more to plants than meets the eyes?

[Qwer]

it is the general belief of society that plants just grow then die and nothing more, and anything other than that is stupid. but i have been thinking about what the real chance of there being more to plants is. by being more i mean one or several of these: aware, conscious, senseing, thinking, comunicating, experiensing and so on. we think that there is nothing more to them because they are just "wood" (or what ever), but what does that mean a brain is just "flesh". we know there is more going on at a microscopic or smaller level. i saw on a documentary that trees have millions of holes they breath with (like mouths), and they showed a video of them opening and closing. it looked almost like a muscle. they do not have a brain, does this mean they cannot be any of the things i said before? apparantly jelly fish dont have brains but they can feel, sense water movement and sense light. we know so little so how can we rule this out so easily. lots of peope believe in the energy body, maybe trees have an energy body and something is going on at that level. also here is a link on this idea Stuff They Don't Want You to Known- Are plants intelligent? - YouTube sorry this was so long, its just so interesting. some disscussion on this would be verry interesting. and it woud be great if someone could link me to some more info on this.

[Qwer]

also i want to add that i heard that some grass releases a smell before it is going to die, that attracts bees to get thier pollen. this sounds crazy because it sounds like they are seeing into the future, but imagine you were standing in a field and saw or heard a lawn mower coming at you, it may be no different to that.

[IAmCoder]

A researcher back in the 50s hooked a plant to a lie detector and got a fluctuating reading. It turns out that the output changes if you water them or break leaves off. It gets a lot deeper than that and he ended up writing a book called The Secret Life of Plants. Interesting stuff.

[Orr]

A researcher back in the 50s hooked a plant to a lie detector and got a fluctuating reading. It turns out that the output changes if you water them or break leaves off. It gets a lot deeper than that and he ended up writing a book called The Secret Life of Plants. Interesting stuff. im telling you man this was on mythbusters and they concluded it was a myth

[IAmCoder]

I saw that one, where they played different music to plants - classical vs. death metal or something like that. But there really were two guys who wrote said book, Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird.

[Qwer]

Myth busters is such bullshit, I saw one of their videos and they busted hypnosis. Saying it is a myth and not real.

[snoop]

there is a difference between reacting to stimuli and having consciousness.

[Original Poster]

And what is the difference?

[Arra]

I've watched the video but know nothing more about the issue. Does anyone know if they've determined what the synapses are for (or whatever it was that they identified to exist in plants which is making them consider that they're conscious)? At first I thought it would be bullshit, but it does seem feasible, knowing almost nothing about plants, from the video alone. That isn't a very good source. I guess my question is, why isn't there more research going into this? It would be such a huge and important discovery, I'd expect scientists to be all over it by now if there were any shred of real evidence to credit it. But they aren't, which makes me doubt that the believers have any real reason. I saw that one, where they played different music to plants - classical vs. death metal or something like that. But there really were two guys who wrote said book, Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird. Maybe because death metal can be awesome and they assumed it was bad music. Assholes. Myth busters is such bullshit, I saw one of their videos and they busted hypnosis. Saying it is a myth and not real. Myth busters busted hypnosis Therefore, myth busters is wrong Sounds like the logical conclusion.

[mcwillis]

It is common for gardeners to say that if you talk to specific plants and have loving thoughts about them then they will grow bigger than plants that don't get any human attention. Im growing a venus flytray at the moment.

[Qwer]

Myth busters busted hypnosis Therefore, myth busters is wrong Sounds like the logical conclusion. i dunno if you are being sarcastic or not. but mythbusters dont do a very good job. like i said they busted hypnosis and i know hypnosis is real. also just because something doesnt work for them doesnt mean its busted

[Qwer]

there is a difference between reacting to stimuli and having consciousness. what is consciousness?

[Original Poster]

Mythbusters "We're going to try this experiment in a way that reveals our total misunderstanding of the concept we're investigating. "Experiment failed... this myth is BUSTED!" I didn't see the hypnosis one, I don't really like the show. But if they were trying to test whether or not hypnosis can turn you into some sort of slave, then I can see them busting the myth. If they claim they busted the myth that humans are capable of receiving suggestion in a way that bypasses the critical barrier, then they're full of shit. I dislike their whole take on falsification though, it takes more scientific rigor than 30 minutes of programming to asses the validity of a theory.

[IndieAnthias]

also just because something doesnt work for them doesnt mean its busted Yep, that's a pretty solid scientific principle, actually. From the video in the OP- ha I love the quote at the end. "Animals are something invented by plants to move seeds around. An extremely yang solution to a problem which they faced." Terence McKenna I'm not so sure it's a yang solution as it is a yang interpretation, but well put.

[snoop]

And what is the difference? what is consciousness? Both good questions. What is the difference? I liken it to the difference between the autonomic nervous system reacting automatically to various responses from nerves, neurons, cells, etc. and you reacting to your perceptions of reality. The latter cannot observably exist without the former, but the former can exist without the latter. It is observable throughout nature. Plants most likely exist like the concept of the former, as opposed to the latter. Discussing what is consciousness is another topic entirely.

[Original Poster]

I made this thread to debate that http://www.dreamviews.com/f22/illusi...ontrol-132822/ Linking this post is easier than trying to rephrase it, but to very quickly summarize, the only difference is that we assume consciousness contains something called "me." But "me" is just a bundle of aggregates and doesn't exist as anything more than an abstraction. We cling to it so we can feel a sense of control.

[snoop]

Whether or not it is an illusion, it adds a different dynamic to the reaction of stimuli that you otherwise wouldn't have. Therefore, there is a still difference between that which we recognize as having cognizance and that which has none.

[Burke]

To add to what snoop is saying an example of it would be hitting someone's reflex in their knee. The fact that the leg rises and extends is an example of the autonomic nervous system reacting instinctively to stimuli. The realization of why your knee moved and understanding of this is an example of consciousness. If you take someone who is deeply asleep and hit their knee in the correct spot the knee will move but the person may not be awake, a.k.a. unconscious. This is an example of autonomic nervous response without conscious realization. The fact that you disrupt the plant by dealing physical harm is going to create a measurable difference in the plant but it does not mean the plant is conscious. Though the consciousness can't be proven by this it also can't be dis-proven which leads to an argument similar to the you can't scientifically prove or disprove God (do NOT start a religious argument, this is merely an example).

[Qwer]

To add to what snoop is saying an example of it would be hitting someone's reflex in their knee. The fact that the leg rises and extends is an example of the autonomic nervous system reacting instinctively to stimuli. The realization of why your knee moved and understanding of this is an example of consciousness. If you take someone who is deeply asleep and hit their knee in the correct spot the knee will move but the person may not be awake, a.k.a. unconscious. This is an example of autonomic nervous response without conscious realization. The fact that you disrupt the plant by dealing physical harm is going to create a measurable difference in the plant but it does not mean the plant is conscious. Though the consciousness can't be proven by this it also can't be dis-proven which leads to an argument similar to the you can't scientifically prove or disprove God (do NOT start a religious argument, this is merely an example). the reason i said "what is consciousness" is because we dont even know what it is, therefore we cannot say plants dont have it. like omnis said alot of people think consciousness is an illusion, if this were true then we would be alot closer to plants than we think.

[ZeraCook]

I only read the original post and I really don't see why not. They could be able to sense, or be able to even have a consciousness. We might not even have the ability to sense what they have just like there are spectrums we now know of that we didn't before, they might be on totally different wave lengths then us.

[Qwer]

another thing to do with this is that the shamens of the amazon rain forest say that when they drink ayahuasca they can see and talk to the spirits of trees and things. ayahuasca is a drink containing dmt

[ZeraCook]

Yeah that is true Qwer. In fact alot of "Native American" tribes did the similar things and would baffle immigrants. The Immigrants would show up and see that the tribes knew a great many things of the plants of the forests and when they would ask how they learned the tribes would say, "The Plants told us, they talked to us and showed our 'medicine men' what to do with them."

[Carrot]

It's sad that plants are unable to respond greatly or communicate unlike other living things. But I've heard that plants are not capable of having senses and feelings that's why we stepped on grass without a second thought. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that plants have an energy body but we need to identify what exactly is that energy, it might not be awareness like what others have mentioned.

[ZeraCook]

It's sad that plants are unable to respond greatly or communicate unlike other living things. But I've heard that plants are not capable of having senses and feelings that's why we stepped on grass without a second thought. We 'step on' alot of creatures that can obviously feel and communicate, so I feel like whoever said that just said it to justify how carelessly we step on grass.

[Original Poster]

To add to what snoop is saying an example of it would be hitting someone's reflex in their knee. The fact that the leg rises and extends is an example of the autonomic nervous system reacting instinctively to stimuli. The realization of why your knee moved and understanding of this is an example of consciousness. If you take someone who is deeply asleep and hit their knee in the correct spot the knee will move but the person may not be awake, a.k.a. unconscious. This is an example of autonomic nervous response without conscious realization. The fact that you disrupt the plant by dealing physical harm is going to create a measurable difference in the plant but it does not mean the plant is conscious. Though the consciousness can't be proven by this it also can't be dis-proven which leads to an argument similar to the you can't scientifically prove or disprove God (do NOT start a religious argument, this is merely an example). Whether or not it is an illusion, it adds a different dynamic to the reaction of stimuli that you otherwise wouldn't have. Therefore, there is a still difference between that which we recognize as having cognizance and that which has none. But what I'm saying is our thoughts or "what we think about the knee being hit" is also an automatic response to stimuli. We have an awareness of the activity, but so does plants. The only difference is that if you're "conscious" you can judge the experience. But you are not less aware of it when you're asleep, the body is still aware of it, the brain still takes the experience in. The only thing that isn't aware of it is the "judger" which is an illusion created by clinging to a relationship between our thinker and our watcher in order to feel control.