Does Plants Have Consciousness?

Fascinating experiments suggest that plants might be far more alive, aware, and even emotionally responsive than we’ve imagined. Cleve Backster, a former CIA interrogation specialist, began testing this idea using polygraph machines. To his surprise, the plants seemed to react to human thoughts and emotions. In one instance, when he merely imagined setting a dracaena plant on fire, the polygraph spiked dramatically, showing what looked like a stress response. This led Backster to believe that plants could sense intention, famously concluding, Plants can think!

He went on to test lettuces, bananas, and other plants, finding similar responses to human emotions and actions even from afar.

In one experiment, a plant that had “witnessed” another being destroyed appeared to identify the “killer” from a group of people. Some even reacted when eggs were cracked or shrimp boiled nearby, suggesting empathy across species. Though his studies, published in the International Journal of Parapsychology, remain controversial, they continue to intrigue those exploring plant consciousness.

Decades later, biologist Monica Gagliano of the University of Western Australia expanded on these ideas. In her famous experiment, Mimosa pudica plants repeatedly dropped from a small height initially curled their leaves, a natural defense response. But after realizing the drops caused no harm, the plants stopped reacting. Even a month later, they “remembered” the experience, suggesting they could learn and retain information without a brain.

Together, these studies challenge one of science’s deepest assumptions that intelligence and consciousness require neurons. If plants can perceive, learn, and remember, what exactly defines awareness? These discoveries invite us to look at life differently, recognizing that consciousness might not be something humans have*, but something life itself is. This would mean we'd have to adopt a new worldview as well.

Meanwhile, Here’s a summary of what the scientific literature currently says about the idea that plants are conscious and how that compares with the kind of claim the above image conveys (“studies on plants suggest consciousness exists as a separate entity from the brain”).

---

✅ What we know about plants

Plants are far more dynamic and responsive than the stereotypical “passive green thing” might suggest. Some key facts:

• Plants can sense many aspects of their environment (light, gravity, touch, chemicals, damage, etc.).

• They communicate internally (for example via electrical or chemical signals when a leaf is damaged) and sometimes externally (via volatile compounds, root exudates, etc.). See for instance that stimulated plants can generate electrical potentials. SpringerLink+3arXiv+3Science Times+3

• There is research using frameworks from neuroscience/ information-theory (such as Integrated Information Theory or IIT) to ask whether plants might exhibit a minimal kind of “awareness” or information‐integration. PubMed+1

So yes, plants are active, responsive, capable of quite complex physiology, and some scientists are exploring whether aspects of cognition or information processing exist in plants.

---

❓ What we do not have (or what is very doubtful)

However and this is important, the claim “plants are conscious (in the way animals / humans are) and consciousness exists in them as a separate entity from the brain” is not well-supported by mainstream scientific evidence. Key points:

• Consciousness (in the sense of “there is something it is like to be” the subject) is still very poorly defined in animals, let alone in non-animals. Many papers argue that plants do not meet the usual criteria we use for animal consciousness (brains, neurons, centralized processing, behavior indicating subjective experience). For example, one review concludes:

  “Plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviours associated with consciousness … electrophysiological signalling in plants serves immediate physiological functions rather than integrative-information processing as in nervous systems of animals.” PubMed+1

• The example of responses to anesthetics: While it’s true plants respond to certain anesthetic chemicals, the interpretation that this means “they feel pain or are conscious” is not justified. The mechanistic effects of anesthetics are broad and many across taxa, so the fact that plants respond doesn’t imply consciousness. PubMed

• Some of the proposals that plants are conscious rely on stretching definitions (e.g., using IIT to claim that any system integrating information is conscious) but critics point out that this undermines the concept of consciousness (makes it so broad as to be unhelpful) and lacks empirical grounding in plants. PubMed+1

• From an evolutionary and physiological standpoint, many argue that plants lack the neural architectures that correlate with consciousness in animals (brains, neurons, centralized control) and the ecological/behavioral need may be different for plants. Science News+2ScienceDaily+2

---

🔍 How to interpret the claim in the above image

The image says: “Studies on plants suggest consciousness exists as a separate entity from the brain.” Here’s how that holds up:

• It’s true that there are studies exploring plant responsiveness, signalling, and information processing (so the “studies on plants” part is correct in a general sense).

• It is much weaker to interpret those studies as supporting the conclusion that plants have consciousness in the usual sense, or that consciousness exists in them as a separate entity from the brain. The mainstream scientific consensus (so far) is not that there is strong evidence for plant consciousness in the animal‐sense of conscious experience.

• The claim “separate entity from the brain” is especially problematic: most theories of consciousness in biology are tied to neural/brain‐based processing (or at least complex central information-processing systems). Plants do not fit that architecture (they lack central brains, neurons, etc.) and thus the leap from “plants have complex signalling and responsiveness” → “plants have consciousness like animals/humans” → “therefore consciousness exists as an entity in plants independent of brain” is not supported by strong empirical data.

• The field is still exploratory, speculative in many parts, and there is no agreement or strong consensus that plants are conscious in that sense.

---

🧠Summary recommendation

If I were to put it succinctly:

• Plants are remarkable and show many sophisticated processes.

• But the claim that they are conscious (in the sense of subjective awareness, feeling, intentionality) is not well‐established scientifically.

• So the image is overstating what the science currently supports. It picks up on interesting research, but turns it into a stronger claim than the evidence justifies.

---

Meanwhile, There’s no solid scientific evidence that plants are “conscious” in the way humans or animals are, or that consciousness exists independently of the brain.

Here’s what research actually shows:

• ✅ Plants are intelligent in a biological sense. They sense light, gravity, touch, and chemical cues; they communicate through electrical and chemical signals; and they can adapt behaviorally.

• 🧬 These reactions are biochemical, not mental. Plant signaling doesn’t involve neurons, brains, or subjective awareness. The electrical impulses plants produce differ greatly from nerve activity in animals.

• 🧠 No credible peer-reviewed study has demonstrated that plants have consciousness or that consciousness is a separate “entity.” Most plant biologists and neuroscientists reject that interpretation as speculative or metaphysical, not empirical.

• 🌱 The “plant consciousness” idea often appears in philosophical or New-Age discussions, but it isn’t supported by mainstream biology.

In short: plants are extraordinarily responsive and complex organisms but there’s no scientific data proving consciousness exists apart from the brain.

Finally, Did you Know That.....

Scientists have discovered that trees send out stress signals before volcanic eruptions, and these subtle biological responses can now be detected from space using satellites. Changes in leaf fluorescence, canopy moisture, and root activity can indicate seismic disturbances deep underground.

These “tree signals” act like early warning alarms often appearing days or weeks before volcanic activity becomes visible. Satellite technology like NASA’s ECOSTRESS and ESA’s Sentinel missions are now being trained to monitor vegetation stress near active volcanoes globally.

This fascinating crossover between botany, geology, and space tech could give communities more time to evacuate and prepare, saving lives and property.