Are Plants Sentient

[longearedfriend]

there was this video, or short film

it aired in canada

it was called the plant or something like that

and it all started with a little plant

(don't want to spoil it) anyways the guy lived in an appartment

maybe someone knows what i'm talking about

but it has a direct link with the thread
the writers of the show agreed with the thread's question

 

[Classy@Home]

With a cameo from Bill Murray???

With a cameo from Bill Murray???

there was this video, or short film

it aired in canada

it was called the plant or something like that

and it all started with a little plant

(don't want to spoil it) anyways the guy lived in an appartment

maybe someone knows what i'm talking about

but it has a direct link with the thread
the writers of the show agreed with the thread's question

Little Shop of Horrors???

"I'm gonna get a candy bar..."

 

[Kitsym]

plants are sentient in that they sense

they sense light and grow towards it as well as react to environmental cues

they are not conscious of their sentience or do they choose their actions in their sentience as we can and do

the venus fly trap is sentient in that it can sense prey and react to it

what he said...

 

[bench warmer]

Are Plants Sentient

I think my plants are lurking this site over my shoulder.
They seem to be silently commanding me to grow them better than I already am.

 

[MoeBudz^420]

Flytraps use trigger hairs to tell w/ an insect is in the trap. It must touch 2 of the 3 hairs inside to close the trap. They just don't "sense" its presence like ESP or something...



Peace

 

[waveguide]

only thing i would add to this is we dont know enough to make definitive statements.

try explaining that to people who are certain they know all there is to know already

 

[Anti]

try explaining that to people who are certain they know all there is to know already

Please don't misconstrue what I have said as a definitive statement. I have asked for evidence of thoughts and feelings in plants. Failing to find any, I am merely approaching the topic from a logical, reasoned perspective.

Some people are CONVINCED that they've seen sasquatch, yeti, elves, fairies, gnomes, aliens, etc. But without EVIDENCE of these claims, I have a hard time reconciling these beliefs with my own perceptions and understanding of the world around me.

If you have some evidence that your plants are aware of you and responding to your personality, thoughts, feelings, etc. please share it. I like to learn new things.

 

[Classy@Home]

Hey, that sounds like me...

Hey, that sounds like me...

try explaining that to people who are certain they know all there is to know already

 

[trichrider]

i would love to believe that plants are sentient beings, but it's a stretch to say those plants 'instructed' or 'played' me into planting them, or that they had any notion they would survive better by influencing our pleasure center in the brain.
that the redwoods or bristlecones would allow us to decimate and destroy their numbers so we could be warm and have shelter disallows this notion.
so they respond to electrical stimulation, so too does every living thing...am i now to believe plants have achieved awareness sans central nervous system or brain?
to think this one must concede plants are more advanced than mammals, but are they?
thorny subject, with no roots in reality, imho.

 

[Anti]

People mostly misunderstand evolutionary theory and it leads to problems like this. (Misunderstanding the thrust of Botany of Desire, for example.)

Here's a (non-plant) example:

Lets say we take two identical schools of fish and we place each school in a small pond. Both ponds have a lot of small rocks collected in the bottom of the pond.

In one of these ponds, we put some predators. In the other, no predators.

Now we sit back (or leave) and come back 100 generations later.

The fish in the pond with no predators have evolved to be multi-colored. There is no predator selecting the "easiest to see" prey, so the ones that are strangely colored (by random chance) survive and breed true.

The fish in the pond with predators have evolved a pattern on their scales that mimics the rocky-bottom of the pond. Not because they CHOSE to breed with partners who looked more like rocks, but because the ones who looked LESS like rocks were the first to be eaten. Over time, the "brightly colored" fish disappear and fish begin to look more and more like rocks. Again, not because of any kind of conscious choice.

The predators are the ones (in this scenario) who are deciding the way that their prey will evolve. The predators take the ones that are easiest to see, so each generation is composed of the offspring of the fish that blended in the best with their surroundings.

It may be true that cannabis has been selectively bred by humans to have the characteristics that we seek. It would've started LONG before we started deliberately cultivating these plants. But once we noticed the effect, we might start taking more care with certain plant species than others. We might defend that plant against harsh weather, animals who wished to feed on it. Even later, we might begin to keep and cultivate the seeds of the plants that pleased us the most.

This does NOT assume that the plant was deliberately making itself "more potent" to "lure" us into cultivating it. We take the place of the predator fish in this example. Plants that "happen" to be more potent end up being selected by humans. Plants that are less potent are not selected by humans and thus do not receive the care and protection that we give to the ones we like best.

No thought or consciousness on the part of the plant is required.

 

[InJoy]

People mostly misunderstand evolutionary theory and it leads to problems like this. (Misunderstanding the thrust of Botany of Desire, for example.)

Here's a (non-plant) example:

Lets say we take two identical schools of fish and we place each school in a small pond. Both ponds have a lot of small rocks collected in the bottom of the pond.

In one of these ponds, we put some predators. In the other, no predators.

Now we sit back (or leave) and come back 100 generations later.

The fish in the pond with no predators have evolved to be multi-colored. There is no predator selecting the "easiest to see" prey, so the ones that are strangely colored (by random chance) survive and breed true.

The fish in the pond with predators have evolved a pattern on their scales that mimics the rocky-bottom of the pond. Not because they CHOSE to breed with partners who looked more like rocks, but because the ones who looked LESS like rocks were the first to be eaten. Over time, the "brightly colored" fish disappear and fish begin to look more and more like rocks. Again, not because of any kind of conscious choice.

The predators are the ones (in this scenario) who are deciding the way that their prey will evolve. The predators take the ones that are easiest to see, so each generation is composed of the offspring of the fish that blended in the best with their surroundings.

It may be true that cannabis has been selectively bred by humans to have the characteristics that we seek. It would've started LONG before we started deliberately cultivating these plants. But once we noticed the effect, we might start taking more care with certain plant species than others. We might defend that plant against harsh weather, animals who wished to feed on it. Even later, we might begin to keep and cultivate the seeds of the plants that pleased us the most.

This does NOT assume that the plant was deliberately making itself "more potent" to "lure" us into cultivating it. We take the place of the predator fish in this example. Plants that "happen" to be more potent end up being selected by humans. Plants that are less potent are not selected by humans and thus do not receive the care and protection that we give to the ones we like best.

No thought or consciousness on the part of the plant is required.

That makes perfect sense...

I was excited about the idea our plants are sensing our Love as would be the case if the study in the op was accurate.

Anti has more than convinced me this isn't happening.

The craziest part i take from this is the lie detector being effected by other people in the room WTF

So the guy askin the questions can effect the machine during a murder inquisition?

How can they even use these results?

 

[Classy@Home]

So the guy askin the questions can effect the machine during a murder inquisition?

How can they even use these results?

They can't - not admissible in court, if I recall correctly...

NEVER take a polygraph - most lawyers will try and stop you.

Can't help you - could hurt you (just like speaking w/ leo without a lawyer present - even if you're innocent, you could say something that could be misconstrued, or just twisted against you).

 

[InJoy]

They can't - not admissible in court, if I recall correctly...

NEVER take a polygraph - most lawyers will try and stop you.

Can't help you - could hurt you (just like speaking w/ leo without a lawyer present - even if you're innocent, you could say something that could be misconstrued, or just twisted against you).

Knowing the guy asking the questions can effect the machine makes it so unbelieveable they are even allowed to use it.

Like you say not admissible in court.

Just another tactic to intimidate people.

 

[mrcreosote]

Uh-oh,

I just defoliated the underside of my plants.
I hope they still love me...

 

[Toes.]

People mostly misunderstand evolutionary theory and it leads to problems like this. (Misunderstanding the thrust of Botany of Desire, for example.)

Here's a (non-plant) example:

Lets say we take two identical schools of fish and we place each school in a small pond. Both ponds have a lot of small rocks collected in the bottom of the pond.

In one of these ponds, we put some predators. In the other, no predators.

Now we sit back (or leave) and come back 100 generations later.

The fish in the pond with no predators have evolved to be multi-colored. There is no predator selecting the "easiest to see" prey, so the ones that are strangely colored (by random chance) survive and breed true.

The fish in the pond with predators have evolved a pattern on their scales that mimics the rocky-bottom of the pond. Not because they CHOSE to breed with partners who looked more like rocks, but because the ones who looked LESS like rocks were the first to be eaten. Over time, the "brightly colored" fish disappear and fish begin to look more and more like rocks. Again, not because of any kind of conscious choice.

The predators are the ones (in this scenario) who are deciding the way that their prey will evolve. The predators take the ones that are easiest to see, so each generation is composed of the offspring of the fish that blended in the best with their surroundings.

It may be true that cannabis has been selectively bred by humans to have the characteristics that we seek. It would've started LONG before we started deliberately cultivating these plants. But once we noticed the effect, we might start taking more care with certain plant species than others. We might defend that plant against harsh weather, animals who wished to feed on it. Even later, we might begin to keep and cultivate the seeds of the plants that pleased us the most.

This does NOT assume that the plant was deliberately making itself "more potent" to "lure" us into cultivating it. We take the place of the predator fish in this example. Plants that "happen" to be more potent end up being selected by humans. Plants that are less potent are not selected by humans and thus do not receive the care and protection that we give to the ones we like best.

No thought or consciousness on the part of the plant is required.

Anti, I am really glad to have your perspective in this thread. You've done your homework.

The Mythbusters exercise, is flawed, according to Backster, on one condition. According to Backster and others whom have repeated his work, the plant and the Human testing the plant should have an emotional attachment already. I know... nothing scientific about that, right.

Here's some more from the book...
Chapter Three, Plant’s That Open Doors.
Pierre Paul Sauvin, an electronics specialist from West Paterson, employed by several large corporations including Aerospace and International Telephone and Telegraph, read an interview with Backster given by Long John, a famous skeptic. When Backster was asked of the practical uses of his findings he replied, “You could instrument a plant to activate a small electric train, getting it to move back and forth on no other command than that of human emotion.”

Sauvin created this notion, though very impractical, in his bachelor pad of electronic equipment. He had a toy electric train running around a track and reversing its direction through nothing but his thought and emotion relayed to a plant. He demonstrated the phenomenon before an audience of sixty in Madison, New Jersey. Also, demonstrated his ability to make the train start and stop in a television studio.

The train would activate a switch leading to Sauvin’s body in such a way as to give him a sharp electric shock. Another switch was wired to a galvanometer attached to an ordinary philodendron. As the philodendron picked up Sauvin’s emotional reaction at being shocked, the galvanometer needle would jump and throw the switch, reversing the train. The next step was for Sauvin to remember the sensation of being shocked and project it in order for the plant to activate the switch.

Though Sauvin had long been interested in parapsychology and was fascinated with the psychological implications of a plant responding to human thought and emotion, his main preoccupation was the development of a foolproof plant device that could be activated by any human being. For Sauvin's purposes it did not matter whether the plant was any way rational or feeling, so long as it could reliably pick up his emotional signal and trigger the switch. Whether plants were "conscious" or not, Suavin was convinced they had an energy field similar to the energy field generated by a human being, and somehow an interaction of these fields could be put to use. The problem was to develop equipment sensitive enough to take advantage of the phenomenon in an absolutely reliable way.

 

[D4sh3y]

our brain is a chemical organ, and plants make chemicals. they are our teachers. we would not have conciousness without them. they have messages for our brains. are they aware of their own existence? i think so.

 

[Anti]

For Sauvin's purposes it did not matter whether the plant was any way rational or feeling, so long as it could reliably pick up his emotional signal and trigger the switch. Whether plants were "conscious" or not, Suavin was convinced they had an energy field similar to the energy field generated by a human being, and somehow an interaction of these fields could be put to use. The problem was to develop equipment sensitive enough to take advantage of the phenomenon in an absolutely reliable way.

Has this experiment been independently replicated and verified? Lots of people have "discovered" cold fusion over the last 30-40 years, but nobody has been able to replicate (successfully) the original experiment. Without such independent verification, I'd be pretty suspicious of those results.

 

[mrcreosote]

I actually don't find the proposition outlandish that plants respond to electrical stimuli, in whatever form it takes, because we know they do. Cations and anions, + & - charges are responsible for feeding and tissue growth. Why is it so far-fetched to think that they would not respond in some fashion to the mass of bio-electrical energy that exists in higher life forms, such as ourselves?
What are we, if not basic electrical generators converting matter into energy and energy into matter, not much different than our little green pals.
To which level this interaction occurs is grounds for (maybe wild) speculation but that it does occur to some degree would not be beyond the realm of science.
Kirlean (?) photography seems to indicate biological life radiates more and different wavelengths that just heat.
Most people are perfectly comfortable with the idea that all matter is a whirling bundle of electrical charges at an atomic level comprised of their respective elements and compounds in a sea of lighter gaseous elements.

As ol' weed-smoking Carl puts it, we are just meat-bags made of stardust, just a bit more elegantly constructed than a rock.

I know my plants like it when I say 'good morning' to em. They just look happy.
Pity when they find out they won't be dating.