Plant science considers plants passive organisms, not capable of cognition and behavior. Yet already in 1880 Charles and Francis Darwin had noted that this was an over-simplification. According to Karl Popper (1994), all life is problem-solving. Plant scientists today still maintain that plants perceive and process environmental information automatically, with no neuron-like sensory-motor systems and cognitive processes. Yet evidence is emerging that plants actively sense their environment and have sensory-motor systems that are sensitive to anesthetics. Hence some kind of sentience/consciousness may underlie their responsiveness to their sensory experiences and their capacity to control their plant-specific cognition and behavior.
Calvo P, Sahi VP, Trewavas A (2017) Are plants sentient? Plant Cell Environ 40:2858-2869
Gagliano M (2017) The mind of plants: thinking the unthinkable. Commun Integr Biol 10: 1288333
Popper K (1994) All Life is Problem Solving. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group
Trewavas A, Baluška (2011) The ubiquity of consciousness. EMBO Rep 12: 1221-1225
Yokawa K, Kagenishi T, Pavlovič A, Gall S, Weiland M, Mancuso S, Baluška F (2017) Anesthetics block plant action potentials and stop plant movements. Ann Bot, In press
If we consider plants as entities, what's the principal characteristic for a being to have its own mind?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think it is easier for plants to communicate underground through their roots than aboveground?
ReplyDeleteI found M. Baluska’s talk very interesting as I know little about plants and what they can perceive. About their type of communication, I can be wrong, but I think it is done by their roots because it is the best way to be connected with each other. Underground, the roots can feel the presence of those of other plants, which couldn’t be possible otherwise.
DeleteYou saw during the M. Baluska's presentation the impressively complex networks of roots connecting many organisms directly. It is hard to imagine how plants would not use those networks over above ground communications, which I am not sure how it would even be possible. By detectors of chemicals in the air produced by other plants?
DeleteI think it is just a case where Morgan's Cannon apply: the simpler answer is the correct one here.
There is no doubt to me that most if not all plants can perceive information from their environment and use this information as well as they emit some information that can be use by others. Nonetheless, not sure if we can attribute to plants some kind of knowledge, rational belief or propositional attitude about something that could be true or not. About what plants know, about what are you referring to? You talked about plant “world model”, but I can’t figure to what it is exactly referring to in plants. Are you talking about the content of plants umwelt?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAbout manipulation... I believe that many organisms influence the way of being of other organism. In parasitology we talk a lot today about parasitic manipulation of the host behavior. But, between inducing some reaction in other organism and manipulating them, it seem to me that there is a big difference. To my point of view, manipulation have something to do with intentionality. Do you attribute some kind of intentionality to plants?
ReplyDeleteFrom a plant perspective, what would be a functional definition of intelligence - for a plant of course? What would be the basic functions to have an «intelligent plant» ?
ReplyDeleteI think that’s one of the issues with the definitions in the field. What is intelligence? If we consider that is simply the ability to aquire information, then I guess plants are intelligent, since they can adapt to certain situations. But that’s a really really broad definition.
DeleteMy curiosity grew for the entire summer school!
DeleteFrom a plant's perspective, a functional definition of intelligence should simply be doing the right thing with the right kind of thing, i.e. a plant that categorizes. Adapting to a situation is a form of doing the right thing with the right kind of thing.
DeleteWhere things get muddier in this presentation, to me, is how sure we can be of the capacity of plants to feel. You do not need to feel to be able to categorize.
Very informative talk which demonstrated how plants are active rather than passive organisms that can sense their environment through a potentially conscious sensory-motor system. I really appreciated the emphasis that was put throughout the presentation on considering cognition or sentience among plants as "plant-specific" abilities which don't have to be composed of the same functions as animals and humans. I'm particularly interested in the ethical questions raised by this rather new information on plant sensitivity such as how this information can shape or influence human behavior towards non-animal sentience? How does plant sentience compare to non-human animals sentience and how can ecologically destructive human behaviors (such as ecosystem destruction, industrial animal consumption) change to better adapt to other sentient beings biological needs?
ReplyDeleteLe comportement des plantes est beaucoup plus complexe que je m’y attendais, mais je ne pense pas que cela implique qu’elles ont le ressenti. Mon cerveau actuellement accomplit plusieurs fonctions «végétatives» pour me garder en vie sans que je ne sois conscient de l’exécution de ces fonctions. Je pense que les comportements présentés des plantes sont un peu similaire à ces fonctions. Même si elles ont des membranes (bioélectricité) et des racines complexes, je ne pense pas que la graine soit similaire à un système nerveux. Les racines transmettent probablement de l’information, mais je me demande s’il y a un traitement de celle-ci ou si ce n’est qu’un «input» -«output». Aussi, je pense que le conférencier à mentionner que les plantes sentent la douleur. Peut-être qu’il y a de la nociception chez les plantes (réactions chimiques de la douleur), mais la douleur est une perception (création de l’esprit suite aux différences modalités sensorielles), ce qui est questionnable chez les plantes étant donné qu’on ne sait pas encore si elles traitent l’information reçu ou si ce n’est qu’un mécanisme de «bas-niveaux».
ReplyDeleteSalut James!
DeleteJe suis d’accord avec toi et je partage ton doute. Mr. Baluska demeure d’ailleurs bien imprécis en affirmant que les plantes “ressentent d’une manière spécifique aux plantes”. Entend-il par la que les plantes ressentent d’une manière essentiellement différente des autres organismes doués de sensibilité? Ou bien qu’elles ressentent des choses différentes (comme la chauve souris qui ressent son écholocalisation et moi non par exemple)?
La première option ne me semble pas envisageable; les sensations multiples et accidentelles de la variété d’organismes doué de sensations se rencontre toutes dans l’activité du ressenti lui-même, qui les inclue toutes. Il n’y a pour ainsi dire pas de ressenti A et de ressenti B, mais plutôt LE ressenti incluant toute perception sensorielle.
La deuxième option, plus favorable, m’apparait tout de même difficile à envisager : si les plantes ressentent, QU’EST-CE qui ressent en elles? Bien que la membrane puisse être le substrat de la conscience, lui être essentielle comme le soutient Mr. Baluska, elle n’équivaut qu’à une condition de possibilité d’un certain phénomène et non au phénomène lui-même (ressenti ou conscience que Mr. Baluska semble interchanger). Par ailleurs, un système nerveux central semble être une autre condition essentielle du ressenti et la plante n’en possède pas.
Une autre difficulté est que la cognition ne s’accompagne pas nécessairement du ressenti et tu donnes selon moi un bon exemple avec les fonctions “végétative” que notre cerveau assure. C’est une distinction que Mr. Boluska ne fait pas dans son article “The mind of plants: Thinking the unthinkable” (2017), dans lequel il conclut que relativement à l’évidence de capacité cognitives accrues des plantes, le sujet controversé de notre responsabilité morale et éthique à leur égard ne peut plus être ignoré.
Les résultats de recherche de Mr. Baluska sont surprenant et pique ma curiosité, mais l’utilisation de notions telles que “conscience” et “ressenti” doit selon moi se faire avec plus de réserves, de nuances, et d’évidences.
I think the perspective you bring to thinking about plants is so great. I was wondering about the fungal ´internet´ that plants have. What can they communicate through it? Also, I was wondering about what you think the ethical implications of plant sentience are for issues like deforestation or even just mowing the lawn. What are our ethical responsibilities towards plants, if any? If they have sentience, do you think it´s analogous to our sentience in any salient way? Why?
ReplyDeleteThis talk was very effective to make us reflect about where to put the boundaries between sentience and consciousness. I did wish to hear more about this whole membrane affair since the interaction between outside and inside the organism seems a necessary condition for sentience.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the fantastic talk!
Très belle conférence de Frantisek Baluska! Je suis toujours étonné de mon embarrassante ignorance depuis le début de l’école d’été, et mon ignorance concernant les plantes m’était palpable tout au long de la présentation. Elles ont tellement de capacités “cognitives”. Elles “prennent” des décisions, elles communiquent, elles manipulent d’autres organismes, elles “sentent” l’environnement et y répond de manière flexible selon le contexte. Toutefois, je me pose la question de savoir si elles ont bel et bien un “esprit” (mind) comme le soutient le conférencier. Ont-elles vraiment une sorte de conscience, un certain “ressenti” subjectif? Et quelles en seraient les conséquences? Dans la mesure où l’on se tourne vers les plantes pour arrêter de manger de la viande, est-ce que nous sommes en train de transférer la souffrance d’organismes sensibles sur d’autres organismes qui sont tout aussi sensibles? Comment répondrait-on à ce problème? Si tel est le cas (et j’en doute, pour le moment du moins), nous aurons à nous poser beaucoup de questions éthiques auxquelles il sera difficile de répondre sur nos modes d’alimentation…
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer : je ne crois pas que les entité végétatives ont le ressenti.
DeleteMais par rapport à ta question sur l'implication éthique d'un tel scénario (tu imagine l’horreur!?) de ce que je me souviens de la présentation, un élément de réponse serait : les fruits... Parce que ça, les arbres, même si on se campait dans une position extrême consistant à leur attribuer le ressenti... les arbres n'ont de toute évidence aucune objection à ce qu'on les cueille et les mange : ils ont carrément besoin de ça pour prospérer génétiquement. Un animal croque une pomme, s'en va déféquer plus loin... et hop... un nouveau pommier... de nouvelles pommes, etc.
Mais ça n'écarte pas la question de savoir s'ils souffrent que le vent leur arrache une pomme, quoi que pour bien des espèces plus complexes, se reproduire implique une souffrance temporaire, mais atroce (l’accouchement chez les humaines, et que dire des mâles hippocampes).
Je t'avoue que cette histoire de fruits ne nous dit aucunement s'il serait éthique de manger de la salade, mais faute de commentaires d'autrui, j'espère que ça puisse alimenter (sans souffrance) ta réflexion! :)
Mr Baluska's presentation shows similarities in plant sentience and that of humans, especially in terms of chemical secretions and sensory-motor systems that are sensitive. However, I think that does not mean that plants have a mind ... I did not understand what was the position of Mr Baluska on this point.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
À la lecture des commentaires précédents,je constate que plusieurs d'entre vous auraient aimé que le Pr Baluska soit plus explicite en ce qui concerne la sentience des plantes. Ce sujet ne m'était pas inconnu et je peux vous référer à ce cours de type "MOOC" donné par le Dr Daniel Chamovitz de l'Université de Tel-Aviv, chercheur qui poursuit des objectifs similaires à ceux du Dr Baluska et son collègue: "What a plant knows (and other things you didn't know about plants)", maintenant offert en deux parties sous un titre légèrement différent. Il est donné en anglais, sous-titré en plusieurs autres langues dont le français, gratuitement via le site Coursera.
ReplyDeletehttps://fr.coursera.org/learn/plantknows
Le Dr Chamoviz y répond le plus explicitement possible aux questions qui peuvent hanter les végétariens ou vegans!
Il y a aussi son livre:
https://www.amazon.ca/What-Plant-Knows-Field-Senses/dp/0374533881
Selon lui, l'intelligence végétale se compare davantage à notre mémoire qu'à notre propre intelligence animale: la plante a la conscience mnésique de son environnement(y incluant celle d'autres organismes vivants, ce qui lui permet d'échanger avec eux)et de ses propres faits biologiques (ex. bris d'une tige), mais on ne pourrait parler de sentiments ou de perception de la douleur. Les végétariens pourraient donc mâcher en paix! ;)
Prof Baluska, I see your work as vital to evolutionary science and admire your passion despite all the obvious obstacles you must face committing to this particular subject. It seems so easy to forget that whatever it is that allowed us to be sentient beings, had common roots with every bit of the vegetation on this planet. Life did not appear twice: genetically, we are relatives, as hard as it may be to grasp. It is vital that we understand more about those basis and even if it turns out that it wasn't sentience before the split between plants and animals, something important must have happened at the time of that split. Questioning the nature of that split may provide some important pieces of a much larger puzzle.
ReplyDeleteYour speech also reminded me that the networks of neurons inside our brains evolved from something that was not necessarily meant to do what it does today (allowing us to ponder over it). If the roots network of a tree functions with neurotransmitters (you did mention GABA), we SHOULD try to understand it better rather than dismiss it as silly (like creationists still do with monkeys). Because once we understand it as perfectly as possible, even if it still doesn't meet our criteria for what truly is cognitive, it may very well have strong implications for understanding some basic mechanisms located down that mysterious road leading to complex cognitive abilities.
Very impressive to learn about plants, their memory, their reflexes, their 'choices/decisions' and their complexity. This was a great talk to make us think about the boudaries between conscience and sentience. Even though the plants seem to know and perceive what is around them, and different stimulis, I don't think we could say that plants are sentient.
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for the talk, it was fascinating. I really appreciated the fact that you used experiments similar to those used with other animals to make the argument that plants are sentient. In your opinion, why are people so reluctant to attribute sentience to plants? Is it the consequences that could emerge on the legal side of things? Or is there a bias because a lot of people couldn’t bear the thought of making plants suffer to feed themselves?
ReplyDelete