Sedate a Plant, and It Seems to Lose Consciousness. Is It Conscious?

[Homer]

So there's an interesting article in the NYT about the matter. I wouldn't be surprised at all tbh.

 

click

 

What do you think? Are they? Or have those plants in the experiment just been 'misread'? If they are indeed conscious, what does that mean for vegans? I still have to think about all this for a while.

[Skycaptain]

Reactions to stimuli in anything, plant or animal are,  at the base level, chemical reactions. Sedatives work by inhibiting these reactions, so it's not surprising that they work on plants as well as animals. 

[Vlakorados]

I think it all comes to the definition of consciousness.

 

We already know that plants are not simply motionless beings, they actually react to certain events of the surrounding environment. They even have their own ways to communicate with each other and tell their similars when thy are in danger.

 

I don't think it will actually change anything for most vegans. They already have an established mindset based on the difference between plants and animals. While some may re-think about it, in the end it all comes to what we consider right and wrong, more than scientific facts. It also depends on the reason that made them become vegans: some because they consider more healthy, some because they can't stand thinking about animals suffering, etc.

[Tarfeather]

It's the human arrogance that makes some of us think that our form of consciousness is somehow unique and special. Consciousness isn't an on and off switch. It's at the very least a scale (but in reality more complex). Dogs have consciousness, but not as much as humans. In theory, there could be smarter and more conscious beings than humans. Plants also have consciousness, although I'm not clear on how much and whether their consciousness has anything to do with the article. The things described in that article could also be done by a simple neural network. By that logic, weather prediction or voice recognition systems would be conscious. I'm not certain if that's accurate.

[Chimeric]

7 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

Reactions to stimuli in anything, plant or animal are,  at the base level, chemical reactions. Sedatives work by inhibiting these reactions, so it's not surprising that they work on plants as well as animals. 

This is true, but most of our work with sedatives and analgesics have been in the context of animal chemical transport, metabolism, and receptors. It's silly to think that plants haven't evolved a similar system (if anything, their came first) but it's also (obviously) very clear that their system differs vastly from ours (since they lack organs like lungs, liver, kidney, and skin, which are the major organs of drug metabolism in mammals). It's really interesting because even across mammalian species, drug metabolism varies widely (this is why acetaminophen will kill a cat but not a dog or a child) - and we all use (basically) the same receptors. That these receptors exist in a similar enough form to induce an effect in plants is really fascinating. 

 

8 hours ago, Homer said:

Or have those plants in the experiment just been 'misread'

That said, I think it may be just as likely that the anesthetics are inducing a physical response rather than a "conscious" one; it's possible they're impacting electron or ion transport, which in turn is affecting plant mobility systems.... but I will admit I am no botanist with no understanding of plant, um, physiology... if that's even a thing.  They do have complicated metabolic systems, circulatory systems, waste disposal systems, biodefense systems, etc... 

 

I've just had a thought. Plants have developed specific biodefense systems that target animal receptors and metabolism. We take advantage of this sort of thing when we utilize plant-derived pharmaceuticals (a huge number), and plants take advantage of this sort of thing when they, y'know, kill us.

 

I dunno! It's cool stuff. Plants are neat. 

 

Thanks for sharing. =)

[Epitaph]

Personally I've always thought that any vegan that propped up veganism on a pedestal because of its suppossed lack of harm to a conscious organism was missing the bigger picture in ignorance yet again. I regard plants as I do animals and humans, anything living. It is just that, living. Forcefully depriving it of that existence is a crime, but it is also our unfortunate reality. In order to survive, we need the minerals and vitamins neccessary to power our vital processes. Maybe, after a million years of evolution and the advance of technology, we could one day synthesize all the power our bodies need from sunlight, or pollution, very much like plants. But the day hasn't arrived yet.

 

An article I read several years ago also confirmed that some forms of plants have a limited capacity for memorization of events, objects, and outside stimuli, some of them for as long as 8 days before thier behavior returned as it was before encountering the situation. Of course, I doubt that they're conscious on a level that humans are, but they are undeniably alive. 

[Zosia]

On 2/3/2018 at 2:49 AM, Homer said:

If they are indeed conscious, what does that mean for vegans?

Very little if anything at all?

 

19 hours ago, E is for E said:

Personally I've always thought that any vegan that propped up veganism on a pedestal because of its suppossed lack of harm to a conscious organism was missing the bigger picture in ignorance yet again.

Veganism as a philosophy/belief system (whatever you want to call it) recognizes that you can’t eliminate all harm. It’s not about being perfect, it’s about doing the best that you can to reduce the harm that your actions cause to the best of your ability. It’s about doing what you can, when you can, if you can. Just because you can’t eliminate all harm, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to make positive changes in your lifestyle to reduce the harm you have control over.

 

19 hours ago, E is for E said:

I regard plants as I do animals and humans, anything living. It is just that, living. Forcefully depriving it of that existence is a crime, but it is also our unfortunate reality. In order to survive, we need the minerals and vitamins neccessary to power our vital processes.

Generally speaking, we have the ability to not kill and eat animals. Vegetarian and vegan diets are nutritionally adequate for all stages of the lifecycle. We are not biologically required to eat animals. We do not (generally speaking) have to eat animals to survive and live healthy lives, but the same can’t really be said about plants.

 

If you think that killing a plant and killing an animal is exactly the same, how many pounds of feed do you think it takes to make one pound of beef, or pork, or chicken? How much land needs to be cleared for livestock? How responsible do you think animal ag is for the desertification of land? How much of an impact do you think animal ag has on climate change, and what kind of destruction do you think that causes ecosystems?

 

I see people using this excuse often: well, plants and animals are basically the same, you’re still killing something, so what does it matter if I eat animals? Even if we were to assume that plants are as sentient and as conscious as animals are, we would still be obligated to reduce the harm we cause to them to the best of our ability, and that would still mean we would be obliged to be vegetarians, and better yet, vegans. It would not be acceptable to throw our hands in the air and continue eating animals. Whenever this subject of “but, plants feel pain/are conscious/communicate with others!” comes up, I get the feeling that nobody is really interested in what that theoretically means in regards to our treatment of them. Rather, it seems like people only use it as a “gotcha!” or a “checkmate, vegans!” and as an excuse to pat themselves on the back and to justify their continued participation in an extremely harmful industry.

[Comrade F&F]

Since we're discussing consciousness I'm just going to casually drop this in here: https://www.livescience.com/61627-ancient-virus-brain.html

[Epitaph]

On 2/4/2018 at 1:06 PM, Zosia said:

Very little if anything at all?

 

Veganism as a philosophy/belief system (whatever you want to call it) recognizes that you can’t eliminate all harm. It’s not about being perfect, it’s about doing the best that you can to reduce the harm that your actions cause to the best of your ability. It’s about doing what you can, when you can, if you can. Just because you can’t eliminate all harm, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to make positive changes in your lifestyle to reduce the harm you have control over.

 

Generally speaking, we have the ability to not kill and eat animals. Vegetarian and vegan diets are nutritionally adequate for all stages of the lifecycle. We are not biologically required to eat animals. We do not (generally speaking) have to eat animals to survive and live healthy lives, but the same can’t really be said about plants.

 

If you think that killing a plant and killing an animal is exactly the same, how many pounds of feed do you think it takes to make one pound of beef, or pork, or chicken? How much land needs to be cleared for livestock? How responsible do you think animal ag is for the desertification of land? How much of an impact do you think animal ag has on climate change, and what kind of destruction do you think that causes ecosystems?

 

I see people using this excuse often: well, plants and animals are basically the same, you’re still killing something, so what does it matter if I eat animals? Even if we were to assume that plants are as sentient and as conscious as animals are, we would still be obligated to reduce the harm we cause to them to the best of our ability, and that would still mean we would be obliged to be vegetarians, and better yet, vegans. It would not be acceptable to throw our hands in the air and continue eating animals. Whenever this subject of “but, plants feel pain/are conscious/communicate with others!” comes up, I get the feeling that nobody is really interested in what that theoretically means in regards to our treatment of them. Rather, it seems like people only use it as a “gotcha!” or a “checkmate, vegans!” and as an excuse to pat themselves on the back and to justify their continued participation in an extremely harmful industry.

Most indeed do. But I think some of that may be in response to some groups of vegetarians or vegans who like to flaunt their particular belief as being morally superior, at least having some higher "better" ground to stand on when the basic reality is we all do asshole stuff, we all pollute in some way, nobody is sin-free. Of course, not saying the counter argument made against vegans isn't some pat on the back for some to continue eatting critters. There's many sides at play here.

 

 

[Chimeric]

16 hours ago, Feys&Florets said:

Since we're discussing consciousness I'm just going to casually drop this in here: https://www.livescience.com/61627-ancient-virus-brain.html

This is fascinating.

[Zosia]

1 hour ago, E is for E said:

Most indeed do. But I think some of that may be in response to some groups of vegetarians or vegans who like to flaunt their particular belief as being morally superior, at least having some higher "better" ground to stand on when the basic reality is we all do asshole stuff, we all pollute in some way, nobody is sin-free. Of course, not saying the counter argument made against vegans isn't some pat on the back for some to continue eatting critters. There's many sides at play here.

When someone has the ability to choose, making the decision to consume products that inflict less harm on other beings is better than doing the opposite, in the same sense that recycling is better than not recycling and not littering is better than littering, etc. Again, I’m going to say that just because we can’t be perfect doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to reduce what harm we have control over. Inflicting unnecessary suffering and violence onto animals is wrong. This shouldn’t be a controversial statement.

[Epitaph]

55 minutes ago, Zosia said:

When someone has the ability to choose, making the decision to consume products that inflict less harm on other beings is better than doing the opposite, in the same sense that recycling is better than not recycling and not littering is better than littering, etc. Again, I’m going to say that just because we can’t be perfect doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to reduce what harm we have control over. Inflicting unnecessary suffering and violence onto animals is wrong. This shouldn’t be a controversial statement.

And I never said it was. But it is amazing how many creative ways people will find to have their pajamas rustled for them for no particular reason. It can be summed like so in a humorful light. Don't remind people that they're bastards because that reality might upset them. And of course, some genuinely don't care. There's no arguing about what's better with those people. You cannot force someone to care unwillingly.