In article , JennyC
writes

"Helen" wrote in message
. au...
Recently I saw a programme about whether or not plants have feelings - some
said "of course they don't" and there were others who said they were sure
they did. What do you think?


Not having a nervous system, I feel they probably don't,

Comes back to definition of 'feelings' doesn't it? Does someone whose
nervous system is shot to hell have less 'feelings' than the rest of us?
Less physical sensation, yes, but their emotions are intact, and their
capacity for distress.

I'm inclined to think it's something to do with the extent to which the
control systems are centralised.

--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On 14/8/04 12:09, in article , "Kay"
wrote:

snip Comes back to definition of 'feelings' doesn't it? Does someone
whose
nervous system is shot to hell have less 'feelings' than the rest of us?
Less physical sensation, yes, but their emotions are intact, and their
capacity for distress.

I'm inclined to think it's something to do with the extent to which the
control systems are centralised.

Do you remember there was something written about experiments in this line?
Was it in The Secret Life of Plants? I seem to recall something about a
scientist burning the leaf of a plant with a cigarette and then the plant
was hooked up to electrodes to register its 'reactions'. When the same man
entered the room again there was - apparently - a distinct reaction from the
plant. I may not be remembering this very clearly but it was along those
lines.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article , Sacha
writes
Do you remember there was something written about experiments in this line?
Was it in The Secret Life of Plants? I seem to recall something about a
scientist burning the leaf of a plant with a cigarette and then the plant
was hooked up to electrodes to register its 'reactions'. When the same man
entered the room again there was - apparently - a distinct reaction from the
plant. I may not be remembering this very clearly but it was along those
lines.

'The Secret Life of Plants' was compiled by Peter Tompkins and
Christopher Bird in 1973. It was published by Allen Lane for Penguin
Books as ISBN 0 7139 0594 8. Though it quoted an exhaustive bibliography
of scientific and non-scientific material it was seen as a somewhat
tongue in cheek attempt to open up the subject of plant feelings.
Reading it put me firmly in the pro Plant life/rights/feelings camp.

This group conducted a very comprehensive discussion begun by me of the
issues involved in [IIRC] late 1997 under the title 'A Philospohical
Approach'. I learned much from that long thread about gardeners'
reactions to the idea of plants having feelings, but little firm
evidence one way or the other about the OT. Little seems to have changed
since then.
--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

On 14/8/04 20:45, in article , "Alan
Gould" wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes
Do you remember there was something written about experiments in this line?
Was it in The Secret Life of Plants? I seem to recall something about a
scientist burning the leaf of a plant with a cigarette and then the plant
was hooked up to electrodes to register its 'reactions'. When the same man
entered the room again there was - apparently - a distinct reaction from the
plant. I may not be remembering this very clearly but it was along those
lines.

'The Secret Life of Plants' was compiled by Peter Tompkins and
Christopher Bird in 1973. snip
But was it in that book that the experiment I'm thinking of was cited? Do
you recall?
--

Sacha

In article , Sacha
writes
But was it in that book that the experiment I'm thinking of was cited? Do
you recall?

Yes, [I still have the book] there are a lot of experiments quoted
linking plants, their life, their feelings, their growth etc. to
electricity and magnetism. The one you refer to was actually a test to
see if plants had extra-sensory perception - between them and/or to
other beings. I quote a part of the experiment:

'He [Clee Baxter, a lie detector expert] then conceived a worse threat:
he would burn the actual leaf to which the electrodes [of a lie
detector] were attached. The very instant he got the picture of flame in
his mind, and before he could move for a match, there was a dramatic
change in the tracing pattern on the graph in the form of a prolonged
upward sweep of the recording pen. Bakster had not moved, either towards
the plant or towards the recording machine. Could the plant have been
reading his mind?' Later Bakster reluctantly concluded that it had.

--
Alan & Joan Gould - North Lincs.

On 15/8/04 6:22, in article , "Alan
Gould" wrote:

snip
'He [Clee Baxter, a lie detector expert] then conceived a worse threat:
he would burn the actual leaf to which the electrodes [of a lie
detector] were attached. The very instant he got the picture of flame in
his mind, and before he could move for a match, there was a dramatic
change in the tracing pattern on the graph in the form of a prolonged
upward sweep of the recording pen. Bakster had not moved, either towards
the plant or towards the recording machine. Could the plant have been
reading his mind?' Later Bakster reluctantly concluded that it had.

That was it. Thanks for finding it again.
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

It strikes me that the word 'feelings' is getting a bit mixed up here.
That plants react to stimuli (in other words can 'sense') is not in
dispute. They are highly reactive organisms and even without a
recognisable central nervous system, can organise themselves to react
quite rapidly according to whether they are under stress or otherwise.

It has long fascinated me that the moment a herd of giraffes arrive to
feed on one species of Acacia in the South African veldt, the entire
neighbourhood of Acacias starts to mobilise huge and toxic quantities
of tannins to both bark and shoots. After feeding for a short time,
the animals have to move on to another species. I look upon this as
an electrical stimulus given out and received by plants under attack.
I suspect it is quite common and may even be transmitted through
ground moisture.

I carried out as bit of an experiment with the 'sensitive plant' -
Mimosa pudica quite a few years ago. Seedlings were either potted up
or planted out, 8" apart in deep trays. The potted plants were also
kept 8" apart. If the leaves on a potted plant were hit or damaged,
the entire plant would collapse as would be expected, but there was
never a reaction in its neighbours.

Those in the trays reacted differently on several occasions. Mild
hitting of the leaf would result in the collapse of foliage on that
plant only. However, cutting a leaf off or severely damaging it
often (but not always) caused other plants in that tray to react as
well - even though great care was taken not to touch or shake them in
any way.

Not a truly scientific experiment for it wasn't carried out on a large
enough scale or over a long enough period. That said, it was an
interesting exercise and my conclusions were that the plants responded
electrically and that a fluctuation in electrical discharge was
transmitted through the soil moisture, which was picked up by its
neighbours, causing them to react as well.

Back to feelings, I have great difficulty in according plants with
the ability to feel in an emotional way (love, hate etc.) for this
requires quite complex thought processing. Emotion is a consequence
of the need to remain together (as a pairing) or within one's own peer
group for self protection and the successful rearing of young. Its
roots are in baser instincts of the survival of the species and I have
great problems in accepting that such sensations are present in any
other than life forms with a highly organised central nervous systems.

Don't you think we are getting a tad too phyllanthropomorphic ;-)


Dave Poole
Torquay, Coastal South Devon UK
Winter min -2°C. Summer max 34°C.
Growing season: March - November

"Alan Gould" wrote in message
...
In article , Sacha
writes
But was it in that book that the experiment I'm thinking of was
cited? Do
you recall?

Yes, [I still have the book] there are a lot of experiments quoted
linking plants, their life, their feelings, their growth etc. to
electricity and magnetism. The one you refer to was actually a test
to
see if plants had extra-sensory perception - between them and/or to
other beings. I quote a part of the experiment:

'He [Clee Baxter, a lie detector expert]

That does not bode well for starters. Lie detectors have been shown
in controlled experiments to be totally unreliable, except insofar as
they intimidate the person being interviewed.

then conceived a worse threat:
he would burn the actual leaf to which the electrodes [of a lie
detector] were attached. The very instant he got the picture of
flame in
his mind, and before he could move for a match, there was a dramatic
change in the tracing pattern on the graph in the form of a
prolonged
upward sweep of the recording pen.

That is anecdotal. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence obtained fron
controlled experiments and therefore have exactly zero scientific
value.
Is he implying that the leaf had predictive powers?
And in any case, leaves don't have skins whose surface resistivity
behaves like that of humans.

Bakster had not moved, either towards
the plant or towards the recording machine. Could the plant have
been
reading his mind?' Later Bakster reluctantly concluded that it had.

That little lot,.I am afraid, can only be described as vintage crap.
It is on a par with the book I read which gave "evidence" that Jesus
did not in fact die on the cross, but was rescued by his close
friends, and after he had recovered from the ordeal, escaped to France
with Mary Magdalen, where they founded the Plantagenet family.

Franz