-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
are plants conscious?
- Thread starter concombres
- Start date
If plants are not conscious I am pretty far gone. Gardeners tend to be a little far out anyway...it's all those plants...
BundleflowerPower
Esteemed member
I feel like they're conscious, how else could they react to attacks and dominate the entire planet, with their bodies stuck in one spot?
Awesome thread. 
I agree to much of what has already been suggested and posted thus far. Especially those comparisons of inter-connectedness within the nature of life, the universe and observable perception. That is where I stand.
I agree to much of what has already been suggested and posted thus far. Especially those comparisons of inter-connectedness within the nature of life, the universe and observable perception. That is where I stand.
dreamer042, those pics are crazy.
So obviously there is chemistry and how plants react according to the various laws of nature.
Plants behave in a predictable way when put under sunlight. Osmosis, turgor pressure, production of plant growth hormones are reactions that I wouldn't define as 'conscious'.
Consciousness I believe is a running dialogue (produced specifically within the brains neuronal networks), that acts as a (delayed) method to provide a way of keeping the body's regulatory systems healthy by comparing to a static baseline of health. We need to keep a complex, dynamically changing nervous and peripheral system, within certain health ranges like temperature, whilst co-existing in symbiotic relationships with bacteria's to name an example of need for this.
Most of our processing to external (and internal) stimulus happens at the unconscious level. It's what I find comparable to the standard level of how plants work according to the laws of nature.
The nature of the neuronal networks in the brain as a whole, provide a wider range of possible outputs to neuronal input. It's this extra processing time that gives us the delay of what's happening real-time compared to when we experience reality in consciousness.
An example would be holding your breath. You breath automatically, but it would take a conscious effort to hold your breath. It's your body "overriding" the natural response to how your neurons are working. Holding your breath is something that would need a complex reaction of events that would be overriding the normal response of the lungs. Perhaps the cochlea on the ear has heard the sound of an animal nearby, activating regions of the amygdala, cascading to a chain of events that would end in restricting lung muscle moving or whatever..
We are reacting in the world according to the same laws of nature that plants reactions are held by. Every decision you make and how your body reacts and responds to the world are all a product of how external (and internal) stimulus is driving these neuronal networks, which are networks developed and evolved according to a combination of genes, environments, and previous neuronal input.
Consciousness is just the (delayed) running movie presenting you with all the decisions you have already made according to the above mentioned laws of nature on your individual blueprint of a body. But it's this more complex area of machinery within the brain that provides us with a greater range of possible neuronal outputs.
So obviously there is chemistry and how plants react according to the various laws of nature.
Plants behave in a predictable way when put under sunlight. Osmosis, turgor pressure, production of plant growth hormones are reactions that I wouldn't define as 'conscious'.
Consciousness I believe is a running dialogue (produced specifically within the brains neuronal networks), that acts as a (delayed) method to provide a way of keeping the body's regulatory systems healthy by comparing to a static baseline of health. We need to keep a complex, dynamically changing nervous and peripheral system, within certain health ranges like temperature, whilst co-existing in symbiotic relationships with bacteria's to name an example of need for this.
Most of our processing to external (and internal) stimulus happens at the unconscious level. It's what I find comparable to the standard level of how plants work according to the laws of nature.
The nature of the neuronal networks in the brain as a whole, provide a wider range of possible outputs to neuronal input. It's this extra processing time that gives us the delay of what's happening real-time compared to when we experience reality in consciousness.
An example would be holding your breath. You breath automatically, but it would take a conscious effort to hold your breath. It's your body "overriding" the natural response to how your neurons are working. Holding your breath is something that would need a complex reaction of events that would be overriding the normal response of the lungs. Perhaps the cochlea on the ear has heard the sound of an animal nearby, activating regions of the amygdala, cascading to a chain of events that would end in restricting lung muscle moving or whatever..
We are reacting in the world according to the same laws of nature that plants reactions are held by. Every decision you make and how your body reacts and responds to the world are all a product of how external (and internal) stimulus is driving these neuronal networks, which are networks developed and evolved according to a combination of genes, environments, and previous neuronal input.
Consciousness is just the (delayed) running movie presenting you with all the decisions you have already made according to the above mentioned laws of nature on your individual blueprint of a body. But it's this more complex area of machinery within the brain that provides us with a greater range of possible neuronal outputs.
Legarto Rey
Rising Star
Could it be that consciousness is indeed "non local"? Might it be that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of nature/creation/universe/multiverse, and as a ground state, exists independent of matter/energy and space/time?
Maybe consciousness is not "emergent" from matter/energy, but is a primordial, that plants and animals(and indeed all matter/energy) participate in or process, albeit at various levels. As poster #31(universecannon)implied.
Maybe consciousness is not "emergent" from matter/energy, but is a primordial, that plants and animals(and indeed all matter/energy) participate in or process, albeit at various levels. As poster #31(universecannon)implied.
Good comment!Legarto Rey said:
I haven’t read every post, but it seems to me that an underlying assumption here is that the “primacy of matter” paradigm is correct – most respondents assume that consciousness is a product (or byproduct!) of physical systems, and so the debate centers on which physical systems are conscious (people: yes, rocks: no, plants: maybe).
Looking at the question from a different point of view – from the point of view offered by the “primacy of consciousness” paradigm – leads to a different sort of answer.
Q: Are plants conscious?
A: Plants are a manifestation of consciousness.
Q: Are rocks conscious?
A: Rocks are a manifestation of consciousness.
Q: Are human beings conscious?
A: Human beings are a manifestation of consciousness.
From the primacy of consciousness viewpoint, nothing – no thing – possesses consciousness because there are in fact no things! There is only consciousness.
Here’s a simple analogy. Yes, it's another "dream" analogy:
Imagine you have a dream, and in the dream you’re with your best friends in a beautiful forest – there are trees all around, a crystal-clear stream, beautiful granite boulders, a blue sky and puffy white clouds overhead.
Which objects in your dream are conscious?
The granite boulders? The stream? The trees? Your friends? You?
None of these things are conscious – they are manifestations or creations or products of your dream-induced mental activity.
The primacy of consciousness paradigm would indicate that no thing is conscious because there are no things.
Legarto Rey
Rising Star
Great analogy, gilbran2. I'll add a couple articulated by the irascible, Alan Watts. As gilbran2 alluded, to paraphrase, "there are NO things, only processes that the universe/consciousness is doing, at a particular place/time".
The whirlpool in the water stream, offers another useful analogy. The whirlpool is a physical thing comprised solely of water(=consciousness). The whirlpool is something the water(consciousness) is doing at a particular place/time. Indeed the whirlpool is NO THING other than a manifestation of water.
As far as these analogies go, they do help to convey the rather slippery concept of consciousness as "non-local" versus "emergent". True or not, surely a valid rival for the "primacy of matter" viewpoint.
A valuable aspect of the medicines is they catalyze thought states that are not habitual/prevailing. All knowledge is provisional(Terence McKenna), and it is healthy to allow this as we attempt to process reality THROUGH consciousness.
The whirlpool in the water stream, offers another useful analogy. The whirlpool is a physical thing comprised solely of water(=consciousness). The whirlpool is something the water(consciousness) is doing at a particular place/time. Indeed the whirlpool is NO THING other than a manifestation of water.
As far as these analogies go, they do help to convey the rather slippery concept of consciousness as "non-local" versus "emergent". True or not, surely a valid rival for the "primacy of matter" viewpoint.
A valuable aspect of the medicines is they catalyze thought states that are not habitual/prevailing. All knowledge is provisional(Terence McKenna), and it is healthy to allow this as we attempt to process reality THROUGH consciousness.
fathomlessness
Esteemed member
This film displayed it beautifuly:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FETsPytzHlc
I assume this may be the case only the trees and possibly many other states of matter are linked to another dimension, in these other dimensions computing fascilities (brains) exist and display only a partial amount of its outward form into our 3 dimensional reality.
More simply, the trees think in another dimension and we assume it is inanimate because we have a narrowminded view due to our limitation in multi-dimensional awareness.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FETsPytzHlc
I assume this may be the case only the trees and possibly many other states of matter are linked to another dimension, in these other dimensions computing fascilities (brains) exist and display only a partial amount of its outward form into our 3 dimensional reality.
More simply, the trees think in another dimension and we assume it is inanimate because we have a narrowminded view due to our limitation in multi-dimensional awareness.
A new theory on the nature of consciousness:
Associate Professor of Psychology Ezequiel Morsella's "Passive Frame Theory" suggests that the conscious mind is like an interpreter helping speakers of different languages communicate.
"The interpreter presents the information but is not the one making any arguments or acting upon the knowledge that is shared," Morsella said. "Similarly, the information we perceive in our consciousness is not created by conscious processes, nor is it reacted to by conscious processes. Consciousness is the middle-man, and it doesn't do as much work as you think."
Morsella and his coauthors' groundbreaking theory, published online on June 22 by the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, contradicts intuitive beliefs about human consciousness and the notion of self.
Consciousness, per Morsella's theory, is more reflexive and less purposeful than conventional wisdom would dictate. Because the human mind experiences its own consciousness as sifting through urges, thoughts, feelings and physical actions, people understand their consciousness to be in control of these myriad impulses. But in reality, Morsella argues, consciousness does the same simple task over and over, giving the impression that it is doing more than it actually is.
"We have long thought consciousness solved problems and had many moving parts, but it's much more basic and static," Morsella said. "This theory is very counterintuitive. It goes against our everyday way of thinking."
According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system.
Compare consciousness to the Internet, Morsella suggested. The Internet can be used to buy books, reserve a hotel room and complete thousands of other tasks. Taken at face value, it would seem incredibly powerful. But, in actuality, a person in front of a laptop or clicking away on a smartphone is running the show -- the Internet is just being made to perform the same basic process, without any free will of its own.
The Passive Frame Theory also defies the intuitive belief that one conscious thought leads to another. "One thought doesn't know about the other, they just often have access to and are acting upon the same, unconscious information," Morsella said. "You have one thought and then another, and you think that one thought leads to the next, but this doesn't seem to be the way the process actually works."
The theory, which took Morsella and his team more than 10 years to develop, can be difficult to accept at first, he said.
"The number one reason it's taken so long to reach this conclusion is because people confuse what consciousness is for with what they think they use it for," Morsella said. "Also, most approaches to consciousness focus on perception rather than action."
The theory has major implications for the study of mental disorders, Morsella said. "Why do you have an urge or thought that you shouldn't be having? Because, in a sense, the consciousness system doesn't know that you shouldn't be thinking about something," Morsella said. "An urge generator doesn't know that an urge is irrelevant to other thoughts or ongoing action."
The study of consciousness is complicated, Morsella added, because of the inherent difficulty of applying the conscious mind to study itself.
"For the vast majority of human history, we were hunting and gathering and had more pressing concerns that required rapidly executed voluntary actions," Morsella said. "Consciousness seems to have evolved for these types of actions rather than to understand itself."
Associate Professor of Psychology Ezequiel Morsella's "Passive Frame Theory" suggests that the conscious mind is like an interpreter helping speakers of different languages communicate.
"The interpreter presents the information but is not the one making any arguments or acting upon the knowledge that is shared," Morsella said. "Similarly, the information we perceive in our consciousness is not created by conscious processes, nor is it reacted to by conscious processes. Consciousness is the middle-man, and it doesn't do as much work as you think."
Morsella and his coauthors' groundbreaking theory, published online on June 22 by the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, contradicts intuitive beliefs about human consciousness and the notion of self.
Consciousness, per Morsella's theory, is more reflexive and less purposeful than conventional wisdom would dictate. Because the human mind experiences its own consciousness as sifting through urges, thoughts, feelings and physical actions, people understand their consciousness to be in control of these myriad impulses. But in reality, Morsella argues, consciousness does the same simple task over and over, giving the impression that it is doing more than it actually is.
"We have long thought consciousness solved problems and had many moving parts, but it's much more basic and static," Morsella said. "This theory is very counterintuitive. It goes against our everyday way of thinking."
According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system.
Compare consciousness to the Internet, Morsella suggested. The Internet can be used to buy books, reserve a hotel room and complete thousands of other tasks. Taken at face value, it would seem incredibly powerful. But, in actuality, a person in front of a laptop or clicking away on a smartphone is running the show -- the Internet is just being made to perform the same basic process, without any free will of its own.
The Passive Frame Theory also defies the intuitive belief that one conscious thought leads to another. "One thought doesn't know about the other, they just often have access to and are acting upon the same, unconscious information," Morsella said. "You have one thought and then another, and you think that one thought leads to the next, but this doesn't seem to be the way the process actually works."
The theory, which took Morsella and his team more than 10 years to develop, can be difficult to accept at first, he said.
"The number one reason it's taken so long to reach this conclusion is because people confuse what consciousness is for with what they think they use it for," Morsella said. "Also, most approaches to consciousness focus on perception rather than action."
The theory has major implications for the study of mental disorders, Morsella said. "Why do you have an urge or thought that you shouldn't be having? Because, in a sense, the consciousness system doesn't know that you shouldn't be thinking about something," Morsella said. "An urge generator doesn't know that an urge is irrelevant to other thoughts or ongoing action."
The study of consciousness is complicated, Morsella added, because of the inherent difficulty of applying the conscious mind to study itself.
"For the vast majority of human history, we were hunting and gathering and had more pressing concerns that required rapidly executed voluntary actions," Morsella said. "Consciousness seems to have evolved for these types of actions rather than to understand itself."
Where consciousness is not?
Question of the topic is silly but understandable by reason, so illusive.
As matter is an illusion and mind is a projection upon a space, there is no division of consciousness. All is one consciousness and level of awareness in a single being is dependent only on sensual expression of it. After all Consciousness is accumulation of senses.
The basic sense is the sense of being that is unbreakable, beyond time and space.
The being in its purity is the greatest consciousness of all and spreads through out the whole universe.
Peace.
Question of the topic is silly but understandable by reason, so illusive.
As matter is an illusion and mind is a projection upon a space, there is no division of consciousness. All is one consciousness and level of awareness in a single being is dependent only on sensual expression of it. After all Consciousness is accumulation of senses.
The basic sense is the sense of being that is unbreakable, beyond time and space.
The being in its purity is the greatest consciousness of all and spreads through out the whole universe.
Peace.
