Or you could stop being a prig and go read the wikipedia article.
Plants 'can think and remember', nervous system discovered
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
Or you could stop being a prig and go read the wikipedia article.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
I don't see anything suggesting memory or awareness in these results.
Each wavelength of light triggers different chemical reactions in photo-sensitive compounds; depending on what chemicals are excited by a particular photon, and in what manner, would inherently cause a different chemical reaction within the cell - I don't find it the least bit surprising that this chemical reaction would cause a change in the metabolism of the plant overall.
The bit about shining light on the plant and then trying to then infect it with a virus is either so poorly designed or simply so poorly reported that no useful information can be gleaned from it, IMO. Was the control held in the dark (and therefor possibly short on immediate free glucose)? Through what mechanism did the plant seem to repel the virus? Was this mechanism tied in any way to the application of light? Did the frequency of light effect the plant's ability to fight off specific pathogens, or did the application of any light improve the ability of the plant to fight off pathogens in general?
As for the "two communications systems" - the article says they were surprised at the speed of the reaction, but does nothing to cover measurements of the speed. For all we know, the subjects of the article were surprised by the speed of hormone-based signaling, and misinterpreted it as an electrically-based signaling.
Each wavelength of light triggers different chemical reactions in photo-sensitive compounds; depending on what chemicals are excited by a particular photon, and in what manner, would inherently cause a different chemical reaction within the cell - I don't find it the least bit surprising that this chemical reaction would cause a change in the metabolism of the plant overall.
The bit about shining light on the plant and then trying to then infect it with a virus is either so poorly designed or simply so poorly reported that no useful information can be gleaned from it, IMO. Was the control held in the dark (and therefor possibly short on immediate free glucose)? Through what mechanism did the plant seem to repel the virus? Was this mechanism tied in any way to the application of light? Did the frequency of light effect the plant's ability to fight off specific pathogens, or did the application of any light improve the ability of the plant to fight off pathogens in general?
As for the "two communications systems" - the article says they were surprised at the speed of the reaction, but does nothing to cover measurements of the speed. For all we know, the subjects of the article were surprised by the speed of hormone-based signaling, and misinterpreted it as an electrically-based signaling.
Phlogistician said:
You mean the Wikipedia article I didn't cite because, well, it's Wikipedia? Okay, hey, that's fine with me:
Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is an ordered sequence of symbols. As a concept, however, information has many meanings. Moreover, the concept of information is closely related to notions of constraint, communication, control, form, instruction, knowledge, meaning, mental stimulus, pattern, perception, and representation ....
.... Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind. Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information. In other words, it can be said that information in this sense is something potentially perceived as representation, though not created or presented for that purpose.
(Wikipedia, "Information", boldface accent added)
.... Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern. Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind. Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information. In other words, it can be said that information in this sense is something potentially perceived as representation, though not created or presented for that purpose.
(Wikipedia, "Information", boldface accent added)
Which brings us back to my original point:
If "information" can only be defined according to certain restrictive demands, you are exactly correct. Broader definitions, however, such as information as a pattern, are functionally appropriate in Karpinski's context.
What part of this is unclear, Phlog? It's a matter of perspective. Only if we restrict the definition of "information" according to your needs is Karpinski's application of the word "wholly misleading". I don't think the problem is his use of the word, but rather your limited definition.
____________________
Notes:
Wikipedia. "Information". July 17, 2010. Wikipedia.org. July 17, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information
Yonks ago, they discovered that if you played a speeded-up video of a tree-creeper climbing a host tree it appears totally animal-like i.e. it reaches out with it's arms, then hands and tests with it's fingers. If it's not happy it will recoil, but if conditions prove right, then it will grasp and sprout new feelers. Same thing as we're talking about, it's the definition and understanding of the basic algorithm of life which isn't clearly represented in human knowledge.
The word 'pattern' implies some periodicity, or discrete components to the information, which when combined, for a 'pattern'. Where is that in ambient light?
Information has a value, or unit.
If the plant is not measuring the information, and reacting at a threshold, what 'information' is being utilised? It's just light triggering a chemical reaction.
We don't refer to water 'using information' when it evaporates due to ambient temperature do we? It's a simple physical process. The plant might be using a more complicated chemical process, but there is absolutely no need to refer to the input as information.
Pseudoscientific discomfort
The frequency of the wavelength suffices. It might not meet your restrictive standards, but the scientfic world does not revolve around those definitions.
I think your analogy to evaporation is what we might call "wholly misleading".
If the plants simply responded to a natural, seasonal cycle, then I would easily agree that this is just a simple chemical reaction. But as I noted before:
True, though, that one could follow River-wind's example and simply retreat into pseudoscientific rejection, presuming to know more than the scientists involved:
I mean, it's true that some people can be incredibly myopic in their research, but that's no basis for presuming that a world-class biologist is incapable of thinking of the most basic counterproposals that anyone attending an internet discussion board can come up with. Karpinski presented his findings at the annual meeting of the Society for Experimental Biology, and so far there hasn't been a massive outcry among his peers. So what do we have to go on? A presumption that the experimental results must be corrupt? And the Society bats not an eyelash? Or perhaps poor reporting? After all, it is Victoria Gill for the BBC, which is widely known for its simplistic presentation of news (including articles composed entirely of one-sentence paragraphs). This is possible, but what is the suggestion there? That Karpinski didn't make these suggestions, and Gill's article overstates the case?
As time passes, we will find out more about the details of Karpinski's experiments, and the validity and implications of his results. In the meantime, the argument against I've witnessed here is pretty anemic. We have restrictive definitions (Phlogistician), presumption of poor science and/or reporting (River-wind), and "plants are not animals, don't have an animal nervous system, and thus cannot ever be found to think, remember, calculate, or otherwise interpret data" (Michael). The only thing that confuses me about this is why it's so important to people to reject this result and its potential implications that they will resort to such reckless, pseudoscientific politics.
Really, what is it that makes people so uncomfortable about Karpinski's outcomes?
____________________
Notes:
Gill, Victoria. "Plants 'can think and remember'". BBC News Online. July 14, 2010. BBC.co.uk. July 19, 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10598926
Phlogistician said:
The frequency of the wavelength suffices. It might not meet your restrictive standards, but the scientfic world does not revolve around those definitions.
I think your analogy to evaporation is what we might call "wholly misleading".
What was even more peculiar, Professor Karpinski said, was that the plants' responses changed depending on the colour of the light that was being shone on them.
"There were characteristic [changes] for red, blue and white light," he explained.
He suspected that the plants might use the information encoded in the light to stimulate protective chemical reactions. He and his colleagues examined this more closely by looking at the effect of different colours of light on the plants' immunity to disease.
"When we shone the light for on the plant for one hour and then infected it [with a virus or with bacteria] 24 hours after that light exposure, it resisted the infection," he explained.
"But when we infected the plant before shining the light, it could not build up resistance.
"[So the plant] has a specific memory for the light which builds its immunity against pathogens, and it can adjust to varying light conditions."
He said that plants used information encrypted in the light to immunise themselves against seasonal pathogens.
"Every day or week of the season has ... a characteristic light quality," Professor Karpinski explained.
"So the plants perform a sort of biological light computation, using information contained in the light to immunise themselves against diseases that are prevalent during that season."
(Gill)
"There were characteristic [changes] for red, blue and white light," he explained.
He suspected that the plants might use the information encoded in the light to stimulate protective chemical reactions. He and his colleagues examined this more closely by looking at the effect of different colours of light on the plants' immunity to disease.
"When we shone the light for on the plant for one hour and then infected it [with a virus or with bacteria] 24 hours after that light exposure, it resisted the infection," he explained.
"But when we infected the plant before shining the light, it could not build up resistance.
"[So the plant] has a specific memory for the light which builds its immunity against pathogens, and it can adjust to varying light conditions."
He said that plants used information encrypted in the light to immunise themselves against seasonal pathogens.
"Every day or week of the season has ... a characteristic light quality," Professor Karpinski explained.
"So the plants perform a sort of biological light computation, using information contained in the light to immunise themselves against diseases that are prevalent during that season."
(Gill)
If the plants simply responded to a natural, seasonal cycle, then I would easily agree that this is just a simple chemical reaction. But as I noted before:
Generally speaking, we can expect plants to develop seasonal rhythms, such as both Foyer and Karpinski—"Every day or week of the season has ... a characteristic light quality"—refer to. This could be described as an evolutionary outcome. But part of the issue here is deviation from seasonal rhythm. That is, rather than natural cycles coinciding—e.g., the plant's biological functions and the natural seasons—Karpinski and his colleagues are suggesting a very immediate adaptability about some plants.
Additionally, the experiments with light and pathogens seems to suggest plants can in some way remember data, and condition responses to specific stimuli. Such a notion is very nearly Pavlovian.
Additionally, the experiments with light and pathogens seems to suggest plants can in some way remember data, and condition responses to specific stimuli. Such a notion is very nearly Pavlovian.
True, though, that one could follow River-wind's example and simply retreat into pseudoscientific rejection, presuming to know more than the scientists involved:
"The bit about shining light on the plant and then trying to then infect it with a virus is either so poorly designed or simply so poorly reported that no useful information can be gleaned from it, IMO. Was the control held in the dark (and therefor possibly short on immediate free glucose)?"
I mean, it's true that some people can be incredibly myopic in their research, but that's no basis for presuming that a world-class biologist is incapable of thinking of the most basic counterproposals that anyone attending an internet discussion board can come up with. Karpinski presented his findings at the annual meeting of the Society for Experimental Biology, and so far there hasn't been a massive outcry among his peers. So what do we have to go on? A presumption that the experimental results must be corrupt? And the Society bats not an eyelash? Or perhaps poor reporting? After all, it is Victoria Gill for the BBC, which is widely known for its simplistic presentation of news (including articles composed entirely of one-sentence paragraphs). This is possible, but what is the suggestion there? That Karpinski didn't make these suggestions, and Gill's article overstates the case?
As time passes, we will find out more about the details of Karpinski's experiments, and the validity and implications of his results. In the meantime, the argument against I've witnessed here is pretty anemic. We have restrictive definitions (Phlogistician), presumption of poor science and/or reporting (River-wind), and "plants are not animals, don't have an animal nervous system, and thus cannot ever be found to think, remember, calculate, or otherwise interpret data" (Michael). The only thing that confuses me about this is why it's so important to people to reject this result and its potential implications that they will resort to such reckless, pseudoscientific politics.
Really, what is it that makes people so uncomfortable about Karpinski's outcomes?
____________________
Notes:
Gill, Victoria. "Plants 'can think and remember'". BBC News Online. July 14, 2010. BBC.co.uk. July 19, 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10598926
Sorry, I'm an ex-Physicist, and no, wavelength does not meet the criteria of being information in this context.
"
What was even more peculiar, Professor Karpinski said, was that the plants' responses changed depending on the colour of the light that was being shone on them."
Well DUH! Photosynthesis being a chemical reaction require photons with sufficient individual energy to trigger chemical reactions.
"There were characteristic [changes] for red, blue and white light," he explained.
No shit. Chemical bonds in organic molecules are stimulated by different energy photons. So simply, reactions will take place according to regular reaction kinetics, involving concentration of available reagents, catalysis, temperature, pressure, and of course, ionising photons. It's simple chemistry.
"When we shone the light for on the plant for one hour and then infected it [with a virus or with bacteria] 24 hours after that light exposure, it resisted the infection," he explained.
"But when we infected the plant before shining the light, it could not build up resistance.
"[So the plant] has a specific memory for the light which builds its immunity against pathogens, and it can adjust to varying light conditions."
He said that plants used information encrypted in the light to immunise themselves against seasonal pathogens.
OR, a plant that has been under light for 24 hours is a fit healthy plant that has photosynthesized lots and is more able to fight off an infection, compared to a plant that has been denied one of it's basic needs?
Also, the terminology "information encrypted in the light" is just plain BS. 'Encrypted'? The plant is now a decryption engine too?
Well DUH! Photosynthesis being a chemical reaction require photons with sufficient individual energy to trigger chemical reactions.
"There were characteristic [changes] for red, blue and white light," he explained.
No shit. Chemical bonds in organic molecules are stimulated by different energy photons. So simply, reactions will take place according to regular reaction kinetics, involving concentration of available reagents, catalysis, temperature, pressure, and of course, ionising photons. It's simple chemistry.
"When we shone the light for on the plant for one hour and then infected it [with a virus or with bacteria] 24 hours after that light exposure, it resisted the infection," he explained.
"But when we infected the plant before shining the light, it could not build up resistance.
"[So the plant] has a specific memory for the light which builds its immunity against pathogens, and it can adjust to varying light conditions."
He said that plants used information encrypted in the light to immunise themselves against seasonal pathogens.
OR, a plant that has been under light for 24 hours is a fit healthy plant that has photosynthesized lots and is more able to fight off an infection, compared to a plant that has been denied one of it's basic needs?
Also, the terminology "information encrypted in the light" is just plain BS. 'Encrypted'? The plant is now a decryption engine too?
Sorry, I'm an ex-Physicist, and no, wavelength does not meet the criteria of being information in this context.
" What was even more peculiar, Professor Karpinski said, was that the plants' responses changed depending on the colour of the light that was being shone on them."
Well DUH! Photosynthesis being a chemical reaction require photons with sufficient individual energy to trigger chemical reactions.
"There were characteristic [changes] for red, blue and white light," he explained.
No shit. Chemical bonds in organic molecules are stimulated by different energy photons. So simply, reactions will take place according to regular reaction kinetics, involving concentration of available reagents, catalysis, temperature, pressure, and of course, ionising photons. It's simple chemistry.
"When we shone the light for on the plant for one hour and then infected it [with a virus or with bacteria] 24 hours after that light exposure, it resisted the infection," he explained.
"But when we infected the plant before shining the light, it could not build up resistance.
"[So the plant] has a specific memory for the light which builds its immunity against pathogens, and it can adjust to varying light conditions."
He said that plants used information encrypted in the light to immunise themselves against seasonal pathogens.
OR, a plant that has been under light for 24 hours is a fit healthy plant that has photosynthesized lots and is more able to fight off an infection, compared to a plant that has been denied one of it's basic needs?
Also, the terminology "information encrypted in the light" is just plain BS. 'Encrypted'? The plant is now a decryption engine too?
Inspired truculence
According to your personal context.
That's the thing: there are myriad contexts. You have simply chosen one that insists on disqualifying Karpinski's terminology.
So it is impossible, in your opinion, that Karpinski and his associates could have observed something more complex than simple chemistry and photosynthesis?
Or the plant innovates a reliable response to specific stimuli?
Sure. At this level, everything in the Universe is. You're making too much of words in order to split hairs in favor of some abstract purpose. I find it quite striking that the possibility of such a development in the biological world could move you to such a defensive posture.
____________________
Notes:
Wikipedia. "Physical Information". June 25, 2010. Wikipedia.org. July 20, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information
Phlogistician said:
According to your personal context.
In physics, physical information refers generally to the information that is contained in a physical system. Its usage in quantum mechanics (ie. quantum information) is important, for example in the concept of quantum entanglement to describe effectively direct or causal relationships between apparently distinct or spatially separated particles.
Information itself may be loosely defined as "that which can distinguish one thing from another". The information embodied by a thing can thus be said to be the identity of the particular thing itself, that is, all of its properties, all that makes it distinct from other (real or potential) things. It is a complete description of the thing, but in a sense that is divorced from any particular language. We might even consider the sum total of the information in a thing to be the ideal essence of the thing itself, i.e. its form in the sense of Plato's eidos (The Forms).
(Wikipedia)
Information itself may be loosely defined as "that which can distinguish one thing from another". The information embodied by a thing can thus be said to be the identity of the particular thing itself, that is, all of its properties, all that makes it distinct from other (real or potential) things. It is a complete description of the thing, but in a sense that is divorced from any particular language. We might even consider the sum total of the information in a thing to be the ideal essence of the thing itself, i.e. its form in the sense of Plato's eidos (The Forms).
(Wikipedia)
That's the thing: there are myriad contexts. You have simply chosen one that insists on disqualifying Karpinski's terminology.
So it is impossible, in your opinion, that Karpinski and his associates could have observed something more complex than simple chemistry and photosynthesis?
Or the plant innovates a reliable response to specific stimuli?
Sure. At this level, everything in the Universe is. You're making too much of words in order to split hairs in favor of some abstract purpose. I find it quite striking that the possibility of such a development in the biological world could move you to such a defensive posture.
____________________
Notes:
Wikipedia. "Physical Information". June 25, 2010. Wikipedia.org. July 20, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information
Sorry, now you are twisting words so much they have become meaningless.
This sounds blatantly plausable. I say blatant because of the very fact they turn and point to the sun [as in sunflowers], and battle in forest thickets to secure a place where they can recieve sunlight. This requires a thought transmission facility, which some call instinct. Plants are the oldest living life forms on the planet, even as they are immobile. The other I believe is the tortoise, which also moves very slow. Does it mean being less mobile increases a life span?
So you'd also claim that bacteria and amoebae think?
Some call instinct "thought transmission"? Link please.
How can plants be immobile if you've just pointed out that they do in fact move?
Sessile might be what you mean:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sessile
Do you mean 'longest living'? Because 'oldest living' implies they are amongst the first life to evolve, and life probably started in the oceans. Not with tortoises, or aquatic sunflowers, however.
Hipparchia
Registered Senior Member
No it doesn't. It just requires the ability to react biochemically to environmental inputs. You'll be claiming next that stones have to think in order to fall in gravity field.
How about the idea of a plant's nervous system being the evolutionary seed of own human nervous system? Would there have been much difference in concept and evolution?
That would explain the vegetables on the forum, wouldn't it?
The unemployed ones perhaps! A too acute nervous system could lead to a condition of high neuroticism, which means you'll get nowhere in the modern office environment. High intelligence and awareness, but the inability to schmooze and tell fibs to your heart's content.
What about the other side of this? People rushing in and attributing all manners of consciousness, planning and memory on the part of plants, all based on the way the results of a particular study were explained.
Isn't this argument largely semantic, anyway?
Well, given that (i) plants don’t have a nervous system, and (ii) plants and animals are two entirely different taxonomic kingdoms, I’d say that idea is nonsense.
Yes, there is no alternative to this. Bacteria are engaged in an existential battle to survive same as all other life forms. They perform a host of activities which are akin to thought and can obviously recognise and communicate with other bacteria. These are mysteriously entitites we know almost nothing about.
Stop being ridiculous.
Ridiculous again. Plants move to attain the best survival position - they move within the same immobile position, as in a twisting action rather than a moving action. They are alive but immobile. This says they possess a thinking ability, which is varied from humans but nonetheless fully relevant to their own situation. Placed in a plant's position - with no mobility, speech, eyes, limbs - we would intelligently emulate the same actions as a plant does.