A Discussion on Plant Consciousness

Do plants have consciousness?

There is a debate between professionals within the scientific community over whether or not plants are conscious life forms. There is evidence that the plant kingdom perceives and reacts to sensory stimuli, and it even seems as though they actually choose how to respond to a specific event or interaction. But is that alone enough to promote plants to the elite groups of beings considered to be conscious?

My name is Kayde Mae, and welcome to Mysteria Metaphysics.

An experiment was conducted where plant life was exposed to anesthesia. The recorded findings showed that the plants under anesthesia did not respond to the stimuli of being touched. Essentially this demonstrated that they were sedated, numb, and lost the ability to perceive physical sensation. Therefore, it has been concluded that plants have the same reaction to anesthetics as animals and humans.

However, some scientists argue that this alone is not a substantial enough implication for the existence of consciousness among the plant kingdom, for it only proves that plants can be sedated, which is simply a biological reaction, rather than an indication of self-awareness. That being said, the opposing side maintains that since plants can respond to physical stimuli and even make a choice of an appropriate reaction, that when under anesthesia, if they lose the ability to perceive a disturbance, they then lose awareness of that disturbance. This would suggest the idea that awareness could not be lost if it were not possessed initially. To emphasize, one could not lose consciousness without having had it to begin with.

There was another experiment conducted that observed the behavioral reactions in plants to touch and stress. The species studied is known for curling up its leaves as a defensive mechanism to protect its most vulnerable area when a perceived threat is sensed. The results of this research stated that the plants quickly discovered once exposed to the continuous stressful occurrences which lead to no real harm, that it was unnecessary for them to waste the energy of curling their leaves. Then after a month of no stress exposure, once the plants were bothered again, they still did not defend themselves. This study suggests that not only are plants able to remember, but that a brain is not required to store memories.

The scientists who are skeptical of this conclusion express that without a nervous system, a being is incapable of memory and learning. They believe that the awareness of plants should not be mistaken for and cannot be compared to the human experience of existence. As for the researchers who are convinced that the findings could in fact indicate plant consciousness, they, in a way, agree with with the notion that plants should not be compared to humans on this level. They point out the fact that plants make decisions based on the information gathered from their surroundings, communicate with each other, and defend their health. These professionals suggest that plants absolutely are conscious, only in a different way than human beings.

It seems as though a simple answer to settle this debate can be found in the definition of the term consciousness itself. There are different definitions depending on the source, but for the purposes of this information, two will be given.

The first example explains consciousness as a general sense of awareness of the self and of the environment. This definition would easily classify plants as conscious beings.

The second source states that in order to be considered conscious, one would need to have meta-cognition. Simply put, that translates to being aware of ones own self-awareness. By this definition, there is no data or proof of plant consciousness. Not the tangible and measurable sort anyway.

Now, A Comprehensive Discussion on the Matter from Yours Truly:

There seems to be a flaw inherent in human nature that holds us in a place of ignorance and limitation. For to be able to acknowledge the attributes of another species, they must be expressed according to the patterns we’ve observed within ourselves. In essence, we have trouble accepting that which is not familiar, understandable, or that which fails to mirror ourselves. Perhaps this is due to our Egos. We must recognize ourselves in something foreign in order to embrace it. It’s worth mentioning that we have a fixed perception and association with what we believe consciousness really is. We still debate the definition and implication among ourselves. We cannot agree upon the source of its existence. Consciousness within ourselves, whether something biological, numinous, or a symbiotic and delicate relationship between the two, is still very far from being understood. It seems to lie in the realm of mystery and intrigue, not yet decoded. Therefore the question must be raised; If we fail to interpret and comprehend the nature of our own consciousness, how could we ever measure, prove or disprove it in other beings?

When discussing this topic, one cannot help but bring up Cleve Backster, a former polygraph expert for the CIA, who due to his research was reluctantly named “The Father of Primary Cell Perception”. Cleves journey in exploring plant consciousness began when he hooked up a plant to a galvanometer and found that it instantly responded to being watered. Out of curiosity he wondered if it would also respond to one of its leaves being set on fire. But before Cleve even had a chance to find a matchstick, the polygraph machine registered an electrical surge of activity, suggesting the plant was experiencing stress. Backster believed that the plant was somehow able to read his mind and felt that through the use of his equipment, he could now read the plants as well.

This led him on a string of experiments to investigate the consciousness of plant life. One of which is particularly impressive. Cleve attached electrodes to three different vegetables and selected one to be dropped into boiling water. Astonishingly, before it even made contact with the water, the graph recorded an immediate upward sweep of activity followed by a sudden and abrupt straight line. Essentially, the vegetable had fainted, or fallen unconscious. The remaining vegetables responded to the activity of the one that was chosen, seemingly sympathetic. There is much doubt over Backsters findings by other scientists, as a majority of his results have failed to be replicated by others. Cleve defends his work, stating that the process of repeating the experiments have been carelessly flawed, therefore, inaccurate in the reported conclusions.

Should there be a seed of truth within the findings of Cleve Backsters research, it then becomes our responsibility and obligation to think critically about the role of vegetation as our most prominent food source. If plants have consciousness, would it not be just as much a form of murder and just as unethical for us to farm and consume them as we do animals?

Considering that the largest motivation of embracing a vegetarian or vegan diet is a lifestyle choice to protest the cruelty towards animals as conscious beings, then if plants were truly conscious, it would imply that vegans and vegetarians are just as insensitive and unethical towards other forms of life as meat-eaters. As a side note, I will mention that the process of clearing land in order to plant and farm crops for human consumption is equally as disturbing to the natural ecosystem and native animal life as slaughtering livestock. Industrial agriculture causes deforestation and species loss, as fertilizer gets washed into the ocean, affecting even marine life.

To be clear, this information is not intended to be used as a tool to demonize an individuals choice of diet, or to induce guilt among those who consume plant life exclusively. However, as the horrific realization of treating plant life so cruelly when they may indeed possess consciousness begins to set in, my condolences are offered, as well as a solution.

Should there be any merit to Cleve Backsters research and assumptions that vegetables faint upon the intention of being consumed, a harmless and simple practice can be applied to lessen the trauma of the plants demise. The ancient Tibetan Monks may have had the right notion in offering respect and apologies aloud to their food before preparing it to be ingested. This practice would notify the plants in advance of the upcoming event, so that they have the opportunity to administer a self-induced coma. One must wonder if the act of saying grace and showing gratitude before eating a meal is another form of this demonstration of respect for the circle of life, as the death of one provides sustainment of life to another. It is in some way, on some level, conscious or simply biological, a sacrifice that should be regarded as significant, and the gratefulness of the consumer should be expressed. Another suggestion is that any leftover plant material that will not be eaten should be taken outside, and discarded in the yard so that other life can feed upon it as well, ensuring that nothing is left to waste.

Whether or not plants are conscious, our respect and appreciation is deserved. To put it lightly, these creatures are extraordinary and fascinating. The first land plants evolved by about 700 million years ago, changing the earths climate which eventually enabled the evolution of land animals. They are highly complex and refined as they can meet all of their survival needs without movement or relocation. Plants are miraculously efficient at survival as they can sustain themselves with water, sunlight, and soil. That, to us, seems like minimal requirements. Plant life is extremely diverse and resilient, for they have developed a wide array of adaptations and defense mechanisms.

Not only are they exceptionally skilled at survival, but plants are also surprisingly social creatures. It is common knowledge that plants interact with insects and animals, forming symbiotic relationships in order to reproduce. Some plant species are so cunning that they have even initiated codependency with a singular species of animal or insect, enlisting its companion to defend it from outside threats.

The oldest and largest trees in a forest, or “mother trees”, actually feed their saplings and offspring through their roots. A theory has been proposed claiming that the roots of plants form a rich underground network where they signal information back and forth to one another, acting as a nervous system. If plants truly are conscious, this could indicate the operations of a hive-mind.

From any angle of observation, one thing is certain; plants are more efficient than humans. We are dependent and rely on plant life just to breathe. Plants are incredible when compared to us. Some species are more genetically complex than we are, as they have more genes than we do. They can lose up to 90% of their body and still survive and regrow. It’s been discovered that in comparison to our five senses, plants have more than twenty. However, similarities between humans and plants have also been found. Electrical and signaling systems have been identified in plant life, which are homologous, or comparable to those found in the nervous systems of animals. Plants also possess neurotransmitters such as glutamate, serotonin, and dopamine, just like us. Whatever the case, plants are by no means a passive life form.

I hope I have sparked some curiosity, or at the very least, a more mature appreciation for our fellow earthlings. So the next time you see a plant, remember that it just might be reading your mind and sensing your vibes. Thanks for reading!

–Kayde Mae*

To get a more personal and in-depth understanding of the perspective of plant life, I highly recommend watching the BBC nature documentary series “The Private Life of Plants”, as well as episode nine, titled Plants in BBC’s series “Life”.

Here are links to the sources I gathered this information from:

Share this:

Related

Leave a comment Cancel reply