Discussion Title: Are plants and fungi conscious?

1. Plants and fungi are conscious.
1.1. Pro: Plants/fungi have [existed long before](http://web.archive.org/web/20200218153216/https://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2001-news/Hedges8-2001.htm) humans walked the planet and survived up to now. This may indicate plants are conscious in that they are conscientious of what they are doing enough to stay alive.
1.1.1. Con: Rocks, and inanimate matter generally existed long before humans walked the planet. This argument suggests that this would mean rocks "know what they are doing", which is absurd, as rocks aren't conscious enough to make decisions.
1.1.2. Con: Longevity does not equate to consciousness.
1.1.2.1. Con: It's plausible that consciousness is necessary to be aware of how one will survive.
1.1.2.1.1. Con: Species can survive using natural instincts.
1.1.2.2. Pro: [Neanderthals](https://insider.si.edu/2015/08/why-did-neanderthals-go-extinct/) were conscious beings that came before humans, yet they are extinct. Longevity thus is not a factor in the existence of consciousness.
1.1.3. Pro: If plants/fungi kept themselves alive until now, they must've made choices in their favor of surviving. This denotes consciousness.
1.1.3.1. Con: Non-conscious materials, such as [rocks](https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2008/11/13/how-rocks-evolve) can evolve as well. Thus, consciousness is not always necessary for survival.
1.1.4. Pro: Plants utilized an abundant chemical that they needed - [CO2](https://science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2001-news/Hedges8-2001.htm), in an environment that they weren't in before - by moving to that abundant area to get it. They were pioneers in doing so.
1.2. Pro: Plants have neuro-structures/functions connected to conscious actions.
1.2.1. Pro: Plants can be [sedated](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/science/plants-consciousness-anesthesia.html). Sedation involves [inhibiting glutamate](https://rbsrehab.com/is-alcohol-a-depressant-or-stimulant/), which [acts](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01743/full) in plants like a neurotransmitter \(so inhibition of it would have an effect\).
1.2.2. Pro: Plants have [neurotransmitters](https://nutritionfacts.org/video/human-neurotransmitters-in-plants/), and use them to [signal stress](http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-plants-gaba-neurotransmitter-03079.html).
1.2.2.1. Pro: According to the work of Cleve Backster \([1](https://www.lifecoachcode.com/2018/09/22/experiment-showed-plants-read-your-thoughts/), [2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleve_Backster#Findings)\), plants can feel pain and understand affection.
1.2.2.1.1. Con: Cleve Backster's work was [refuted](http://skepdic.com/plants.html) by researchers; they found that the cause of the polygraph response when testing plants could have been due to a number of factors, such as static electricity, movement in the room, changes in humidity, etc.
1.2.2.2. Con: Signaling stress may be a biological response rather than an indication of consciousness.
1.2.3. Pro: Due to evolution, the more complex the neural structure of an organism is for the same functions. In humans, it's [centralized](https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-between-diffuse-and-centralized-nervous-system/); primitive animals have [neural nets](https://youregettingonmynerves.weebly.com/jellyfish.html). So plants may have a [non-specialized rudimentary form](https://www.labroots.com/trending/videos/12777/plant-nervous-system-found) that includes consciousness \([selective attention](https://earthsky.org/earth/venus-flytrap), feeling/emotion \(seen in the video\), [memory, response](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimosa_pudica), etc.\).
1.3. Pro: Plants and fungi are living. By this essence alone, they should be conscious.
1.3.1. Pro: Considering plants as conscious beings through whether they're alive or not might lead to us anthropomorphizing them. This precludes our understanding of whether plants really experience conciousness or not.
1.3.2. Con: By the conventional definition, one could go into a coma and be deemed unconscious. So living is not enough.
1.3.3. Con: Consciousness is not possible for plants, as it would require [more energy](https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/plants-have-awareness-intelligence-scientists?rebelltitem=2) than it takes in.
1.3.4. Pro: Plants can [breathe](https://www.jic.ac.uk/blog/how-do-plants-breathe/). This is done consciously, as there are signals that tell the plant to open its stomata, and the plant responds by doing so.
1.3.5. Con: The traits by which the characteristic of life [is identified](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology) do not involve consciousness.
1.3.5.1. Con: [Adaptability](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5563/2215), or [responding to the environment](http://www.alyvea.com/biologystudyguides/whatislife.php), most definitely fits the definition of being conscious: "a state of alertness or awareness characterized by response to external stimuli" \([1](https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conscious)\).
1.3.5.1.1. Pro: Plants respond to different types of music by growing at different rates based on the genre \([1](https://dengarden.com/gardening/the-effect-of-music-on-plant-growth)\). However, they grow in response to music in general. This may show that they a conscious with musical tastes.
1.4. Pro: Plants and fungi work together in a [wood wide web](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-secrets-of-the-wood-wide-web). This level of communication could be considered consciousness.
1.4.1. Con: The [thesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectionism#Connectionism_vs._computationalism_debate) that a connected network of units communicating with each other is the basis of consciousness has not been successfully proven.
1.4.2. Pro: Plants and fungi have a symbiotic relationship, where they [exchange nutrients](https://www.motherearthnews.com/nature-and-environment/nature/symbiotic-relationship-zm0z14aszkin) to keep each other alive. Being able to [chemically communicate](https://e360.yale.edu/features/exploring_how_and_why_trees_talk_to_each_other) \(through competition and cooperation\) these nutrient needs through signaling and trading may indicate consciousness.
1.4.3. Pro: The wood wide web [looks and acts](https://e360.yale.edu/features/exploring_how_and_why_trees_talk_to_each_other) like a neural network.
1.5. Con: Plants and fungi do not exhibit consciousness like humans and animals do, and therefore cannot be conscious.
1.5.1. Pro: [Sentience](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sentience) is considered a part of consciousness. Plants seem to [exhibit](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/03/29/121731.full.pdf) it similarly to humans/animals.
1.5.2. Con: Consciousness can display differently in the same way that breathing displays differently in plants and humans, and therefore exists in both. To assume that they're not conscious, just because it's not similar, does not make sense.
1.5.3. Pro: The only beings we can truly know are conscious are ourselves, by "[cogito ergo sum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum)". Extrapolating this observation to other humans, as they act similarly to us and describe similar internal experiences to our own, is natural. This is not the case for plants.
1.5.4. Con: Plants move really slowly, so fast-paced humans can't tell that plants are taking action on their thoughts \(due to their non-noticeable movement\). However, they do, it's just slower \(visible better with [time-lapse videos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz4gi8mhBvw)\).
1.5.5. Con: Plants have [memory](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/plant-memory-hidden-vernalization) and can avoid certain movements based on past experience, like humans.
1.5.5.1. Con: [Plant memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_memory) is different from animal memory because it is not stored in a brain structure and does not instantiate some of the characteristics which animal memory does. Therefore, plant memory cannot be compared to human memory.
1.5.6. Con: Plants [secrete chemicals](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/02/plants-talk-to-each-other-through-their-roots) to communicate environmental changes in reaction to what that they sense. The reason why we don't think it happens, is because we don't see it, as it's different and hidden \(happening underground through the roots instead of above-ground\).
1.5.7. Con: Plant/fungi consciousness is not intuitive to someone just looking at it \(because it's different than what they think of\). However, with an open mind to other possibilities and careful scrutiny, it becomes more obvious that it's there.
1.5.7.1. Pro: With bees, for instance, one would believe that they randomly move, but they don't. They perform [waggle dances](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-waggle-dance), so what seemed like random movement actually is a form of communication that we weren't intuitively able to deduce it. Once we did, then we were able to see their intellect/conscious capabilities more.
1.6. Con: [Plant neurobiology](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634130/) is not considered a legitimate discipline.
1.6.1. Con: Just because it's not considered a legitimate discipline now, doesn't mean it's not one in total. It just might mean that it's too small to be considered legitimate and with time should grow into something that will be taken seriously. Everything starts somewhere.
1.6.1.1. Con: So many professions are large and are still not considered legitimate. So to say that size will make a difference is not necessarily always true.
1.6.2. Con: Information travel through neurochemical mechanisms in plants is measurable, which allows it to meet the qualifications for it to be considered '[scientifically rigorous](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jul-13-la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713-story.html)' \(similar to neuroscience with animals\).
1.6.3. Pro: The name doesn't sound legitimate, as it says 'neurobiology', which is redundant \(neural mechanisms are a part of biology\) instead of 'plant neuroscience', likely because it's not taken seriously.
1.6.4. Con: The idea already has a name and is in use by some scientists to describe the study.
1.6.5. Pro: [Many scientists are skeptical](https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/intriguing-consciousness-theory-skeptics-want-evidence-flna6C10486211) that plants exhibit consciousness.
1.7. Pro: According to [panpsychism](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/panpsychism), everything is conscious.
1.7.1. Pro: Everything carries information with it, so it fits the definition: "the state of understanding and realizing something." \([1](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/consciousness)\) It has a relation to its environment, so its existence creates understanding of the context of itself within its surroundings. That information gets attached to what exists at that moment to generate consciousness for it.
1.7.2. Pro: Even subatomic particles \(like electrons\) should be aware, as they are aware of their surroundings enough to move and interact in [defined ways](https://physicsfoundationsblog.wordpress.com/tag/matter-is-conscious/).
1.8. Con: Without a clear definition of consciousness, we cannot usefully ascribe consciousness to plants and fungi.
1.8.1. Pro: There are levels to consciousness that are [not yet understood](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK380/), such as comas and brain death. It is possible that plants and fungi have a level of conscious that has yet to be fully discovered.
1.8.2. Con: Consciousness is clearly defined as: "a state of alertness or awareness characterized by response to external stimuli." \([1](https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conscious)\). Because it's clearly defined, we can apply it to plants and fungi. Based on this definition, plants and fungi are conscious.
1.8.2.1. Pro: Plants exhibit changes in their [decision-making](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/plants-can-gamble-according-study) behavior based on their environment, which would be considered conscious \(one would call [adaptability](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/295/5563/2215)\). This is unlike pre-programmed instincts or computing decision-making that just gives an output based on its inputs.
1.8.2.1.1. Con: Artificial intelligent systems engage in [decision-making](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0933365712001510) which assess different options and choose the beneficial one. However, it is generally considered that despite this decision-making ability, such systems are not conscious. That plants make such decisions does not entail that they are conscious.
1.8.2.2. Pro: Some plant functions replicate the neuron action potential in humans \([1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2634336/)\) and allow for responses to situations.