The University of Washington WWAMI Medical Education Program at The University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, 83844, USA.
Laboratory of Plant Physiology and Biophysics, Bower Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK.
Protoplasma. 2021 May;258(3):459-476. doi: 10.1007/s00709-020-01579-w. Epub 2020 Nov 16.
Claims that plants have conscious experiences have increased in recent years and have received wide coverage, from the popular media to scientific journals. Such claims are misleading and have the potential to misdirect funding and governmental policy decisions. After defining basic, primary consciousness, we provide new arguments against 12 core claims made by the proponents of plant consciousness. Three important new conclusions of our study are (1) plants have not been shown to perform the proactive, anticipatory behaviors associated with consciousness, but only to sense and follow stimulus trails reactively; (2) electrophysiological signaling in plants serves immediate physiological functions rather than integrative-information processing as in nervous systems of animals, giving no indication of plant consciousness; (3) the controversial claim of classical Pavlovian learning in plants, even if correct, is irrelevant because this type of learning does not require consciousness. Finally, we present our own hypothesis, based on two logical assumptions, concerning which organisms possess consciousness. Our first assumption is that affective (emotional) consciousness is marked by an advanced capacity for operant learning about rewards and punishments. Our second assumption is that image-based conscious experience is marked by demonstrably mapped representations of the external environment within the body. Certain animals fit both of these criteria, but plants fit neither. We conclude that claims for plant consciousness are highly speculative and lack sound scientific support.
近年来,越来越多的人声称植物具有意识体验,这些观点不仅在大众媒体上得到广泛报道,甚至还出现在科学期刊上。此类观点具有误导性,可能会误导资金和政府政策决策。在定义了基本的、主要的意识之后,我们提出了新的论据来反对植物意识支持者提出的 12 个核心观点。我们的研究有三个重要的新结论:(1)植物没有表现出与意识相关的主动、预期行为,而只是被动地感知和跟随刺激轨迹;(2)植物的电生理信号传递服务于即时的生理功能,而不像动物神经系统那样进行整合信息处理,这表明植物没有意识;(3)植物经典的巴甫洛夫式学习的争议性说法即使正确,也是无关紧要的,因为这种学习不需要意识。最后,我们提出了自己的假设,该假设基于两个逻辑假设,涉及哪些生物具有意识。我们的第一个假设是,情感意识的标志是对奖惩进行操作性学习的高级能力。我们的第二个假设是,基于图像的意识体验的标志是身体内部对外界环境的可证明映射表示。某些动物符合这两个标准,但植物都不符合。因此,我们得出结论,植物具有意识的说法是高度推测性的,缺乏有力的科学支持。