what is stopping them otherwise?


is it something with cells not having an "action potential" reflex?

what is stopping them otherwise?


is it something with cells not having an "action potential" reflex?
What purpose would it serve? Would it allow them to point towards the sun more efficiently? Or to perform photosynthesis better? Intelligence would be useless to a plant.

What a silly question. First define intelligence!!!

Then, within the various definitions one could reasonable say that plants are already intelligent.

"I think there for I am.(?)" (I prefer the phrase with the question mark.) consciousness, self awareness, and sentience. Why not, evolution is a powerful force. There is around a billion years of life on Earth left for evolution to explore.

Intelligence would be useless to a plant.


We humans do not have a monopoly on intelligence, and with arrogant self importance we say that only human intelligence is intelligent.

Define it first. From Wiki "Another simple and efficient definition is: the ability to apply knowledge in order to perform better in an environment."

I wonder if anyone has tested this ability in plants?

“Intelligence” is a notoriously ill-defined concept. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. I’m sure we could come up with a definition of “intelligent” that would include plants.



is it something with cells not having an "action potential" reflex?

I’m pretty sure that individual plant cells would be capable of generating action potentials. I don’t see why plant cells wouldn’t have the ability to create polarised membranes by pumping charged ions across their membranes using ion channels (ie. create an action potential).

What plants can’t do is propagate an action potential between cells from one part of the plant to another. In other words, they don’t have a nervous system. This is what stops plants developing a human-style “intelligence”.

Intelligence is overrated. It cannot be so advantageous or every animal would be intelligent. It takes alot of energy to maintain, and the knowledge gained must be applicable. It takes an animal that isn't specialized, that can adapt to new environments easily.

One summer night I was in my backyard when motion attracted my attention. Morning glory vines had grown to the top of the fence, but they wanted to climb higher. There were eight long tendrils, each 2 - 3 feet long, swirling around in the sky looking for something to latch onto. Is that "smart"?

Lets not split hairs, we all know exactly what intelligent means... And perhaps extra competition may elicit adaptions

Lets not split hairs, we all know exactly what intelligent means... Not all of us. I guess I'm just not intelligent enough.

One summer night I was in my backyard when motion attracted my attention. Morning glory vines had grown to the top of the fence, but they wanted to climb higher. There were eight long tendrils, each 2 - 3 feet long, swirling around in the sky looking for something to latch onto. Is that "smart"?

nope

what's that movie where plants start killing off humans because they're destroying the planet?
the one where they release some toxic which turns off the thing in your brain which stops you from hurting yourself?

IMO it was pretty scientific based..

just like when plants are attacked by type A of bad insects, they somehow call type B of good insects to kill the bad ones off..

what's that movie where plants start killing off humans because they're destroying the planet?
the one where they release some toxic which turns off the thing in your brain which stops you from hurting yourself?

IMO it was pretty scientific based..

just like when plants are attacked by type A of bad insects, they somehow call type B of good insects to kill the bad ones off..
It's called The Happening, and it was a horrible movie.

Not all of us. I guess I'm just not intelligent enough.


Intelligence being things like memory, able to learn etc

I think that a plant's lack of a nervous system is the main reason it won't ever be 'intelligent'. Dogs, cats, all kinds of animals can problem solve.

A plant's (or bacteria's) intelligence is purely genetics. A plant will in fact learn where the sun is. There are bacteria that have a natural magnetic compass inside of them; there are bacteria that will migrate inside of a water column at different times of day.

This kind of intelligence is only applicable if there is genetic memory of a certain stimulus; or in the case of selective pressure, where by random chance a new stimulus activates an old response which coincidentally does the right thing. You won't teach a plant to do calculus, thats for sure.

Intelligence being things like memory, able to learn etcAre you talking about short term memory, or long term memory? Are you considering the accuracy of the memory? Are you distinguishing between visual, auditory, tactile, or olifactory memories? Are you placing weight on retrieval times?

Able to learn what? Motor skills? Language? Facts? Reasoning methodologies? Directional ability? Predator avoidance techniques?

You have made a statement that is so simple it is wrong - namely you claim 'we all know what intelligence means'. This is not the case and it is abundantly clear that you certainly do not know what intelligence means - you only think you do.

Are you talking about short term memory, or long term memory? Are you considering the accuracy of the memory? Are you distinguishing between visual, auditory, tactile, or olifactory memories? Are you placing weight on retrieval times?

Able to learn what? Motor skills? Language? Facts? Reasoning methodologies? Directional ability? Predator avoidance techniques?

You have made a statement that is so simple it is wrong - namely you claim 'we all know what intelligence means'. This is not the case and it is abundantly clear that you certainly do not know what intelligence means - you only think you do.

Its clear that you definitely are not, I can say that for sure.. Have fun wallowing in semantic mud, the only field you can ever assert dominance in

“Intelligence” is a notoriously ill-defined concept. It can mean whatever you want it to mean. I’m sure we could come up with a definition of “intelligent” that would include plants.




I’m pretty sure that individual plant cells would be capable of generating action potentials. I don’t see why plant cells wouldn’t have the ability to create polarised membranes by pumping charged ions across their membranes using ion channels (ie. create an action potential).

What plants can’t do is propagate an action potential between cells from one part of the plant to another. In other words, they don’t have a nervous system. This is what stops plants developing a human-style “intelligence”.

there must be some which already do, or do they have some other method of fast action (fast in the sense of animals rather than the normal definition of plants) because how else would a venus fly trap work? or the catapillar hunting fungus?

If I recall correctly, rapid plant movements utilise turgor pressure (ie. changes in internal water pressure). Not to be confused with trophism which is growth in response to a stimulus (to or away from the stimulus).

interesting (i havent studied plants)

how fast a network could you make with that compared to Ion changes (ie the fast pathway in animals as oposed to the slower endocrine pathways)? could you make a neral network using water pressure rather than nerves (again in the animal sense)?

could you make a neral network using water pressure rather than nerves (again in the animal sense)?


No, I don’t think so. The basic architecture of plants and animals is fundamentally different. Plants have xylem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylem), a system of vessels running throughout the plant that the plant uses to move water.

Besides, a nervous system can control a large array of different input stimuli and output responses. Turgor pressure can control gross movement, and I think that’s about it.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Are you talking about short term memory, or long term memory? Are you considering the accuracy of the memory? Are you distinguishing between visual, auditory, tactile, or olifactory memories? Are you placing weight on retrieval times?

Able to learn what? Motor skills? Language? Facts? Reasoning methodologies? Directional ability? Predator avoidance techniques?

You have made a statement that is so simple it is wrong - namely you claim 'we all know what intelligence means'. This is not the case and it is abundantly clear that you certainly do not know what intelligence means - you only think you do.
”
Its clear that you definitely are not, I can say that for sure.. Have fun wallowing in semantic mud, the only field you can ever assert dominance in

Play nice, these are valid questions... :bugeye:

what is stopping them otherwise?
Just wanted to say that there is some trend towards viewing plants as intelligent, already...

Here is one research group...
http://www.linv.org/

If you click on PAPERS you can see some of their published articles.

Here is an article - from Annals of Botany - written by a biochemist that includes a discussion of 'intelligence' and argues for the term being applicable to plants

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/92/1/1

A response to this article, which seems to be a core one in the debate,....

http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/93/4/345
and a rebuttal from the author of the first article
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/93/4/353

Here is a general article. I include it because of the last couple of paragraphs:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0303/p01s03-usgn.html


"If intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge, then, absolutely, plants are intelligent," agrees Leslie Sieburth, a biologist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

For philosophers, one of the key findings is that two cuttings, or clones, taken from the same "mother plant" behave differently even when planted in identical conditions.

Here's a nice article on how plants form networks and communicate with each other.

http://www.physorg.com/news109944832.html

An interesting article on a predatory plant in relation to the intelligence issue:

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/44327/title/No_brainer_behavior

And just to muddy the waters, it seems we have an animalplant.....

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/green-sea-slug/

Its clear that you definitely are not (intelligent), I can say that for sure.. Have fun wallowing in semantic mud, the only field you can ever assert dominance in
1. If you believe IQ tests bear no relationship to intelligence, then you may be correct. If you accept that IQ test results have some correlation with intelligence then your assessment of mine is flawed.
2. Semantics is about meaning. Do you consider meaning unimportant? My questions were designed to bring clarity to the mud of your simplistic statements. I am disappointed you have chosen to sling some of that mud rather than addressing the valid questions I have raised. (Do I hear the sound of a clucking chicken?)

what is stopping them otherwise?

They aren't conscious.



is it something with cells not having an "action potential" reflex?

No. Plants don't have an environmental pressure upon them that requires complex difference detection. Without that pressure, consciousness is not going to arise. Wihtou consiousness, intelligence will not arise.

One could agrue that it already has intelligence. This is seen through things like photosynthesis. It just depends on what "intelligence" is. By some standards anything that is biotic is an "intelligent" form.

Intelligence tends to be sem-defined as a dynamic problem problem solving process directed/influenced by consious thought.

Intelligence tends to be sem-defined as a dynamic problem problem solving process directed/influenced by consious thought.
Since much of our problem solving is done sub-consciously doesn't that rather invalidate your contention?

But wouldn't photosynthesis be intelligent since it's problem solving?

But wouldn't photosynthesis be intelligent since it's problem solving?On that basis gravity would be intelligent since it solves the problem of how lava can get down hill.

Since much of our problem solving is done sub-consciously doesn't that rather invalidate your contention?

How so? I said consciousness directs/influences it (as opposed to being solely responsible for it).

Do jellyfish have intelligence or are they only touch sensitive/reactive like some plants?

Since much of our problem solving is done sub-consciously doesn't that rather invalidate your contention?Lovely. New thread. New thread.

How so? I said consciousness directs/influences it (as opposed to being solely responsible for it).The issue raised is if we want to restrict our intelligence to only those processes directly or influenced by consciousness. This would cut off many intelligent things we do and make them like gravity pulling lava down hill. Of course many people do consider it to be like this. See Epiphenomenalism, where consciousness is merely an observer and has no influence.