Definitely interesting. Many thanks for sharing, Bruce.

 

I have been tracking this issue for a long time, and it needs deep exploration. The section on whether plants “see” was new to me, and I have flagged that to look into it more. I also recommend the Entangled Life by Sheldrake on fungi and lichen.

 

A couple of things to keep in mind/reflect on while reading:

 

First, to the extent that sentience/subjective conscious experience exists out side the brain/nervous system is a revolutionary/extraordinary claim. Of course, not impossible, just a potentially revolutionary claim. I love this kind of research and it needs to be carefully examined. I liken it to the world of parapsychology.

 

Second, plant experiential consciousness represents a finding that challenges the architecture of the Tree of Knowledge descriptive metaphysical system/ontology. So, I (we?) should be acknowledge from a “dissonance” perspective. (Note, this actually shows why the ToK is a good, conservative map of natural scientific ontology).

 

Third, the article as a couple of minor conceptual and technical errors that I made me pause a bit. First, there is a long history regarding the Society of Plant Neurobiology. Founded in 2005, it changed its name to Plant Signaling and Behavior in 2009. One reason is fairly obvious…there is no neurobiology in plants. The name was given to emphasize that the scholars where exploring functional behaviors normally associated with the nervous system. Second, the author essentially advertises that he is enlightened to the fact that there is not a hierarchy of complexification in nature. I find that advertisement a bit suspicious on several accounts. Consider, for example, feeling pain is considered to be at the “based” of Mind2. So, we are wondering if plant have that—but this is quite suggestive of the fact that there is a layering of complexification—especially as we study and grapple with the question and its answer. That suggests to me a bit of ideological blindness in the name of enlightenment, which is something I have come to look for in this kind of space (i.e., folks who claim new radical realities). Also, is stated we don’t know if plants have phenomenal consciousness because we can’t ask them. Yes, but we do essentially know that many animals have phenomenological consciousness (see here for how we can measure access consciousness in crows).

 

Fourth, this article is a good example of why so much careful work needs to be done considering the epistemological gap between the exterior and interior. It also is why we need good definitions of behavior, which is what we see from the outside. Organisms exhibit functional awareness and responsivity. This is the behavioral pattern of Living things. And that is what is being described, although, of course, there are suggestions that these biological behaviors are indicative of an “inner life”. Possible, of course. And would be game changing in our (my) worldview. As such, we should be open and interested…and, yes, this is inconclusive at this juncture.

 

Many thanks, Bruce.

 

Best,

G

 

 

 

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.