NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

The question of whether or not plants have consciousness carries us into the realm of consciousness studies, the ambiguities of which make perfect fertilizer for people's pet theories to take root. The resulting entanglement of ideas and evidence can seem very persuasive, but IMO it's just a manifestation of the tendency for humans to anthropomorphize. We do this to anything close to us that we interact with. Our pets are the most common living things we do this with, but we also know that animals, although amazing creatures, don't come close to human capacity and complexity in mental capacity, and let's face it, consciousness is a mental capacity.

We even tend to anthropomorphize inanimate objects. There's been more that one instance where someone I had been talking to had given their car a name and thought of it as a "part of the family". But on a more objective level, the largest quantity of unambiguous scientific evidence to date supports the idea that consciousness requires a functioning brain. Plants don't have them. Maybe that's why we say patients who lack signs of consciousness appear to be in a vegetative state. Basically, IMO, plants, although fascinating and complex, don't "behave" psychologically. They simply function as biological automata. This in no way suggests that they aren't important to our ecosystem or interesting to study.

Skeptic's Dictionary: plant perception (a.k.a. the Backster effect) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

<blockquote data-quote="Randall" data-source="post: 245192" data-attributes="member: 2682">The question of whether or not plants have consciousness carries us into the realm of consciousness studies, the ambiguities of which make perfect fertilizer for people&#039;s pet theories to take root. The resulting entanglement of ideas and evidence can seem very persuasive, but IMO it&#039;s just a manifestation of the tendency for humans to anthropomorphize. We do this to anything close to us that we interact with. Our pets are the most common living things we do this with, but we also know that animals, although amazing creatures, don&#039;t come close to human capacity and complexity in mental capacity, and let&#039;s face it, consciousness is a mental capacity.We even tend to anthropomorphize inanimate objects. There&#039;s been more that one instance where someone I had been talking to had given their car a name and thought of it as a &quot;part of the family&quot;. But on a more objective level, the largest quantity of unambiguous scientific evidence to date supports the idea that consciousness requires a functioning brain. Plants don&#039;t have them. Maybe that&#039;s why we say patients who lack signs of consciousness appear to be in a vegetative state. Basically, IMO, plants, although fascinating and complex, don&#039;t &quot;behave&quot; psychologically. They simply function as biological automata. This in no way suggests that they aren&#039;t important to our ecosystem or interesting to study.Skeptic&#039;s Dictionary: <a href="http://skepdic.com/plants.html" target="_blank">plant perception (a.k.a. the Backster effect) - The Skeptic&#039;s Dictionary - Skepdic.com</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Randall, post: 245192, member: 2682"] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]The question of whether or not plants have consciousness carries us into the realm of consciousness studies, the ambiguities of which make perfect fertilizer for people's pet theories to take root. The resulting entanglement of ideas and evidence can seem very persuasive, but IMO it's just a manifestation of the tendency for humans to anthropomorphize. We do this to anything close to us that we interact with. Our pets are the most common living things we do this with, but we also know that animals, although amazing creatures, don't come close to human capacity and complexity in mental capacity, and let's face it, consciousness is a mental capacity.[/SIZE] We even tend to anthropomorphize inanimate objects. There's been more that one instance where someone I had been talking to had given their car a name and thought of it as a "part of the family". But on a more objective level, the largest quantity of unambiguous scientific evidence to date supports the idea that consciousness requires a functioning brain. Plants don't have them. Maybe that's why we say patients who lack signs of consciousness appear to be in a vegetative state. Basically, IMO, plants, although fascinating and complex, don't "behave" psychologically. They simply [I]function[/I] as biological automata. This in no way suggests that they aren't important to our ecosystem or interesting to study. Skeptic's Dictionary: [URL='http://skepdic.com/plants.html']plant perception (a.k.a. the Backster effect) - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com[/URL][/FONT] [/QUOTE]

Verification