This is another time when I know what I think and it makes sense in my mind, but getting it on "paper" is going too be tough, so I will just go ahead and try:
When you say that plants function like automata, I think you have it the wrong way around because my belief is that all "machines" are based on "Nature".
For example if we take the Submarine and compare it to a Whale, the are obvious similarities in shape and function, obviously a modern Submarine can out perform a Whale in many ways e.g. how long it can stay submerged or how fast it can go underwater, but compared to the "early" submarines a Whale is far superior. I would say that a modern Submarine is an improvement on the whale, and the whale is an improvement on a fish. I wonder if the story of Jonah inspired the original concept of the submarine because: if he was swallowed by a Fish he would have drowned, however just like a Submarine, a Whale carries its own air from the surface. There are also many similarities between the Whale and a modern Airliner, this is no accident because they both operate in "fluid" environments. I think of an Airliner as diving upwards (or downwards depending on your point of reference. (i.e where you choose to measure from).
I won't try to pretend that there are not huge differences between a Sub and a Whale the one that leaps to mind is there means of propulsion, however I think if you look very closely you can find that even the "propeller" is an array of "Fins" (blades) I can't think of an animal that uses its fins in the same configuration as a propeller i.e spinning clockwise or anti clockwise to go forward and backwards, *edit* I have just thought about the way that a lizard runs or how a Human swims backstroke........
Another difference might be the "fuel" and the way it is converted into motion (I have to say that my understanding of nuclear propulsion is somewhat lacking so I will use a "combustion" engine instead)
The Whale swallows its food, which then enters the stomach, and is converted by chemical processes into energy which is then stored until required. With a combustion Engine you skip the eating part and put the "stored energy" i.e fuel into the system (the gas tank) and it is stored until required. If you use a fossil fuel i.e oil, I would argue that the differences between a what a Whale eats are even less, after all oil is basically lots of little marine creatures.
If we look at how a Whale "sees" in the darkness of the deep sea and compare it to a Submarine we can see how the Whales "Echo location" ability inspired "SONAR" and in terms of Aeroplanes and RADAR Bats did the same.
Basically what I am getting at is that: Human technology is invariably inspired by nature (when I say nature I include natural forces i.e electricity or gravity etc)
Another example is "Bellows" (for pumping air onto a fire) Bellows replicate a person blowing on to the fire to make it burn hotter, which is absolutely essential for smelting the harder metals. We have advanced so far that it is sometimes hard to make these basic connections, but I believe no Bellows no Modern technology.
Regarding the mental capacity of animals: we can only judge them by our own criteria (by our own standards) but it is not a level playing field, and never can be until we have complete communication.
There are certain creatures that call into question conventional wisdom regarding how many neurons and brain size etc my favourite example is the Cephalopods (Octopodes in particular) which are capable of some truly astounding things made even more astounding given how small their brains are and how many neurons they have, which leads me to believe that we haven't quite got all the information about how brains function, I think that we will eventually discover the missing information and will be forced to rethink the classification of animals.
Regarding treating Inanimate objects as if they were alive, to me it makes sense in some ways. Lets take a Horse and a Car for comparison:
There is a "relationship" between the horse and the rider just like there is a relationship between a Car and a Driver:
Don't feed and water your horse and it won't take you very far, don't oil and fuel your car and the same is true.
Don't take care of maintaining the horses health or shoes and it could breakdown or slip with you on it, don't service your car and the same is true.
This type of relationship is as early as us.
Now regarding Plants and consciousness I am well out of my depth but my suspicion is that they must be conscious at some level, I don't know how best to describe this:
Maybe it is like they have an inbuilt list of things they require like sunshine and water and have a system that tells them their status, e.g like when we are thirsty or hungry we seek water and food. Maybe they do the same thing. I am not saying that they are aware enough to qualify them as "conscious" but they must have some "awareness" of their surroundings, and in a very rudimentary way actually make "decisions" like which way they need to grow for the best sunlight etc. Even if their system is based on yes or no (or 0 or 1) (+ or -) (presence or absence of sun or water) its still a system dependent on the processing of "information". or to put it another way a system that processes information.
Hope this all makes sense
.
