Back in 1966, inquest specialist Cleve Baxter conducted an interesting experiment. Knowing that lie detectors measure skin moisture (sweating) by a galvanic reaction, Cleve connected a cane plant to the device to determine the level of fluid intake.
But when he looked at the polygraph, he saw that the reaction curve was very similar to that shown by people. The rest turned out to be even more surprising. Baxter knew that stress provoked the strongest reaction in a lie detector test, and he wondered what would happen if he burned one leaf.
Please note, he did not burn the leaf, but only thought about it. But at that moment, the polygraph literally went crazy.
Cleve repeated the experiment over and over again and eventually came to the conclusion that plants can think and somehow respond to human intentions. This means that they can hear us.
Since then, this issue has been actively discussed for many years. We learned that plants have the ability to sense and respond to other plants. But what about consciousness? The ability to draw conclusions? It seems a little far-fetched.
What if it isn't?
Recently, two scientists from Yale University published their research on altruism. For most of the last century, experts have convinced us that this phenomenon is possible only among humans, but over the past 30 years, altruism has begun to manifest itself with surprising consistency among animals.
Such reports have led to massive amendments to Darwin's theory of natural selection, but there are questions. Since altruism is inherent not only in humans and is observed among animals, then where can this chain of events lead? For example, plants that benefit humanity? Don't be silly, many critics say.
Promotional video:
But again, what if it's not?
In an attempt to investigate the ability of the yellow touch-me-not to recognize congeners, Yale scientists looked at how plants respond in two different competitive situations. To study the rivalry over the ground, they used changes in the quality of lighting, for the study of the underground part, the presence of the roots of neighbors was taken into account. In addition, plants were grown either in familiar groups or among strangers.
In the presence of a family, the touch-me-not directed additional resources into the stem. As a result, it lengthened to improve light reception. However, the plant did not change the intensity of root growth or the shape of the leaves.
The most significant point was precisely the absence of changes in the growth pattern of the leaves. Since light is a growth restrictor, in competitive situations touch-me-not usually devotes significant resources to the growth of leaves (this simultaneously gives it a better chance of getting a lot of light and shading its neighbors). But in the family circle, the plants did not do this. But in the company of strangers, touch-me-not really changed the scheme of its actions, directing additional resources to the growth of leaves. This means that in the presence of its relatives, the plant demonstrated altruism.
Is this proof of mind-reading mind? Of course not. But it definitely proves that something more is happening than people previously thought. And this "more" is most likely associated with consciousness.
In light of the global rate of deforestation, this definitely makes you ponder.
Since plants might think, is global deforestation genocidal?
