Plant Intelligence?

  • Thread starter Sciborg_S_Patel
  • Start date


Plant Intelligence - Excerpt from Plant Intelligence and the Imaginal Realm

Many of the research papers that found a lack of intelligent response in plants, and that have been cited endlessly in the past by reductionists, were conducted in laboratories. Trewavas remarks succinctly that such results should have been expected. Laboratory studies will always misleading in this way, for wild plants live in wild not tame environments.

No such simplicity of circumstance is available to an individual wild plant, which in meeting an almost infinite variety of environmental states must construct individual responses to improve its own fitness. No genome could contain the information that would provide an autonomic response to every environmental state. And even cloned individuals do not exhibit identical responses. [10]

The only place that unintelligence, that systems of simple linear cause and effect, can reliably be found is in systems created by human beings—or in their laboratories. As Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers comment . . . .

The artificial may be deterministic and reversible. The natural contains elements of randomness and irreversibility. This leads to a new view of matter in which matter is no longer the passive substance described in the mechanistic world-view but is associated with spontaneous activity. [11]

In wild systems intelligence, free will, choice, innovation, sophisticated adaptation are inherent.
He maintained that “green music”—sounds akin to, or recorded from, those found in nature, like birds singing or crickets stridulating—possesses frequencies that boost plant growth and yield rates.
According to a recent study published in Scientific Reports, a team of researchers from Yeungnam University in Gyeongsan, South Korea, found, just as Carlson did over 30 years ago, that “green music” can cause plants to undergo biological transformations.
I don't know about that book, but I will check it out. I have posted a few times on here about plant intelligence, but it didn't get that much attention.

Thanks, Sci, for the link -- will check it out.
I know it's not the best article, but it did make me dive deeper.

The quotation about self-censorship appeared in a controversial 2006 article in Trends in Plant Science proposing a new field of inquiry that the authors, perhaps somewhat recklessly, elected to call “plant neurobiology.” The six authors—among them Eric D. Brenner, an American plant molecular biologist; Stefano Mancuso, an Italian plant physiologist; František Baluška, a Slovak cell biologist; and Elizabeth Van Volkenburgh, an American plant biologist—argued that the sophisticated behaviors observed in plants cannot at present be completely explained by familiar genetic and biochemical mechanisms. Plants are able to sense and optimally respond to so many environmental variables—light, water, gravity, temperature, soil structure, nutrients, toxins, microbes, herbivores, chemical signals from other plants—that there may exist some brainlike information-processing system to integrate the data and coördinate a plant’s behavioral response. The authors pointed out that electrical and chemical signalling systems have been identified in plants which are homologous to those found in the nervous systems of animals. They also noted that neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and glutamate have been found in plants, though their role remains unclear.
Still a good read!​
I bought the book, and am not enjoying it, and may never finish it. Buhner seems to totally buy bits of neuroscience and blend that with mysticism, while seemingly making no distinction between conscious and unconscious computation - I'd just like to warn anyone else off the book. That is one problem with buying books from Amazon - every now and again you get a dud!

I am sure there are some great books on this subject.

Anyone close to nature may find this unsurprising. I am here on this forum responding to critiques of science. Modern observations of our environment are capable of gathering data on different levels of abstraction to match the patterns of nature. At hand is the promotion of information science to observe, understand and generate information patterns in an equal manner as physics and chemistry. Science can track the ongoing transformations of forces and materials at one level of abstraction. And with newly developed tools science can track the transformation of logical sequence and useful information.

In a dispassionate manner the applications of entropy, representative signaling and the formation of bioinformatic objects can be evaluated. This paper is an excellent example of such.
"Last week, researchers from the University of Birmingham and the University of Toronto found, in the dormant seeds of the small rockcress plant Arabidopsis, a “decision-making center” that they believe resembles “some systems within the human brain.” The researchers say this center contains cells that, due to their spatial separation, are able to communicate different temperature readings of the environment, and thereby determine when it’s appropriate for the seed to germinate. "

"In the romantic version, nature is bigger than we are, it knows more, it’s been here longer, it has ways of sustaining itself and healing itself that we cannot understand. In the enlightenment version, we’re able to control everything about nature, we can fix it, it’s our duty to make it yield, etc. And, of course, neither one of those scenarios is really right."
Gotta say I'm with the romantics on this one. Perhaps because after all these years I'm still a bit befuddled about what really right is.