The Possibility Of Plant Consciousness

Can something be alive but not conscious, having no thoughts or perception of any kind even as its physical substance reorients itself around various external stimuli?  It takes only a moment to realize this is indeed logically possible, as on a metaphysical and epistemological level, matter and consciousness are distinct.  This is why it is possible for even the fellow humans a person spends a great deal of time with are not proven to be conscious just because one perceives them move, speak, and appear to think--outward observation can never demonstrate what a being is specifically thinking or if it is actually thinking or experiencing anything whatsoever.  The same is true of animals, even more removed from a being like myself than other humans: that they appear conscious only entails by necessity exactly just that, that they appear to be conscious.  Even more removed from humans on an outward level are the many kinds of flora that grow on this planet.  Plants in their various forms one can observe in everyday life do not walk around, howl, stalk prey, or in any way appear to be conscious in the ways that even insects do.

Many plants, contrary to dogs or sharks or spiders, are rather inactive on the level of external observation, though some of them can move in correspondence with things like points of light--such as when they grow towards light (positive phototropism).  Carnivorous plants like the venus flytrap or the pitcher plant go so far as to catch and digest creatures like flies or frogs, all while remaining stationary as they use colors or smells to attract prey.  Of course, to grow at all, plants must be capable of movement, though not all plant movement is as distinct or dramatic as a flytrap closing its jaws.  It could be so gradual or subtle that it goes unnoticed.  Plants are nonetheless as alive in one sense as humans and non-human animals, just in less prominent ways.  It is this lack of obviousness in the external movements of many plants, except when something like wind or human touch is responsible for moving them, that makes it easier to focus on humans or animals when contemplating the metaphysics and epistemology of other minds.

Now, I do not know if other minds exist and I unfortunately cannot know.  This has ramifications that go far beyond not knowing the full nature of plants and animals, or even not being able to experience the perfect human psychological intimacy that could result from two telepathic persons gazing into each other's minds.  One of the most major ramifications has to do with the nature of God, the uncaused cause.  It is logically verifiable that there is an uncaused cause and it is logically necessary that my own mind exists as long as I perceive anything at all.  Both of these things can be known with absolute logical certainty, although only my own consciousness out of the two is self-evident in that I must rely on my mind's existence if I wished to deny it.  Still, I cannot prove that I am not the uncaused cause because there is no way for me, a non-telepathic being, to know if other minds exist (or if I am a telepathic being, there must simply be no other minds!).  There is thus no way for me to know if my own consciousness is the uncaused cause of every initial created thing and I somehow created a body of flesh and an extended world of matter to live in, or if the uncaused cause that must exist in light of contingent things like time and the universe is a separate entity--but all evidence points to God being a separate being even if the alternative is logically possible.

Similar to this, knowing that it is possible for plants to be conscious does not actually prove whether plants truly perceive or merely grow as inanimate life (and there is also the issue of perceived external stimuli like plants not necessarily existing except as perceptions of one's mind anyway).  However, plants not only might be genuinely conscious no matter how things seem to onlookers, but it is possible for a plant to have a consciousness just as devoted to understanding the necessary truths of reason as rationalistic humans.  There is no way to tell.  All that sensory perceptions can reveal about plants is strictly on the level of mere perceptions about how their bodies look and behave, which might be illusions.  Deep familiarity with a plant would not establish if it, like myself, is a consciousness in a body rather than just a mindless physical object that happens to grow.  The same is true of any animal or other person one might encounter in one's life.  Unless the epistemological limitation of not seeing if other minds are there was removed, only possibilities, what does or does not logically follow from them, and the fallible evidences of sensory perceptions of their bodies can be known.

The possibility of plant consciousness is knowable.  Whether plants are or are not conscious is unknowable because it does not logically follow from anything self-evident or that stems from logical axioms or one's own existence that plants must by necessity be conscious.  While examples are unecessary to realize and fully understand this, there are many examples that can clarify or typify this.  A wind-up toy is not necessarily conscious just because it somewhat behaves as if it is.  A computer program is not necessarily conscious just because it features a voice that resembles human speech.  A highly lifelike android would not necessarily be conscious just because it imitates many outward human behaviors.  If plants of all things are ultimately able to think, feel, or perceive, regardless of the extent, it would be an extraordinary thing.  It simply is unverifiable and unfalsifiable due to human limitations.  Not even another person that seems to share one's capacity for emotions, desires, sensory perceptions, and the grasping of reason can be known to have their own mind.  With plants, there is an even lesser form of sensory evidence that this is the case.