do not need self-awareness to survive and prosper. They just have to produce enough copies of themselves to keep from dying out. If they did die out, then all beings that depended on them for food would also die out.

This is a highly developed ability to send and understand information.
But not highly developed in a human sense. There is no reason why plants ought to have developed anything like human emotions or self-awareness. What you are doing is known as the Clever Hans Phenomenon. You are imputing human behavior and cognition to organisms and objects that don't have the requisite equipment.

All energy "moves". All energy is vibrational and changes form. What guides it? Is it possible that that energy which could be considered "consciousness" is more than just the ability to "think" and "feel", and "predict"? Or perhaps it is simpler than that. Perhaps consciousness is merely the ability to "move" and change form. Is it possible that that vibrational force which holds all energy together and causes it to move is a form of "consciousness"?

We can call energy "consciousness" if we like, but what exactly does that mean? Is it self-awareness or consciousness in the sense that you and I experience it? An awareness of one's self and surroundings? I don't see what it really gains you to say something like that. Perhaps it gives you hope that you will survive in some form after your body dies. I would love to think that I would survive death, but my knowledge and reasoning has forced the reluctant conclusion on me that I will not.

What we think about are experiences that we have in our bodies--sights, smells, touches, tastes, etc. These are experiences associated with very specific physical equipment in our bodies. We also know that our subjective experiences can be affected by physical influences on our brains--that the seat of OUR consciousness has a physical location and is grounded in a physical structure. A conk on the head can shut off your self-awareness and consciousness. It may or may not do so permanently. This is unfortunate, but it is the human condition.
 
Last edited:

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
I don't know as much about earthworms.

They have a nervous system and a cerebral ganglion so they are way ahead of plants in that area.

What exactly are you asking about earthworms?

Whether they can feel (sure).

Whether they have emotions? What do you think?

Oh great..antoher flashback of horror.I split the earth worms into sections with my finger nail to stick on the hook to go fishing.

I LOVE to fish.What is wrong with me!!!

Love

Dallas
 

doppelganger

Through the Looking Glass
BTW, my tricolor draceana marginata was reading this thread over my shoulder and is now furiously offended (and that's saying something given the dracena's reputation as ill-tempered to begin with). Luckily the ficus elastica consoled her.
 

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
doppelgänger;1401849 said:
BTW, my tricolor draceana marginata was reading this thread over my shoulder and is now furiously offended (and that's saying something given the dracena's reputation as ill-tempered to begin with). Luckily the ficus elastica consoled her.

Is she mad at me? :sorry1:

Love

Dallas
 

methylatedghosts

Can't brain. Has dumb.
I remember a mythbuster's episode..

They had 4 sets of plants.

To the first they did nothing
To the second they played death metal
To the third they recorded themselves yelling at them and played that
To the fourth they recorded themselves saying positive things about them

If my memory serves me, the death metal group grew the best, the others had no differences between them.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Yes, there are brainless organic entities that move. They aren't quite as good as we are at avoiding danger or finding food and shelter. We require a lot of food--fuel that creates energy--to run our brains. We are far more complex beings. That is how evolution works. The brainless moving beings form part of the food chain that sustains the more complex ones.
Evolution is not a chain of progression or complexity.
That is a common mistake in thinking about evolution.
Food chains exist with or without "complex" animals involved.

That is anthropomorphic projection on your part. Many machines rely on communication of sorts to run. Various parts of the machine "communicate" information to other parts. That doesn't make the machines sentient. For sentience, you need a rather complex brain, although I must acknowledge that some Artificial Intelligence research is trying to create sentience in machines. There are reasons why you might want a robot to be aware of its environment and its own condition or "health". When you work with robots, you realize why motile beings with brains developed self-awareness. Plants do not need self-awareness to survive and prosper. They just have to produce enough copies of themselves to keep from dying out. If they did die out, then all beings that depended on them for food would also die out.
Perhaps I am being a bit anthropomorphic, but you are being anthrocentric.
Both are mistakes.
I think you may have some assumptions about intelligence and sentience that are frankly unjustified. Just because things are not like us does not mean they can not function in ways analogous to us.
Birds do not have a neo-cortex in their brain, yet they can do the same sort of thought processes that we use our neo-cortex for.
Plants may not be what we would consider sentient, but to say that its impossible simply because they are not like us, is facetious.

But not highly developed in a human sense. There is no reason why plants ought to have developed anything like human emotions or self-awareness. What you are doing is known as the Clever Hans Phenomenon. You are imputing human behavior and cognition to organisms and objects that don't have the requisite equipment.
It doesn't have to be developed in the "human sense"... you are using anthro-centrism again.
I am aware of the Clever Hans Phenomenon, and I assure I'm not falling for it.
I'm mostly using this as a thought experiment. Again, I think you are taking your evolutionary condition and using it to unfairly judge other kingdoms, let alone species or phyla.

wa:do
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Evolution is not a chain of progression or complexity. That is a common mistake in thinking about evolution. Food chains exist with or without "complex" animals involved.

Yes, but in order for an animal of our complexity to be involved, that food chain must exist. I have not argued that evolution is directional. You have assumed that to be my point of view.

Perhaps I am being a bit anthropomorphic, but you are being anthrocentric.
Both are mistakes.

Well, I do admit to being partial to humans. I am, after all, a member of that species, so I'm not going to profess objectivity in the matter.

I think you may have some assumptions about intelligence and sentience that are frankly unjustified. Just because things are not like us does not mean they can not function in ways analogous to us.

I feel that I can back up many of my opinions about intelligence. Recall the "conk on the head" argument about consciousness. On the other hand, I consider it an unfounded assumption that things must be like us because we can imagine them to be that way.

Birds do not have a neo-cortex in their brain, yet they can do the same sort of thought processes that we use our neo-cortex for. Plants may not be what we would consider sentient, but to say that its impossible simply because they are not like us, is facetious.

I wasn't trying to be funny. Look, birds are more like us than plants. That would account for some of the similarities in thought processes, even if they are not totally like us in thought processes. They still do have brains, just not human brains. Hence, it is an insult to be called a "birdbrain".

I am aware of the Clever Hans Phenomenon, and I assure I'm not falling for it.
I'm mostly using this as a thought experiment. Again, I think you are taking your evolutionary condition and using it to unfairly judge other kingdoms, let alone species or phyla.

I would argue that it is you who are doing that, and without any real argument to back up your claim. I respect your opinion, but I still think that you are engaging in a "Clever Hans" thought experiment. We know that certain states of minds are associated with brains, yet you attribute such states of mind to brainless things.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I'm just saying that an alternative to a brain can evolve.
Plants have none of the systems we have yet they do many of the same functions. Respiration, digestion, reproduction even movement.

To expect a plant to have an animal like brain is grossly misinformed.
We only know certain states of mind are associated with brains because that is all we have experience with. It is all we look for.

To say a plant can't possibly think because it isn't like an animal is also misinformed.

The term bird-brain is another gross misinterpretation by anthrocentric thought. Birds can do basic math and have demonstrated an understanding of the concept of zero. They can make tools and can think abstractly 'as someone else'.
This is experimentally supported not 'clever hans'...

wa:do
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
I'm just saying that an alternative to a brain can evolve.
Plants have none of the systems we have yet they do many of the same functions. Respiration, digestion, reproduction even movement.

That doesn't mean that they have mental states such as moods and emotions. We know those to be associated with a limbic system.

To expect a plant to have an animal like brain is grossly misinformed.

Agreed.

We only know certain states of mind are associated with brains because that is all we have experience with. It is all we look for.

Insofar as we are capable of looking at anything, we look for what we are capable of seeing.

To say a plant can't possibly think because it isn't like an animal is also misinformed.

Agreed, but to say that a plant very likely does not think because it lacks a brain is actually an "informed" opinion. It is based on observations of thought and brain behaviors.

The term bird-brain is another gross misinterpretation by anthrocentric thought. Birds can do basic math and have demonstrated an understanding of the concept of zero. They can make tools and can think abstractly 'as someone else'.
This is experimentally supported not 'clever hans'...

I don't agree with the math argument. I have never argued that birds lack thought, only that they lack the mental functions that our very different brains give us.
 

Runewolf1973

Materialism/Animism
Copernicus, what is death? Are you referring to that state in which the body ceases to function and the energy of what was us, our consciousness changes form? How is that death? It is merely another change of energy is it not? We are energy forms are we not? If anything at all our "consciousness" is also another form of energy. What else could it possibly be? Can energy be destroyed? I don't think so. To me so-called "death" is a mere continuation of life and existence. My reasoning finds it hard to believe that death exists.Of course people get old or their bodies stop working and they "pass away", but they do not cease to exist do they? Is it possible for any energy to die? To cease moving or changing? Quantum physics is just now beginning to figure out what our paleolithic ancestors understood all along. Everything is "alive", even those who we consider to be "dead". All is consciousness, energy and potential...Spirit. But I am an Animist and that is how I view things. I could be wrong, but from what I understand of it, any scientific theory could be wrong as well.
 
Last edited:

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
That doesn't mean that they have mental states such as moods and emotions. We know those to be associated with a limbic system.
In animals. Again you are comparing cows and apple trees. Now cows and worms.

Insofar as we are capable of looking at anything, we look for what we are capable of seeing.
And sometimes we are blinded by expectations and don't see what is in front of us.
There are still people who believe that animals do not have any emotion and its only humans who do.

Agreed, but to say that a plant very likely does not think because it lacks a brain is actually an "informed" opinion. It is based on observations of thought and brain behaviors.
Informed by assumptions. Again, it was once informed opinion that beating a dog didn't actually hurt the dogs psyche.

I don't agree with the math argument.
you don't agree that asking Alex what one truck plus one truck is and having him clearly answer two truck is valid?
No Birdbrain, Parrot Grasps Concept of Zero | LiveScience
African grey parrot is first bird to comprehend numerical concept ak...( Waltham Mass. A Brandeis University r...)

wa:do
 

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Copernicus, what is death? Are you referring to that state in which the body ceases to function and the energy of what was us, our consciousness changes form?

My take on it is that consciousness ceases, not that it changes form. When the music stops, it doesn't go anywhere. It just ceases to exist. The air that carried the sound waves, the ears that detected them, and the mind that interpreted what the ear detected may still continue to remember, but the music itself no longer exists.

We are energy forms are we not?

We are physical beings. Energy is just another form of physical matter. (Energy is mass times the velocity of light squared.) I think of a mind as an emergent property of physical interactions. When those interactions stop, the mind no longer exists. That is especially true when memory goes, because memory is really essential to our being. Brains store memories, and there is nothing to support the speculation that it can persist once the physical substrate that sustains it disappears.

Can energy be destroyed?

That isn't the point. Consciousness and mental states are effects of physical reality. They disappear when physical reality ceases to produce the effects.

My reasoning finds it hard to believe that death exists.Of course people get old or their bodies stop working and they "pass away", but they do not cease to exist do they?

You don't have to die in order for your self to cease to exist. Surely you've heard the saying that you can't step into the same river twice. In a sense, a river is ever-changing. So is our state of being. Just like a river, you have a beginning point and an end point.

Quantum physics is just now beginning to figure out what our paleolithic ancestors understood all along.

Sorry, but I disagree. Our ancestors were ignorant, and they misinterpreted what was going on in nature. They made the mistake of seeing too much of themselves in the forces of nature. We should not make the same mistake.

...But I am an Animist and that is how I view things. I could be wrong, but from what I understand of it, any scientific theory could be wrong as well.

True, but I trust the scientist more to get it right. No offense. You could still be right. I'm just not going to place my bet on your insights over theirs.
 
Top