Timeline for What are the most intelligent plants?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 26, 2022 at 16:55 | comment | added | discipulus | @BryanKrause (5/5) Finally, I don't think it is easy to define intelligence in a way that would match humans and animals and not plants (nor even cells or "all biology" if you will). without restricting the term and thus - effectively - render it very limited and essentially meaningless. | |
| Jul 26, 2022 at 16:52 | comment | added | discipulus | @BryanKrause, (4/n) I also think it is wrong to think of perception/sensation only in terms of brain and nervous system. those term (intelegece also) predates the human understanding of the mechanism in the animal kingdom (i.e., nervous system) - hence I see no reason to restrict the terms to nervous system. For 5 year old the plant is aware and perceives no less than humans are. YOu can teach the child the plant has nervous system and the child won't object. | |
| Jul 26, 2022 at 16:48 | comment | added | discipulus | @BryanKrause, (3/n) Now, the term intellegence was not born out of void. it makes perfect sense (to me at least) to use this term, if one view things in context. the context clearly was the apparent display of function in plants that wes previously hidden to humans. This is a kind of higher function - like communication. in this sense the plant is indeed intelligent. | |
| Jul 26, 2022 at 16:45 | comment | added | discipulus | @BryanKrause, (2/n) Now, if we want to enter the discussion. First, bear in mind, that however strongly one resists the term intelligence - this precise term was used and is used by more than one researcher. So, we have to accept that at least part of the scientific community believes this term is appropriate. I have not seen appreciation for this fact here. | |
| Jul 26, 2022 at 16:41 | comment | added | discipulus | @BryanKrause, (1/n) what you and others seem to be missing is that I'm not trying define a term for the sake of the definition. I care not about the term. if it helps, one might replace the word intelligence with the term "fjhdsfjhkds" and reread my question. That's for one. For two, and this follows if one says that this can be applied to all biology -- I won't object and will be tolerative - not necessary because I agree or not, but because it is not the point of the discussion. | |
| Jul 26, 2022 at 15:20 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | @discipulus I think it's wrong to think you can redefine a term without pushback; however you change the definition, terms used in an existing way will always carry baggage. The definition given is so far from the use of "intelligence" in context of animals. By that definition, almost all of biology becomes "intelligence", and therefore the term becomes useless. | |
| Jul 26, 2022 at 14:23 | history | edited | ermanen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 34 characters in body
|
| Jul 26, 2022 at 8:17 | comment | added | discipulus | Thanks for your answer and suggestion about tags edit which I've adapted. This is a long article and I intend to read later this week. As I said some researchers prefer to use the term intelligence - I agree - but some might disagree and that's completely fine. The problem starts when people turn away from the given definition of the term (and rather focus on the title) - then the discussion is not fruitful for the actual issue at hand. | |
| Jul 25, 2022 at 22:48 | comment | added | John | dodder grows in the direction of certain chemical compounds and away from others and can habituate to signals, which all plants and indeed all cells do, so what makes dodder more "intelligent" the paper offer nothing that all know organisms cannot do. It essentially argue all life is intelligent. | |
| Jul 25, 2022 at 21:43 | history | edited | ermanen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| Jul 25, 2022 at 21:29 | history | answered | ermanen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |