Plant intelligence

[Skwim]

It's a matter of degree of intelligence. Of course a plant is not as intelligent as a dog, but there can still be an iota however small degree of intelligence, even if just a molecule compared to that of a dog.

So now even molecules have intelligence. See what happens when an idea is extended beyond its acceptable parameters, it becomes an absurdity.

 

[Jain]

Read my post again. You are taking it completely out of context. I said a molecule compared to a dog as a statistical comparison. I wasn't talking about molecules.

 

[idav]

Which to my way of thinking requres a central processing station such as a brain. Are you suggesting that plants have such an organ?

I've heard they have something of a sorts at the root level.

The Root Brain Hypothesis - Darwin

 

[Jain]

The Root Brain Hypothesis - Darwin

:yes: :clap

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Plants certainly get shorted by us and they are woefully underestimated and misunderstood by most people.

In reality they are amazingly complex life forms with mysteries we are only just realizing that we need to start to explore.

wa:do

Not to disagree with anything you said above (as it is all true), but I would say that such underestimation and misunderstanding is true of most forms of life on this planet (insects, bacteria, etc.). Just look (if you haven't already) at how much was needed to create the "first draft" of a whole-cell computational model of Myocloplasma genitalium (the publication of the research by Karr et al. published in the latest issue of Cell may be found here). I've taken a look at some of the source code (at least a fair amount of the matlab files), but needless to say 200+ megabytes is quite a bit. Plus, unlike the researchers, I don't have easy access to a 128 core Linux cluster.

Given all that is necessary for even decent computational models in "simple" biological models of "simple" cells of "simple" organisms, I'd say plants certainly qualify as complex.

And yet, somehow Victor Frankenstein basically "built" an almost fully funtional human in the early 19th century. If only his letters better described the processes and methodology in greater detail. Just imagine where theoretical biology would be now.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So now even molecules have intelligence. See what happens when an idea is extended beyond its acceptable parameters, it becomes an absurdity.

I didn't realize ideas had "acceptable parameters". In any event, "intelligence" is often used to describe non-conscious behavior (especially the capacity for complex adaption and reaction to stimuli) of everything from ant colonies to bacteria. And while I haven't come across the term so much in descriptions of molecular processes, it could be more because what I have read do not concern single-celled organisms. In any even, plants certainly do demonstrate a type of "intelligence" similar to current AI programs. What they lack is consciousness/awareness.

 

[Skwim]

Read my post again. You are taking it completely out of context. I said a molecule compared to a dog as a statistical comparison. I wasn't talking about molecules.

Well, that does make more sense, but not much. When you say things like,

"Intelligence, some degree of making a decision, such as the way humans and animals do and also the movements of plants (a lesser degree, but still there)"
​

I have to wonder how thoroughly you've considered such matters. Taking a look at plant movement there's obviously different kinds.

Phototropism, is when a plant turns toward light. It's a product of a hormonal (auxins in this case) reaction to light in which the light triggers the auxin to make the cell walls facing away from the light (usually the Sun) elongate slightly, and in turn induces a bending.

Other plant movement, such as that of the climbing tendrils (Thigmotropism) and the venus fly trap reaction (thigmonasty) are also auxin generated--the fly trap using tugor and bistable mechanics---upsetting cellular homeostasis--instead of cell elongation.

Climbing vines and root growth depend on gravity (Gravitropism),in which amyloplasts filled with stored starch provide heavy yet small structures to move within cell.

But in all cases the movement is a purely chemical reaction, which involves no neurons, neurons being indispensable to intellectual activity. In short, simple chemical reactions are not processes of any intellect.

 

[Skwim]

I didn't realize ideas had "acceptable parameters".

Some do. Some don't.

In any event, "intelligence" is often used to describe non-conscious behavior (especially the capacity for complex adaption and reaction to stimuli) of everything from ant colonies to bacteria.

And such uses are not considered to fall within any definition of the term, but operate as illicit metaphors.

 

[fantome profane]

So now even molecules have intelligence. See what happens when an idea is extended beyond its acceptable parameters, it becomes an absurdity.

Two atoms were walking down the street.
The first one says "Opps, I just dropped an electron"
2nd atom: "Are you sure?"
1st atom: "Yes, I'm positive!"

 

[Skwim]

two atoms were walking down the street.
The first one says "opps, i just dropped an electron"
2nd atom: "are you sure?"
1st atom: "yes, i'm positive!"

Good one.

 

[idav]

Some do. Some don't.

And such uses are not considered to fall within any definition of the term, but operate as illicit metaphors.

The queen of an ant or bee colony are a central intelligence, literally.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And such uses are not considered to fall within any definition of the term, but operate as illicit metaphors.

They are used in the technical literature (psychology, computer science, biology, etc.), but may fall outside the definition in common usage. However, as "intelligence" in common usage is pretty ill-defined and usually refers to humans or the differences between individual humans, I would hardly say that the use within the sciences of this term in this way (i.e., to refer to what colonies of ants or plants are capable of) is somehow an "illicit metaphor."

 

[Skwim]

The queen of an ant or bee colony are a central intelligence, literally.

Au contraire. The queen in an ant colony is not a central intelligence, but simply an egg layer.

"There is no single leader of an ant colony - the queen is just there to lay eggs - instead, the entire colony relies on the interactions between individual ants, each of which is following simple rules of thumb, a system scientists call self-organizing."
source
​

Same for bees.

"Honey bees also use individual input to make hive-wide decisions, such as where to construct a new hive when the current one grows too large. The bees scatter to search for the best real estate. When they return to the queen, they do a little dance called a waggle to show their enthusiasm for the new hive site they found. Other bees investigate based on the dance and congregate and dance near the best new home. The location with the most dancing bees becomes their new abode. The bees' ability to investigate and consider multiple options and then decide on a course of action based on popular vote leads them to the best choice.
source
​

And

"Although the name might imply it, a queen does not directly control the hive. Her sole function is to serve as the reproducer."
Source: Wikipedia.
​

 

[painted wolf]

The queen of an ant or bee colony are a central intelligence, literally.

And even the seemingly random movements of workers are still governed by pretty sophisticated mathematics.

Even slime molds can learn to navigate a maze or anticipate future events.

Plant's also demonstrate an ability to anticipate events and respond "intelligently" to stimuli.

wa:do

 

[Skwim]

They are used in the technical literature (psychology, computer science, biology, etc.), but may fall outside the definition in common usage. However, as "intelligence" in common usage is pretty ill-defined and usually refers to humans or the differences between individual humans, I would hardly say that the use within the sciences of this term in this way (i.e., to refer to what colonies of ants or plants are capable of) is somehow an "illicit metaphor."

Its use in psychology, sociology, zoology, and related fields where it refers to individual cognitive processing is probably the only legitimate use. As used in computer science and plant operations it functions as a metaphor. As for insect colonies, see my post above.

 

[idav]

Au contraire. The queen in an ant colony is not a central intelligence, but simply an egg layer.

"There is no single leader of an ant colony - the queen is just there to lay eggs - instead, the entire colony relies on the interactions between individual ants, each of which is following simple rules of thumb, a system scientists call self-organizing."
source
​

Same for bees.

"Honey bees also use individual input to make hive-wide decisions, such as where to construct a new hive when the current one grows too large. The bees scatter to search for the best real estate. When they return to the queen, they do a little dance called a waggle to show their enthusiasm for the new hive site they found. Other bees investigate based on the dance and congregate and dance near the best new home. The location with the most dancing bees becomes their new abode. The bees' ability to investigate and consider multiple options and then decide on a course of action based on popular vote leads them to the best choice.
source
​

And

"Although the name might imply it, a queen does not directly control the hive. Her sole function is to serve as the reproducer."
Source: Wikipedia.
​

So I take it that the workers just do whatever they want with all their freewill?

 

[Skwim]

So I take it that the workers just do whatever they want with all their freewill?

Yeah, "freewill"

 

[idav]

Yeah, "freewill"

So then where is the intelligence?

 

[Skwim]

So then where is the intelligence?

As a professor in one of my psychology courses once told us, "Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure." Go figure.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Its use in psychology, sociology, zoology, and related fields where it refers to individual cognitive processing is probably the only legitimate use. As used in computer science and plant operations it functions as a metaphor. As for insect colonies, see my post above.

The use in psychology is not independent of the use within computer science. In fact, cognitive science (often seen as a branch of psychology, and is in anycase centrally concerned with the study of the brain) is both the field within which "intelligence" is used most often and is most clearly defined. Yet, as with most of psychology in general, the use developed partially out of work within computer science. Within sociology, the term is almost completely defined by its use within psychology.

Terms like "learning", "intelligence", "awareness", "memory", and so forth have always posed difficulties for specialists because 1) they are "fuzzy" 2) they are not independent of each other or other similar concepts and 3) empirically usable (let alone empirically based) definitions are notoriously problematic.

That said, a system capable of adaption to stimuli, reaction to stimuli, problem solving, memory, learning, and so forth is usually defined within all relevant fields as in some way intelligent. Any definition within psychology or some other field you mentioned (and it isn't exactly clear why you find, for example, a field like sociology uses the term legitimately yet not computer science where a great deal of artificial intelligence research is done) which did not use intelligence to describe such systems would have to abandond the term altogether. Otherwise, biologists, psychologists, and others who study learning, memory, and cognition would be left with completely arbitrary cut-off points.

Regardless, if you regard psychology or zoology as fields within which the term is used legitimately, than it is used legitimately to describe insect colonies, plants, slugs, snails, etc.