Poll Are Plants sentient? are they intelligent ??

[think]

Some scientists believe plants are intelligent because they can sense, communicate, and react to their environment in ways similar to humans.

Plants can:

• Sense: Sound, light, gravity, and water. They can also detect subtle electromagnetic fields from other life forms.
• Communicate: With each other above and below ground through chemicals and scents to warn of danger and attract pollinators.
• React: Differently to threats, like trying to heal a broken branch or poison an animal that's eating them.
• Remember: Some studies suggest plants can make memories and learn quickly, even in as little as one day.
• Differentiate: Between threats and know when they're shaded by a cloud or another plant.
• Recognize: Their own kin and other species.
• Adapt: To adverse circumstances to improve their chances of survival. Goldenrod, for example, can adapt in real-time when eaten

Moreover, plants are also capable of a refined recognition of self and non-self and this leads to territorial behavior. This new view considers plants as conscious, information-processing organisms with complex communication throughout the individual plant, including feelings and perception of pain, among other things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants,..

In my opinion they are the first ones far more powerful than we give them credit for,.. think about how big the mycelium networks get ... they talk like that organic phones.

Mycelium is a root-like structure of a fungus that is made up of a network of branching, thread-like hyphae. It can grow underground, in rotting tree trunks, or on other substrates like soil and moldy food. Mycelium can be fuzzy and white, green, or black in color.

 

[Santaman]

I already knew that plants have all kinds of reactions to the environment and that they have special plans ready for when it rains.

 

[BillJ]

Vegetarians would be screwed!

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

We know plants are sentient in the sense that they react to external stimuli - phototaxis being an example. They don't have either nerves or effective muscles, so even if they could cobble together actual sapience out of co-opted fungi - which aren't plants - they aren't equipped for fight or flight. Nowadays we classify them as multicellular eukaryotes, as are humans. Vegans prefer to eat the most weak and defenceless bretheren. Top-tier omnivores aren't afraid to admit that they survive by eating anything that doesn't fight back and win. There are always archaea and bacteria, of course, but I don't think even vegans want to regress half a billion years and lick the sea bed to obtain sustenance.

 

[scotpens]

"Who are you calling dumb?"

 

[scotthm]

Vegetarians would be screwed!

Vegans, for sure.
---------------

 

[Deks]

OK, just because plants react to environmental stimuli doesn't imply sentience or capability to experience emotions, pain, etc. (since they lack obvious central nervous system, brain, and other analogues which are associated with processing of feelings etc.)

To date, there is no credible scientific data that supports the idea that plants are sentient.

I would be wary of saying plants can 'scream' and applying human like attributes to them because those words come from not the original scientific studies (which to my knowledge never used those terminologies), but rather from ignorant reporters.

Vegans, for sure.
---------------

No we wouldn't be.
Either way, the purpose of veganism is to minimize the harm done to animals and the environment... going vegan is still the best way to do that since plants require far less land and overall resources vs animal farming in any shape or form (because animals consume plants... and considering that 70% of globally produced soy is fed to animals, not humans (who only consume about 6% of globally produced soy), if the world went vegan, on the whole we would save MORE plants like that (and free up a lot of land which can be restored back to nature and repair lost biodiversity in the process).

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I am Groot.

 

[carcinoGeneticist]

I would'nt say they're sentient but they certainly aren't inanimate objects. They're not sentient, but they're not... unaware, I'd say.

 

[Will The Serious]

I would'nt say they're sentient but they certainly aren't inanimate objects. They're not sentient, but they're not... unaware, I'd say.

That's a tough condition to measure.

I pick berries, other fruit, and flowers to turn into jellies, jams, syrups, teas, and spice blends, for a living. The most amazing is dandelion. I swear they are sentient.

You look over a field of dandelions you've been watching bloom, and judge it's time to pick. Head out to the field with your basket and start picking the blossoms and just watch that field start to turn. It always seems as though the dandelions on the other end of the field have half turned to seed before you can pick the near end. If you were to not pick that day, those dandelions would bloom their bright golden yellow for the next two weeks. Those white puff ball seed heads were once the bright flowers. The petals narrow down and split out to create those wind-catching filaments that float the seeds through the air.

Of course, there are plenty of ways to explain away this phenomenon without the need for sentience. Maybe picking or mowing the flowers causes their roots to release a chemical that other dandelions can be affected by. Maybe there is an electromagnetic signal, or an ultrasonic noise. Flowers have been shown to respond to the sound of bees buzzing by increasing their nectar flow. There are certainly any number of mechanisms for cause and response/effect that may be purely mechanics.

There's no way to test for sentience, because most of it's outward signs are non-existent or explainable through other theories.

Is a light sentient because it turns on when you tell it to? What? You don't tell your lights to turn on? That's what you do when you click the switch. That is a mode of communication with a sentient system. As limited as the light's responses are, it still reacts to the right type of external stimuli. Just because it can't move or show panic when you threaten the bulb with a hammer, doesn't mean it doesn't have sentience, we just can know it does, so we choose to see that it doesn't.

the purpose of veganism is to minimize the harm done to animals and the environment... going vegan is still the best way to do that since plants require far less land and overall resources vs animal farming in any shape or form

And where are all the cows and goats, pigs and sheep, chickens, domestic geese, broad breasted turkeys, camels, elephants, donkeys, and domestic dogs, and honey bees, going to go of we didn't set aside pasture, fields, yards, barns and apiaries for them? Domestic cats would probably do alright, but there's no way a domestic bovine is surviving on its own. Plus, ranches and farms keep us from building malls and parking lots everywhere.

The honey bee population would be decimated if we humans didn't raise them, and we wouldn't raise them if we didn't eat their honey. Just imagine how hard it would be to live only on plant life without honey bees. Our fates are so intertwined with our plant and animal communities that if we were to significantly change our relationship with any of these groups, these groups would suffer from loss of habitat, excessive competition, predation of non-traditional prey causing an inevitable explosion in traditional prey populations that would then become stressed for habitat, over consumption of their food sources followed by a devistating plummet in health and numbers of all connected species, especially humans. It's a beautiful thought, but it is not a practical one.

-Will (a bee keeper)

 

[Deks]

And where are all the cows and goats, pigs and sheep, chickens, domestic geese, broad breasted turkeys, camels, elephants, donkeys, and domestic dogs, and honey bees, going to go of we didn't set aside pasture, fields, yards, barns and apiaries for them? Domestic cats would probably do alright, but there's no way a domestic bovine is surviving on its own. Plus, ranches and farms keep us from building malls and parking lots everywhere.

You realize of course that these animal species existed without Human interference just fine in the past?
The argument they can't survive without human intervention is a bit short-sighted since most of the animal species in question still posses the ability to adapt to their environments.

The idea would be to phase out animal farming in stages (since its highly unlikely this will happen overnight) which will reduce the amount of animals being forcibly bred into existence over time, and reintroduce these animals into the environment in stages with their natural predators (where their populations will be naturally managed).

Some of these animals would have more difficult time in adapting back into the environment, but we can assist the process via managed wildlife animal sanctuaries or phased rewilding with human overisght.

The idea about removing animal farming isn't about building more malls and parking lots everywhere, but to minimize our current footprint on the environment and repair lost biodiversity - which can be accomplished.

The honey bee population would be decimated if we humans didn't raise them, and we wouldn't raise them if we didn't eat their honey. Just imagine how hard it would be to live only on plant life without honey bees. Our fates are so intertwined with our plant and animal communities that if we were to significantly change our relationship with any of these groups, these groups would suffer from loss of habitat, excessive competition, predation of non-traditional prey causing an inevitable explosion in traditional prey populations that would then become stressed for habitat, over consumption of their food sources followed by a devistating plummet in health and numbers of all connected species, especially humans. It's a beautiful thought, but it is not a practical one.

-Will (a bee keeper)

That's some hefty prediction there, especially when you consider the fact that wild bees successfully existed and procreated WITHOUT human intervention before.

Not all bee species are dependent on human activities like beekeeping. Honey bees play a significant role in commercial pollination, but wild bee populations are essential to ecosystems at large, and many wild bees are suffering due to human-induced threats like habitat loss, pesticide use, and climate change.

Reducing our environmental footprint and gradually moving away from intensive beekeeping and other human activities could allow both honey bees and wild pollinators to recover. Restoring natural habitats, reducing pesticide use, and allowing ecosystems to regenerate would likely have positive effects, giving bees—and many other species—a chance to thrive again without excessive human management.

Furthermore, if we transitioned our agricultural production to fully automated vertical farming systems which use hydroponics and aeroponics (with say assistance of volksgardens which force plants to fight against gravity and grow 3-5x faster and produce more nutrients) would actually help eliminate the need for commercial pollination.

I don't support current agricultural methods mainly because they are grossly outdated. We’ve had the means for decades to shift food production to local areas through fully automated vertical farms, which offer a far more efficient and sustainable approach to feeding the population.

 

[publiusr]

Each plant is likely not sentient…sometimes I wonder if they’re neurons…

 

[Will The Serious]

sometimes I wonder if they’re neurons…

We are all most probably neurons.

-Will

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

Ficus Pandorata certainly is. Although one might question the intelligence of anybody serving as a science officer on an interstellar garbage scow. Even if he did teach Joan Van Ark how to pollinate.

"We wait . . . for the bee."

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I believe that plants are not "alive" in the most common use of that term. They are self-replicating food sources that feed on sunlight and carbon monoxide, growing and then withering if they don't have enough water. But they have no brain or nervous system, so they can't consciously perceive the world around them like we can.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

1. It's carbon dioxide.
2. They can be killed, i.e., rendered inert beyond even theoretical repair without being destroyed; therefore, they're alive.
3. They can and do communicate. It has been observed that plants under attack can release pheromones and/or other chemical messengers that, in turn, cause other plants to rally chemical defenses. That's not to say that communication requires consciousness, intelligence, or self-awareness.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Plants aren't sentient. They react on instinct, nothing more. But they don't think.

 

[hbquikcomjamesl]

In all likelihood, not even instinct, but merely reflex.

 

[Will The Serious]

What is thinking, if not a chemical reaction to a specific set of stimuli?

-Will