the natural history of consciousness, and the question of … · 2017-11-24 · the natural history...

The natural history of consciousness, and the question of whether plantsare conscious, in relation to the Hameroff-Penrose quantum-physical‘Orch OR’ theory of universal consciousness

Peter W Barlow*

School of Biological Sciences; University of Bristol; Bristol Life Sciences Building; Bristol, UK

Whether or not plants exhibit con-sciousness in the sense that they possess a‘sensation of self’ is uncertain. Unlikehumans and certain animals, plants can-not be interrogated directly on this matter.In any case, it is possible that states of con-sciousness, like brains and nervous systemsof animals, have evolved and developed indifferent ways, depending on their phylog-eny. However, some of the criteria bywhich consciousness is inferred to be pres-ent in animals are met by plants. Forexample, plants display features of cogni-tion (sensing and response) and of learn-ing and memory which, in animals,contribute to the conscious state. Plantsalso possess a rudimentary nervous systemsimilar to that found in basal animals andhave, perhaps, a simple brain, as well asshowing slow and fast transmissable elec-trical activity, all of which are strong cor-relates of consciousness in animals.However, the question of consciousness ingeneral can be approached in a differentway. This is by taking the Orch OR(Orchestrated Objective Reduction)hypothesis of Hameroff and Penrose1 as astarting point. The Orch OR hypothesis,which is based in quantum physics, pro-poses that, when a sufficient mass of tubu-lin molecules has assembled intocytoskeletal microtubules (MTs) withinneuronal cells of the brain, these structuresbecome sites of quantum computationand of quantum state reduction (OR)events resulting in moments of protocon-sciousness. Because plant cells also havelarge populations of MTs, and becauseplant MTs share properties with those ofanimal neuronal MTs, which putatively

orchestrate OR events, plant MTs mightalso be sites of quantum reduction eventsand, hence, lead to momentary protocon-sciousness. The extent to which the OrchOR hypothesis is applicable to plants isexamined, and it is argued that, within theplant body, the most likely tissue whereOR events could be located and promoteprotoconsciousness is to be found in thesystem of ray cells of tree trunks in whichbundled MTs and actin filaments areprevalent. A single complete ray complexis estimated to contain about as manytubulin molecules as a single human cere-bral neuron.

Inferential evidence used by Hameroffand Penrose to support their Orch ORhypothesis leads in another direction.These authors presented estimates of thefrequency of protoconscious or consciousmoments. This frequency turns out to besimilar to the frequency of successiveEarthly quantal time units, according to atheory proposed by G. Dorda.2 Thesetime units are also intimately linked withsimultaneous changes of quantal mass,both mass and time being structuredaccording to the motions of Earth andMoon around the Sun. In the case of cel-lular tissues, quantised mass takes theform of aggregates of water, and these arehypothesized to move in and out of cellsin response to the passage of quantal time.In humans, the passage of time and itsassociation with quantised water fluxmight account for a sense of self gainedduring meditative practices and governalso sleep-wakefulness rhythms, a princi-ple which could apply to all living organ-isms. In plants, a similar quantised

Keywords: action potentials, conscious-ness, microtubules, neurons, orch ORhypothesis, passage of time, plants, pri-mary perception, protoconsciousness, raycells

Abbreviations: AP, action potential; EEG,electroencephalograph; EPD, electricalpotential difference; MAP, microtubule-associated protein; MT, microtubule;Orch OR, orchestrated objectivereduction.

© Peter W Barlow*Correspondence to Peter W Barlow;Email: [email protected]

Submitted: 02/25/2015

Revised: 03/28/2015

Accepted: 04/13/2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1041696

This is an Open Access article distributed under theterms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestrictednon-commercial use, distribution, and reproductionin any medium, provided the original work is prop-erly cited. The moral rights of the named author(s)have been asserted.

www.tandfonline.com e1041696-1Communicative & Integrative Biology

Communicative & Integrative Biology 8:4, e1041696; July/August 2015; Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLCCONCEPT PAPER

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/






mass-time relationship might also conferan experience akin to one of selfhood.This relationship may be supplementedwith the development of spontaneousaction potentials which, in turn, lead tothe development of electromagnetic fields.The presence of such fields surroundingplants and other living bodies are perhapsrelated to instances of ‘primaryperception’ and also to certain cognitivefeatures, such as kin recognition, whichseem to lie at the fringe of consciousness.

Introduction

Despite the efforts of neurobiologists,philosophers and psychologists, the natureof consciousness remains elusive. Theusual model taken for consideration ishuman consciousness, the major theoriesof which – from Descartes in the 17th cen-tury to quantum mechanics in the 20th

century, and the manner in which each ofthese theories fits within the prevailing sci-entific view of the world – have been dis-cussed by Seager.3 Not only is humanconsciousness the most advanced of itskind but it is, of all presumed types ofconsciousnesses, also the one most avail-able to empirical enquiry.4,5 As Rosenberg(ref. 6, p. 93) suggests, “every theory ofconsciousness goes beyond the direct evi-dence we have, because we have direct evi-dence only in our own case.” Sometimes,there are also opportunities for experimen-tal modulation and the observation ofaltered states of consciousness,7-9 whichthrow the usual type of consciousness intosharper relief. The focus on human con-sciousness and its subjective nature, how-ever, need not deny that other, non-human organisms might also experienceconsciousness. Nevertheless, pursuit ofother models of consciousness presents thedifficulty that the corresponding organ-isms may have sense organs of differentacuity, or even of different kind, to thoseof humans;10 it is, after all, through thesenses that the concept of consciousnesshas come into being, and which providethe impetus for consciousness studies.Indeed, a systematic enumeration of crite-ria whereby the presence of consciousnesscan be inferred in human and non-humananimals has been presented by Seth and

his colleagues.11-13 These criteria cantherefore be useful in determiningwhether consciousness is widespread, atleast in the animal kingdom. However,notwithstanding the immensely long phy-logenetic progression within which con-sciousness lies,14 not all of these criteriaare met in every animal group. Moreover,it is possible that consciousness, in someform or other, has arisen more than onceduring the course of evolution.12 Never-theless, it should be possible to reach someconsensus on what qualities or propertiescomprise a ‘universal’ mode of conscious-ness. For Maxine Sheets-Johnstone,15

from whose work the first part of the titleof the present article is derived, the keyquestion relating to consciousness is nothow consciousness arose in matter, buthow consciousness comes “to be in thenatural history of living creatures and toinhere in the animate?” This is the objectof the present article, especially in regardto how this question of the inherency ofconsciousness relates to plants.

Recently, a novel and apparently uni-versal theory of consciousness, whichbrings a provisional, though theoreticalanswer to the question of Sheets-John-stone, was proposed in its latest form byStuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose(ref. 1 – this publication is hereafter some-times referred to simply as ‘Hameroff andPenrose’). The theory deals with the pre-conditions for a moment of consciousness.It places quantum-physical processescenter-stage and deploys the argumentthat cytoskeletal microtubules (MTs),particularly those contained within neuro-nal cells, are sites where crucial‘protoconscious’ events are initiated. Theconsequences of these events are thenrelayed to the brain where they are per-ceived as moments of ‘protoconsciousexperience’. Because MTs are widespreadand abundant in all forms of life exceptbacteria (although bacteria do possess heli-ces of the tubulin-related protein FtsZ16),it follows that the Hameroff-Penrosehypothesis could be considered in relationto organisms other than Man – that is,wherever intracellular tubulin and MTsare found. Hence, it should be possible todiscover whether the elements that upholdthe theory and which make possible a pro-toconscious event, are present in the

biological makeup of non-human organ-isms and, hence, confer upon these organ-isms similar moments of proto-consciousexperience. It should also be remarkedthat, although this is not the only theoryto have placed consciousness and its neu-robiological correlates within the domainof quantum physics – see ref. 17 for a sur-vey, and note also the proposals ofWalker18 and Bernroider and Summham-mer19 for quantum effects in relation toneuronal functioning – the Hameroff-Penrose hypothesis is the one which is cur-rently attracting a great deal of attentiondue not only to its testable proposals, butalso to its theoretical underpinnings,which themselves are tending to leadtoward a deepening consideration of grav-ity within the context of quantummechanics in general.20,21 AlthoughHameroff and Penrose1 specify the condi-tions which, according to their quantum-physical theory, initiate what they term a‘protoconscious event’, these authors haveleft it to others to describe what actuallyconstitutes the broader aspects of con-sciousness; they do say, however, that con-sciousness ‘implies a sense of self’ and‘defines our existence’. It is here thatDamasio,5 for example, feels that the issuewhich is critical in any comprehensiveaccount of consciousness lies in explaining“how we know that we own a mind;” andfor this he does not regard quantum eventsas necessary, although he does hold thatsuch events offer a possible means ofexplaining “how we have a mind.”

Hameroff and Penrose1 have also putforward evidence from observation ofmeditative states as being relevant to anunderstanding of the conscious state. Theadvantage of this less conventional, butnevertheless supportive viewpoint is thatconsciousness can hereby be considerednot only from a top-down (holistic) per-spective, starting from the correlates ofhigher states of consciousness, but can alsobe linked with the more everyday, butnevertheless fundamental observations ofthis state. This means that the question ofconsciousness need not rely entirely onthe bottom-up (reductionist) perspective,centered on sensory stimuli and responsemechanisms, such as espoused by Crickand Koch,22 but can also espouse morespiritual aspects of the question. Taking

e1041696-2 Volume 8 Issue 4Communicative & Integrative Biology

both viewpoints together, as was proposedby Sperry,23 suggests that not only could afairly complete tiered structure of con-sciousness be prepared but mechanismscould also be uncovered by which thistiered structure comes about. Then wouldfollow the possibility of examining thedegree to which different non-humanorganisms, including plants, have devel-oped the potentiality, and perhaps thecapacity, for consciousness, a capacityassociated, fundamentally, with sensitivityto the process of living within a particularenvironment, guided either by instinct orenvironment. However, as soon as thequestion of non-human and plant types ofconsciousness is mooted, investigatorsbecome cautious. Crick and Koch,22 forexample, claimed that the time was notright for such an enquiry, and Sheets-Johnstone,15 while at pains not to trivial-ise “the ways in which plants are animate,”preferred to “narrow down the complexityof an already complex subject” and, hence,her discussion remained within the scopeof animal models.

It is some years since the topic of con-sciousness of plants was discussed criticallyand in depth,24 even though a number ofauthors have not been shy of writing pro-lifically about subjects such as of ‘plantintelligence’,25,26 ‘plant decision-making’,27 and ‘plant cognition’,28,29 allof which are relevant for defining certainareas related to consciousness, but none ofwhich, individually, are evidence for con-sciousness. Because of the difficulties oflanguage and idiom, the 3 mentioned con-sciousness-related subjects are bedevilledby pitfalls of metaphor and anthropomor-phism which can lead to unsatisfying sub-jective conclusions.30 Nevertheless, somemetaphors of consciousness and attentioncan lead to testable hypotheses.31 Alexan-dra Nagel,24 although anxious to explore apossible conscious aspect of plant life, didnot define consciousness, either in generalterms or in terms of what it might entailfor the plant. The examples she chosewere rather of a plant being ‘conscious’ ofits environment, i.e., the plant’s responseto many types of unusual stimuli – even‘psychic’ stimuli – and, hence, she tendedto treat ‘consciousness’ as the ability toperceive inputs to which a response couldbe observed. The position outlined in the

present paper is somewhat different: it isproposed that, in essence, consciousness isa sense of self, perceived during a state ofawareness. In its purest form, this sensa-tion of self may be received in circumstan-ces free from the implications of learning,memory and thought, as well as emo-tional, intellectual and locomotory reac-tions to stimuli. As this indicates,consciousness would then seem to besomething more than what reductionistswould claim it to be: that it is simply amatter of how sensory signals (e.g., visualsignals) are perceived and interpreted bythe brain;22 it may be more akin to a spe-cial kind of ‘feeling’ (“I know that Iknow”) which accompanies the emergingsense of self.4,5

The topic of consciousness of plants istherefore broached in the light of theHameroff-Penrose theory, drawing, as didthese authors,1 upon 2500 years of Bud-dhist thinking on this subject, especiallythe Buddhist theory of momentariness.32

Also recognized are the perceptive insightsof Henri Bergson, who is now regarded asone of the first so-called ‘process philoso-phers’ (prior to AN Whitehead, who pos-ited consciousness to be ‘moments ofexperience’), and whose ideas on the natu-ral history of consciousness, authored100 years ago, chime with many of thenewer ideas emerging from modern stud-ies of evolution, behavior, intelligence andconsciousness.33,34

What is plant consciousness?Alexandra Nagel,24 when considering

the question of plant consciousness, sur-veyed both scientific and non-scientific lit-erature and analyzed the variously heldbeliefs of whether plants were or were notconscious. The evidence amassed did notlead to a decisive answer because muchdepended upon subjective opinions ratherthan upon hypotheses and experiments.

Definitions of consciousness usuallystart with the supposition that it is a prop-erty of a brain fed, moment by moment,with inputs from the sense organs via anervous system. In humans, these variousmomentary sensations are bound togetherby the brain to produce a feeling of con-tinuous awareness and, at the same time,generate a representation of the organism’sexperience of its internal and external

world.35 The immediate product of suchan integrative system can be regarded as a‘core’ consciousness, which is subjectiveand private to the organism. The mannerin which the various sensory inputs arehandled by the brain leads to the concep-tualization of a range of functional attrib-utes to which terms such as cognition,memory, feelings, thought, and so on, areapplied. In the case of plants, cognitionand memory have been critically discussedin the scientific literature28 and are reason-ably well accepted as attributes of plants,as are the notions that plants possess botha simple brain and a simple nervous sys-tem.36 Cognition is a source of experience;and cognitive experiences may well beassimilated by plants not only to instituteimmediate responses but also to be storedas a memory. Both circumstances form abasis for primary plant consciousness.However, it is entirely another matterwhether a plant is able to bind togetherthe manifold varieties of its experienceand thereby form – and here one needsthe language of metaphor - a representa-tion of itself and of its world upon thescreen of a plant mind (phyto-mind).That is the deep question of plantconsciousness.

Seth et al.11 proposed 17 criteria whichconformed to the neuronal, brain-basedconscious state of humans by which thedegree of consciousness in non-humanmammals and other animals could thenbe assessed, using their patterns of behav-ior as a reference. Humans therefore serveas the bench-mark for discussions of con-sciousness in general. However, not onlyare many of the 17 criteria inapplicable tomany animal species because of theirmuch simplified behavioral patterns, butmany are also inapplicable to plants. Nev-ertheless, 2 of the criteria, ‘learning’ and‘decision making’ (nos. 14 and 17 of Sethet al.’s criteria), can be adopted in modi-fied form and analogized to plant pro-cesses which indicate correspondingexperience of, and response to, the outsideworld. There may also be traces of condi-tions that fulfil 4 other criteria (nos. 1, 3,7 and 12), ‘electroencephalographic(EEG) signature’, ‘widespread brainactivity’, ‘internal consistency’ (i.e., dis-crimination between 2 inconsistent stim-uli and response to only one), and


‘subjectivity’ (i.e., existence of a privateflow of events perceived only by theexperiencing subject). These will be men-tioned later, in sections 7 and 13. One fur-ther criterion, of ‘self-attribution’ (no. 10of Seth et al.,11), seems essential for theelevation of consciousness from a primary,or ‘core’, consciousness to a secondary,mind-based type of consciousness. Thisattribute can also be discussed (see the sec-tion ‘The idea of plant ‘oneness’): namely,whether plants possess a ‘sense of self’ – asense of participation and interaction withtheir external environment but at thesame time being aware of their separate-ness from that environment. This ‘sense’of self would appear, at least from workwith humans, to be the emergent propertyof ‘mind’ derived from the integration, or‘sensory binding’ within the brain,35,37 ofmost of the processes implied by the afore-mentioned definitional criteria. In the par-ticular context of plant consciousness, thequestion arises as to the number and typeof processes which can be considered criti-cal in support not only a primary type ofplant consciousness, but also a sense ofself-awareness. Unfortunately, unlikestudies of human and some animals, it isnot possible to interrogate plants directly;answers relating to cognition and mem-ory, for example, can be received onlyindirectly through behavioral responsesand, then, be comprehended only in thelight of human knowledge systems, per-sonal subjective experience, and degree ofunderstanding. Nevertheless, relevant andintelligible responses from plants couldsatisfy criterion no. 11, ‘accuratereportability’, of Seth et al.11 In terms ofHameroff and Penrose’s Orch ORhypothesis,1 the properties to which theirexperiential moments of protoconscious-ness would be relevant are the above-men-tioned criteria 1 and 3 of Seth et al.,11

‘EEG signature’ and ‘widespread brainactivity’. Thus, at least 7 of the 17criteria of consciousness proposed by Sethet al. 11 are fulfilled.

Although specific criteria for con-sciousness were identified and extrapo-lated to plants (see above), it is venturedthat the remaining 10 criteria of Sethet al.11 can also, in one way or another, beenvisaged as relevant to some process orproperty of plants. The major problem, it

seems, for both plant and animal con-sciousness, is how exactly the processeswhich are embodied by the criteria of con-sciousness are played out in the 2 respec-tive ‘theatres of the mind’ to engender asensation of existence within a world ofsensory impressions. Humans create andrecognize this world; and plants are pre-sumably also constantly receptive of theirenvironment; but are plants (and manyanimals) aware of this receptivity whichbrings into being some type of representa-tion of the world in which they live?

The Penrose-Hameroff Orch ORmodel of consciousness

In an update of their controversial 20-year-old theory of consciousness publishedin Physics of Life Reviews, Hameroff andPenrose1 claim that consciousness derivesfrom deep-level, fine-scale activities withinbrain neurons. The authors propose 3 var-iants of a possible way in which conscious-ness came to be developed in biologicalorganisms, one of which is that conscious-ness is the product of discrete physicalevents that have always existed in the Uni-verse, and which are governed by its laws,even if these are not fully understood atpresent. The resultant physical events aretermed ‘protoconscious events’. With theadvent of living forms during the courseof evolution of the Universe following itsinception, protoconscious events havebecome embodied or, as the authors putit, “orchestrated,” within living forms byvirtue of their particular cellular composi-tion and construction, and now find theirmost developed expression in neuronalactivity of animals. From their site ofinception in the brain (and here Hameroffand Penrose mean the human brain) theprotoconscious events somehow lead tomomentary ‘states of mind’ whichhumans, from experience, call‘consciousness’.

For Hameroff and Penrose, the media-tors of each protoconscious event are theproteinaceous dimers of tubulin which,together with their associated proteins(MAPs), are assembled into microtubules(MTs). All these macromolecules areubiquitous in eukaryotic cells and, withthe participation of actin and intermediatefilaments, develop a scaffold, or cytoskele-ton, which supports internal cellular

structure and thereby cell function. Tubu-lin and MTs are particularly abundant inneurons. Because neurons do not divide(although new cerebral and spinal cordneurons can be generated from astrocytes),the MTs and cytoskeleton are conserved asrelatively stable intraneuronal compo-nents, apart from a possible slow turnoverof their tubulin and other molecular con-stituents, a process characteristic of MTsin all situations.38 Furthermore, MTs andtheir intracellular arrays show propertiesthat link them to quantum events, such asquantum computing and quantum coher-ence1,39 and, hence, MTs are prime candi-dates for the quantum reduction eventsthat generate protoconsciousness andwhich lead to the firing of brain neuronsand axons that underpin episodes of con-sciousness. The recent discovery40 ofquantum vibrations in MTs within brainneurons is considered to corroborate thetheoretical expectation that MTs partici-pate in consciousness by means of quan-tum reduction. Also relevant is the findingthat MTs can generate electrical fieldsand, hence, provide a passage for electricalcurrents.41-43 The electric charge devel-oped at the minus ends of MTs can alsoassist in cellular processes, such as mito-sis.44 Furthermore, Hameroff andPenrose1 suggest that deep-level quantumMT vibrations are the source of certainfrequencies found with electro-encephalo-graph (EEG) records.

The theory which embraces all theseviews and which postulates neuronal MTsas being a source of consciousness is called‘Orchestrated Objective Reduction’ (OrchOR),1 so named in the belief that quan-tum vibrational computations and quan-tum coherence within MTs are‘orchestrated’ (Orch) by synaptic inputsand neurophysiology. Moreover, MTs areheld to be the sites where quantum statereduction (R) events take place which col-lapse to ‘objective reduction’ (OR) eventsin accordance with the Di�osi-Penrose pro-posal in which quantised gravity plays acritical role.1,21 As mentioned, each ORevent introduces to the brain a moment ofprotoconscious experience.

Following its proposal, Orch OR the-ory received much criticism (see refs. 1, 45and 46 for replies to these criticisms, andsee also refs. 47 and 48 for other sceptical


remarks). At first, the animal/human brainwas considered too “warm, wet, andnoisy” for seemingly delicate quantumprocesses and quantum coherence, in par-ticular, which previously had beenobserved only at sub-zero temperatures.However, evidence from plants has shownthat quantum coherence participates inphotosynthesis at ‘warm’ physiologicaltemperatures.49,50 Furthermore, quantumcoherence is presently considered to be thebasis for both the navigational ability ofbirds and the process of olfaction.48,51

Interestingly, recent work on anesthesia,which selectively erases animal and humanconsciousness while sparing their non-conscious brain activities, indicates that itmight result from a destabilization ofMTs in brain neurons.52 This finding isalso relevant to the question of a possibleplant consciousness because some of theseanesthetics affect plant growth and desta-bilize plant MTs also.

In their review,1 Hameroff and Penrosepose 3 questions relating to the origin andplace of consciousness in the Universe.The first 2, roughly stated, are: (1) – Ifconsciousness is not an intrinsic part ofthe universe, has it then evolved solelyfrom complex computations within andamong neurons, and those of the humanbrain, in particular? (This is a scientificand materialistic view of consciousnessand would accord with known physicallaws.) (2) – Has consciousness, in somesense or other, been present in the Uni-verse all along, and by some extrinsicmeans is able to influence, or enter into,physical matter and human cognitivebehavior? (This is a dualist, spiritual viewand would not accord with present-dayscientific paradigms.) The first of these 2questions relates to consciousness as itmanifests in the modern human brain, anorgan which has come into existence dur-ing only the last 7 £ 106 years. The sec-ond question, however, alludes to a deeperperiod of time, extending at least to thestarting point of the present Universe,approximately 14 £ 109 years ago; it alsoalludes to an unknown process whereby apresumed source of consciousness pene-trated animate, biological material.Hameroff and Penrose believe that theirOrch OR theory provides an intermediate,or third, way, posed here as question (3) –

Does consciousness result from discretephysical processes which have alwaysexisted in the Universe, but which inrecent times have become coupled withneuronal activity? (This accords with a sci-entific view of consciousness, although itincorporates not fully understood physicallaws.) By means of this third way (theOrch OR theory) the authors believe thateach of these seemingly different views ofconsciousness can be accommodated: ifconsciousness is a property of the materialUniverse then it follows that, as this Uni-verse evolved, and with it the creation ofconditions for the vivification of materialcondensates which we call “living organ-isms,” the physical processes requisite forconsciousness have become enfoldedwithin these living forms. It is possiblethat these forms have been constructed –and constrained – each in their uniqueway, as displays of evolutionary experi-mentation for the harnessing of conscious-ness in the most stable way.

Could Orch OR apply to plants?Microtubules have been extensively

studied in plant cells ever since their dis-covery in the root tips of Juniperus chinen-sis (Chinese juniper tree) and Phleumpratense (Timothy grass) by Ledbetter andPorter.53 The participation of MTs in thesynthesis and orientation of linear chainsof cellulose macromolecules from whichplant cell walls are constructed accountsfor the abundance of MTs in cells of allplant species. The cell-specific arrange-ments of MTs, as well as their spatial rela-tionships with the nuclear envelope atwhich new MTs are seeded,54 appear tohave relevance not only to cellular mor-phogenesis55 but also for the facilitationof specific pathways of gene activity, andhence, to the regulation of growth.56,57

Given the ubiquity of MTs throughoutthe Eukaryota, it is legitimate, within theframework of Orch OR, to ask whetherMTs participate in the initiation of proto-consciousness by means of quantumevents in non-human life forms, plants inparticular.47,58 According to the survey byGardiner and Marc59 of the correspond-ences between the macromolecular com-position and developmental modificationsof MTs of both neurons and plant cells,there seems to be no structural feature that

would preclude plant MTs from partici-pating in putative Orch OR events. How-ever, the total mass of tubulin in plantcells may be a limiting factor for theseevents to occur with a meaningful fre-quency, although as will be seen(section 14), there may be situations inwhich this limitation is invalidated.

A structured view of consciousnessBefore discussing either quantum-

derived protoconscious events or the con-sciousness of living forms (animals andplants, especially), it is necessary to pre-pare a structured scheme of consciousnessfor use in further discussion. First, how-ever, the remarks of Bohm and Peat (ref.60, p. 209) are noted, that “whatever wesay a thing is, it is something more andalso something different . . . If we say thatconsciousness is a material process, thismay well be fairly accurate . . . But it isalso more. Its ground is in the infinitedepths of the implicate and generativeorders, going from the relatively manifeston to ever greater subtlety, the totality ofwhich will always elude the grasp of scien-ce.” The authors introduce the idea thatall potentialities are enfolded within asource, the implicate order, which is,roughly speaking, the quantum world; thepotentialities referred to are organized andmade substantial by information presentin the generative order, the world in whichforms of material existence unfold. Thisview is in keeping with what Hameroffand Penrose propose, that consciousnesscan be understood as an unfolding intothe material world of some potentialitycontained within the quantum world viaan OR event. The more subtle aspects ofconsciousness mentioned by Bohm andPeat60 reside further ‘down-stream’,within the generative order, and may takethe form of some rarefied, transcendentform of consciousness.

Although Bohm and Peat (ref. 60,p. 210) also make the point “that there isno absolutely sharp ‘cut’ or break betweenconsciousness, life, and matter, whetheranimate or inanimate,” a remark whichseems to align the authors with panpsy-chism, an area which Hameroff and Pen-rose1 assume is beyond the reach ofscientific analysis, most people would sup-pose (for heuristic purposes) that breaks


do indeed occur: firstly, between inani-mate mineral materials (e.g., stones,mountains, seas) and animate organicmaterial (e.g., prokaryotes, eukaryotes)and, secondly, that another break occurswithin the animate group, dividing eukar-yotes into 2 major kingdoms, the Plantaeand Animalia; and then, thirdly, that thereis a further break between the conscious-ness of non-human animals and humans.It becomes a matter of conjecture whether,with the advent of ‘mind’, human con-sciousness has become something radicallynew in evolution (ref. 61, p. 165 et seq.),setting human consciousness apart fromnon-human forms of ‘conscious’ neuro-cerebral activity.

It is proposed that living organisms,animals and plants, have potentialities forconsciousness distributed between 3 or 4apparatuses, or recognizable states:

1 – Sensorium,2 – Brain,3 – Mind,4 – Over-mind.

This may be a simplistic approach, andcertainly it is less elaborate than descrip-tions given, on the one hand, by Vanee-choutte62 (in everyday language) and, onthe other hand, by Edelman63 (in thesophisticated language of neuroscience).Nevertheless, these 4 states provide thesubstratum for consciousness, as it hasbeen generally studied up to the present,and may be sufficient to comprehendOrch OR in relation to both animal andthe conjectured plant consciousness.

The distribution and combinations ofthese states 1–4 among living forms are asfollows:

1: Prokaryotes, Protozoa.1 C 2: Eukaryotes ¡ Animals and Plants.1 C 2 C 3: Humans (psychostatic).1 C 2 C 3 C 4: Humans (psychokinetic).

The four states can be described inmore concrete terms:

1 – Sensorium. That portion of a livingorganism, irrespective of whether plant oranimal, which exists in a state of ‘sensitiveawareness’ (ref. 60, p. 211) or of‘experiencing’.62 Furthermore, the corre-sponding sensitive material may be

enclosed within entities which characterizethe hierarchically distributed organiza-tional levels of a Living System,64 eachlevel enclosing 3 canonical sets of sub-systems. The set of sub-systems that pro-cess matter and information are particu-larly relevant to the sensorium.

The first 3 organizational levels, n,n C 1, n C 2, correspond to Cell, Organ,and Organism. All living beings are com-posed of entities at these levels though, inthe case of unicells (Protozoa), the Organ-ism and Organ are enfolded within theCell. Moreover, the Organism is itself anentity within the next-higher level(n C 3), in a continuation of the hierar-chical system wherein there are further lev-els of increasing complexity (Demes,Clans, Societies . . .).64,65

The mentioned ‘sensitive awareness’ isan attribute of entities at every level of aLiving System. Moreover, as Vanee-choute62 points out, experience (in his ter-minology), or awareness, may extenddownwards, to the molecular level ofenzymes, or any item which has the poten-tiality of connecting with another item,thereby forming a new unit. Awareness isthus a mediator between 2 potential part-ners and leads to the creation of a thirditem, as in a chemical reaction. Awarenessmay be accompanied by the passage oftime, often represented as an aging pro-cess, and accompanied by some biologicalmarker, or counting mechanisms, such asthe step-wise loss of telomeres from chro-mosomes of animals and the consequentlimitation that this places upon the prolif-eration of their cells.66 It is not knownwhether the aging of plants is regulated inthis way. Another aspect of temporalawareness could be due to regular quan-tized variations of cell mass (see the latersection ‘Moments of consciousawareness’).

‘Awareness’ applies not only to the per-ception of the inner environment of a liv-ing entity, at the level of the cellularinterior and that of the levels immediatelyabove, but also to the perception of theouter environment of each level. Forexample, the Cell may be aware not onlyof its internal ‘self’ but also of its immedi-ate environment, that is, of the Organ ofwhich the reference Cell is a part. At theselevels of Cell and Organ, the means of

environmental perception may involve,respectively, stretch receptors located inmembranes and be coupled with ion chan-nels and actin filaments (elements of theCytostructural Code), and ionic gradientsand electro-potential differences (elementsof the Bioelectric Code 67). Similarly, theOrganism is aware not only of its compo-nent unitary Organs but also of its‘Umwelt’ (using this term in the sense ofthe local environment, which may includethe artificial, or built, environment pro-duced by certain animals to protect them-selves), as well as its external naturalenvironment, or biotic complex of soil,vegetation fauna and climate (‘Welt’ or‘Nature’). From this perspective, aware-ness and consciousness evidently havebehavioral, ecological and evolutionaryimplications.

One aspect of sensitive awareness is thequestion of whether it is related to thephenomenon of ‘primary perception’,68 ofwhich more will be said (section 11).That is, the perception, at the level ofOrganism (say), whereby one organismcan sense and respond to the presence ofanother organism (as in swarming ofinsects, for example). The range of suchperception is said to extend between bod-ies as far as 143 Km apart1 and maydepend upon a quantum coherence effectdue to non-local entanglement betweenthe individuals within swarms. Such pri-mary perception may also exist betweenthe different parts of a single body, also bymeans of quantum, non-local entangle-ment, or by coherence of neighboringelectromagnetic field over relatively shortdistances. Such perceptions may lead to asense (in humans) of contentment andcompleteness or, contrariwise, to a sensa-tion of malaise and apathy.

Because the Orch OR theory is cen-tered on human consciousness (though, asmentioned, this may not be the only con-sciousness to which the theory couldapply), the sensorium (state 1) can, in thiscontext, be separated into 2 parts:(1a) soma (body and locomotory appara-tus) together with the somatic nervous sys-tem, and (1b) emotional, affective centerresponsible for bodily ‘feelings’, which aredependent upon the sympathetic andpara-sympathetic divisions of the auto-nomic nervous system, and which are


supported by a neuro-endocrine system.69

Links have been shown to exist betweenparticular emotional states and somaticmuscle systems.70 Results of the surveymade by Beedie et al.71 suggest that‘feelings’ are distinct from ‘moods’; theformer reside within the body whereas thelatter reside within the brain and resultfrom its changeable chemical composition(see next part, ‘Brain’).

In higher plants, ‘soma’ usually refersto the vegetative body (sub-state 1a) of thesporophyte generation. Then, the plantcounterpart of the ‘emotional center’ ofhumans and animals (sub-state 1b) iscomprised of the plant phytohormonalsystem which, together with the cells ofthe phytoneural system that transportphytohormones, is embedded within thesoma,36,72 In both animals and plants, thehormonal/phytohormonal systems pre-pare the soma for movement.

Soma, sub-state 1a of Sensorium, canparticipate in either a state of motion(1aC; activity being indicated by ‘C’) orin a propioceptive state of meditative qui-etude (1a¡; passivity being indicated by‘¡’). Similarly for the emotional center(sub-state 1b): it can adopt 2 alternativeaspects, 1bC or 1b¡. The same may besaid of Brain (state 2 – see below): it maybe occupied by meditative quietude (2¡)or be alerted to activity (2C), whereuponit would be occupied by thoughts andassociations.

2 – Brain. In the animal kingdom, thisapparatus may be localized at a particularanatomical site and constructed of theconventional, animal-type neurons. Bycontrast, in the plant kingdom, ‘brain’ isnot a word commonly used, and it isdoubtful whether there is a single sitewhere a ‘brain’ is located (see below).Comparative anatomy of animals suggeststhat brains, neurons and synapses havearisen many times during evolution.73,74

This leaves open the possibility that aplant ‘brain’ could be one of a number ofparallel evolutionary innovations in organ-isms in toto, the significance of which is toperceive and coordinate responses to dis-turbances within the immediate environ-ment of the organism in question. Inaddition, during animal evolution, theremay have been more than one route toconsciousness. For the moment, however,

we focus upon MTs as providing thisroute, at least to momentary protocon-sciousness, in accordance with the OrchOR hypothesis of Hameroff and Penrose.1

Thus, it is likely that an analog of the ani-mal brain exists in plants, though it mayhave a dispersed location among thenumerous primary growing points ofplant organs where MTs are numerous.Another type of dispersed brain may belocated within the secondary growth sys-tems of trees, within cambium and sec-ondary vascular tissues (see the latersection ‘Does Orch OR apply toplants. . .’). Furthermore, both plantgrowth systems, primary and secondary,have access to a phytoneural/hormonalsystem, as does the proliferative system ofanimals with its neuronal and hormonalcomponents.

The proposed dispersed brain of plantsis a consequence of their ‘open’ manner ofconstruction, which traces to the continualproduction of elongating and ramifyingprimary growing points from the meriste-matic termini of the organs composingthe root and shoot systems. This contrastswith the ‘closed’ plan of animals, wheregrowth and ramification (more evidentlyof cell lineages rather than of organs) areinternal, within the soma, first within theembryo and later continuing into theadult organism, where a constant kineticbalance is maintained between cell prolif-eration, differentiation, and aging accom-panied by cell loss. However, a ‘closed’constructional plan is also a feature of theinternalized secondary growth of plantorgans (in trees, for example) though,here, dead cells (woody fibers and trache-ids, bark) are retained over long periodswithin the plant body.

One element in the open type ofgrowth of plants is the apical meristem. Itis responsible for cell proliferation and theprovision of cells for elongation growth.The ‘transition zone’, a short region inter-posed between primary root meristem andelongation zone, has been proposed ashaving a brain-like status and thus to actas a center both for the exchange of infor-mation between root and shoot systemsand for initiating appropriate growth andphysiological responses.36,75,76 The multi-tude of primary root meristems containedwithin a root system, each meristem with

a putative brain-like zone, would looselysatisfy Seth et al.’s11 criterion no. 3 ofconsciousness, ‘widespread brain activity’.

Although the Brain of animals may,anatomically, be a hierarchically organizedstructure due to its phylogeny (Feinberg,2013),77 the whole organ consists of2 major compartments. One is of cellularmatter, the other of cerebrospinal fluid,the latter being more than simply a matrixfor the former, the fluid component beingdistributed between several distinct ven-tricles. The cellular and fluid compart-ments support their respective types ofcommunication system,78,79 the formerproviding wiring transmission (WT) –comprised of electrical impulses associatedwith intercellular gap junctions and synap-ses, the latter providing volume transmis-sion (VT) – with the diffusion ofchemicals and vesicles within the cerebro-spinal fluid. Together, the 2 compart-ments may be considered to constitute a‘Global Molecular Network’.80 Thechemical make-up and chemicalexchanges between fluid and tissues of thisnetwork may account for ‘moods’. Byanalogy with human ‘moods’ based onchemical status of particular parts of thebrain, plants may also be considered toexperience ‘moods’: for example, when aroot system is water-logged and deprivedof oxygen, CO2, ethylene and abscisicacid (the latter 2 being phytohormones)accumulate within, and exchangebetween, the apoplasm and symplasm ofthe affected tissues81,82 and bring about a‘wilting’ response in the shoot system,which could be considered analogous to ahuman VT mood response. Thus, plants,too, may have their own type of GlobalMolecular Network.

3 – Mind. This entity is, arguably, aproperty of humankind; but whetherMind is unique to humans is not known.Mind can comprehend the whole (holon)with which it is associated. It is sometimesdescribed as the silent, reflective ‘observer’of the human condition. Comprehensionof the holon is by means of a bindingtogether of (a) a brain-derived‘knowingness’, which is the recognition ofexternal, sensorially derived impressionsreceived from states 1 and 2, and (b) aninternal impression of self received fromthe soma and the emotional/hormonal


component of Sensorium. Knowingnessincludes the products of impressionslearned and committed to memoryformed from both abstract, learnedknowledge and concrete, innate knowl-edge, the latter giving rise to skills, fash-ioned initially from unlearned instinctiveresponses. The state of self-awareness, or‘presence’ of the holon, comprehended bythe state 3 of Mind, may, fundamentally,be one in which there is also introduced asubliminal awareness, or consciousness, ofthe passage of time. We shall discuss thistemporal aspect of awareness (seesection 10). The ability to contemplateand reflect upon the condition of the selfand the selfhood of others5 derives fromthe relationship which the organism bearswith respect to its next higher organisa-tional levels: the pair, group, or society ofwhich it is a part (the ‘Umwelt’ of theorganism).

The reflective aspect of Mind may besummarized by deconstructing the com-pound sentence “I am sensing; I am feel-ing; I am thinking” into 3 grades.“Sensing” and “feeling” are the respectiveattributes of sub-states 1a (soma) and 1b(affective center) of the Sensorium. Thus,deconstructing to the first grade, to give“_ _ sensing; _ _ feeling,” would apply toSensorium (state 1) only. Then, the sec-ond grade, “_ am sensing; _ am feeling; _am thinking,” would apply to states 1 and2, because of the inclusion of experiencefrom the Sensorium and Brain, and canbe alternatively notated as state 2[1].Finally, the complete sentence, at the thirdgrade, “I am sensing, feeling andthinking,” would apply to the sensorybinding of the self-reflective Mind, morecomprehensively notated as state 3[1,2].This third grade is due to a Mind thatknows that it is sensing, feeling, etc. Withthe emergence of this state, a ‘core’ of self-consciousness may be said to be present.Nevertheless, there may be a deeper, moreprototypical, consciousness where there issimply a sensation of presence, of ‘am-ness’. This might be considered to be state3[1a¡,1b¡,2]: one of protoconsciousness6

emphasized within state 3 by directing theattention of the Mind specifically uponsensation of the soma in its passive, ormeditative, aspect, here indicated by thesubscript 1a¡, and where the very small

subscript characters indicate the diminu-tion or extinguishment of sub-states 1band state 2. It is within this state3[1a¡,1b¡,2] of Rosenbergian protocon-sciousness that Hameroff and Penrose’sOrch OR protoconsciousness1 can beexperienced most directly – as a state ofpure experience without cognitive aware-ness. As Rosenberg (ref. 6, p. 241) asserts,“Any natural individual is at least proto-conscious: It is an experiential nexus evenif it does not support thought.” Such astate would be represented as 3[1a¡,1b¡,2].

Mind (state 3) may sometimes be sepa-rable from the first 2 states, 1 and 2, as evi-denced both by near-death, out-of-bodyexperiences.83 This condition can benotated as 3[1,2]. Mind may also beuncoupled from Sensorium and Brainduring journeying to the ‘spirit realm’, inthe case of shamans and modern-day sha-manic practitioners.84 Interestingly, near-death and, more specifically, out-of-bodyexperiences, have been discussed in termsof quantum entanglements that link theconsciousness of the material body andthe out-of-body entity.85,86

4 – Over-mind. This elevated type ofhuman consciousness emerges only whenstate 3 of Mind is accompanied by sensa-tion of states 1 and 2 (either in their activeC, or their passive ¡, aspects) together,even if only for a moment. The‘togetherness’ of states accompanying theattainment of Over-mind is brought aboutby a voluntary exercise of ‘attention’.87

Linkage of states by means of attentioncan be notated using the undertie ‘ᴗ’ inplace of the comma ‘,’, the latter havingformerly denoted the separateness of states(as contrasted with their togetherness dueto attention). Thus, Over-mind is notated4[1ᴗ2ᴗ3]. It is a precondition for insight orintuition,60,88 or direct perception, in thesense used by Goethe.89,90 The fact that itcan be achieved marks the development ofa psychokinetic aspect of humanity, ascontrasted with the previous psychostaticaspect which characterizes core conscious-ness of state 3 (ref. 61, p. 249).

For completeness with respect to thenatural history of consciousness, ’higher’states of consciousness should be men-tioned, thereby recognizing the mentionedpsychokinetic, or spiritual, nature of Man.Fortunately, this aspect of Man is no

longer viewed as a source of tension withrespect to the science of consciousness23,91

(see also volume 8 part 4 of the journal‘NeuroQuantology’ (2010), an issue thatcontains 7 papers dealing with‘Experimental NeuroTheology’), eventhough the relationship between these‘higher’ states and the Minds of states 3and 4 are not well defined and have notyet been brought within the domain ofexperimental psychology.

5 – Superconsciousness. It is possiblethat, beyond state 4, further consciousstates exist – one of which was earlierreferred to as transcendent consciousness.It is the state known as Samadhi. Whenrealized, this state, state 5, completes theholon of human existence. According toSadhu (ref 92, p. 45), Samadhi is notexactly a state of mind because it exists inthe absence of mental activity andthought, provisionally notated as state5[1a¡ᴗ1b¡ᴗ2ᴗ3ᴗ4]. Its nature is difficult toexpress in words. Samadhi, also referred toas a state of ‘enstasis’, is complete whenstate 4 has become sustainable. It mayendure for only seconds of time; but threeweeks is said to be the limit of endurancefor this enstatic state.93

Samadhi is said to consist of 6 stages,the first of which (state 5.1) is described inHindu terminology as ‘Kevala NirvikalpaSamadhi’ (temporary formless Samadhi)appears to overlap with state 4 (Over-mind), except for the fact that the state ofSamadhi exists with the absence of anyevident thought, i.e., state 5.1 D state4[1a¡ᴗ1b¡ᴗ2ᴗ3], which also would be pres-ent in state 4. The ultimate state, state5.6, ‘Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi’ (uninter-rupted formless Samadhi), is one in whichthe mind is completely transcended(ref. 92, p. 55), as at the moment of deathof the physical body, states 1 and 2, i.e.,state 5.6 D 5[1a¡ᴗ1b¡ᴗ2ᴗ3ᴗ4] In fact, this finalstate may be postulated as the 6th attain-able state of consciousness and to beincomprehensible to ordinary scientificknowledge

State transitionsActivity of the first 2 states, (1) Senso-

rium and (2) Brain, define, for practicalpurposes, the condition of the ordinary,non-reflective human being. The integra-tion of these 2 states to produce a ‘core’


consciousness5 of state 3 (or state 3[1,2]) israrely complete. Humans commonly liveonly with glimpses of reflective self-aware-ness (the feature of Mind – state 3), andoften are only dimly aware of their ownstates 1 and 2, unless suffering from somepathological malady, the extreme sensa-tion of which draws attention to a particu-lar locality of the Sensorium. Onlyinfrequently does state 3 make the transi-tion to state 4. Then, as poeticallydescribed by James Joyce (ref. 94, p. 180),a ‘flash’ of (human) consciousness comesabout when the usual state of sleeping-wakefulness (the psychostatic state 3[1,2])switches, apparently spontaneously, towakeful-wakefulness (the psychokineticstate 4[1ᴗ2ᴗ3]), but then, just as spontane-ously, reverts to the former, more usual,mundane level:

“His thinking was a dusk of doubt . . .lit up at moments by the lightnings ofintuition, but lightnings of so clear asplendour that in those moments theworld perished about his feet as if fire-consumed: and thereafter . . . he felt thatthe spirit of beauty had folded himround like a mantle. But, when thisbrief pride of silence upheld him no lon-ger, he was glad to find himself still inthe midst of common lives . . .”

Dumit,95 in his description of‘Sensorium’, sees it as being more in linewith Mind, of states 3 and 4, as “a sensingpackage that constitutes our [human] par-ticipation in the world . . . [its] assemblageof sensory inputs defines our boundaries,making the world present to us and bysubtraction making us present to ourselvesas beings in the world.” By ‘subtraction’,this author is understood to mean a lapseof entrapment by internal distractions (aproperty of an active Brain, state 2C), or‘letting go’. By this action, the internalworld of state 1 and the stream of impres-sions from the external world (Umweltand Welt) can be brought together,through the agency of the binding-factorproperty of the Brain, into the embrace ofMind (state 3). We can take this furtherto mean that, by ‘subtraction’, the Senso-rium of Dumit enables the linkage ofstates that lead to authentic self-conscious-ness, state 4: a state of presence and

sensitivity to both the quantitative andqualitative aspects of being, whichtogether form the essence of livingness: inother words, the ‘letting go’ pertains to allthose sensory inputs and consequent dis-plays of knowingness which entrap theMind (state 3) and screen it from appre-hending the self of which Mind is a part.

The opinion of Hoeller96 points in asimilar direction, to the conditions for thetransition from state 3 to state 4. For him,“subtraction” is a precondition for theacquisition of ‘true’ knowledge, or thestate of gnosis, a property of Over-mind,state 4. He says of this state that it “doesnot consist so much in adding somemiraculous external element to our con-sciousness; rather, it requires a subtractingfrom our minds and lives of much mate-rial that serves to obstruct insight.” Inother words, these obstructions are due tocertain regenerative or self-perpetuatingneuronal circuits generated by the Brain(state 2). These are ‘associations’ based onmemory rather than true ‘thoughts’; theyparticipate in the development of the ‘ego’and personality (components of Mind,state 3). There are also obstructions due toemotional prejudices and irrationalexpectations – all things that comprisepersonality – which hinder attainment ofstate 4. It is probable that each of thesestate transitions, as well as other transi-tions not mentioned in this section (i.e.,states 4 to 5 to 6), are accompanied byparticular alterations in the EEG profilesof the individuals accomplishing thesetransitions.97 Thus, each of the proposedstates may have its own electroencephalo-graphic signature.

A brief comment on ‘Umwelt’ and‘Welt’ is appropriate here. They areimplicit in the title of ArthurSchopenhauer’s major work, “World asWill and Representation” (Die Welt alsWille und Vorstellung),98 ‘World’ beingthat particular representation (whichSchopenhauer called ‘The Veil of Maya’,taking this term from Hindu philosophy)of Welt and Umwelt produced by theMind (state 3). Friedrich Nietzsche99

expressed a similar view, as indeed didDescartes before him, though perhaps notquite so forcefully (Seager3). Using theanalogy of the Apollonian world ofdreams and the Dionysian world of

action, Nietzsche (ref. 99, p. 15) writes,“Men of philosophy even have a sense thatbeneath the reality in which we live thereis a second, quite different world, and thatour own world is therefore an illusion.”For parity with the term ‘state’, the word‘realm’ is used to denote the illusory exter-nal world; thus, this representational (orillusory) world is called realm 3. At thelevel of higher states of Mind, it can bepresumed that other representationalworlds become evident, but at the sametime more authentic: realms 4 and 5could, for example, be representations of amore authentic reality due to Minds thathave attained states 4 and 5. It is possiblethat these realms may be partially accessi-ble during episodes of non-ordinary con-sciousness in which the intensity ofsensations are preternaturally heightened(though the spectrum of sensations isapparently not widened100,101), asdescribed by Harner84 in relation totrance- or drug-induced episodes. Theserealms exist in parallel, as para-realm 4and para-realm 5, with the realms of ordi-nary or enhanced consciousness, of states4 and 5. It seems that increased vividnessof the representations of these para-realmsresult from an enlarged range of electricalconnections within the brain.102

From the secularized Christian posi-tion, Theilhard de Chardin103 formed theidea of an ‘Omega Point’ at which con-sciousness merged with a cosmic field ofenergy – one which Bennett (ref. 61,p. 130) referred to as an ‘Eternal PotentialEnergy Field’, and which theoretical phys-ics posits as the ‘Zero-point-fluctuationState’.104 This state (state 7, which weshall mention later), is probably equiva-lent to the Buddhist state of Nirvana. Itmay be associated with an ultimate repre-sentational realm 7, and is reached upontransition from state 5.6 (Dstate 6), SahajaNirvikalpa Samadhi.

Bennett61 believed that each consciousstate transition was associated with the lib-eration of a different type, or quality, ofenergy. However, in this notion, he waspre-empted 64 years earlier by Charles S.Minot: in his presidential address to theAmerican Association for the Advance-ment of Science, Minot wrote that “if ithas any real power consciousness must beable to change the form of energy . . .,”


and further, “it may be that without con-sciousness the universe would come toabsolute rest.”105

Sensitivity of plants toward theirenvironment

The sensory faculties of plants andanimals are attuned to physico-chemicalproperties of the wider natural environ-ment (Welt). Disturbance or change ofthese properties automatically initiatesbiological response in conformity withphysical laws operating on biochemicalreactions. In the case of plants,responses are commonly expressed asdifferential growth movements (trop-isms) toward or away from particularstimuli. Differentials of light intensityand humidity, shear forces at organboundaries, are some of the stimuliwhich evoke such tropic responses. Thetransducers of the responses are oftenmacromolecules sensitive to weakmechanical forces (e.g., MTs, actin fila-ments, intracellular motors). Organismsare also sensitive to stressors, and thesecan elicit adaptive responses: for exam-ple, responses to temperatures outsidethe optimal range for growth can leadto fabrication of adaptors such as heat-shock proteins, natural anti-freeze mole-cules, and desiccation responses. Therecan also be responses in the form ofintracellular modifications linked to theorganism’s life-cycle, such as the season-ally dependent conversion of roughendoplasmic reticulum from a fluidform to a quasi-crystalline form.106,107

DNA itself is also sensitive to environ-mental stressors, enabling this moleculeto accept structural, epigenetic modifi-cations which have consequences forfuture generations.26,58,108

Departures from the environmentaloptimum may modify organismic form.Plant morphology is especially plastic, asevidenced by the response to external con-ditions: shade (relatively low light inten-sity) gives rise to etiolation of herbs and tothe self-pruning of tree branches, to men-tion 2 examples; and, at the organ level,leaves, especially, show plastic develop-ment in response to varying light quantityand quality.109 Form can also be modifiedby the internal environment: the aging ofthe organism is often accompanied by a

‘phase transition’, with a change from ajuvenile to an adult form, probably as aresult of a corresponding change from ajuvenile to an adult physiology, whichmay be referrable to epigenetic modifica-tion (viz. the altered leaf form of ivy,Hedera helix, which contributes to anadult climbing habit, or the cephalia ofMelocactus spp., stem modifications thatsupport floral apices). At least some ofthese situations are reversible. Etiolation isameliorated by increased light; and a juve-nile plant form can be restored when oldtissue is removed.

There is a broad range of commonlyencountered physico-chemical stimuli towhich roots will react, but they do so witha relatively restricted repertoire ofresponses. As discussed elsewhere,26 thegrowth responses that are directed from a‘root-brain’ zone are innate and, thus,deterministic. The type of response cannevertheless be prioritized according tothresholds: that is, from the diverse in-coming physico-chemical stimuli, the rootsums up the respective units by which thestimulus can be expressed (as compositeunits, such photons per unit time, ordegree hours, for example) to some criticalthreshold value.110 The summation ofunits in the lead-up to a response is con-sidered to be a type of ‘facilitation oflearning’, one of the criteria of conscious-ness (no. 14) of Seth et al..11 Whichevercomposite unit first exceeds a thresholdinitiates a response in accordance with thephysical signal whose units were summed.There can also be a decay of units, whichcan modify the rate at which a thresholdvalue is achieved. In fact, there is evidenceconcerning how one stimulus can takeprecedence over another. For example,when a plant root is presented simulta-neously with 2 different physical condi-tions which, individually, would eliciteither a) hydrotropism or b) gravitropism,it is hydrotropism which prevails.111 Itappears that the water-stress related to theconditions for hydrotropism brings aboutthe regression of the starch-bearing amylo-plasts,112 these being the sensors which,otherwise, would have initiated gravitrop-ism. Some similar physiological competi-tion between gravisensing and phosphatecontent of soil may be responsible for themodification of the gravitropic liminal

angle of roots.113 In each case, the particu-lar physiological response brings about acorrespondingly re-directed flow of auxinwhich accordingly modifies the growthdifferential between opposing sides of theroot.114 The ability to discriminatebetween 2 different and competing stimuliis in accord with the consciousness crite-rion no. 7, ‘internal consistency’, of Sethet al.11

It is proposed that such summations ofstimulus-related composite units are basesfor plant memory, this being a facultygenerally considered to be a feature ofconsciousness.5 The ability to memorize isa faculty that is attributed to plants.24,26

The decay of developmental units (men-tioned above) is analogous to memoryloss, or forgetting, and the tropic responseto the first threshold reached of 2 alterna-tive summations may be a marker of theconsciousness criterion ‘internal consis-tency’. These threshold responses are nev-ertheless predetermined (instinctive), andare not evidence of ‘intelligence’, in thesense that a root (say) has foresight of theconsequences of its response to one signalor to another, and then chooses betweenthem. The word ‘intelligence’ is often mis-used, largely because of the ease withwhich patterns of plant behavior can beextrapolated from a template of animal orhuman behavior (anthropomorphism). Areasonable defining attribute of intelli-gence is, to paraphrase the carefully cho-sen words of social theorist, HarveyJackins (quoted by Garrard,115), “the abil-ity to create new, exact responses by com-paring and contrasting new information[with that] already ‘on file’ from past expe-rience, and [then] constructing a responsebased on similarities to past situations butmodified to allow for the difference.”

The above definition of intelligencealso aligns with the view of the philoso-pher, Henri Bergson.116 For him, intelli-gence is more than mere informationgathering, accompanied by an appropriateresponse: he remarks, “there is intelligencewherever there is inference . . ., which con-sists in an inflection of past experience inthe direction of present experience.” Thereis no projection of future intention; never-theless, some element of memory isimplied in both Jackins’s and Bergson’sstatements. Or, more succinctly, as


paraphrased by Gunter,117 “Instinctinvolves the use of tools which are parts ofthe body; intelligence involves the use oftools distinct from the body. Instinctinvolves knowledge – an unlearned aware-ness – of living things. Intelligence, bycontrast, involves the capacity to shapenon-living matter.” Bergson116 concludesthat “there is no intelligence in whichsome traces of instinct are not to be dis-covered . . . that is not surrounded with afringe of intelligence. The two are comple-mentary and mutually antagonistic. Inplants, consciousness and mobility lie dor-mant; the main features are vegetative“torpor” and instinct. Animals by contrastare endowed with greater consciousnessand mobility.” Plant behavior is, in otherwords, largely instinctive (deterministic),although located beyond the fringe ofinstinctive responses there is a brain-in-waiting – the plant’s torpid behavior andits limited movement are indicative of adormancy of consciousness: forBergson,116 movement is always an indi-cator of consciousness, an idea rediscov-ered by Sheets-Johnstone.15 However, ifintelligence “consists in an inflection ofpast experience” (i.e., memory), then itwould seem that intelligence is fed by oneof the aspects of consciousness, eventhough intelligence is not a necessary attri-bute of consciousness itself.

In relation to the structured scheme ofconsciousness (section 5) composed of 5states of development, plants may, firstly,be said to be characterized by ‘torpor’ oftheir Sensorium (state 1); they do, never-theless, also show a small degree of bodilymobility, which is the reactive, instinctiveresponse to sensation. This latter attributecorresponds to the Bergsonian surround-ing ‘fringe’ of brain-like activity (state 2).However, the property of mobility is oneof degree. It is the nature of plants to besessile, not mobile. Even though plantsand animals share many fundamentalgenetic and biochemical properties, theirrespective body plans and modes of devel-opment differ, thus permitting only analo-gies, not absolute comparisons, to bemade between plant and animal processes.Plants are of a class sui generis within therealm of living organisms. Secondly,brain-like activity in plants may be moredeveloped than is generally thought. If

this activity is supported by a phytoneuralsystem (see section 13) capable of MT-derived OR events, then states 1 and 2could be integrated and brought to a focusby some type of sensory binding within anemergent state 3, a state that may alreadybe receiving impulses of protoconscious-ness from OR events or, more directly,from a sensation of self, state 3[1,2]. It fol-lows that the MTs of plants and theirfacilitation of OR events could serve asthe bases for self-awareness, as proposedby Hameroff and Penrose1 for the humanmind (state 3). And, as will be mentionedin section 11, quantum events thatimpinge upon neural activity may beresponsible for occasions of ‘primaryperception’ whereby 2 separate sensoriabecome aware of each other at a distance.These, too, might be brought to a focuswithin a mind at state 3.

With all these factors in view, we cannow glimpse not only the circumstancesunder which plant ‘sensitive awareness’exists and might contribute to the evolu-tionary conditions that develop and con-struct consciousness, but also how theHameroff-Penrose Orch OR theory ofconsciousness might relate to this, espe-cially when it is considered how much ofplant development relies on MTs, the veryitems presumed crucial to OR events.However, the MTs that contribute togrowth and development may be sites ofother quantum events, such as quantumcomputations from which there is the pos-sibility of initiating certain events deemedimprobable as, for example, thosedescribed in the context of the develop-ment flower structure,118 and in relationto anomalous patterns of cell division.119

The central point of Orch OR theoryMTs have been found to be excellent

electronic conductors, conduction takingvarious routes through the MTs, alongtheir axes, and along and around their sur-faces. The tubular structure itself pro-motes greater conductance than is possiblethrough single tubulins; and conductanceincreases with MT length.1 Importantly,MTs provide a vector for the electronicconduction. Orch OR theory proposesthat MT quantum vibrations (in mega-hertz, MHz) interfere and produce muchslower ‘beat frequencies’, and that these

can be recorded by electroencephalogra-phy (EEG), a technique which records thecollective pattern of neuronal activity inthe brain and separates the pattern intobands (a, b, theta, . . .) of different fre-quencies. The mentioned beat frequenciesare in the gamma range and are typicallyof 40 Hz frequency.40 The implication isthat this 40 Hz gamma frequency is pro-duced somewhere within the brain by itscomplement of neuronal MTs. Moreover,the beat frequencies, which apparentlyarise as a consequence of the dispositionof tubulin as MTs, result in slower and,thus, more realistic, timescales for therepetitive OR events to be ordered as aconscious substratum than would be pos-sible if the tubulin primary energeticvibrations of around 10 MHz were solelyresponsible for OR events. Thus, it seemsthat the organization of tubulin at specificsites into macromolecular MTs, such asoccurs at the synaptic inputs1 of animalneurons and the MT-organizing centers ofplant cells (see later), assist in the orches-tration of OR events as well as the genera-tion of beat frequencies, such as those of40Hz recorded by EEG.

There is one known post-transla-tional modification of MTs – the acety-lation of a-tubulin by acetyl-transferase120 – which may be impor-tant in this respect. It is thought thatthe acetylated sites of neighboring MTsare bridged by tau, a microtubule-asso-ciated protein (MAP), and that MTbundles are stabilized thereby.121,122

Tau is highly expressed in neocorticalregions and the hippocampus, whichsuggests that tau has a role in neuronalactivity, and that its presence in MTsunderlies both fast and slow brain oscil-lations as well as long-range co-ordina-tion of electrical signaling between theneocortex and hippocampus. Displace-ment of tau from brain MTs not onlydestabilizes the MTs and intracellulararchitecture but also impairs cognitivefunction, as evidenced from Alzheimer’sdisease.123 Lack of tau protein alsocompromises neuronal functioning.124

Furthermore, it is probably significantthat genetic knock-out of tau in Tau¡/¡ mice brings about reduced levelsof gamma synchrony involving the fron-tal cortex.125 The last-mentioned result


suggests that bundles of MTs contain-ing tau MAPs might be effective in pro-moting the beat frequencies at 40 Hz.

From the point of view of conscious-ness, the modulation of the gamma EEGfrequency is of interest in another context.Buddhist monks during their meditationalpractice are able to self-induce high-amplitude gamma-band oscillations andphase-synchrony, particularly in the neo-cortical region of the brain,126 an effectnot seen in novice meditators who hadonly a week’s training in meditationalpractice. These results concerningenhanced gamma frequencies were con-firmed with a different group of experi-enced meditators.127 Moreover, a recentdevelopment in the study of gamma EEGhas shown that, by applying an AC cur-rent with a frequency of 40 Hz to subjectsduring a period of REM sleep, an intervalof ‘lucid’ dreaming could be inter-posed.128 In this state, the subject report-edly appears as an observer within his/herown dream, and is even able to interveneand comment on the action of the dream(ref. 129, p. 324). Stimulation with lesser(2 – 25 Hz) or greater (75 – 100 Hz) fre-quencies during the REM period failed toaffect the content of the dream, whichremained ‘non-lucid’. Together, these2 sets of results suggest that the 40 Hz fre-quency is associated with elevating theMind of state 3 into state 4 (Over-mind)whereby prolonged periods of self-obser-vation would be possible. Interestingly, aflicker pattern of 50 Hz presented to theeye can be perceived subliminally by thehuman mind and is also able to inducemoments of awareness.130

A further reason why the 40 Hzgamma frequency is of interest is thatthis frequency is believed by Hameroffand Penrose1 to be implicated in an ORevent. The clue to this relationship liesin the equation t � £/EG, where EG isthe gravitational self-energy, £ is theDirac-Planck constant, and t approxi-mates to the duration of successive ORevents. EG may also be regarded as themass difference between 2 states of tubu-lin in superposition; it is the superposi-tion of the masses of these molecules inthe form of quantum ‘bits’ which entan-gle, compute, and then collapse tothereby elicit an OR event.1,20,21

Evidently, if the value of one of the var-iables in the equation t � £/EG is known,the value of the other variable can be esti-mated. Thus, when t has a value of25 ms, as given by the 40 Hz gamma fre-quency, the estimated EG is equivalent toa mass difference occurring during super-position within a population of an esti-mated 2 £ 1010 tubulin molecules.However, each cerebral neuron, instead ofcontaining 2 £ 1010 tubulin molecules, isestimated to contain only about 109 suchmolecules, a tubulin mass which wouldresult in t D 500 ms (2 Hz). Moreover, itis presumed that only a fraction of these109 molecules, when assembled into MTs,as well as being in superposition, wouldbe directly involved in a coherent event oft D 25 ms duration. Thus, in order toamplify the self-energy mass to the levelnecessary to elicit 40 Hz gamma syn-chrony, it follows that an aggregate ofapprox. 20,000 neurons would berequired. It is then supposed that the fre-quency of such 25 ms OR events withinthe brain is such that they produce a con-tinuous stream of protoconsciousness.

How do such estimates of tubulin massand neuronal numbers apply to non-human animals and to plants? It is knownthat the nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans,has exactly 302 neurons.131 From thequantitative considerations above, it seemsthat MTs of the nematode organismwould barely achieve the thresholdenergy-mass required for gamma-syn-chrony and, thus, are unlikely to be con-tinuously conscious. Animals (and plants)with inherently fewer tubulin moleculesmay achieve conscious moments at amuch reduced rate (due to the larger t val-ues associated with an OR event). In thecase of C. elegans, t would be estimated,on the basis of the data to hand, to have avalue of 500ms.132 A similar rate mayapply to plants, as evidenced by theirspontaneous action potentials (see later).This would mean that protoconsciousevents are less frequent and, hence, con-sciousness is discontinuous.

Because it follows that, when EG has asmaller value and the value of t is conse-quently increased, indicating a longertime between successive protoconsciousevents, different values of t may be takento represent a sliding scale, or grade, of

consciousness. That is, larger values oft would indicate a lower grade of con-sciousness, whereas smaller values wouldindicate a higher grade with more contin-uous spells of consciousness. A similarconsideration applies to EG: its value,which is purportedly related to the densityof MTs and their tubulin dimers withincertain critical cells, would also bear somerelation to the intensity of conscious expe-rience. Given these considerations con-cerning t and EG, it may be possible to setcriteria for the grade of Orch OR-relatedconsciousness in non-human organisms,including plants: these criteria wouldhinge upon the number and density ofMTs.

There are a few qualifications regardingthe Orch OR hypothesis which should bementioned. Firstly, monks meditatingmay attain a ‘higher state’ of consciousnesswithout displaying higher frequency EEGwaves. Meditation may therefore act toenhance a prior-existing gamma-syn-chrony, perhaps achieved as a result oftheir previous, frequently repeated experi-ences of consciousness. Secondly, theOrch OR hypothesis treats the mass oftubulin as one continuous entity in theform of MTs. In reality, MTs in axonsand dendrites in toto provide the requisitemass (EG in the Orch OR equation), anddo so by means of fabricating, out of alabile pool of tubulin dimers, a higher-level structure – the microtubular bundleswhich arise due to the association of MTswith MAPs. The Orch OR hypothesis,therefore, may depend as much upon acritical number of linker molecules, suchas tau, as it does upon the number ofMTs. Thirdly, recent research has demon-strated that glial cells are required forEEG gamma synchrony (Lee et al.,2014),133 a discovery that again falls out-side the Orch OR scenario. But it may bethat glial cells simply provide trophic ormetabolic support to the neurons withwhich they connect due to the proposedGlobal Molecular Network.80

Relevance of Buddhist psychology tothe study of consciousness

Hameroff and Penrose1,134 showedinterest in Buddhist writings on con-sciousness because these texts not onlyreveal the results of 2500 years of practical


investigation of consciousness by means ofintense meditation and contemplation135

but they also comment upon human cog-nition and human nature. These resultshelp draw a map of human psychologicalstructures. The same goal has been pur-sued by Hindu yogins, whose discoveriesare recorded in the Vedas andUpanishads.136

The Buddha, Siddharta Gautama(b. ca. 563 BCE), specified a number ofcausal phenomena (the 12 Nidanas) associ-ated with the arising of consciousness. Oneof these relates to the sensations perceivedthrough the eye, ear, nose, tongue, bodyand mind. There are also the 5 Skandhas(the active and reactive functions of con-sciousness) consisting of touch, feeling, per-ception, volition and awareness.135 Thesecausal conditions flare up in the brainmoment by moment, serving as triggers formoments of consciousness, but happeningso quickly that the mind is barely aware ofthem. The Buddha also touched on‘ignorance’, which represents evidence of adisconnectedness from consciousness(in the Buddhist sense) or, in terms of OrchOR, a disconnection from quantum proto-consciousness.; or, in terms of Rosenberg’suse of the term ‘protoconsciousness’,6 a dis-sociation between this property and cogni-tion. The Buddhist practice of meditation isdesigned to pacify thought activities(thereby reaching state 3[1a¡ᴗ1b-ᴗ2]) and todecrease ignorance, and thus produce per-ception of an unbroken sequence of con-scious moments linking protoconsciousevents (the protoconsciousness of Rosen-berg, mentioned immediately above) withconsciousness via cognition. Thesemoments prepare the Mind for entry intoconsciousness of state 4 (4[1a-ᴗ1b-ᴗ2ᴗ3]); here,it will be noticed, thought is not a require-ments for consciousness.129 Ultimately, oneaim of this preparation is to connect themind with the Universal Mind, leading toits blending with the ultimate oneness ofthe Universe at the transition from state 5to state 6.

As recorded by Hameroff and Pen-rose,1,134 Buddhists see consciousness as“momentary collections of mental phe-nomena” and as “distinct, unconnectedand impermanent moments,” occurringso rapidly that they seem to form a contin-uum. At the heart of this proposal is the

Buddhist concept of ‘momentariness’.32

As outlined by von Rospatt (ref. 32,pp. 21, 99), it is believed that there are6,480,000 impermanent moments(Kṣaṇas) per day. Each moment wouldtherefore be attributed a duration of13.3 ms (�75 Hz). Similarly, momentsof 20 ms (i.e., 50 Hz) are proposed insome Chinese Buddhist texts. It is of sig-nificance that, as mentioned, EEG hasrecorded comparable frequencies of brainactivity, and these have been correlatedwith a conscious state achieved by intensemeditation.126,137 Hence, if we take theEEG 40 Hz gamma wave as an indicatorof imminent quantum protoconsciousevents due to MT beat frequencies, then,as suggested by Orch OR, this wouldresult in 3,456,000 moments of protocon-sciousness in one day, each moment hav-ing a duration of 25 ms.

Another form of meditation, Zazen,practiced by adepts of Zen Buddhism, wasone of the first to be studied by EEG.138

When the EEG outputs from Zen priestsand disciples, who had varying degrees ofmeditative experience and proficiency,were compared, differences were foundwith respect to both their a and thetarhythms. As the ‘conscious’ state of theexperienced meditators unfolded, theamplitude of their a rhythm increasedwhile its frequency decreased (8–12 Hzfalling to 7–8 Hz). At a later stage in themeditation period there was often thepresence of a theta rhythm (6–7 Hz).These results were corroborated by Ban-quet137 and Murata et al. 139 and similarfindings have been reviewed by Austinand others129,140,141 Probably, gammaEEG rhythms were not technically accessi-ble at the time of some of these Zen medi-tational studies. Although a rhythms werenot mentioned in the study of Lutzet al.126 on gamma rhythms, it may bethat, within the meditators who partici-pated in this study, these comparativelylow-frequency rhythms were replaced byhigher-frequency theta rhythms and thenby gamma rhythms as the meditation pro-ceeded. Indeed, Banquet137 recordedEEG rhythms of 40Hz from meditatorswho had entered a deeper state of con-sciousness, using transcendental medita-tive techniques, and Murata et al.139

reached a similar conclusion. An added

possibility is that states of consciousnesscan be influenced by day-to-day variationsof the Earth’s geomagnetic field, as sug-gested by the results of Persinger andothers142-144 who showed that this fieldaffects the results of EEG and the qualityof meditation. It is also possible that thevarious Schumann resonance frequenciesof 8, 14, and 20 Hz within the Earth’sionosphere cavity145 may influence con-sciousness-related electrical activity withinthe brain, which itself generates similarfrequencies, as recorded by EEG.

Coming now to a consideration ofplants, Buddhists do not deny the possi-bility of plant consciousness. Indeed, theBuddhist view is that, there are (withinthe fifth Skandha of ‘awareness’, Vij~nana-skandha) 6 kinds of, or potentialities for,consciousness.135 On this basis, plantswould be admitted to possess 5 of theseattributes – of hearing, sight, smell, taste,and touch – but that they do not possessthe sixth attribute of awareness, unlessquantum computation, or some form ofelectrical activity, is considered as evidenceof the sixth potentiality of consciousness,as will be elaborated when the idea of‘oneness’ is discussed later. Nevertheless,the mentioned 5 attributes may be suffi-cient to qualify plants for protoconscious-ness sensu Rosenberg.6

Moments of conscious awarenessThe impermanent moments of proto-

consciousness can be examined fromanother point of view. Entirely indepen-dently, and based on a study of time inrelation to the Earth’s movements aroundthe Sun, Gerhard Dorda2 estimated aquantal unit of Earthly time to have aduration of 49.6 ms (20.2 Hz). Thethreshold values for the uncertainty of theduration and for the ordering of thesetime quanta were estimated as 24.9 and30 ms, respectively. The uncertainty asso-ciated with the duration of each time-quantum results in frequencies of tempo-ral duration ranging from 13.4 Hz to40.5 Hz. When expressed in ‘moments’ oftemporal perception during a 24-h day,the quantal-time durations lead to an esti-mate of 1,157,760 such moments, withan upper limit of 3,499,200 moments perday. These values are of the same order ofmagnitude as the ‘moments’ of


consciousness described in Buddhisttexts,32 the last-mentioned value beingclose to the number of quantal protocon-scious moments (3,456,000) that correlatewith the 40 Hz gamma EEG frequency.Given the correspondence between thelower limit of the frequency of quantalmoments of time (13.4 Hz) and therhythms of a waves from EEG (8 ¡12 Hz) during Zazen meditation, it is sug-gested that meditative states allow an‘awareness of the flow of time’, onemoment of meditative self-awareness (orprotoconsciousness) corresponding to oneunit of quantal time, and occurring suffi-ciently frequently for this ‘self-awareness’to be perceived as a continuous process.The upper limit of quantal time frequency(40.5 Hz) is similar to the 40 Hz fre-quency associated with meditative state ofmind.126

Thus, a succession of quantal momentsof time, when processed during medita-tion, deposits an impression of continuousself-awareness or ‘moments of conscious-ness’. ‘Sensitive awareness’ of state 3(Mind) is therefore a state in which thepassage of time is sensed. This state corre-sponds to what Bergson116 called‘duration’ (dur�ee). He says, “Real durationis what we have always known as time, buttime perceived as indivisible . . . I amaware that we normally . . . have no inter-est in listening to the uninterrupted hum-ming of life’s depths. And yet, that iswhere real duration abides.” The state of“no interest,” which he mentions, is theusual characteristic of states 1 and 2 ofMan. In state 3 and, more likely, in state4, the “uninterrupted humming” of time(Bergson’s dur�ee or duration) is perceivedas an uninterrupted ‘moment’ of authenticself-consciousness. It is a defining featureof these 2 states. As Michael Foley(ref. 146, p. 27) remarks, although“Bergson offered no practical advice onhow to experience real duration – atten-dance to the humming of the depthssounds remarkably like the Buddhist prac-tice of Anapana-sati, respiration-mind-fulness,” i.e., the rhythmic breathing andself-sensing of meditative practice, whichcan lead to the deeper meditative state ofSamadhi (ref. 135, p. 152).

How could awareness of the passage oftime come about and bring about a

continuity of moments that constructBergson’s ‘duration’, or protoconscious-ness? Dorda’s estimation of the durationof a quantal time unit is linked to thegravitational force experienced on Earthin conjunction with the gravitationaleffects of Sun and Moon.2 Hence, masswas also treated by Dorda in a quantummanner; indeed, Hameroff and Pen-rose1,20,21 also introduced gravity intotheir Orch OR equation and therebyderived an estimate of 25 ms for the dura-tion of a moment of protoconsciousness,which is very similar in value to Dorda’sminimal estimate (24.9 ms) of a quantumof time.

Quantum units of both mass and timewere considered by Dorda2 in relation tocellular growth in plants, a process depen-dent upon the movement of water intoand out of cells. Cellular water was treatedfrom the quantum perspective as provid-ing quantal aggregates of mass. The tem-poral regulation of growth washypothesized to involve quantum aggre-gates of water-mass being added to or sub-tracted from the main mass of cellularwater during the passage of quantisedtime, this process being regulated by theorbits of Earth and Moon around theSun. Recognition of the Moon’s orbit andthe concomitant variation of the gravityfield, in particular, accounted for rhyth-mic increases and decreases of cellular vol-ume in the plant system (tree-stemdilatation growth) which Dorda2 took forhis working example. In multicellular sys-tems, synchronous rhythmic cellulargrowth becomes amplified and is seen asrhythmic organ growth. Such rhythmsare, in turn, manifestations of a lunisolar‘clock’, evidence for which has also beenadduced from the diurnal movements ofleaves and other plant systems whererhythms of cellular water movement areinvolved.147,148 Nevertheless, theserhythms of movement trace back to quan-tal time units and quantal aggregates ofcellular water mass; and it is the successionof these events – passage of quantal timecoupled with movements of quantal watermass – which we postulate to be the clueto human (and other animals) and plantexamples of sensitive awareness at the state3 of Mind (or, more exactly, of state3[1a¡ᴗ1bᴗ2], reducing here the state of

awareness to that of the soma) – funda-mentally, it is the sensitive awareness ofSensorium (particularly the quiescent sub-state 1a¡ as interpreted by the Brain,state 2) to the passage of time. How thisrhythmic quantal movement of water-mass could be translated, in terms of cellu-lar biophysics, into neural impulses is anintriguing question. Could it be that itworks in a similar way to what was postu-lated for plants – that it is related to ven-tricular volume changes of thecerebrospinal fluid? The volume of thiscomponent in various regions of the brainhas been estimated149 but diurnalvariations have not yet been studied(C. Nicholson, personal communication).It is through this volume that a secondtype of signaling (volume transmission,VT) takes place, which contrasts with sig-naling due to ‘wiring transmission’ (WT)by neurons. Like the phytoneural trans-mission of plants and the hypothesizedmovement of water aggregates, VTdepends on exocytotic vesicles,150 andthese vesicles themselves may transportwater aggregates. It should also beremarked that Dorda (ref. 2, p. 102) esti-mated that, with the passage of each unitof quantized time, an aggregate of 6313molecules of water are either added to orsubtracted from an intracellular wateraggregate of approx. 1 £ 1013 moleculesat a frequency of 73 Hz (every 14.7 ms),this passage being regulated by the timingof the Moon’s orbit within the Earth-Suncomplex.

Sensitivity to the passage of lunisolartime and gravity can be demonstrated bymeans of 3 examples of the activity pat-terns of a plant (bean leaf), a crustacean(crab), and a human recorded over longstretches of time in free-running condi-tions, where there was no contact with theexternal natural environment. Evident inFigures 1–3 is that, in each case, the tem-poral interfaces between 2 alternatingperiods – of movement and rest (crab)(Fig. 1), and of sleep and wakefulness(human, plant) (Fig. 2 and 3) – coincidewith the times at which the lunisolar tide‘turns’ (i.e., the lunisolar tidal forcediminishes from a maximum high tide, orincreases from a minimum low tide). Thisgeneral pattern of a response to a turningpoint of the lunisolar tide is characteristic


of many examples of both plant147 andanimal (Barlow, unpublished) move-ments. The lunisolar gravity turningpoints correspond to times of day whenthe flow of water, either into or out ofcells, is reversed.148 In all 3 examples ofFigures 1–3, the turning points of lunargravity have dramatic effects because theyassociate with abrupt changes of motor orgrowth activity of the experimental sub-jects. Nevertheless, it may be presumedthat there is a constant subliminal aware-ness of this postulated inflow and outflowof water, and that a physical change in thedirection of the flow, coincident with thelunisolar tidal change, corresponds with achange in biological activity. Each physicalchange, at the level of the cell, may betranslated into a bioelectrical impulse. Wepropose that this sensation of the flow oftime (duration), which may run in parallelwith Orch OR events, is perceived as

protoconsciousness of self during the inte-grated states 3 and 4 of Mind, when allother mental and physical preoccupationsare quietened – at state 4 this would benotated 4[1a¡ᴗ1b¡ᴗ2ᴗ3] – by self-awarenessand/or meditation.

‘Primary perception’ and its link withconsciousness

In the study of Lutz et al.,126 EEGgamma synchrony appeared in the courseof meditation which directed the mindtoward “unconditional loving-kindnessand compassion” and “unrestricted readi-ness and availability to help living beings.”In the terminology of religious prayer, thismeditative state might be regarded as anintercessionary state: that is, a statedirected toward some image or memory.Early results of Harris et al.154 showedthat prayers directed from Christian inter-cessors were effective in shortening the

recovery period of hospitalized patientssuffering from disabling coronary condi-tions. Since that time, other, generallypositive, responses from intercessionaryprayers have been documented.155 Posi-tive results have also been reported con-cerning prayer directed at injured non-human primates (bush babies).156 Morecontroversial (because of a lack of follow-up experiments) have been reports ofplants being injured as a consequence ofnegative or malicious intentions emanat-ing from human minds, their moods andtheir feelings.68,157

Results of intercessory activity may giveevidence of ‘primary perception’ in therecipients of such intercessions or directedintentions. However, it is unknownwhether an explicitly religious context(e.g., invocation of a deity) is a necessarycondition for a successful interventioninto a disturbed state. A state 3 conscious-ness of Mind may be sufficient to impartan at-a-distance quantum entanglementlinking the intention of the directed, inter-cessionary Mind (of the healer) with thebody and mind of the recipient (the oneto be healed). Entanglements that resolvea bodily healing (or harming) processwithin the soma (sub-state 1a) of therecipient may be the means by which pri-mary perception takes place, and couldalso be the route taken for healing throughshamanic practice.158

Prayers for altered interpersonal rela-tionships may be another area where state3 consciousness of the intercessor caneffect an emotional or psychologicalresponse.159 But in this case, where, forexample, forgiveness of one party (the vio-lator) by another (the violated) is prayedfor by the latter party (who is also theintercessor), it is more likely that the rec-onciliation occurs by primary perceptionat the level of emotional self-awareness(sub-state 1b) and would pertain to theintercessor (the violated) him/herself.Whether intercessionary transfers byentanglements of consciousness would bemore successful if gamma-synchronized,self-conscious state-4-embodied Mindswere involved is an interesting question.

The above examples referred to percep-tion at-a-distance. However, with regardto plants,68,157 the described cases of pri-mary perception were ‘at-close-quarters’.

Figure 1. The perception of the passage of lunisolar time by a crab. Activity pattern (active period -black bars), recorded on an hourly basis over a period of 43 days during July-August 1963, of a sin-gle crab (Uca sp.) kept in constant low-level light in a laboratory at Woods Hole, CT, USA. The activ-ity pattern drifts to the right, as though the activity time-keeper adheres to a 25-hour day.Superimposed on the activity pattern are the times of the contemporaneous lunisolar gravimetrichigh tides (red lines) and lunisolar low tides (green lines) for the location and dates in question.The transitions from inactivity to activity and vice versa are bounded by the times of high and lowgravimetric tide (i.e., when each tide turns - commences descent from high tide or ascent from lowtide). Lunar phases are shown on the left- and right-hand axes. Panel at the right-hand side is thexhours of cumulative daily activity of the crab, using a 3-d moving average. Activity is greater atFull and New Moon than at Quarter Moon. (Activity data from Fig. 4 of Barnwell151).


Here another possibility presents itself:that of Mind as a force-field.160 A possibleeffector of this mode of perception is theelectromagnetic field generated by the vastassembly of electrically conducting neu-rons of the brain. As pointed out byNagel,24 who reviewed a number of rele-vant publications, plants are susceptible tointercessory prayers, or ‘friendly thoughts’.She suggests that “prayer can be consid-ered a form of mind power,” in the sensediscussed by Lindahl and A

�rhem,160

although she does not mention this partic-ular publication. She also comments that“if ‘primary perception’ did exist in plants,this would not necessarily prove thatplants are conscious.” The results of prayerwould simply be evidence of a susceptibil-ity of some sort toward the mind thatformed the prayer. However, for suscepti-bility of either plant or animal to be recog-nized by an observer, there would be the

need for its translation into an observablemovement (growth) and/or physiologicalchange. A directed meditational technique(‘thought transaction’) invoking “wellnessof the crop and good yield” was reportedto bring about an enhancement of okra(Abelmoschus esculentus) plant growth161

and resistance to nematode infection. Thetransaction involved the preparation of amental state at which theta frequency (4 –8 Hz) EEG waves became manifest. It wasmaintained, in the presence of the plants,for 5 min each day for 60 d. At harvest,okra crop yield, in kg, of the ‘thoughttransaction’ group of plants was enhancedby approx. 20% compared to ‘non-trans-acted’ controls.

Even more intriguing are the obser-vations of JC Bose162 who recordedminute changes in the growth of wheatcoleoptiles (using a ‘crescograph’ of hisown invention, which magnified growth

by £ 50 £ 106) each time a controlledelectrical discharge took place. The dis-charges took place at a location 200mdistant from the test plants. Dischargeswere fed to a transmitting aerial andwere recorded by the plants, whichwere linked to a receiving aerial. Theclaimed ‘wireless’ communication indi-cated that plants could theoretically“respond to the long æther waves,including those employed in signalingthrough space.”162 Bose was careful todistinguish between the internal andexternal effects of these wireless waveson the receiving plant, the formereffects manifesting as growth move-ments whereas the latter had no suchoutward manifestation but consisted of,so Bose believed, a chemical changewith a concomitant increase of potentialenergy.

The occupancy of Mind at state 3 maybe a means by which humans can‘communicate’ with plants, and vice versa.It may also play a part in inter-plant com-munication as, for example, in phenom-ena such as kin recognition,163-166 one oftopics which has also been central to dis-cussion of plant cognition.29 Kin recogni-tion may trace to the consciousnesscriterion no. 12, ‘subjectivity’, where kin-ship is the source of a sensation private toa given plant. It, too, may be a situationwhereby quantum or electromagneticeffects achieve communication over long-or short-range distances, with observableconsequences. Primary perception mayalso be the means by which animals com-municate and show their concern for oneanother, and how plants communicatewarning signals to each other, though thislatter may also involve volatile chemicalsignals.167 Such examples seem to beforms of sensitive awareness of one beingtoward another that transcend mereinstinctive responses.

The idea of plant ‘oneness’Plants, by virtue of their open and

branched pattern of primary growth, arecontinually emitting new parts and, hence,fragmenting their individuality, particu-larly when engaged in vegetative reproduc-tion – by emitting suckers, for example,which eventually assume their own indi-viduality. Branching occurs not only

Figure 2. The perception of the passage of lunisolar time by a human. Activity pattern from ahuman subject in the total darkness of a cave at Cheddar, UK, over a period of 127 days duringApril-July 1966, and without any knowledge of the chronological time in the outside world. Thesleep (black bars) and wakefulness periods were recorded each day with a resolution of 1 h. Super-imposed is the contemporaneous lunisolar tidal pattern (red and green lines, as in Fig. 1). Thesleep-wakefulness periods are bounded by the turnings of the gravimetric tide. Lunar phases areshown on the right-hand axis, together with the xhours of wakeful activity (right-hand panel, as inFig. 1). (Sleep/awake pattern data from Fig. 8 of Mills et al.152).


externally by budding but sometimes alsointernally, by splitting (schizogeny) of tis-sues as well as of organs. Organ splittingaffects the form of trees when, for exam-ple, an aged trunk splits and forms sec-ond-order trunks. In this way, multiplecopies of new individuals (clones) areformed, which eventually supplant theoriginal first-order trunk. Nevertheless, inplants, there may be a contrary striving:for integration, or ‘oneness’, to compen-sate for this branching of organs and thetendency to fragment. The fusion of aerialroots, typical of some trees (those Ficusspp, for example, whose intertwined rootsform an aerial pseudo-trunk), may be anexpression of such a tendency toward one-ness, and which follows on from an earlierphase of root and shoot branching. Thegathering together of parts that were onceseparate is similar to what occurs in

swarming or flocking events among insectsand birds.168

It is as though, by means of an internalact of primary perception, the plant ortree has a sense (or consciousness overseenby a Mind at state 3), not only of its parts,but also of its form; and through this self-awareness of form arises the meanswhereby a plant’s own oneness can beattained. An aspect of this tendencytoward oneness derives from the propertyof whole-plant ‘correlation’.169-171 It isthe means by which not only the funda-mental architectural form (or model) ofthe whole is realized during undisturbeddevelopment172 but also is regained afterpartial dismemberment. In each case,information is communicated within andbetween the various entities at theirrespective organizational levels. However,the correlative process also operates

internally, and also at more restricted lev-els, within organs and tissues, enabling themaintenance of their respective integri-ties.173 The necessary communicative pro-cesses are due, in part, to the movement ofplant growth regulators – auxin, for exam-ple, which has neurotransmitter-like prop-erties, and is probably also assisted, ormediated, by MTs and the cytostructuralcode. Presumably, in order to re-establishthe correct architecture (after an injury,say) the plant titrates the entire system forhormonal composition and quantities, aswell as making use of the bioelectricalcode,67 part of which involves electropo-tential difference (EPDs) between growingparts. These procedures re-establish thebalance of the various morphogeneticcomponents until equilibrium is reachedin the meristems and their immediatederivatives: that is, there is a restoration ofthe optimum sense of ‘oneness’.

A second aspect of ‘oneness’ is thatplants are only partially compartmental-ized into cells and organs; the totality oftheir cells in fact forms one continuous,cytoplasmic network.174-176 This inter-communicating, symplasmic system hasfew if any insuperable barriers to an inter-nal ‘oneness’.

Another aspect of ‘oneness’, and onewhich includes the plant’s discovery of itssense of ‘sameness’ as well as its sense of‘otherness’, may arise, not from the plant’sinterior but from the organisms whichsurround it. This could be through inter-organ primary perception, or by means ofcommunication mediated by electricalfields and possible quantum entangle-ments, as well as by chemical means –elements of a type of ‘kin recognition’,but a type that operates at the level of theorganism and, again, utilizing the cytos-tructural and bioelectrical codes. This pos-sibility, that use is made of internallygenerated bioelectromagnetic properties,has many ramifications in relation to plantcommunities of small size, and has beensuggested as a means facilitating seed ger-mination and seedling growth.177,178 It isanticipated that other unknown butmutually influential factors may also oper-ate between plants.164 If so, then plantsmay be able to direct their own ecologiesthrough plant-plant interactions moresubtle than those due to either allelopathy

Figure 3. The perception of the passage of lunisolar time by a bean leaf. Diurnal movements of abean leaf (Canavalia ensiformis) recorded at Delft, Netherlands, during March-April 1927. The leaflamina, when raised to the ‘up’ position during the day, is potentially able to photosynthesise whenin light. This is the position of ‘wakefulness’. The leaf descends to the ‘sleep’ position during thenight (black bars). This oscillation continues even when the leaf is kept in constant light or darkness(as here). The changes in leaf position, from its lowest ‘down’ position to the ‘up’ position, occurswhen there is a turning point in the lunisolar gravimetric tide (red and green lines, as in Fig. 1). Theactivity pattern - here the xamplitude of the leaf movement, using a 3-d moving average - isshown in the right-hand panel, together with the lunar phases (as in Fig. 1). During the first 3 d theleaf was in L:D 16 : 8 h (light commencing at 1600 h), for the next 12 d the leaf was in constant light(L:L). It was then moved to constant darkness (D:D) for the remaining 4 d (commencing at 0900 hon 30 April). (Original leaf rhythm data from Fig. 35 of Kleinhoonte153).


via secreted chemicals or restrictions onliving space brought about by nutritionalpreferences.

Do plants have a nervous system?Nervous systems in many ‘higher’ ani-

mals are characterized by specialized cellswhich propagate action potentials (APs) asa consequence of membrane depolariza-tion and the movement of ions into andout of neurons. Such systems involve elec-trical synapses (gap junctions) andchemical synapses facilitated by neuro-transmitter substances. There are approx.60 types of neurotransmitter molecules inhumans, including acetylcholine, aminoacids, and biogenic amines; MTs supportand guide the vesicles in which these mol-ecules are contained toward the inter-neu-ronal synaptic junctions.

Action potentials in plants were firstrecorded in a higher plant (Mimosa)179

and in a green alga (Nitella),180 longbefore their discovery in animals. If algaeand higher plants have a ‘phytoneural’ sys-tem which is similar to any of the variousanimal nervous systems, then not onlyshould APs be expected, but plant anat-omy might also reveal cellular structuresand ultrastructures (such as exocytoticvesicles and MTs), as well as specific mole-cules which have been adapted to partici-pate in the development of APs at cellboundaries. It is believed that plants doindeed possess ‘plant chemical synapses’,and that these share many of the featuresof chemical synapses found in animals.181

As for the identity of the phytoneural cellsin higher plants, anatomical and physio-logical evidence indicates that they corre-spond to the phloem strands, and thatthese strands propagate APs over long dis-tances,72,182,183 as also occurs within thegiant cells of green algae. Also, numerousmolecules have been discovered inplants36,184 – for example, gamma-amino-butyric acid (GABA), melatonin, seroto-nin – which, in animals, serve asneurotransmitters. One of the roles ofthese molecules in plant cells is to modu-late MT stability;59 and it because of thisproperty that they affect neurotransmis-sion in animals.185 Certain other mole-cules found in plants can also modulateanimal neurotransmission – for example,hyperforin, which increases acetylcholine

release from cerebral tissue,186 and somesecondary plant products are potent ani-mal neurotoxins and hallucinogens – nico-tine, curare and psilocybin, forexample,187 all of which affect the ace-tylcholine receptors and the passage ofelectrical currents via chemical synapses.Inhibition of these last-mentionedreceptors is also a feature of certainanesthetics.188,189 Thus, plants doindeed possess structural and chemicalelements which could participate in aputative phytoneural system, though atpresent there are no details of how theydo so.

Plants, because they are encased in cel-lulosic walls, are typically sessile organ-isms. Their physical movements aremeasured in days rather than in seconds,as would apply to animals. If plants pos-sess an analog of the animal-type nervoussystem, it may either function slowly – toalter the orientation of an organ by differ-ential growth, or more rapidly – by acti-vating molecular transport mechanismswhich can then lead to an alteration ofphysiological state. The nervous reactionsinvolved initiate an immediate electricalresponse, ion exchange being followed bycascades of other signals; the latter thenpropagate relatively slowly throughout theorganism. The animal nervous systemwhich perhaps most closely resembles thatof a plant is the one expressed insponges,190 where GABA is used as neuro-transmitter.191 Sponges belong to a basalphylum of the Animalia and possess‘protosynapses’;74 these seem to be similarin function and structure to the plantchemical synapses proposed by Balu�skaet al.181

The different nervous systems found insponges, animals and, putatively, plants,indicate that nervous systems have proba-bly evolved many times during evolution,as was also proposed for brains73 and,indeed, was also proposed for conscious-ness itself.12 What critics of the notion ofplant neurobiology have overlooked (due,probably, to an anthropomorphic orienta-tion) is the diversity of nervous systemsand neurons within the animal kingdom.Furthermore, Edelman et al.12 drawattention to the finding that the octopus(which these authors credit with both cog-nition and a precursor of consciousness)

has more neurons in all its tentacles thanit has in its brain, suggesting that someattributes of ‘consciousness’ might resideelsewhere than within a brain. As Moroz73

remarks in responding to his own question“What is a neuron?,” it is that they “canmake polarized and specialized (synapses)connections, but do not necessarily do soin all animals and nervous circuits.”Moroz74 continues, “Hormonal-like vol-ume transmission [see earlier] can servemany true integrative and neuronal func-tions without a specialized synapse . . . iftargets are localized within a few micro-meters from the transmitter releasepoints.” The author is referring here tonervous systems which are used by “sessileanimals with limited motor reactions orfor vegetative processes.” Such a descrip-tion for certain animal nervous systemscorresponds with the situation in plants.The mention of volume transmission sug-gests that plants, too, may have a ‘GlobalMolecular Network’,80 which could beconstituted of both a WT system (bioelec-trical circuitry) and a VT system (phyto-hormonal and growth regulator mobility,including microRNAs), which togetherwould help sustain the global inter-cellularand inter-organ communication systemneeded to maintain a plant’s sense of‘oneness’ (see the preceding section).Thus, no special pleading is needed for a‘phytoneural system’. What has been dis-covered so far is that its features lie withinthe range of diversity of neural systems intoto.

One specialized site on the cellmembrane of animals across which anelectrical current can flow is the gapjunction. These may be important inregulating bioelectric fields, which, inturn, appear to regulate the correct spa-tial distribution of cellular groups inembryos and elsewhere in the soma.192

Possible plant analogs of the gap junc-tions of animal cell membranes are thecell-cell channels known as plasmodes-mata.193,194 These structures areinserted, in the first instance, into newcell division walls. Secondary plasmo-desmata are sometimes inserted at alater time into particular pre-existingcell walls of differentiated tissues.195

These secondary plasmodesmata may beanalogs of the recently discovered


tunneling nanotubes which link cellstogether via adventitious cytoplasmicbridges.175,195 Plant parenchyma cellshave the ability to propagate electricalimpulses through the plasmodesmataand, hence, through the symplasm untilthey reach non-excitable neighboringcells.196,197 However, the current sopropagated is strongly damped due to abottleneck effect exerted by the plasmo-desmata themselves, thus limiting therange of the electrical signals to only afew cells.196 This result was obtainedfrom root apical meristems of the fern,Azolla pinnata, in which plasmodesma-tal abundance, densities, and cell-celldistributions have been carefullymapped. Even in giant shoot apicalmeristems, such as those of the Cacta-ceae, which have possibly tens of thou-sands of cells, the scale of coherentelectrical signaling would be limited toa small number of cells at any onetime. It follows that, in both shoot androot apices, Orch OR events and thesubsequent propagation of bioelectricalimpulses would occur only slowly andpossibly infrequently.

Orch OR suggests that EEG gamma syn-chrony occurs by means of the coordinatedactivities of MTs, synapses and gap junc-tions.198 Halothane and ethylene, anestheticswhich work as such on animals, destabilizeMTs in growing plant cells199 although,unfortunately, little is known of any putativephytoneurological effects of anesthetics savetheir ability to alter the sensitivity of plantcells to cold stress,200 an effect probablymediated by MTs. Interestingly, ethylenebrings about the rearrangement of MTs ingrowing cells of dicotyledonous plants, thusenhancing the lateral expansion of the respec-tive plant organs.201,202 The newly formedgrowing portions of an ethylene-treatedshoot or root therefore remain squat, asthough ‘resting’ and waiting for conditionsto ameliorate before resuming rectilineargrowth. Because ethylene is released fromplant organs following wounding, this‘resting’ response may be some form of self-anesthesia.

Does Orch OR apply to plants and, ifso, could plants be conscious?

The Orch OR hypothesis, with its reli-ance upon MTs to facilitate the firing of

electrical nervous impulses, has manyfavorable points for an understanding ofthe origin of human consciousness and, ashas been described in earlier sections,recent experimental results have providedcircumstantial evidence for its applicabil-ity to consciousness processes. In animals,MT arrays are crucial for electrical signal-ing within and between neurons whereas,in plants, the corresponding electricalproperties and their role in intercellularsignaling are imperfectly known.Although Baars and Edelman47 weredoubtful that MTs, whether in animal orplant cells, could be a sufficient basis for‘quantum consciousness,’ the Hameroff-Penrose Orch OR hypothesis does never-theless suggest that quantum OR eventsprovide a potentiality for moments of pro-toconsciousness. It should follow that allsuch moments are liberated by OR events,and that their frequency would depend onthe number and density of MTs. On thegrounds of this last-mentioned prediction,plants, which have no particular type ofcells that are directly equivalent animalneurons in terms of their degree of enrich-ment with MTs, might in this respect bedisadvantaged in their attainment ofconsciousness.

Actin microfilaments which, in addi-tion to MTs, are the other major class ofstructures of the plant cytoskeleton,should also be considered with respect totheir electrical capabilities. In a recentstudy where a 50Hz oscillating electricalfield was imposed on plant tissue, permea-bilization of the tissue was brought aboutin a manner dependent upon the presenceof actin, suggesting that actin filamentoscillation and/or cytoplasmic streamingmay be allow the opening of the plasmamembrane,203 which possibly may allowthe initiation of APs.

In the preceding section, primary mer-istems were considered to be rather poorcandidates for OR events on account ofthe lability of their MT population, andthen the short cell-to-cell distances overwhich electrical impulses could be trans-mitted via plasmodesmata, to promotemoments of protoconsciousness in somebrain-like center. The situation is differentin tree trunks, however, where there is asecondary cambial meristem from whichsecondary, or widening, growth is

established. Cambial cells are not onlyextremely numerous, covering the entirecylindrical surface immediately beneaththe bark, but they and their derivatives arealso replete with MTs which participate inthe development of both woody tissue204

and secondary phloem. The MTs of thesecells have more stable configurations thanthose of meristems. There are also groupsof parenchymatous ray cells, whichintrude into secondary phloem and sec-ondary xylem (Fig. 4A) and which arerich in MTs. Unlike the immediate deriv-ative cells of primary meristems, deriva-tives of ray cells remain for a long timeclose to their site of origin, do not divide,and live for at least 4–5 years. MTs of raycells appear bound together as microtubu-lar cables205 (Fig. 4B). Ray cells also con-tain prominent cables of actin filaments(Fig. 4C and D). Additionally, there areabundant, closely bound helices of MTslying against the plasma membrane ofdeveloping secondary xylem cells, as wellas circles of MTs at the pit borders ofxylem vessels.206 Similar findings apply tothe secondary cambium and vascular tis-sues of woody root systems.207 The num-bers of MTs in such cells and tissues hasnot been estimated, but considering thetotal volume of tissue present in a maturetree, these numbers would be prodigious.However, an approximate number ofMTs can be reckoned, as shown below.

Ray parenchyma tissue is composed ofup to 8–16 or more tiers of cells (Fig. 4A).Tangential cuts through the cambium alsoreveal that the ray complexes are organizedin a helical pattern along prominent para-stichies winding around the cylindricalcambial surface. Thus the secondary xylemand phloem tissues beneath the bark of atree trunk have embedded within them alattice of radially intrusive rays (Fig. 5).Because most of the ray cells no longerdivide and their differentiation is rapidlycompleted, their MTs would be availablefor new functions and might provide theconditions for Orch OR events. More-over, all ray complexes traverse the cam-bium and could thus feed signalstransmitted radially, by the rays, into thelongitudinally oriented cambial systemwhich extends into the apical and basalextremities of a tree. The density of rayclusters shown in Fig. 5 is estimated as


approx. 70 per mm2, a value which mightoffer possibilities for amplification of MT-based OR events, particularly since the lat-tice configuration of the rays might itselfprovide a basis for the mentioned amplifi-cation by introducing an extra dimensionfor the postulated quantum computingrequired by Orch OR. The large totalnumber of MTs collected into such a lat-tice encircling the trunk of a large treecould therefore be a powerful structure,analogous to a population of MT-bearingneurons within a brain, for the triggeringOR events. Hence, ray tissue could be alocation for propagating moments of pro-toconsciousness. In this way – throughMT density and large number of ray cellswithin a lattice arrangement, where quan-tum computing and quantum entangle-ment could take place – the potentiallimitation would be overcome of not hav-ing one particular cell type, like a neuron,or tissue especially enriched by MTs, likea brain. The entire trunk of a tree filledwith rays and their MTs could be regarded

as a candidate plant brain (on a largescale), where protoconscious events mightbe produced by Orch OR.

MT-bearing rays embedded within treetrunks with their potentiality for ORevents may be the reason, at a subliminallevel, why sensitive persons wish to ‘hug atree’: it is an indication of the resonance,or quantum entanglement-at-a-distance,45

of tree and human MT-beat frequenciesemanating from both the human neuronaland the putative ‘phytoneuronal’ channelsof the ray system, perhaps coupled also tobioelectromagnetic field effects betweenthe tree and the human brain and heart.The dual tree ray-human MT systemcould be another situation for primaryperception, and thus be the site of some-thing similar to kin recognition men-tioned earlier. Although it is not knownwhether the gamma synchrony of the typerecorded by EEG from human subjects,and which is associated with conscious-ness, is present in plants, the cambiumand its ray and secondary tissues of trees

may be a good place to start to search forsuch synchrony.

Quantitative estimates of tubulin andMT characteristics in the trunks of youngtrees of hybrid poplar clarify the potential-ity of rays for generating Orch OR eventsleading to moments of “tree proto-consciousness.” Data on ray density wereobtained from images, such as shown inFigure 5, and additional quantitative val-ues for the volumes of ray tissue in second-ary xylem and phloem are taken fromBarlow et al.208 The estimates are asfollows:

� Figure 5, which is typical of a poplartree trunk seen in tangential sectionthrough the cambial zone, reveals thatthere are 85 ray complexes insertedwithin a cambial surface of 1.2 £106 mm2.

� Single, uniseriate ray complexes areapprox. 250 mm high (in the verticaldimension), 14 mm wide and, in oneannual growth ring of xylem andphloem, approx. 4610 mm long (in theradial dimension). Rays complexes ofpoplar are viable for about 4 years;209

in the fifth year following their birth,the cells die. All told, therefore, the vol-ume of one typical complete living raycomplex is approx. 6.5 £ 107 mm3.

� A microtubule of length 1 mm consistsof 1600 tubulin dimers.210 Therefore, asingle MT, 4610 mm long (i.e., thetotal length of one typical living raycomplex), consists of 7.4 £ 106 dimers.A conservative estimate that 100 MTsextend the length of such a ray complexyields a total of 7.4 £ 108 dimers.

� Ray complexes are multicellular, com-posed of one vertical file of approx.8 cells. Files of each of these 8 cellsextends in the radial direction. Hence,there would be approx. 5.9 £ 109 tubu-lin dimers in the set of 8 radial files ofone typical single ray complex.

� Hameroff and Penrose state that a sin-gle cerebral neuron contains approx.109 tubulin dimers. In terms of tubulinmass, one complete ray complex isequivalent to a single neuron.

� According to the Orch OR hypothesis,a quantum superposition of durationt �500 ms requires 109 tubulindimers. Thus, a single, 3-dimensional

Figure 4. Ray parenchyma cells within secondary stem tissue of trees. (A) Vertical columns of rays(spindle-shaped groups of small cells) located amongst elongated fusiform cells within the stemcambium of a two-year old hybrid poplar tree. Toluidine blue-stained semi-thin tangential section.Mag. £ 280. (B) Radially oriented bundles of MTs in vertical stacks of ray parenchyma cells fromAbies sachalinensis. Anti-tubulin immunofluorecent image from a radial section visualised by confo-cal microscopy. Mag. £ 1500. (Micrograph modified from Begum et al.205). (C, D) Radially orientedcables of actin within rays of a two-year old hybrid poplar tree. Anti-actin immunofluorescent imagefrom a radial section visualised by confocal microscopy. Fluorescent images of actin filaments run-ning vertically in c are due to their presence in overlying fusiform cells of the cambium. Mag. £1200 (C), £ 450 (D). (Micrograph modified from Chaffey et al.206).


ray complex may be able to supply thenecessary tubulin mass for an OR eventat intervals of 500 ms (2 Hz). Manyray complexes working together in theirlattice arrangement may increase thisfrequency.

One proviso with respect to the ray sys-tem is that in order for the ray MTs tobehave analogously to a single animal neu-ron with 109 tubulins, continuity of MTsshould be maintained throughout all thecells of the ray complex, both verticallyand radially. MAPs such as tau associatedwith MTs, as well as plasmodesmatawhich support the cellular symplasm, mayprovide the necessary degree of quantumcoherence.

If such a system were capable of orches-trating OR events in the way proposed byHameroff and Penrose,1 then there is thequestion of how the resulting moments ofprotoconsciousness would be registered inthe ‘mind’ of the tree. Of course, this isalso a problem for bona fide systems ofanimal consciousness. Furthermore, one

might ask whether the stream of sensoryinputs to the plant from both internal andexternal sources can be integrated bymeans of Orch OR. Thus, for a plant ortree, there may also be the ‘binding prob-lem’ of how to establish a unification ofconscious perception.35,37 But this mightnot be such a vital problem for a tree, as itis for animal/human systems, where it isessential for their survival, for example.And, as was mentioned earlier, thought(as supported by a brain) is not a necessarycomponent of consciousness.

Alternative modes of consciousnessBecause there are different types of

brains and nervous systems among ani-mals, as well as different modes of con-sciousness,13 the approach to the questionof whether plants can be considered‘conscious’ may be made only in an ana-logical way using animal systems as a ref-erence. However, the way becomes clearerwhen consistent attributes of conscious-ness are recognized – albeit using attrib-utes derived from studies of animals, both

human and non-human. Earlier, a struc-tured series of conscious states was pro-vided, and it was deduced that, in thehuman situation, and also in the light ofHameroff and Penrose’s Orch OR theoryof protoconsciousness,1 whenever neuro-nal vibrations of lower frequency were,even if momentarily, replaced by vibra-tions of a higher frequency (theta and afrequencies of 4–7 Hz and 8–15 H,respectively), and thence to gamma fre-quencies (of 40–100Hz, for example),there may literally be a ‘quantum’ leapinto a deeper level of reflective-, or self-,consciousness. This might be due to ORevents in the Brain apparatus (state 2)somehow becoming registered within aMind (states 3 and 4). For plants, the cor-responding situation, especially the finalstep of registering consciousness, is nearlyunknown, but some clues regarding thepreceding steps can come from studies ofaction potentials (APs) as indicators ofelectrical activity.211 Quantum effects ation channels have been proposed toinduce APs,19 and the electromagneticfield generated by the multiple APs ofcerebral neurons has been advanced as acomponent of conscious awareness.212

Action potentials and their relevance topossible plant consciousness will now beexplored further.

Interior protoconsciousness:An electrical basis

In plants, besides the presence of elec-tropotential differences (EPDs) acrossorgans, there is continual transmission ofelectrical action potentials (APs) via vascu-lar tissues. For example, whenever sapflows within living phloem cells,213 orwhenever there are changes in hydrostaticpressure within xylem vessels,214 there isexcitation of membranes which then gen-erates APs and sets up EPDs between ref-erence sites along the organs concerned.Moreover, the arrival of APs at certaindestinations, or target zones, is likely topromote distinct patterns of gene activ-ity,215,216 as well as cascades of secondarymessengers, such as CaC ions, and thestimulation of phytohormonal transport,and thence lead to various motor activi-ties. Actin microfilaments and actin cableswithin ray cells (Fig. 4C and D) and else-where may also convey sufficient kinetic

Figure 5. Distribution of rays, such as shown in Fig. 4A, recorded in a large photomontage of tan-gential sections of hybrid poplar cambium. The montage was scanned and the vertical height wasforeshortened. The spindle-shaped ray areas were then traced (stippled regions). Clear areas con-tain fusiform cambial initials. Sometimes rays had recently undergone binary fission due to intrusivegrowth of fusiform cells; the two sister rays are outlined within a single oval. Ray cell complexesalign on 3 evident parastichies (red lines). Occasionally, a parastichy terminates due to the introduc-tion of a new ray complex arising from fission of a pre-existing ray complex. Circumferential expan-sion of the cambium accompanied by growth and division of the fusiform cells lying between thesister ray complexes and elsewhere causes the ray complexes to move apart.


energy to disturb cell plasma membranesand induce APs.

Internally, plants are rarely quiet,except at night and under relatively stillconditions.213 Environmental stimuli –light, temperature, salinity, drought,waterlogging, contact with predators, gas-eous signals released from sites of infectionin neighboring plants, even the passage ofclouds across the sky – can all modulatephytoelectrical activity. Because of theincessant input of signals from the envi-ronment, as well as the widespread inter-nal signaling between organs andmodules, plant systems are ‘alive’ withelectrical activity. Thus, in addition tolocal brain-like areas (root apex transitionzones, e.g.,), the whole plant, and espe-cially the trunks of trees, can be viewed asa distributed ‘brain’, in the sense of ‘brain’being a center for the integration of elec-trical activity. This distributedness con-trasts with the situation in higher animals(but may correspond to the already men-tioned situation in sponges) where electri-cal signaling is channeled toward alocalized and integrating central nervoussystem and brain. Then, the phytohormo-nal correlative system, which is able to ini-tiate appropriate morphogenetic responsesto impulses originating from a diffuse‘brain’ or some other localized commandcenter75,76 and thereby regulate the struc-tural form of the organism, provides theplant with a sense of self, or of ‘oneness’(state 3). This may be the nearest we cancome to resolving the question of whether(or not) plants are conscious, with anawareness of self and of others.

One further aspect of plant electricalactivity should also be mentioned. Thiscontinual activity, due to the plants’ con-tinual responsiveness to their environ-ments, masks another, more basic aspectof phytoelectrical activity inherent to thestructure of plants. Such an intrinsic andbasal electrical state should be discoverablewhen the environment is totally stable.Then, quantum reduction events, perhapsdue to MTs, or events due to actin fila-ment kinetics, should become apparent.Hence, it is of interest to estimate the fre-quency (in Hz) of APs during resting peri-ods, when plants are free fromperturbation. A survey of APs recordedfrom base-line, unstimulated states

approximating to ‘free-running’ condi-tions allows the following estimates oftheir resting frequencies to be made.

The simplest case in this survey is thetrichome of the blue-green alga, Phormi-dium. These cells show no electrical activ-ity (0 Hz) except when they aretransferred from light to darkness; then animpulse is recorded, coincident with thetransfer.217 From the giant unicellulargreen alga, Acetabularia, spontaneous APswith frequencies of 8 £ 10¡4 Hz andapprox 2.3 £ 10¡3 Hz were recordedfrom cells in a quiescent state by Thavar-ungkul et al. and by Saddler, respec-tively.218,219 At the developmental stagesstudied, MTs would have been eitherabsent or sparse.220 Similarly, APs of 3 £10¡2 Hz were recorded from the giantcells of the green alga, Nitellamucronata.180

In non-vascular and vascular plants,spontaneous APs, sometimes in longtrains of activity, arise without any knowncause. Records from thalli of the liverwort,Conocephalum conicum, showed electricaldischarges with frequencies of 2–3 £10¡3 Hz.221 Although these signals wererecorded sometime after a woundingevent, they had settled to a constant fre-quency and amplitude and the tissueappeared to have recovered from thetrauma when these estimates were made.From growing stems of Helianthus annus,spontaneous impulses with frequencies of1 £ 10¡2 Hz were consistently found;222

and from growing portions of stems ofDianthus sp. (where cytoskeletal MTs andactin filaments would be abundant) spon-taneous APs with frequencies of0.2–0.25 Hz were recorded by Glębickiet al.223 However, a frequency of only0.08 Hz was found in the non-growing,basal zone of the stem, where the cytoskel-eton might be expected to be less devel-oped. From various zones of a small treeof Ficus elastica, the highest electricalimpulse rate, recorded during a period ofmany weeks, was 3.3 Hz.224 Unfortu-nately, the exact locations of the recordingzones were not specified and, moreover,the frequencies varied from minute tominute: one zone had a frequency of0.8 Hz, another of 1.7 Hz, while a thirdzone showed 1.7 Hz one minute and then0.3 Hz during the next minute.

Nevertheless, the impulses were a con-stant, unprovoked feature of recordingsfrom the whole tree. Pickard225 studiedAPs from petioles and lamina of cotyle-dons of Ipomoea hederacea. Successions ofspontaneous electrical impulses werefound, often persisting over long periodsof time, the longest period recorded last-ing 44 min; the average frequency of theseimpulses was 0.95 Hz. Williams and Pick-ard226 recorded impulses of approx.0.12 Hz frequency from tentacles of Dro-sera intermedia, when the material wasapparently in a stable, free-running condi-tion. It is interesting that in both the studyof Karlsson224 and Zawadski et al. 222

diurnal rhythms of the impulses werenoted, but these were probably related tothe daily changes from light to dark condi-tions. Nevertheless, they indicate thatplants can be aware of the time of daythrough the frequency and amplitude oftheir APs.

From roots of Lepidium sativum, Hej-nowicz et al.227 registered electrical signalsof 2–5 Hz during the first minute of onetypical recording session, and whichdiminished to 0.3 Hz in the next minute.The most coherent signals were found inthe apical meristem and just behind it,where the transition zone would belocated and where the cytoskeletal MTswould be densest. According to theauthors, gravistimulation of the root didnot affect the fluctuations of the APs “inany reproducible way.” However, expo-sure of the roots to both N2 gas (anoxia)and ether vapor reduced the frequency ofthe impulses. The effect was reversed byflushing the gases from the system withclean air. Both these gaseous agents disas-semble MTs in a reversible way.228

Notable is that all AP frequencies wererelatively low. Furthermore, APs in plantshave relatively long refractory periods; andif multiple impulses were to arrive fromdifferent locations, this would tend toconfuse any evaluation of an average fre-quency at the recording site. Nevertheless,the consistency with which a low level ofelectrical activity is encountered in non-stimulated plants is probably significant.It suggests a degree of torpor, or baselinesensitive awareness; nevertheless, the plantcan be aroused from this state whenappropriate stimuli are provided.


Other types of electrical signal214 aremore frequent when plants are appropri-ately stimulated – by wind action, forexample, which is able to induce volumepotentials due to hydrostatic variations;229

and EPDs become evident when treesphotosynthesise, transpire, and translocatesugar solutes.213 Thus, there may be2 periods of protoconsciousness for treesand plants: one during rest within thehours of darkness, the other during wake-fulness and consequent upon environmen-tal stimuli, which are more abundantduring hours of daylight. Activity patternsin the form of EPDs are also modulatedby lunar phase230,231 in the same way thatactivity patterns of animals are affected(see Fig. 1 and 2).

Exterior protoconsciousnessOne topic not discussed by Hameroff

and Penrose, believing it to be outside thescope of science, is the possibility that pro-toconsciousness might occur in non-bio-logical systems, including the cosmositself.1,45 This they did not discuss. How-ever, as JBS Haldane wrote, “I have nodoubt that in reality the future will be vastlymore surprising than anything I can imagine. . . my own suspicion is that the Universe isnot only queerer than we suppose, butqueerer than we can suppose.” Thus, it canbe surmised that whatever topic has beenconsidered outside the scope of science inone era (e.g., theories of planetary motionand of gravity, wave-particle duality, darkmatter) might enter the scope of science ina succeeding era. Therefore, one mighttouch on this unknown issue of a non-bio-logical origin of protoconsciousness,1,45

partly because Hameroff and Penrose enti-tle their article, “Consciousness in theUniverse” and then continue (see theirabstract) “we conclude that consciousnessplays an intrinsic role in the universe”(our emphasis). While one may puzzleabout what this “intrinsic role” may be,protoconsciousness can be imagined toexist independently of a biological context(as indeed Hameroff and Penrose specu-lated,1 but then in the context of massiveneutron stars), and that it is an imminentproperty within the Universe due to physi-cal laws; it is as though scintilla of proto-conscious could theoretically exist andawait capture by biological organisms who

have the ability (or wish) to perceivethem. For example, the Schumann reso-nance frequencies145 within the Earth’sionosphere correspond with frequenciesrecorded from the brain by EEG, butwhether the Schumann frequencies inter-vene in such electrical activity and, hence,in consciousness, is not known.

Three vital questions surround the ORevent associated with consciousness in liv-ing forms: 1) Is a protoconscious eventgenerated only by MTs? 2) Can it be thatcertain groups of MTs within a biologicalorganism attract to themselves a precursor(scintilla) of protoconsciousness from auniversal pool of such events which residein the cosmos, and then relays and ampli-fies it to consciousness via the neurons? 3)Are biological/quantum-physical proto-conscious events simulations of analogousevents within the cosmos?

As mentioned in section 10, a percep-tion of self and an awakening of activity inthe soma emerge at the turning of highand low lunar tides (Fig. 2). This aware-ness, this subliminal consciousness of self,is thus the consequence of the soma andbrain being touched by an interactionwith the cosmos – the relationshipbetween the organism and the gravita-tional attraction between Earth, Moonand Sun. In this regard, where Organism-Earth-Moon-Sun forms a unit, a fullydeveloped, continuous awareness oforganismal self might be considered to bean answer to a further, fourth question:Can consciousness in a living organismarise from some physical feature of thecosmos?

At present, however, the quantum-physical protoconscious events of OrchOR can be usefully discussed only at thehuman/biological level, mainly becausediscussions of consciousness center uponhuman consciousness. But a more general,or even a more universal, aspect is sug-gested by questions 2 and 3 above. Thetopics to which these 2 questions relatecan be analogized to the perception ofCherenkov radiation by astronauts.232,233

When astronauts of both the Apollo andSoyuz missions were in darkness or witheyes closed, and especially when they werein a relaxed state, they experienced flashesof light, at the intra-ocular location wherevision would be normally experienced.

One explanation is that radiation (proba-bly muons and pions) from outer spacepenetrated the space capsule, and traveledthrough the astronaut’s eyeball and inter-acted with the retina, triggering an eventregistered in the brain as a flash, or streak,of light. Continuing from this example, soit may be with moments of protocon-sciousness: perhaps neurons of the humanbrain are from time to time penetrated byprecursors of protoconsciousness as aresult of which sensitive sites, say amongthe arrays of MTs, are caused to activate aneural mechanism, the transduction ofwhich is a ‘flash’ of consciousness. Fur-thermore, and in keeping with this specu-lative view of the induction ofconsciousness, the duration of the Cheren-kov flash within the eye is short(� 10¡10s) compared with the integrationtime of the eye (approx. 50 ms).232 Simi-larly with quantum protoconsciousmoments: an OR event occurs within amoment of time lasting about 13–20 ms;longer times (25 and 30 ms) are requiredto bring about, respectively, the recogni-tion of the event and to set it in the correctplace within the sequence of such events.

Concluding remarksThe evolution of animals and plants

has allowed each to develop a Sensorium(state 1) and a Brain (state 2). An emer-gent state 3 (Mind), accompanied by con-sciousness, has appeared in some animals,including Man. The ordinary state ofMan is characterized by an EEG recordexhibiting a frequency of 4 Hz. In plants,spontaneous APs with frequencies one or2 orders of magnitude less than this havebeen recorded. Nevertheless, both animalsand plants exhibit a type of protocon-sciousness in which, even if there is no rea-soning or thought, there is sensitiveawareness and cognizance of their respec-tive internal, physiological environmentsand their external, physical environments.Man, however, has developed furthercapabilities and is able to experience a‘higher’ state of consciousness. In thiscase, it may be that the bundling of MTsin neurons has provided the critical massfor a more intense vibration of 40 Hz(recorded from EEG), allowing the emer-gence of state 4, of self-reflective con-sciousness, and sometimes also a state 5


(Samadhi). Unfortunately, it is not knownhow this advancement of consciousness –the steps forward from states 2 and 3 tostate 4, and thence to state 5 – have takenplace, but it might, on the basis of OrchOR hypothesis, relate to the increasingmass and deployment of MTs in specificcells. The formula developed for the OrchOR hypothesis, t � Ћ /EG, predicts that,as the self-energy mass of MTs increases,t, the frequency of quantum reductionevents leading to protoconscious impulses,increases. Therefore, a larger EG would beassociated with a larger complement ofMTs and would lead to a higher rate ofEEG-registered vibration (in Hz). But thisraises certain questions: Is energy mass EGevaluated in terms of MT number per cellor per tissue? Is the value of EG associatedwith the spatial arrangement of MTs? Fur-thermore, is the number of cells bearingparallel and closely arranged MTs, a fea-ture which is characteristic of growingplant cells, also a factor in the evaluationof EG? It is not known to what degree thenumbers and arrangements of MTs in ani-mal neurons and plant cells differ, butalthough individual plant cells mostlyhave relatively few MTs, bundled or oth-erwise, when compared to human neu-rons, certain specialized plant cells, suchas the ray parenchyma cells of trees haveconsiderably more. MT density mighttherefore influence the frequency of ORevents but, in plants, MT density maylimit the production of self-aware con-sciousness to trees where MTs are mostabundant in cells involved with secondarygrowth. A Mind (state 3) seems to be aprerequisite for the recognition andacknowledgment of the conscious state inhumans. But Mind appears to be an emer-gent property. Whether or not plants havea ‘mind’ is unanswerable: but plants, espe-cially trees, may have a ‘phyto-mind’, suigeneris, to which only they themselves canbe present and can comprehend.

A state of conscious mindfulness, orawareness, emerges as an unfolding of theimplicate quantum order into the expli-cated material aspect of existence throughthe presence of MTs. It is the ability to beconsciously aware of the electricalimpulses initiated by MTs, and whosepassage the MTs direct toward the brain,that releases, or realizes, this potentiality

for awareness. Thus, plants probably lagone step behind the experiential world ofanimals, for although both plants and ani-mals may have attained state 2 (of Brain)and maybe state 3 (of Mind), animals(and humans in particular) have achievedthe possibility of self-reflective conscious-ness (state 4). It is from this last-mentioned auto-generated desire for self-reflection, the property of state 4, thatpsychological, or psychokinetic, evolutionin Man will continue, and will be accom-panied by a parallel cultural evolution, asproposed by Gebser.234 On the otherhand, Bergson116 was more comprehen-sive in considering not just human life,but life as a whole: “Now the more we fixour attention on the continuity of life, themore we see that organic evolution resem-bles the evolution of consciousness, inwhich the past pushing into the presentcauses a new form of awareness, incom-mensurable with what went before.”Acknowledgment of the displacement ofthe degree of conscious between plantsand animals should enable humanity withits higher-grade consciousness and rapidmobility not only to nurture, comprehendand value the relative stillness of thelower-grade plant protoconsciousness, butalso for both animals and plants to sharemutual experiences through primary per-ception. This displacement of states ofconsciousness between plants and animalsmay be lawful in another way: to maintainthe balance of Nature. To paraphraseBergson (replacing in the following pas-sage, the word ‘cell’ by ‘plant’, and‘organism’ by ‘ecosystem’), “The compo-nent [plant] of an [ecosystem], on becom-ing momentarily conscious, would barelyhave outlived the wish to emancipate itselfwhen it would be recaptured bynecessity.”235

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest weredisclosed.

Acknowledgments

Gratitude is expressed to Dr JohnGardiner for sharing many of his ideas onmicrotubules in relation to Orch ORhypothesis, and to Prof F. Balu�ska for

useful information. Also thanked are ProfL.F. Agnati, Dr G. Dorda and Prof E.Zu��rcher for their useful comments onearly drafts of the typescript. Photomicro-graphs shown in Figure 4B and C werekindly provided by Prof Ryo Funada andDr Shahanara Begum, and by Dr NigelChaffey, respectively. Mr Tim Colborneprepared all the material shown in Figure 1,2, 3, and 5.

Funding

Financial support from School ofBiological Sciences, Bristol University, isgratefully acknowledged.

References

1. Hameroff S, Penrose R. Consciousness in the universe.A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Phys. Life Rev.2014; 11:39-78; PMID:24070914; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002

2. Dorda G. Quantisierte Zeit und die Vereinheitlichungvon Gravitation und Elektromagnetismus. G€ottingen,Cuvillier Verlag, 2010

3. Seager W. Theories of Consciousness. An Introduc-tion and Assessment. London, Routledge, 1999

4. Damasio AR. How the brain creates the mind. Sci.Am. 1999; 281(6):112-7; PMID:10614073; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1299-112

5. Damasio AR. The Feeling of What Happens: Bodyand Emotions in the Making of Consciousness. NewYork, Harcourt Brace, New York, 1999

6. Rosenberg G. A Place for Consciousness. Probing theDeep Structure of the Natural World. Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press, 2004

7. Tart CT. The basic nature of altered states of con-sciousness: a systems approach. J. Transpersonal Psy-chol. 1976; 8:45-64

8. Tart CT. (ed.). Altered States of Consciousness. Lon-don, Harper Collins, 1990

9. Vaitl D, Birbaumer N, Gruzweiler J, Jamieson GA,Kotchoubey B, Ku��bler A, Lehmann D, Miltner WH,Ott U, P€utz P, et al. Psychobiology of altered states ofconsciousness. Psychol. Bull. 2005; 131:98-127;PMID:15631555; http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.98

10. Nagel T. What is it like to be a bat? Phil. Rev. 1974;73:435-50; http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2183914

11. Seth AK, Baars BJ, Edelman DB. Criteria for con-sciousness in humans and other animals. Conscious.Cogn. 2005; 14:119-39; PMID:15766894; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2004.08.006

12. Edelman DB, Baars BJ, Seth AK. Identifying hall-marks of consciousness in non-mammalian species.Conscious. Cogn. 2005; 14:169-87;PMID:15766896; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2004.09.001

13. Edelman DB, Seth AK. Animal consciousness: a syn-thetic approach. Trends Neurosci. 2009; 32:476-84;PMID:19716185; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2009.05.008

14. Feinberg TE, Mallatt J. The evolutionary and geneticorigins of consciousness in the Cambrian period over500 million years ago. Front. Psychol. 2013; 4(article667):1-27; PMID:23382719; http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/fpsyg.2013.000667

15. Sheets-Johnstone M. Consciousness: a natural history.J. Consciousness Stud. 1998; 5:260-94;

16. Fischer-Friedrich E, Friedrich BM, Gov NS. FtsZrings and helices: physical mechanisms for the


dynamic aliginment of biopolymers in rod-shapedbacteria. Physical Biol. 2012; 9:016009; http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1478-3975/9/1/016009

17. Vannini A. Quantum models of consciousness. Quan-tum Biosystems 2008; 2:165-84;

18. Walker E. 1970. The nature of consciousness. Math.BioSci. 1970; 7:131-78; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0025-5564(70)90046-5

19. Bernroider G, Summhammer J. Can quantumentanglement between ion transition state effectaction potential initiation? Cognitive Comput.2012; 4:29-37; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12559-012-9126-7

20. Penrose R. Quantum computation, entanglement andstate reduction. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 1998;356:1927-39;

21. Penrose R. On the gravitization of quantum mechan-ics 1: Quantum state reduction. Found. Phys. 2014;44:557-75; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-013-9770-0

22. Crick F, Koch C. Consciousness and neuroscience.Cereb. Cortex 1998; 8:97-107; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cercor/8.2.97

23. Sperry RW. Psychology’s mentalist paradigm and thereligion/science tension. Am. Psychol. 1988; 43:607-13; http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.43.8.607

24. Nagel AHM. Are plants conscious? J. ConsciousnessStud. 1997; 4:215-30

25. Trewavas A. Plant intelligence. Naturwissenschaften2005; 92:401-13; PMID:16142448; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00114-005-0014-9

26. Barlow PW. Plastic, inquisitive roots and intelligentplants in the light of some new vistas in plant biology.Plant Biosystems 2010; 144:396-407; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/11263501003718570

27. Hodge A. Root decisions. Plant Cell Environ. 2008;32:628-40; PMID:18811732; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01891.x

28. Calvo P, Keijser F. Cognition in plants. In: Balu�ska F(ed.), Plant Environment Interaction. Berlin,Springer-Verlag, 2009; 247-66

29. Calvo P, Keijser F. Plants: Adaptive behaviour, root-brains,and minimal cognition. Adapt. Behav. 2011; 19:155-71;http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059712311409446

30. Chew MK, Laubichler MD. Natural enemies–Meta-phor or misconception? Science 2003; 301:52-3;PMID:12846231; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1085274

31. Baars BJ. Metaphors of consciousness and attention inthe brain. Trends Neurosci. 1998; 21:58-62;PMID:9498298; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(97)01171-5

32. Von Rospatt A. The Buddhist Doctrine of Momentar-iness. A Survey of the Origins and Early Phase of thisDoctrine up to Vasubandhu. Stuttgart, Franz SteinerVerlag, 2005 Also available at: http://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/the-buddhist-doctrine-of-momentariness_vonrospatt.pdf

33. Gunter PAY, Papanicolaou AC. Bergson and ModernThought: Towards a Unified Science. London, Rout-ledge, 1987

34. Mullarky J. (ed.). The New Bergson. Manchester,Manchester University Press, 1999

35. Varela F, Lachaux J-P, Rodriguez E, Martinerie J. Thebrainweb: Phase synchronization and large-scale inte-gration. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 2001; 2:229-39;http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/35067550

36. Balu�ska F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D, Barlow PW.Root apices as plant command centres: the unique“brain-like” status of the root apex transition zone.Biologia (Bratislava) 2004; 59:7-19

37. Zeki S. The disunity of consciousness. Trends Cogn.Sci. 2003; 7:214-8; PMID:12757823; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00081-0

38. Horio T, Murata T. The role of dynamic instability inmicrotubule organisation. Front. Plant Sci. 2014; 5(article 511):1-10; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00511

39. Hameroff S, Penrose R. Conscious events as orches-trated space-time selections. NeuroQuantol. 2003;1:10-35

40. Sahu S, Ghosh S, Ghosh C, Aswani K, Hirata K,Fujita D, Bandyopadhyay A. Atomic water channelcontrolling remarkable properties of a single brainmicrotubule: correlating single protein to its supramo-lecular assembly. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2013; 47:141-6; PMID:23567633; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2013.02.050

41. Priel A, Ramos AJ, Tuszynski JA, Cantiello HF. A bio-polymer transistor: electrical amplification by microtu-bules. Biophys. J. 2006; 90:4639-43;PMID:16565058; http://dx.doi.org/; http://dx.doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.105.078915

42. Cifra M, Pokorn�y J, Havelka D, Ku�cera O. Electricfield generated by axial longitudinal vibration modesof microtubule. BioSystems 2010; 100:122-31;PMID:20178826; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2010.02.007

43. Havelka D, Cifra M, Ku�cera O. Multi-mode electro-mechanical vibrations of a microtubule: In silico dem-onstration of electric pulse moving along amicrotubule. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2014; 104:243702-1-4; http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4884118

44. Gagliadi LJ, Shain DH. Polar electrostatic force drivespoleward chromosome motions. Cell Division 2014;9(5):1-14; PMID:25024738; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13008-014-0005-3

45. Penrose R, Hameroff S. Consciousness in the universe:Neuroscience, quantum space-time geometry andOrch OR theory. J. Cosmol. 2011; 14:1-17

46. Hameroff S, Penrose R. Replies to seven commentar-ies on “Consciousness in the universe: Review of the‘Orch OR’ theory”. Phys. Life Rev. 2014; 11:94-100;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.11.013

47. Baars BJ, Edelman DB. 2012. Consciousness, biologyand quantum hypotheses. Phys. Life Rev. 2012;9:285-94; PMID:22925839; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2012.07.001

48. Al-Khalili J, McFadden J. Life on the Edge. The Comingof Age ofQuantumBiology. London, Bantam Press, 2014

49. Panitchayangkoon G, Hayes D, Fransted KA, CaramJR, Harel E, Wen JZ, Blankenship RE, Engel GS.Long-lived quantum coherence in photosyntheticcomplexes at physiological temperatures. Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. USA 2010; 107:12766-70; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1005484107

50. Turner DB, Dinshaw R, Lee K-K, Belsley MS, Wilk KE,Curmi PMG, Scholes GD. Quantitative investigations ofquantum coherence for a light-harvesting protein at condi-tions simulating photosynthesis. Phys. Chem. Chem.Phys. 2012; 14:4857-74; PMID:22374579; http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c2cp23670b

51. Lambert N, Chen Y-H, Cheng Y-C, Li C-M, Chen G-Y, Nori F. Quantum biology. Nature Phys. 2012;9:10-8; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys2474

52. EmersonDJ,Welser BP, Psonis J, Liao Z, TaratulaO, Fla-mengo A,Wang X, SugasawaK, Smith AB 3rd, EckenhoffRG, et al. Direct modulation of microtubule stability con-tributes to anthracene general anaesthesia. J. Am. Chem.Soc. 2013; 135:5389-98; PMID:23484901; http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja311171u

53. Ledbetter MC, Porter KR. A ‘microtubule’ in plantfine structure. J. Cell Biol. 1963; 19:239-50;PMID:19866635; http://dx.doi.org/10.1083/jcb.19.1.239

54. Balu�ska F, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. Nuclear com-ponents with microtubule-organizing properties inmulticellular eukaryotes: Functional and evolutionaryconsiderations. Int. Rev. Cytol. 1997; 175:91-135;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0074-7696(08)62126-9

55. Shibaoka H. Microtubules and the regulation of cellmorphogenesis by plant hormones. In: Lloyd CW(ed.), The Cytoskeletal Basis of Plant Growth andForm. London, Academic Press, 1991; 159-68

56. Balu�ska F, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. Hormone-cyto-skeleton interactions in plant cells. In: Hooykaas PJJ,

Hall MA, Libbenga KR (eds), Biochemistry andMolecular Biology of Plant Hormones. Amsterdam,Elsevier Science BV, 1999; 363-90

57. Nick P. (ed.). Plant Microtubules. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2001

58. Gardiner J. Insights into plant consciousness from neuro-science, physics and mathematics: a role for quasicrystals?Plant Signal. Behav. 2012; 7:1049-55; PMID:22899055;http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/psb.21325

59. Gardiner J, Marc J. Arabidopsis thaliana, a plant modelorganism for the neuronal microtubule cytoskeleton? J.Exp. Bot. 2011; 62:89-97; PMID:20813785; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq278

60. Bohm D, Peat FD. Science, Order, and Creativity.London, Routledge, 2011

61. Bennett JG. The Dramatic Universe. Volume 4. His-tory. London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1966

62. Vaneechoutte M. Experience, awareness and con-sciousness: suggestions for definitions as offered by anevolutionary approach. Found. Sci. 2000; 5:429-56;http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011371811027

63. Edelman GM. Naturalizing consciousness: A theoreticalframework. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003; 100:5520-4;http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0931349100

64. Miller JG. Living Systems. New York, McGraw-Hill,1978

65. Barlow PW. Living plant systems: How robust arethey in the absence of gravity? Adv. Space Res. 1999;23(12):1975-86; PMID:11710379; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1177(99)00340-3

66. Hayflick L. The illusion of cell immortality. Br. J.Cancer 2000; 83:841-6; PMID:10970682; http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2000.1296

67. Tseng AS, Levin M. Cracking the bioelectric code.Probing endogenous ionic controls of pattern forma-tion. Commun. Integr. Biol. 2013; 6:e22595.DOI:10.4161/cib.22595; PMID:23802040; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/cib.22595

68. Backster C. Primary Perception. Biocommunicationwith Plants, Living Foods, and Human Cells. AnzaCA, White Rose Millenium Press, 2003

69. Ekman P. Emotions Revealed: Understanding Facesand Feelings. London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2003

70. Ekman P, Levenson RW, Friesen WV. Autonomicnervous system activity distinguishes among emotions.Science 1983; 221:1208-10; PMID:6612338; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.6612338

71. Beedie CJ, Terry PC, Lane AM. Distinctions betweenemotion and mood. Cognition Emotion 2005;19:847-78; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699930541000057

72. Barlow PW. Reflections on ‘plant neurobiology’. Bio-Systems 2008; 92:132-47; PMID:18336993; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2008.01.004

73. Moroz LL. On the independent origins of complexbrains and neurons. Brain Behav. Evol. 2009; 74:177-90; PMID:20029182; http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000258665

74. Ryan TJ, Grant SGN. The origin and evolution ofsynapses. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 2009; 10:701-12;http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2717

75. Balu�ska F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D, Barlow PW.Root apex transition zone: a signalling-response nexusin the root. Trends Plant Sci. 2010; 15:402-8; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2010.04.007

76. Balu�ska F, Mancuso S. 2013. Root apex transitionzone as oscillatory zone. Front. Plant Sci. 2013; 4(arti-cle 354):1-15; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00354

77. Feinberg TE. The nested neural hierarchy and theself. Conscious. Cogn. 2011; 20:4-15; PMID:20951608; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.09.016

78. Agnati LF, Bjelke B, Fuxe K. Volume transmission inthe brain. Am. Sci. 1992; 80:362-73

79. Agnati LF, Guidolin D, Guescini M, Genedani S,Fuxe K. Understanding wiring transmission and vol-ume transmission. Brain Res. Rev. 2010; 64:137-59;


http://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/the-buddhist-doctrine-of-momentariness_vonrospatt.pdf



PMID:20347870; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2010.03.003

80. Agnati LF, Zunarelli E, Genedani S, Fuxe K. On theexistence of a global molecular network enmeshing thewhole central nervous system: Physiological and path-ological implications. Curr. Prot. Peptide Sci. 2006;7:3-15; http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/138920306775474086

81. Gunawardena AHLAN, Pearce DME, Jackson MB,Hawes CR, Evans DE. Rapid changes in cell wall pec-tic polysaccharides are closely associated with earlystages of aerenchyma formation, a spatially localizedform of programmed cell death in roots of maize (Zeamays L.) promoted by ethylene. Plant Cell Environ.2001; 24:1369-75; http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3040.2001.00774.x

82. Jackson MB, Hall KC. Early stomatal closure inwaterlogged pea-plants is mediated by abscisic acid inthe absence of foliar water deficits. Plant Cell Environ.1987; 10:121-30

83. Van Lommel P. Consciousness Beyond Life. The Sci-ence of the Near-Death Experience. New York, Har-perCollins, 2010

84. Harner M. Cave and Cosmos. Shamanic Encounterswith Another Reality. Berkeley CA, North AtlanticBooks, 2013

85. Hameroff S, Chopra D. The “quantum soul”: A scien-tific hypothesis. In: Moreira-Almeida A, Santos FS(eds.), Exploring Frontiers of the Mind-Brain Rela-tionship. New York, Springer, 2012; 79-93; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-4614-1_5

86. B�okkon I, Mallick BN, Tuszynski JA. Near deathexperiences: a multidisciplinary hypothesis. Front.Hum. Neurosci. 2013; 7(article 533):1-11; http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/fnhum.2013.00533

87. Posner MI. Attention: the mechanisms of conscious-ness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1994; 91:7398-403

88. Bennett JG. The Dramatic Universe. Volume 1. TheFoundations of Natural Philosophy. London, Hodderand Stoughton, 1956

89. Shotter J. Goethe and the refiguring of intellectualinquiry: From ‘aboutness’-thinking to ‘withness’-thinking in everyday life. Janus Head 2005; 8:132-58

90. Wahl DC. “Zarte Empirie”: Goethean science as a wayof knowing. Janus Head 2005: 8:58-76

91. Dennis D. Humanistic neuroscience, mentality, andspirituality. J. Humanist. Psychol. 1995; 35:34-72;http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00221678950352003

92. Sadhu M. Samhadi. London, Allen and Unwin, 196293. Feuerstein G. The essence of yoga. In: Feuerstein G,

Miller J (eds.), A Reappraisal of Yoga. Essays in IndianPhilosophy. London, Rider & Co, 1971; 1-47

94. Joyce J. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.London, Paladin, 1916/1988

95. Dumit J. Neuroexistentialism. In: Jones CA (ed.),Sensorium. Embodied Experience, Technology, andContemporary Art. Cambridge MA, MIT Press,2006; 182-9

96. Hoeller SA. Jung and the Lost Gospels. Wheaton IL,Theosophical Publishing House, 1989

97. Hinterberger T, Schmidt S, Kamei T, Walach H.Decreased electrophysiological activity represents theconscious state of emptiness in meditation. Front. Psy-chol. 2014; 5(article 99):1-14; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00099; PMID:24474945

98. Schopenhauer A. The World as Will and Representa-tion. Volume 1. New York, Dover Publications, NewYork, 1859/1969

99. Nietzsche F. Birth of Tragedy. London, PenguinBooks, 1872/1993

100. Hartman AM, Hollister LE. Effect of mescaline, lyser-gic acid diethylamide and psilocybin on color percep-tion. Psychopharmacologia 1963; 4:441-51;PMID:14048565; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00403349

101. Sinke C, Halpern JH, Zedler M, Neufeld J, EmrichHM, Passie T. Genuine and drug-induced synesthesia:a comparison. Conscious. Cogn. 2012; 21:1419-34;

PMID:22521474; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.03.009

102. Petri G, Expert P, Turkheimer F, Carhart-Harris R,Nutt D, Hellyer PJ, Vaccarino F. Homological scaf-folds of brain functional networks. J. R. Soc. Interface2014; 11:20140873; PMID:25401177; http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.0873

103. Theilhard de Chardin P. The Future of Man. London,Collins, 1964

104. Puthoff HE. Ground state of hydrogen as a zero-point-fluctuation-determined state. Phys Rev D 1987;35:3266-9; http://dx.doi.org/; http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.35.3266

105. Minot CS. The problem of consciousness in its biologicalaspects. Science 1902; 16:1-12; PMID:17801025; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.16.392.1

106. Duckett JG. Pentagonal arrays of ribosomes in fertil-ized eggs of Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn. J. Ultra-struct. Res. 1972; 38:390-7; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5320(72)90013-5

107. Bouvier-Durand M, Dereuddre J, Come D. Ultra-structural changes in the endoplasmic reticulum dur-ing dormancy release of apple embryos (Pyrus malusL.). Planta 1981; 151:6-14; PMID:24301664; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00384231

108. Bond DM, Finnegan EJ. Passing the message on:Inheritance of epigenetic traits. Trends Plant Sci.2007; 12:211-6; PMID:17434332; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2007.03.010

109. Dengler NG. The influence of light on leaf develop-ment. In: Iqbal M (ed.), Growth Patterns in VascularPlants. Portland OR, Dioscorides Press, 1994; 100-36

110. Barlow PW, Powers SJ. Predicting the environmentalthresholds for cambial and secondary vascular tissuedevelopment in stems of hybrid aspen. Ann. ForestSci. 2005; 62:565-73; http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/forest:2005049

111. Takahashi H, Miyazawa, Y, Fujii N. Hormonal inter-actions during root tropic growth; hydrotropism ver-sus gravitropism. Plant Mol. Biol. 2009; 69:489-502;PMID:19083152; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11103-008-9438-x

112. Nakayama M, Kaneko Y, Miyazawa Y, Fujii N, Higa-shitani N, Wada S, Ishida H, Yoshimoto K, ShirasuK, Yamada K, et al. A possible involvement of autoph-agy in amyloplast degradation in columella cells dur-ing hydrotropic response of Arabidopsis roots. Planta2012; 236:999-1012; PMID:22532286; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00425-012-1655-5

113. Bai H, Murali B, Barber K, Wolverton C. Lowphosphate alters lateral root setpoint angle andgravitropism. Am. J. Bot. 2013; 100:175-82;PMID:23125433; http://dx.doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1200285

114. Spalding EP. Diverting the downhill flow of auxin tosteer growth during tropisms. Am. J. Bot. 2013;100:203-14; PMID:23284058; http://dx.doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1200420

115. Garrard B. The Ancient Problem with Men. The Pre-historic Origins of Patriarchy and Social Oppression.Glastonbury, Unique Publications, 2011

116. Bergson H. Creative Evolution. Minneola NY, Holtand Co, NY/Dover Publications, 1911/1998

117. Gunter PAY. Bergson and the war against nature. In:Mullarky J (ed.), The New Bergson. Manchester, Uni-versity of Manchester Press, 1999; 168-82

118. Kitazawa MS, Fujimoto K. A developmental basis forstochasticity in floral organ numbers. Front. Plant Sci.2014; 5(article 545):1-14; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00545

119. Besson S, Dumais J. Universal rule for symmetric divisionof plant cells. Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011; 108:6294-9; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011866108

120. Szyk A, Deaconescu AM, Spector J, Goodman B,Valenstein ML, Ziolkowska NE, Kormendi V, Gri-gorieff N, Roll-Mecak A. Molecular basis for age-dependent microtubule acetylation by tubulinacetyltransferase. Cell 2014; 157:1405-15;

PMID:24906155; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.03.061

121. Takemura R, Okabe S, Umeyama T, Kanai Y, CowanNJ, Hirokawa N. Increased microtubular stability andalpha tubulin acetylation in cells transfected withmicrotubule-associated proteins MAP1B, MAP2 ortau. J. Cell Sci. 1992; 103:953-64; PMID:1487506

122. Sudo H, Baas PW. Acetylation of microtubules influ-ences their sensitivity to severing by katanin in neu-rons and fibroblasts. J. Neurosci. 2010; 30:7215-26;PMID:20505088; http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0048-10.2010

123. Ballatore C, Lee V, M-Y, Trojanowski JQ. Tau-mediated neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s diseaseand related disorders. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 2007;8:663-72; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2194

124. Iqbal K, Alonso ADC, Chen S, Chohan MO, El-Akkad E, Gong CX, Khatoon S, Li B, Liu F, RahmanA, et al. Tau pathology in Alzheimer disease and othertauopathies. Biochim. Biophys. Acta – Mol. Basis Dis.2005; 1739:198-210; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbadis.2004.09.008

125. Cantero JL, Moreno-Lopez B, Portillo F, Rubio A,Hita-Ya~nez E, Avila J. Role of tau protein on neocorti-cal and hippocampal oscillatory patterns. Hippocam-pus 2011; 21:827-34; PMID:20607795

126. Lutz A, Greischar LL, Rawlings NB, Ricard M,Davidson RJ. Long-term meditators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice.Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004; 101:16369-73;http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0407401101

127. Cahn BR, Delorme A, Polich J. Occipital gamma acti-vation during Vipassana meditation. Cogn. Process.2010; 11:39-56; PMID:20013298; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10339-009-0352-1

128. Voss U, Holzmann R, Hobson A, Paulus W, Koppe-hele-Gossel J, Klimke A, Nitsche MA. 2014. Induc-tion of self awareness in dreams through frontal lowcurrent stimulation of gamma activity. Nature Neuro-sci. 2014; 17:810-2; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.3719

129. Austin JH. Zen and the Brain. Toward an Under-standing of Meditation and Consciousness. Cam-bridge MA, MIT Press, 1998

130. Bauer F, Cheadle SW, Parton A, Mu��ller HJ, Usher M.Gamma flicker triggers attentional selection withoutawareness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009; 106:1666-71; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810496106

131. White JG, Southgate E, Thomson JN, Brenner S.1986. The structure of the nervous system of the nem-atode Caenorhabditis elegans. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.Lond. B 1986; 314:1-340; http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1986.0056

132. Hameroff S, Penrose R. Conscious events as orches-trated space-time selections. In: Gordon BL, DembskiWA (eds.), The Nature of Nature: Examining theRole of Naturalism in Science. Wilmington DE, ISIBooks, 2011

133. Lee HJ, Ghetti A, Pinto-Duarte A,Wang X, Dziewczapol-ski G, Galimi F, Huitron-Resendiz S, Pi~na-Crespo JC,Roberts AJ, Verma IM, et al. Astrocytes contribute togamma oscillations and recognition memory. Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. USA 2014; 111:E3343-52

134. Hameroff S. How quantum brain biology can rescueconscious free will. Front. Integrative Neurosci. 2012;6(article 93):1-17; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2012.00093

135. Govinda A. Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism. Lon-don, Rider, 1969

136. Feuerstein GA. The Essence of Yoga. A Contributionto the Psychohistory of Indian Civilization. London,Rider, 1974

137. Banquet J. Spectral analysis of the EEG of meditation.Electroen. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1973; 35:143-51;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(73)90170-3

138. Kasamatsu A, Hirai T. An electrocephalographic studyon the Zen meditation (Zazen). Folio Psychiat. Neu-rolog. Jap. 1996; 20:315-36


139. Murata T, Koshino Y, Omori M, Murata I, Nishio M,Sakamoto K, et al. 1994. Quantitative study on Zenmeditation (Zazen). Jap. J. Psychiat. Neurol. 1994;48:881-90

140. Cahn BR, Polich J. Meditation states and traits: EEG,ERP, and neuroimaging studies. Psychol. Bull. 2006;132:180-211; PMID:16536641; http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.180

141. Berman AE, Stevens L. EEG manifestations of nond-ual experiences in meditators. Conscious. Cogn. 2015;31:1-11; PMID:25460236; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.10.002

142. Persinger MA. Increased geomagnetic activity and theoccurrence of bereavement hallucinations: Evidencefor melatonin-mediated microseizuring in the tempo-ral lobe? Neurosci. Lett. 1988; 88:271-4;PMID:3386872; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(88)90222-4

143. Krippner S, Persinger M. Evidence for enhanced con-gruence between dreams and distant target materialduring periods of decreased geomagnetic activity. J.Scient. Explor. 1996; 10:487-93

144. Palmer SJ, Rycroft MJ, Cermak M. Solar and geomag-netic activity, extremely low frequency magnetic andelectric fields and human health at the Earth’s surface.Surv. Geophys. 2006; 27:557-95; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10712-006-9010-7

145. S�atori G, Zieger B. Spectral characteristics of Schu-mann resonances observed in Central Europe. J. Geo-phys. Res. 1996; 101(D23):29663-9; http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/96JD00549

146. Foley M. Life Lessons from Bergson. London, Mac-millan, 2013

147. Barlow PW, Fisahn J. Lunisolar tidal force and the growthof plant roots, and some other effects on plant movements.Ann. Bot. 2012; 110:301-18; PMID:22437666; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcs038

148. Barlow PW. Leaf movements and their relationshipwith the lunisolar gravitational force. Ann. Bot. 2015;116:149-187; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcv096.

149. Nicholson C, Sykov�a E. Extracellular space structurerevealed by diffusion analysis. Trends Neurosci. 1988;21:207-15; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(98)01261-2

150. Agnati LF, Fuxe K. Extracellular-vesicle type of vol-ume transmission and tunnelling-nanotube type ofwiring transmission add a new dimension to brainneuro-glial networks. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B2014; 369(1652): 20130505; http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0505

151. Barnwell FW. Daily and tidal patterns of activity inindividual Fiddler Crab (Genus Uca) from the WoodsHole region. Biol. Bull. 1966; 130:1-17;PMID:5907300; http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1539948

152. Mills JN, Minors DS, Waterhouse JM. The circadianrhythms of human subjects without timepieces orindication of the alternation of day and night. J. Phys-iol. 1974; 240:567-94; PMID:4416124; http://dx.doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1974.sp010623

153. Kleinhoonte A. 1929. U��ber die durch das Licht regu-lierten autonomen Bewegungen der Canavalia-Bl€atter.Arch. N�eerland. Sci. Exactes Naturelles Ser. B 1929;5:1-110

154. HarrisWS, GowdaM, Kolb JW, Strychacz CP, Vacek JL,Jones PG, Forker A, O’Keefe JH, McCallister BD. A ran-domized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, interces-sory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to thecoronary care unit. Arch. Intern.Med. 1999; 155:2273-8

155. Hodge DR. A systematic review of the empirical litera-ture on intercessionary prayer. Res. Social Work Pract.2007; 17:174-87; http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049731506296170

156. Lesniak KT. The effect of intercessionary prayer onwound healing in nonhuman primates. Altern.Therap. Health Med. 2006; 12:42-8

157. Vogel M. Man–plant communication. In: White J(ed.), Psychic Exploration. A Challenge for Science.New York, GP Putnam’s Sons, 1974; 289-312

158. Lawlis F. Shamanic approaches in a hospital painclinic. In: Doore G (ed.), Shamanic Path. Healing,Personal Growth and Empowerment. Boston, Sham-bala, 1988; 139-49

159. Vasiliauskas SL, McMinn MR. The effects of a prayerintervention on the process of forgiveness. Psychol.Religion Spirituality 2012; 5:23-32; http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029324

160. Lindahl BIB, A�rhem P. Mind as a force field: Com-

ments on a new interactionist hypothesis. J. Theor.Biol. 1994; 171:111-22; PMID:7844991; http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1994.1217

161. Letchoumanane S, Gupta VK. Effect of thought trans-action on ‘okra’ yield. Ancient Sci. 2014; 1:49-56;http://dx.doi.org/10.14259/as.v1i2.163

162. Bose JC. The response of plants to wireless stimula-tion. Nature 1919; 104:172-4; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/104172c0

163. Murphy GP, Dudley SA. Kin recognition: Competi-tion and cooperation in Impatiens (Balsaminaceae).Am. J. Bot. 2009; 96:1990-6; PMID:21622319;http://dx.doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900006

164. Gagliano M, Renton M. Love thy neighbor: facilita-tion through an alternative signalling modality inplants. BMCEcol. 2013; 13:19

165. Depuydt S. Arguments for and against self and non-self root recognition in plants. Front. Plant Sci 2014;5(article 614):1-7; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00614

166. Mercer CA, Eppley SM. Kin and sex recognition in adioecious grass. Plant Ecol. 2014; 214:845-52; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11258-014-0336-9

167. Karban R, Wetzel WC, Shiojiri K, Ishixaki S, RamirezSR, Blande JD. Deciphering the language of plantcommunication: volatile chemotypes of sagebush.New Phytol. 2014; 204:380-5; PMID:24920243;http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.12887

168. Barlow PW, Fisahn J. 2013 Swarms, swarming andentanglements of fungal hyphae and of plant roots.Commun. Integr. Biol. 2013; 6, e252991.; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/cib.25299

169. Champagnat P. Les corr�elations sur le rameau d’un andes v�eg�etaux ligneux. FYTON 1954; 4:1-102

170. Champagnat P. Les correlations entre feuilles et bour-geons de la pousse herbac�ee du lilas. Rev. G�en. Bot1955; 62:325-71

171. Nozeran R. Integration of organismal development.In: Barlow PW, Carr DJ (eds.), Positional Controls inPlant Development. Cambridge, Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1984; 375-401

172. Barlow PW. From cell to system: Repetitive units ofgrowth in the development of roots and shoots. In:Iqbal M (ed.), Growth Patterns in Vascular Plants.Portland OR, Dioscorides Press, 1994; 19-58

173. Blomme J, Inz�e D, Gonzalez N. The cell-cycleinteractome: a source of growth regulators? J. Exp.Bot. 2014; 65:2715-30; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert388

174. Gamalei Yu V. Supercellular plant organization. Russ.J. Plant Physiol. 1997; 44:819-46

175. Balu�ska, F, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. Cell-cell chan-nels and their implications for cell theory. In: Balu�skaF, Volkmann D, Barlow PW (eds), Cell-Cell Chan-nels. Georgetown TX, Landes Bioscience, and NewYork, Springer Science, 2006; 1-18

176. Spicer R. 2014. Symplasmic networks in secondaryvascular tissues: parenchyma distribution and activelysupporting long-distance transport. J. Exp. Bot. 2014;65:1829-48.; PMID:24453225; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert459

177. Gagliano M, Renton M, Duvdevani N, Timmins M,Mancuso S. Acoustic and magnetic communication inplants. Is it possible? Plant Signal. Behav. 2012;7:1346-8; PMID:22902698; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/psb.21517

178. Gagliano M, Renton M, Duvdevani N, Timmins M,Mancuso S. Out of sight but not out of mind: alterna-tive means of communication in plants. PLoS ONE

2012; 7(5):e37382; PMID:22629387; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037382

179. Bose JC The Nervous Mechanisms of Plants. London,Longmans, Green and Co, 1926 (http://www.drmichaellevin.org/Nervous%20mechanism%20of%20plants.pdf)

180. Umrath K. Untersuchungen u��ber Plasma und Plas-mastro��mungen an Characeen IV. Potentialmessungenan Nitella mucronata mit besonderer Beru��cksichtigungder Erregungserscheinungen. Protoplasma 1930;9:576-97; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01943373

181. Balu�ska F, Volkmann D, Menzel D. Plant synapses:actin-based domains for cell-cell communication.Trends Plant Sci. 2005; 10:106-11; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2005.01.002

182. Balu�ska F, Volkmann D, Hlavacka A, Mancuso S,Barlow PW. Neurobiological view of plants and theirbody plan. In: Balu�ska F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D.(eds), Communication in Plants. Neuronal Aspects ofPlant Life. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2006; 19-35

183. Fromm J, Lautner S. Electrical signals and their physi-ological significance in plants. Plant Cell Environ.2007; 30:249-57; PMID:17263772; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2006.01614.x

184. Murch SJ. Neurotransmitters, neuroregulators andneurotoxins in plants. In: Balu�ska F, Mancuso S,Volkmann D (eds.), Communication in Plants. Neu-ronal Aspects of Plant Life. Berlin, Springer, 2006;137-51

185. Gardiner J, Overall R, Marc J. The microtubule cytoskele-ton acts as a key downstream effector of neurotransmittersignalling. Synapse 2011; 65: 249-56; PMID:20687109;http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/syn.20841

186. Kiewert C, Bucholzer M-L, Hartmann J, ChatterjeeSS, Klein J. Stimulation of hippocampal acetylcholinerelease by hyperforin, a constituent of St. John’s Wort.Neurosci, Lett. 2004; 364:195-8; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2004.04.046

187. Daly JW. Nicotinic agonists, antagonists, and modu-lators from natural sources. Cell. Mol. Neurobiol.2005; 25:513-52; PMID:16075378; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10571-005-3968-4

188. Neher E, Steinbach JH. 1978. Local anaesthetics tran-siently block currents through single acetylcholine-receptor channels. J. Physiol. 1978; 77:153-76; http://dx.doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1978.sp012267

189. Weber M, Motin L, Gaul S, Beker F, Fink RHA, AdamsDJ. 2005. Intravenous anaesthetics inhibit nicotinic acetyl-choline receptor-mediated currents and Ca2C transients inrat intracardiac ganglion neurons. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2005;144:98-107; PMID:15644873; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0705942

190. Leys SP, Mackie GO, Meech R. Impulse conductionin a sponge. J. Exp. Biol. 1999; 202:1139-50;PMID:10101111

191. Elliott GRD, Leys SP. Evidence for glutamate, GABA,and NO in coordinating behaviour in the sponge,Ephydatia muelleri (Desmospongiae, Spongillidae). J.Exp. Biol. 2010; 213:2310-21; PMID:20543130;http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/jeb.039859

192. Levin M. Morphogenetic fields in embryogenesis,regeneration, and cancer: Non-local control of com-plex patterning. BioSystems 2012; 109:243-61;PMID:22542702; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2012.04.005

193. Gunning BES, Overall RL. Plasmodesmata and cell-to-cell transport in plants. BioSci. 1983; 33:260-5;http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1309039

194. Sager R, Lee JY. Plasmodesmata in integrated cell signal-ling: Insights from development and environmental signalsand stresses. J. Exp. Bot. 2014; 65:6337-58;PMID:25262225; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru365

195. Lee JY. New and old roles of plasmodesmata in immu-nity and parallels to tunnelling nanotubes. Plant Sci.2014; 221–222:13-20; PMID:24656331

196. Overall RL, Gunning BES. Intercellular communica-tion in Azolla roots: II. Electrical coupling. Proto-plasma 1982; 111:151-60; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01282072


http://www.drmichaellevin.org/Nervous%20mechanism%20of%20plants.pdf





197. Holdaway-Clarke TL, Walker NA, Hepler PK, Over-all RL. Physiological elevations in cytoplasmic free cal-cium or ion injection results in transient closure ofhigher plant plasmodesmata. Planta 2000; 210:329-35; PMID:10664140; http://dx.doi.org/; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/PL00008141

198. Traub RD, Kopell N, Bibbig A, Buhl EH, LeBeauFEN, Whittington MA. Gap junctions between inter-neuron dendrites can enhance synchrony of gammaoscillations in distributed networks. J. Neurosci. 2001;21:9478-86; PMID:11717382

199. Nunn JF, Lovis JD, Kimball KL. Arrest of mitosis by halo-thane. Br. J. Anaesth. 1971; 43:524-30; PMID:5089930;http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/43.6.524

200. Saltveit Jr, ME. Effect of high-pressure gas atmos-pheres and anaesthetics on chilling injury of plants. J.Exp. Bot. 1993; 44: 1361-8; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/44.8.1361

201. Roberts IN, Lloyd CW, Roberts K. Ethylene-inducedmicrotubule reorientations: mediation by helicalarrays. Planta 1985; 164:439-47; PMID:24248216;http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00395959

202. Balu�ska F, Brailsford RW, Hauskrecht M, JacksonMB, Barlow PW. Cellular morphogenesis in the maizeroot cortex: Involvement of microtubules, ethyleneand gibberellins in the differentiation of cellularbehaviour in postmitotic growth zones. Bot. Acta1993; 106:394-403

203. Asavasanti S, Stroeve P, Barrett DM, Jernstedt JA, Ris-tenport WD. Enhanced electroporation in plant tis-sues via low frequency pulsed electric fields: Influenceof cytoplasmic streaming. Biotechnol. Progr. 2012;28:445-53; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/btpr.1507

204. Funada R. Control of wood structure. In: Nick P(ed.), Plant Microtubules. Potential for Biotechnol-ogy. Berlin, Springer, 2001; 51-81

205. Begum A, Shibagaki M, Furusawa O, Nakaba S,Yamagishi Y, Yoshimoto J, Jin HO, Sano Y, FunadaR. Cold stability of microtubules in wood-forming tis-sues of conifers during seasons of active and dormantcambium. Planta 2012; 235:165-79;PMID:21861112; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00425-011-1500-2

206. Chaffey N, Barlow P, Sundberg B. Understanding therole of the cytoskeleton in wood formation in angio-sperm trees: Hybrid aspen (Populus tremula x P. trem-uloides) as the model species. Tree Physiol. 2002;22:239-49; PMID:11874720; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/treephys/22.4.239

207. Chaffey NJ, Barnett JR, Barlow PW. Visualization of thecytoskeleton within the secondary vascular system of hard-wood species. J. Microscop. 1997: 187:77-84; http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2818.1997.2270786.x

208. Barlow PW, Brain P, Powers SJ. Estimation of direc-tional division frequencies in vascular cambium and inmarginal meristematic cells of plants. Cell Prolif.

2002; 35:49-68; PMID:11856178; http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2184.2002.00225.x

209. Nakaba S, Begum S, Yamagishi Y, Jin H, Kubo T,Funada R. Differences in the timing of cell death, dif-ferentiation and function among three different typesof ray parenchyma cells in the hardwood Populus sie-boldii £ P. grandidentata. Trees 2012; 26:743-50;http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00468-011-0640-0

210. Max-Planck-Institute, Mitchison Lab. protocol athttp://hymanlab.mpi-cbg.de/hyman_lab/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Tubulin-Protocols-Mitchison.pdf.

211. Dziubi�nska H. Ways of signal transmission and physi-ological role of electrical potentials in plants. Acta Soc.Bot. Polon. 2003; 72:309-18; http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/asbp.2003.040

212. McFadden J. Conscious electromagnetic theory. Neu-roQuantol. 2007; 5:262-70; http://dx.doi.org/10.14704/nq.2007.5.3.135

213. Gibert D, Le Mou€el J-L, Lambs L, Nicollin F, PerrierF. Sap flow and daily electric potential variations in atree trunk. Plant Sci. 2006; 171:572-84; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2006.06.012

214. Stahlberg R, Cleland RE, Van Volkenburgh E. Slowwave potentials – a propagating electrical signalunique to plants. In: Balu�ska F, Mancuso S, Volk-mann D (eds.), Communication in Plants. NeuronalAspects of Plant Life. Berlin, Springer, 2006; 291-308

215. Davies E, Stankovic B. Electrical signals, the cytoskele-ton, and gene expression: a hypothesis on the coher-ence of the cellular responses to environmental insult.In: Balu�ska F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D (eds.), Com-munication in Plants. Neuronal Aspects of Plant Life.Berlin, Springer, 2006; 309-20

216. Stankovi�c B, Davies E. Intercellular communication inplants: electrical stimulation of proteinase inhibitorgene expression in tomato. Planta 1997; 202:402-6;http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s004250050143

217. H€ader D-P. Evidence of electrical potential changes inphotophobically reacting blue-green algae. Arch.Microbiol. 1978; 118:115-9; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00406083

218. Thavarungkul P, Lertsithichai S, Sherlock RA. Spon-taneous action potential initiation and propagation inregenerating cell segments of Acetabularia mediterra-nea. J. Exp. Bot. 1987; 38:1541-56; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/38.9.1541

219. Saddler HD. Spontaneous and induced changes in themembrane potential and resistance of Acetabulariamediterranea. J. Membrane Biol. 1971; 5:250-60;http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01870553

220. Liddle LB, Gleissberg S, Giese G, Berger S. Microtu-bule formation on the nuclear surface during meiosisin Acetabularia acetabulum. Protoplasma 1997;200:10-16; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01280730

221. Paszewski A, Dzubi�nska H, Trebacz K, Zawadski T.Electrical activity of the liver-wort Conocephalum

conicum: Method of investigation and general character-istics of excitation. Physiol. Plant. 1982; 54:83-7; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1982.tb00582.x

222. Zawadski T, Dziubi�nska H, Davies E. Characteristicsof action potential generated spontaneously in Helian-thus annuus. Physiol. Plant. 1995; 93:291-7; http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-3054.1995.930213.x

223. Glebicki K, Hejnowicz Z, Pijanowski A. Localizedspontaneous fluctuations of electrical potential inshoots of different plants. Acta Soc. Bot. Polon. 1986;55:67-76; http://dx.doi.org/10.5586/asbp.1986.008

224. Karlsson L. Nonrandom bioelectrical signals in plant tis-sue. Plant Physiol. 1972; 49:982-6; PMID:16658096;http://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.49.6.982

225. Pickard BG. Spontaneous electrical activity in shootsof Ipomoea, Pisum, and Xanthium. Planta 1972;102:91-114; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00384863

226. Williams SE, Pickard BG. Receptor potentials andaction potentials in Drosera tentacles. Planta 1972;103:193-221; PMID:24481555; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00386844

227. Hejnowicz Z, Krause E, Glebicki K, Sievers, A. Propa-gated fluctuations of the electric potential in the apo-plasm of Lepidium sativum L. roots. Planta 1991;186:127-34; PMID:24186585; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00201508

228. Allison AC, Hulands GH, Nunn JF, Kitching JA,Macdonald AC. The effect of inhalational anaestheticson the microtubular system in Actinosphaerium nucleo-filum. J. Cell Sci. 1970; 7:483-99; PMID:5530568

229. Chu CR, Hsieh C-I, Wu S-Y, Phillips NG. Transientresponse of sap flow to wind speed. J. Exp. Bot. 2009;60:249-55; PMID:19022910; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ern282

230. Burr HS, Moon madness. Yale J. Biol. Med. 1944;16:249-56; PMID:21434145

231. Barlow PW. Moon and cosmos: Plant growth andplant bioelectricity. In: Volkov AG (ed.), Plant Elec-trophysiology. Signaling and Responses. Berlin,Springer-Verlag, 2012; 249-280

232. Fazio GG, Jelley JV, Charman WN. Generation ofCherenkov light flashes by cosmic radiation within theeyes of the Apollo astronauts. Nature 1979; 228:260-4; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/228260a0

233. Sannita WG, Narici L, Picozza P. Positive visual phenom-ena in space: A scientific case and a safety issue in spacetravel. Vision Res. 2006; 46:2159-65; PMID:16510166;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.12.002

234. Gebser J. The Ever-Present Origin: The Foundationsand Manifestation of the Aperspectival World. AthensOH, Ohio University Press, 1986

235. Bergson H. The Two Sources of Morality and Reli-gion. Notre Dame IN, University of Notre DamePress, 1935/1977


http://hymanlab.mpi-cbg.de/hyman_lab/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Tubulin-Protocols-Mitchison.pdf

http://hymanlab.mpi-cbg.de/hyman_lab/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Tubulin-Protocols-Mitchison.pdf

the natural history of consciousness, and the question of … · 2017-11-24 · the natural history...

Documents