The foundations of plant intelligence

Plant "intelligence" and the misuse of historical sources as evidence

Proponents of the concepts of plant intelligence and plant neurobiology often use historical sources as "evidence" and argue that eminent past scientists have supported ideas of plant intelligence, memory, learning, decision-making, agency, and consciousness. Historical sources include writings by Charles Darwin, Julius von Sachs, F. W. Went, K. V. Thimann, Barbara McClintock, and J. B. Lamarck. Advocates of plant neurobiology also argue that the ideas of J. C. Bose, an Indian scientist who is considered an important forerunner of plant neurobiology, were suppressed chiefly because of racism. Plant neurobiology has been criticized on scientific grounds, but there has not been close scrutiny of the use of historical sources as a form of evidence. We provide the first in-depth analysis of how historical sources have been used and misused, and conclude that there is a consistent pattern of distortion of these sources. Distortions include the use of erroneous quotations, alteration of quotations, selective quotations without context, and misinterpretation and exaggeration of historical statements. In the case of Bose, we show that there were legitimate scientific reasons for questioning his interpretations of botanical experiments and argue that this context cannot be ignored in evaluating contemporary responses to Bose. Overall, the common practice by proponents of plant intelligence and plant consciousness of uncritically citing the words of eminent scientists of the past, taken out of their historical context to bolster their arguments, should not be confused with scientific evidence supporting these concepts, even when the quotations, themselves, are accurate.

Debunking a myth: plant consciousness

Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental policy decisions. After defining basic, primary consciousness, we provide new arguments against 12 core claims made by the proponents of plant consciousness. Three important new conclusions of our study are (1) plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness, but only to sense and follow stimulus trails reactively; (2) electrophysiological signaling in plants serves immediate physiological functions rather than integrative-information processing as in nervous systems of animals, giving no indication of plant consciousness; (3) the controversial claim of classical Pavlovian learning in plants, even if correct, is irrelevant because this type of learning does not require consciousness. Finally, we present our own hypothesis, based on two logical assumptions, concerning which organisms possess consciousness. Our first assumption is that affective (emotional) consciousness is marked by an advanced capacity for operant learning about rewards and punishments. Our second assumption is that image-based conscious experience is marked by demonstrably mapped representations of the external environment within the body. Certain animals fit both of these criteria, but plants fit neither. We conclude that claims for plant consciousness are highly speculative and lack sound scientific support.

Debunking a myth: plant consciousness

Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental policy decisions. After defining basic, primary consciousness, we provide new arguments against 12 core claims made by the proponents of plant consciousness. Three important new conclusions of our study are (1) plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness, but only to sense and follow stimulus trails reactively; (2) electrophysiological signaling in plants serves immediate physiological functions rather than integrative-information processing as in nervous systems of animals, giving no indication of plant consciousness; (3) the controversial claim of classical Pavlovian learning in plants, even if correct, is irrelevant because this type of learning does not require consciousness. Finally, we present our own hypothesis, based on two logical assumptions, concerning which organisms possess consciousness. Our first assumption is that affective (emotional) consciousness is marked by an advanced capacity for operant learning about rewards and punishments. Our second assumption is that image-based conscious experience is marked by demonstrably mapped representations of the external environment within the body. Certain animals fit both of these criteria, but plants fit neither. We conclude that claims for plant consciousness are highly speculative and lack sound scientific support.

Anesthetics and plants: no pain, no brain, and therefore no consciousness

Plants have a rich variety of interactions with their environment, including adaptive responses mediated by electrical signaling. This has prompted claims that information processing in plants is similar to that in animals and, hence, that plants are conscious, intelligent organisms. In several recent reports, the facts that general anesthetics cause plants to lose their sensory responses and behaviors have been taken as support for such beliefs. These lipophilic substances, however, alter multiple molecular, cellular, and systemic functions in almost every organism. In humans and other animals with complex brains, they eliminate the experience of pain and disrupt consciousness. The question therefore arises: do plants feel pain and have consciousness? In this review, we discuss what can be learned from the effects of anesthetics in plants. For this, we describe the mechanisms and structural prerequisites for pain sensations in animals and show that plants lack the neural anatomy and all behaviors that would indicate pain. By explaining the ubiquitous and diverse effects of anesthetics, we discuss whether these substances provide any empirical or logical evidence for "plant consciousness" and whether it makes sense to study the effects of anesthetics on plants for this purpose. In both cases, the answer is a resounding no.