Comments by "Lilac Lizard" (@lilaclizard4504) on "Electrical experiments with plants that count and communicate | Greg Gage" video.

Or the Ted talk is fascinating!
16
Agreed Doom! The most prevalent theory on plant brains is an internet like system, with a tiny brain just behind each root. Definitely potential there if we can understand how they relay messages between them! Also, think of the pesticide potential if we can tap into the plant's natural defences & chemical signals to call in predators & cause them to create the chemicals needed to kill pests rather than having to spray them with artificial stuff. That's just 2 examples for starters!
11
For those of you who say it's not the same thing/they can't feel pain without an actual human style nervous system & brain, just remember that every organ plants have is different to animals, yet they still manage the same functions eg "digest food", "breathe", "hear", transport nutrients & gasses they need, attack invading organisms etc
10
no, they meet the most accepted criteria for sentience
8
99wins, 60% of the world's calories come from 5 crops - all of which are murdered everytime people eat them! Before you keep spamming your copy & paste over the entire comment section, why don't you think about what plants you actually eat & what happens to them! Corn doesn't grow back after harvest! neither do any of the others! Eating a chicken egg on the other hand, doesn't harm the chicken
7
If you really want to impress your guests, try to get a second plant (put a branch into the ground or tie a bag of soil around it & it will likely produce roots & be able to be separated from the parent plant) & then train one plant & not the other. Scientists did this, they dropped the plants repeatedly from a low height until the plants learnt they weren't going to get hurt & stopped reacting to the drop. They remembered their training for over a month!
6
PLENTY of evidence plants meet the most commonly used criteria for sentience! Vegans are just in denial of ANYTHING that doesn't fit their narrow minded doctrine! (eating insects and road kill are 2 other obvious options vegans should be using if they're genuine about their claims as to why they choose the diet they do but they just quote their leaders, they don't think for themselves)
4
Jay Paul, plants have been demonstrated to communicate SO much more than that! Vegans today are where many meat eaters were years ago, when meat eaters used to claim animal cruelty wasn't a problem because animals didn't have a "soul" & so didn't feel pain like humans did. You're using the same style of logic to dismiss anything you don't want to hear about plants!
4
re the brain, the theory is that in plants there's multiple tiny networked brains located just behind each root tip, rather than one super brain like we have & there's a fascinating video on youtube somewhere, where they test that theory by cutting off the root tip where that brain node would be & compared 2 roots with timelapse video. The one with an intact "brain" actively "hunts" for food, while the one with no "brain" simply grows in a straight line & appears to have lost all ability to process it's surroundings
4
M. Öckthem but doesn't that apply more to GMO etc? Corn is naturally multi-coloured because of the HUGE genetic diversity it carries so it can grow anywhere from mountains to near deserts. Us humans have removed all the genetics that give it it's colour range & made it only yellow/white & with that removed it's ability to adapt to climate change or other local climate variations. Bees have seen their numbers reduced from pesticide use to such a level that there's not even enough of them to fertilise all the human food crops anymore in many areas, let alone retain the rest of the planet's eco-systems Grapes & watermellon are made seedless by spraying them with plant growth regulators - that are very similar to agent orange, that was a chemical growth enhancer that caused plants to grow so fast & elongated that they ended up dying (ever noticed how commercial grapes are long & seedless while homegrown ones are round & seeded? That's from the chemicals Compare that sort of stuff with something like neem oil or natural pyrethrum, that are the plant's own defences, transferred onto a new plant to help it fight bugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopesticide Yes there's potential for abuse & it could go badly wrong, but it's currently going badly wrong anyway! Shouldn't we at least research this more & see if we can understand it & see if it has potential? There is currently reserarch going on into this sort of stuff at a basic level anyway & they're finding some facinating stuff out of it & it does have so much potential in so many ways, but currently the researchers are seen as a bit kooky & no-one wants to even talk about what they're finding & that to me would seem to be about the worst possible scenario - if we at least talk about it & learn about it as a collective species, then we can have the ability as a species to make smarter choices on if we use this stuff & if so how. Here's a video on some of the research going into plants & what they naturally do if you want to look more at what options there may be https://youtu.be/Q-4w5xYLwiU?list=PL1mdVN1WPaRnr3OOFF-x_yWc5XkTfm4KO
3
M. Öckthem I'm talking about working WITH nature! using chemicals she's already invented, for the purpose she invented them for! Messing with nature is when we start creating poisons to kill a certain bug & don't think about what it will do to the rest of the eco-system. Think of the bees!!!!!!! Doesn't it make more sense to release higher levels of a chemical the plant is already releasing to call a parasitic wasp, rather than spraying the plant with a chemical that will kill not only the caterpillar that the wasp was going to lay it's eggs inside, but also kill the wasp & bees & ladybirds & all the rest of the bug eating predators? It would make more sense to plant a more diverse eco-system to start with so the wasp can smell the signal & find the caterpillar, but if we're going to upsize crop fields, then we need to upsize the plant's chemicals too so they can be heard where they need to be
3
BoneAnchor, I can't find the link I had before :( but I found a new one, https://youtu.be/mFWHT6WxyTc?t=107 looks like it's for kids, but it explains the experiment. I can't find the link to the paper right now either sorry & no link on that video :(
3
Muda, how would you test for those things? They certainly protect their children, they certainly seem to fear being hurt themselves or their kin or others of their species being hurt. The problem in answering that question is we're not yet smart enough to figure out how to test for & so be able to answer it. At this point, there's certainly no conclusive evidence that they don't feel any of those things & each emotion that has been tested for successfully so far has yielded a yes they do have that response, so there's certainly every chance we'll find the answer is yes - if we can become smart enough to ask the question in the way a plant can answer
3
"When I asked about plants getting a "bad" signal alerting them" no, you said you didn't think plants could tell "This sensation is a bad one!", so I explained what plants were able to do and identify with sensations they receive. Pain is a mechanism for protection. Evolution suggests that living organisms won't respond to pain unless there is an evolutionary advantage to them in doing so, so in order to ask the question as to if they will respond to pain, we first need to look at the background information & identify if it would be useful for them. We see that if they can "feel" a bug has taken a bite out of them, they are able to respond to this with a wide range of different & selective responses, so from this we can see that it would be evolutionary useful for them to develop the ability to detect this has occurred and to develop some sort of stress to this that would cause them to want to make it stop. Contrast this with a short living insect like a cockroach or cricket. If we rip a leg off an animal, many animals will avoid using the limb & protect the wound, therefore allowing it to heal, increasing their chance of survival so that they can live on to reproduce. In short lived insects, their lifespan is so short that if they rest and protect the injury until it is healed, this will take so long that they will now be dead of old age before they can reproduce. Consequently, it is evolutionary negative for them to develop a desire to rest the wound, as such, when you rip the leg off a cricket, it will pull away/try to stop you from removing it's limbs, but once it's gone, it will carry on completely as normal, with no signs of pain present, as pain does not enhance their survival in the same way it does in plants or longer lived animals. So all of this means plants have an evolutionary reason to feel pain. They have also had a significantly longer period of evolution than any current animal species on the planet and their dna suggests they have used this extensively. So the question we should then ask is if they had evolved this ability, as seems likely from an evolutionary perspective, would we recognise it/how could we establish it? So I guess that's my question to you, how do you think we could test plants for this ability? What would you catagorise as proof of this & on the side note to this you raise of sentience, what would you define as sentience?
3
Thomas they're believed to have multiple small brain nodes behind each root tip, all networked together. As for sensation being "a bad one", more than that, if a bug eats a leaf, they can "taste" the saliva of the bug & identify what bug it is & then send out pheromones to call for predators (bird or insect depending on what bug it is) that will eat that specific species of bug Mother trees in a forest will also collect sunlight & "feed" it's energy to their babies. If they have enough, they'll feed other tree's babies too, but they will identify which are THEIR offspring & send most of the nutrients to them (studied & confirmed by putting a plastic bag over a branch & releasing radioactive carbon into the air in it & then reading with a gigacounter where the carbon ends up. Sibling seedlings will also identify kin & strangers & support kin growth while actively suppressing non-kin growth, SO many examples out there of plants exhibiting behaviours that are used to test for sentience in animals
3
The "International Carnivorous plant society" can help you. Easy to find with a google search & they send seeds all around the world :)
2
like octopus having a head brain & then additional brains in each tenticle you mean? Yeh plants seem to have similar too don't they https://youtu.be/Q-4w5xYLwiU?list=PL1mdVN1WPaRnr3OOFF-x_yWc5XkTfm4KO&t=2611 brain plant v zombie plant experiment
2
Ah THANK YOU Greg! I couldn't figure out how you actually hooked this up, but googling "Plant SpikerBox" gives me lots of results, so I should be able to figure it out from that. Thanks! & GREAT talk & demo!
2
agreed!
2
mothernature is replacing the motherboard :)
2
ah, well that makes sense :) Darwin thought they had brains, brains multiple, all networked together like the internet - a tiny brain node just behind the tip of each root & modern research is showing this to likely be true. If you haven't already seen it, there's a great doco about it, here's a link directly to the results of an experiment when they cut off the brain part https://youtu.be/Q-4w5xYLwiU?t=2613 the root stops all intelligent behaviours once the "brain" is gone. Is fascinating! I don't think there's any doubt plants meet the criteria for sentience, so it seems pretty likely we'll be confirming they have neuroprocesses equivalent to brains sooner or later - and probably actual brains :)
2
Then why would you dislike it? experiments like this increase interest in learning about plants & understanding their abilities and may lead to changes in the way we treat them. Currently we wholesale mow down whole fields of crops & kill them, spray "weeds" with poison & that cut grass smell when you mow your lawn is the plant effectively screaming to warn other nearby plants of the danger coming. Why is increasing knowledge of plants abilities bad?
2
plants aren't Deaf! No idea how they hear without ears, but they show the same sorts of reactions as seen in this video if you play them a recording of a caterpillar eating a plant. Vegans find research into plants inconvenient, so they just deny it all (then accuse those who deny climate change of being uneducated/ignorant etc despite them doing exactly the same thing to science they don't like)
2
If you have a small snake that some idiot has bashed over the head with a shoe & that is now struggling to eat & refusing to take any non-live food (as is standard for wild snakes), then yes it's ok to pull a lizard's tail off to provide the food that will save the snakes life, since the lizard's tail will grow back, but it will twitch enough after being removed for the snake to actually agree to eat it (I speak from experience on this one in case that wasn't obvious)
1
There's a video on youtube on this too :)
1
the trap dies NOT the plant! Just like human brain cells die if not used or skin cells die faster if you stick them in dishwashing water more often
1
plants are a "kingdom" not a "race" within that kingdom, there are countless different species, even more species diversity than the animal kingdom has! & yes I agree we should treat them with respect!
1
"A check for a second electrical impulse within X number of seconds doesn't take a brain to store memory," hmm how about month long memories of training they've been given? Cause mimosa plants are scientifically proven to remember their training for that long too. Plants are believed to have a network of brain nodes located just behind each root tip. If this is cut off, the root behaviour completely changes & rather than "hunting" & exploring it's environment, it simply grows in a straight line until it hits something. As for the hearing, I haven't read any research papers explaining how yet, like I said to start with, I have no idea how they hear without ears, but it's been repeatedly demonstrated in scientific experiments that they do. Lack of understanding of how something occurs does not negate that it is real! Germ theory was dismissed & the doctor who proposed it locked in a mental asylum because microscopes hadn't been invented & so everyone assumed disease was spread in smells & it wasn't possible for creatures too small to see to be spreading disease. Plant research right now is making incredible discoveries in quick succession, now scientists are starting to understand what sorts of things they should be looking for. I would give you links, but I think it's pretty obvious you've already made up your mind that you will have less ability to hear than plants do & will just block your ears & sing lalalalalalalalala to the inconvenient truth
1
There's a BBC doco "what plants talk about" & a Ted talk by the same woman who has been studying Canadian forests & apparently got super excited when she saw avatar & said ""OMG THEY"RE USING MY RESEARCH!!!!" She's been demonstrating Avatar like mother trees for years & how they transfer their food to their own babies & then left overs to other baby trees too
1
mostly GM actually deliberately disables plants ability to react to chemicals in the air, kind of the plant version of declawing your cat or debarking your dog, so it can't react to protect itself :'(
1
98% of all life on the planet is plants. Are you sure they're not already ruling the world? lol
1
@spx1070 because vegan kills FAR more animals than eating meat does & in FAR crueller ways! If they cared for the animals, they would become ethical meat eaters not vegans, so vegans that genuinely care for animals don't exist. Example, 750,000 wild pigs are killed every year in America to protect crops. The cheapest way to do that is with poisons. The most humane way to do it is with ground shooting, but that costs more money & so is only viable if there is someone purchasing the meat that results, ergo ethical meat eaters who are eating those wild pigs are doing FAR more for animal welfare than the vegans that want the animals poisoned & left to rot are doing
1
no, they refuse to eat unfertilised chicken eggs already, they have no brains! Vegans choose vegan either as cover for an eating disorder, or for taste preferences & just manipulate what they are allowed to eat around that, not around genuine welfare issues
1
Cows are intelligent in the same way a computer is intelligent. They’re not conscious. They don’t feel pain. They’re reacting to stimuli.
1
Sagrotan, I think you missed his point lol when people take weed, their senses slow down, so everything around them appears to be moving much faster & more intensely than it really is, so a weed plant can grow 10 metres in 1 minutes (in the mind of someone who's high :)) That's how I interpreted the comment anyway
1
but maybe they enjoy it :) kinda like some zoo animals enjoy the interactions they get from people. Maybe you can teach one some tricks (a scientist did teach one that she wasn't going to hurt it when dropping it, by doing so repeatedly until it learnt)
1
I am Groot
1
lol that's kinda interesting isn't it! We naturally think to look for plants that move at the closest speed to our natural speed, maybe we should instead be looking for plants with the ability to slow our functioning to match theirs
1
there's no scientific evidence for animal sentience that doesn't equally apply to plants. YOU should stop abusing & killing plants AND animals!
1
@impolitevegan3179 a wiki link as evidence of scientific proof? really? & Cambridge have lost all credibility on this issue right now, having released a review of past studies that were all outdated, while implying their results are not outdated & already proven as wrong, not to mention not being able to decide amongst themselves if avocados & almonds are vegan due to the use of bees in pollination, so how about you try again with a more reputable source, like a link to a study that can be found on google scholar proving animal sentience - you might want to specify which one too, rather than trying to prove "animals" which would include ones like oysters are all sentient & btw there's study after study since that declaration that have proven the same results spoken of there in plants. You have completely failed to prove animals are sentient while plants are not. Plants are doing exactly the same thing as animals
1
insects :) seriously think about it, there's less evidence that insects suffer than plants & 1 hectare of soybeans fed to crickets can produce as much protein as 150hectares of soybeans eaten directly - 149 hectares of additional crops is a LOT of sentient animal lives killed during harvesting & deforestation/eco-system displacement before we even move onto plants. Check out "cricket flour" add a tsp or so a day into your food to give it a nutty flavour & massive protein boost, reducing all other life losses needed for your food :)
1
The vegans are the joke, because on mass they come into any video like this & act like climate change deniers in climate change videos - deny the science! deny the science! It's inconvenient for us!
1