1. Working Hypothesis 1
Plants have empathy.
1a. Working Hypothesis 2
Plants have more signs of expressing empathy than animals through researched behavioral responses.
Practice Opening 1
Research shows that plants have a surprising number of behavioral attributes linked to empathy. In humans, empathy can be seen in the actions we do to help other people. Plants have surprisingly similar behavioral responses. They share resources through their roots, providing nutrients to those in need. They even send signals to alert other plants of impending danger. The idea of emotion may seen bizarre, yet the characteristics of these organisms is undoubtedly akin to humans.
Practice Opening 2
Plant behavior reveals that they could be just as compassionate as people. While a plant doesn’t have a brain or neural component, their actions are shockingly similar to that of animals and humans. Moreover, plants appear to be more “giving” than animals themselves. Certain species of animals may form packs to protect and care for each other. Plants are seen as having these same systems of preservation. Their connection of roots underground allows them to share nutrients to each other, along with secretions that can be used as distress signals. Instead of fighting for resources like many animal species would, they make sure every organism is secure in survival.
Practice Opening 3
Humans would not survive without the interdependent behavior of plants. The root connections of plants allow them to share nutrients, resources, and signals of distress. In turn, we rely on the resources they provide us, just as they rely on each other’s. The survival of plants is required for us to breathe oxygen, supply food, and create medicine. Their alliance helps them survive in harsh conditions, to the same degree that humans support one another. Plant, animal, and human each bare the weight that our counterpart cannot. That ideology supports the life of each species in the ecosystem.
2. Five Academic Resources
Plant Signaling and Behavior: Plant Communication
When a plant is harmed, it alerts other plants within a certain range using volatile organic compounds, or VOC. Other plants plan for defense in response. This could be because of the high concentration of VOC used in the experiment that may not be natural in the wild. This is a developed communication system in reaction to various dangers, such as disease or injury, to strengthen survival. VOCs can be used for various things, like calling pollinators, allowing plants to create specific messages for their needs. This study focuses on “plant-plant communication.” Certain blends of the synthetic VOC varieties would trigger other plants, but some did not. It may be unreliable because it is synthetic and not natural.
National Library of Medicine
February 1, 2012 Hirokazu Ueda, Yukio Kikuta, Kazuhiko Matsuda
Underground Networking: The Amazing Connections Beneath Your Feet
Mushrooms begin in the ground, connecting plants and surrounding tree roots, creating a network called mycelium. A large collection of this is called a “mycorrhizal network.” They can transfer different types of nutrients together and communicate through these connections. Trees can recognize their own species and send water or nutrients to ones that are in need; especially when they send signals to alert danger. The fungi keeps a percentage of these nutrients to stay alive and benefit from the connection. While this is a healthy connection, it is mainly due to survival of each species involved.
National Forest Foundation
Britt Holewinski
Plants Communicate Stress Using Their Own Kind of Nervous System
I now have to pay to see this article. 😡
Plants have a type of nervous system that is able to alert other plants of “distress.” Nerve cells in animals send distress signals using glutamate. Scientists discovered that plant cells have a similar way of sending information, using glutamate as well. With a sensor that detects calcium, they cut the lead off a plant and saw how the calcium spreads from the cut area to the rest of the plant. They discovered glutamate sent the signal. This proves plants have an internal communication similar to animals without having a brain.
Science.org
September 13, 2018 Elizabeth Pennisi
New research on plant intelligence may forever change how you think about plants
An author of multiple plant-based research novels, Michael Pollan, discusses “neurobiology” in plants. He describes how plants can react and respond to stimuli in an intuitive way. In a study, they responding to just the sound of a caterpillar eating leaves and sent distress signals. He believes that have similar senses to humans along with detecting obstacles in the way of growth, water, and gravity. They even have dopamine and serotonin neurotransmitters.
Monica Gagliano, an animal biologist, studied the plant mimosa pudica; which would close its ferns when disturbed. She discovered that after repeatedly dropping the plant without inflicting harm, it would stop reacting by closing. This could prove that plants have a memory and some type of intelligence. It could also be seen as simply a “problem-solving ability.”
January 10, 2014
Finding the Mother Tree
The author, Suzanne Simard, researches communication and intelligence in plants. Simard has ventured out on many expeditions to study the connections in nature, specifically the networks underground. She details her findings in the following novel.
Chapter 4, Page 67- The “arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi” grow inside of blades of grass, “where the cytoplasm and organelles are.” Simard says the fungi “isn’t a parasite; it’s a helper.”
Chapter 12, Page 228- Simard describes Douglas-fir trees as “Mother Trees.” The plants around them created a network and absorbed nutrients, all working together. She explains their connection to be “like a neural network.” Simard is curious if this network could be similar to that of a human brain; and just as fast. She refers the speed glutamate transfers using amino acids, almost at the same speed carbon and nitrogen moved through plant networks. She found that glutamate is a main neurotransmitter in the human brain as well. Plants are known to have amazing senses and the ability to perceive their environment. Simard wonders if plants could have an intelligent nature similar to animals.
Page 175- Birch and fir trees exchange carbon depending on the seasons they best thrive in. Simard ran tests to find that the fir trees relied on the carbon of birch to survive, but birch could sustain life without fir. She believes the trees have other benefits to each other, not just carbon exchange, to create a balance of their interdependence.
Page 179- “Plants are attuned to one another’s strengths and weaknesses, elegantly giving and taking to attain exquisite balance.”
Page 188- Simard believes the plants work in cooperation for the community’s benefit, similar to how human’s rely on each other. She finds that this is better for survival, even with a few selfish outliers.
Page 250- Simard infests a Douglas fir tree with spruce budworm and discovers that as they recognize their health decline, when connected by mycorrhizal fungi, they disperse their nutrients to surrounding trees. In another experiment, the pine sent carbon to try to help the firs survive. She also found that fir trees increased enzyme-defense against the disease, and the pine trees did the same thing, fighting for the survival of the fur trees.
Page 254- “Over millions of years, they’d evolved for survival, built relationships with their mutualists and competitors, and they were integrated with their partners in one system. The firs had sent warning signals that the forest was in danger, and the pines had been poised, eavesdropping for clues, wired to receive messages, ensuring the community remained whole, still a healthy place to rear their offspring.”
Finding the Mother Tree by Suzanne Simard
May 4, 2021
Empathy: A Review of the Concept
This article defines empathy by collecting a series of varying definitions. It explains how empathy is separate from sympathy, which is defined as “feeling for” another person instead of “feeling as” another person is feeling. The authors debate the difference between cognitive and affective empathy. Cognitive being the simple understanding of another’s emotions, affective being the ability to feel the emotions of another. Empathy is needed to be congruent-very similar, but not identical-to the other’s emotions to avoid being defined as sympathy. It needs to be provoked by a stimuli, whether it be through inference, speech, or witnessing an event. In addition, the person experiencing empathy must be aware they are feeling the emotion caused by an external factor. It’s acknowledged that some may have more capacity to empathize than another people. It is not required to have a reaction to the feeling of empathy, but it often invokes one. Empathy has the potential to be controlled based on perception.
They summarize the definition as:
Empathy is an emotional response (affective), dependent upon the interaction between trait capacities and state influences. Empathic processes are automatically elicited but are also shaped by top-down control processes. The resulting emotion is similar to one’s perception (directly experienced or imagined) and understanding (cognitive empathy) of the stimulus emotion, with recognition that the source of the emotion is not one’s own.
Sage Journals, Emotion Review
December 1, 2014 Benjamin M.P. Cuff, Sarah J. Brown, Douglas J. Howat, Laura Taylor
“Altruism” in the albino rat
The researchers conducted an experiment of the altruism of animals. The study was done by placing one rat in a chamber and suspending it above the other rat. The rat in the chamber would receive shocks and show signs of distress. At the level of the second rat, a bar could be pressed to lower the hoisted rat and stop the shocks. Group 1 had rats trained to press the bar, while rats in Group 2 had no training to press the bar. The rats in Group 2 pressed the bar nearly as many times as Group 1, proving they have responded to distress and show altruistic tendencies.
Quote- The authors felt that altruism could be operationally defined as “behavior of one animal that relieves another animal’s ‘distress.'”
Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology
February 1962 George E. Rice and Priscilla Gainer
Empathy: 5.1 Empathy and Altruistic Motivation
Stueber describes Social Psychologist, C.D. Batson’s, “altruism-empathy thesis.” It is a hypothesis about how empathy can lead to altruism in others. They feel compelled to help another person if they feel sympathy, leading them to have “helping behavior.” Stueber then explains how empathy could have an egotistical effect on altruism. People may help because it would alleviate the negative emotions felt through empathy. It could heighten their social status and make them feel better. The author reminds readers that empathy can cause altruism, but it does not always lead to it. Psychologist R.B. Cialdini has a different perspective. He argues empathy motivates altruism because people feel a unity when experiencing the emotion. This influences them enough to want to help people.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
March 31, 2008; latest update June 27, 2019 Karsten Stueber
Multiple control levels of root system remodeling in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis
Fungi create root systems called arbuscular mycorrhizal networks, which connect themselves to the roots of plants, penetrating it’s cells, and create a symbiotic relationship. This helps plants extend roots further and form more branches, allowing them to access greater nutrients from the soil. Fungi provide phosphate and nitrogen in return for nutrients the plants contain, like carbon. The connection overall benefits each plant and fungi greatly, expanding growth and health of the ecosystem.
Quote- “Plants can perceive localized differences in nutrient distribution also within the surrounding environment and respond with lateral root proliferation into phosphate or nitrogen-rich soil pockets”
Frontiers in Plant Science
June 18, 2013 Caroline Gutjahr, Uta Paszkowski
(Re)claiming plants in comparative psychology
Comparative Psychology reveals that plants are capable of intelligence. Plants have embodied cognition, extended cognition, and enactivism, special types of cognition that allow them to perceive and interact with their environment. They have the ability to use signals to communicate with other plants and the environment around them. In addition, plants can use short-term memory for learning capabilities, like remembering that a certain type of stimulation will not harm them. They can make choices on where to grow and explore areas best suited to their health and prosperity; as well as sensing environmental risks and adapt to what is bested suited for their growth. Plant intelligence even extends to “self-recognition,” being able to know what species they are and discern other plants of their own species. Like animals, they can create “families,” grouping and cooperating together to share nutrients and resources. They also interact with other organisms, sending signals to pollinators to exchange benefits. They have multiple forms of cognition without a central nervous system.
Journal of Comparative Psychology
February 2021 Umberto Castiello
Plants Neither Possess nor Require Consciousness
The article discusses evidence of plants with cognitive behavior, then refutes the sources, claiming plants so not have sufficient evidence to claim consciousness. The authors mention plant’s learning abilities and the root systems that resemble neural connections, then explain that a real brain cannot be reduced to such simple terms in it’s description. Pain is also mentioned as plants send out distress signals, yet they do not have the sensory components such as an amygdala or a brain stem to have access to such notions. Plants are compared to animals in their capabilities, yet plants did not have the same process of evolution to be considered conscious beings.
Science Direct
August 2019 Lincoln Tiaz, Daniel Alkon, Andreas Draguhn, Angus Murphy, Michael Blatt, Chris Hawes…
3. Topics for Smaller Papers
The definition of empathy and how plants reflect that behavior.
Plants have signs of intelligence.
Plants have cognition and show emotional behavior.
4. Current State of My Research
I enjoy finding new sources and seeing how they connect. When I find evidence valuable to my thesis, they tend to reference experiments that I had already found and written about, or authors and terms that I am familiar with. It’s nice to see that I am learning a lot about my subject and building a good foundation of evidence that other credible authors have acknowledged.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
My research so far feels like it’s just about the same topic repeatedly. I’m not sure what other key words I could search for to find a more broad collection of evidence. I also need research that proves plants’ reactions are not just for their survival. That would be a key component to proving the empathy aspect. Do you have any ideas or recommendations?
Here’s the key, I think, BeforeVerge:
That little clause has both Categorical and Causal implications and highlights the two crucial aspects of your developing thesis.
As you suggest, acting to benefit other plants, not just themselves, would demonstrate empathy. Or so we say because that’s how we define empathy. Or is it?
In your Definition/Categorical argument, you’ll need to be very specific about not just the elements of empathy but also how we recognize them. We attribute empathy to OTHER PEOPLE when we see them act in service to others. We attribute a mental or psychological state to them that we can only prove through their behavior. If they’re empathetic and DON’T extend a helping hand, how would we know it? Are there degrees of empathy? Could we rank them?
1. Shows no emotion in the presence of others in pain.
2. Cries in the presence of others in pain but does not act.
3. Cries in the presence of others in pain and helps the wounded when the cost is negligible.
4. Helps the wounded or ill even when the cost of helping is substantial.
5. Risks one’s life at long odds to rescue or protect another who is suffering.
6. Risks one’s life to protect someone from imminent danger who is not yet injured.
Do these represent degrees of empathy? Would we know them at all except for observing behavior?
Anyway, we do attribute empathy to other people based on HOW THEY LOOK in reaction to the joy, success, fear, pain, etc. of others AND by their actions, if any, in response. If they cry at the movies and can’t do anything to rescue the suffering actor, do we call that empathy?
If our second dog cowers under the sofa in the waiting room when our first dog whimpers in the exam room, is he empathizing with the first dog’s pain, or is he afraid he might be next? It could still be empathy either way, right, depending on how we define empathy? Is it the understanding of the inner life of another, or the motivation to help?
My wife thinks our dog stays by her side when she’s ill out of empathy. He wants to “check on” her and comfort her, she thinks. And she might well be right.
But the dog recognizes us humans as the source of everything good. When we’re down with an illness, we’re vulnerable to attack, and dogs have evolved to protect their human benefactors from every threat. So: empathy or self-interest?
Which brings us back to your question: if plants put themselves at risk or spent some of their capital to help another plant, we’d be more likely to call that empathy in the plant world. But should we?
Plants that “make the right choice” by “spending capital” in a way that improves their survival DO survive and proliferate, so what looks like benevolence might just be accidental behavior that gets passed on to the next generation and therefore becomes dominant.
I’m thinking of finding resources about the definition of empathy and what it’s actually classified as. I figured that’s more of a philosophy question than a science, but if I can find a measured definition it will work. If plants do not fit that role, should I change the term I use to explain plants’ awareness and their responses? What do you think?
I agree. It’s a philosophical question, one that we can just as well apply to human behavior, and dog behavior, as to plants.
We’re not good at judging the emotional life of plants. We think we’re keen observers of the emotions of our pets, but we probably misjudge them most of the time. We’re comfortable saying our spouses have empathy in many ways: by observing their body language and facial expressions; by listening to how they speak of others; by observing their behavior, their willingness to express themselves, their interpersonal actions.
But that ranking by behavior is a very blunt instrument. We only think behavior is evidence of psychology by analogy. If I acted that way, I would be reacting to the way I believe someone else feels; it would be evidence of my empathy for the other person. There’s a lot of steps there that can’t be quantified.
The absence of behavior, though, proves even less. Our spouse might know quite well what another is feeling (empathy?) and not care (lack of empathy?), or know and care but not do anything (which is that?).
ONE FUN WAY TO PROCEED:
Question the entire enterprise.
1. Find evidence that plants share proteins or something useful with a neighboring plant.
2. Demonstrate that if the plant might benefit from hoarding that protein for its own present needs or reserves.
3. Follow the Causal Chain from sharing the protein to the benefit gained by the neighboring plant to the eventual overall health of the entire ecosystem that, in turn, benefits the “generous” plant.
4. Conclude in triumph, NOT “This donor plant showed empathy!” BUT “If we observed this generosity in a human donor or even a family pet, we would call its behavior EMPATHY!”
5. THEREFORE: “We may not be able to prove empathy in plants, but if we can’t then we can’t prove it in humans or animals either!”
Helpful?
See you this morning in Zoom!
🙂