Plants 'can think and remember', nervous system discovered

[IamJoseph]

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.

What enables a sunflower to strive to face the sun?

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

These are mysteriously entitites we know almost nothing about.

“Almost nothing”, eh? We know more about the genetics, biochemistry and cell biology of E.coli than any other organism on the planet.

Stop being ridiculous.

It’s not ridiculous to ask for supporting references; it’s part of the scientific method. Furthermore, providing references is required as per Rule #5 for posting in this forum. Anyone presenting outlandish statements as fact then refusing to support them with appropriate references when asked will be banned from participating.

They are alive but immobile. This says they possess a thinking ability.....

It says no such thing. As it’s succinctly and accurately said in post #34, it merely requires the ability to react biochemically to environmental inputs.

What enables a sunflower to strive to face the sun?

Try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototropism

 

[phlogistician]

they move within the same immobile position,

Do you not see the contradiction?

You've had the correct term, 'sessile'.

 

[Tiassa]

See how they run

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.

It would be very easy to overstate these outcomes. But when the proposition that someone might have identified a plant's nervous system° is met with responses that it can't be a nervous system because it doesn't look like an animal's nervous system, well, the response seems kind of ... um ... er ... yeah, stupid.

Look at the arguments against Karpinski's findings: insisting on narrowed definitions, calling him a bad scientist (and, presumably, everyone else in the Society for Experimental Biology who didn't object to his presentation), or arguing that it can't be called a nervous system because it doesn't look like an animal's nervous system. These aren't what we might call rational objections.

And, in the end, it's not quite a Beatles song, but—

Sorry, now you are twisting words so much they have become meaningless.

—see how they run.

In the face of more rational objections, yes, there is room for discussion about the implications of Karpinski's findings or Gill's reporting thereof. But there is something very desperate about the objections so far. It's as if objectivity is only a good thing if it supports what one wants to believe in the first place. Nothing new about that, I suppose.
____________________

Notes:

° might have identified a plant's nervous system — We should also note that Victoria Gill wrote that scientists "likened the discovery to finding the plants' 'nervous system'". To liken is to compare according to the definition, "to represent as similar". So, yes, we can say the thread title overstates the case, but as such, we might also note that the objectors didn't really care; their focus was elsewhere.

Works Cited:

Gill, Victoria. "Plants 'can think and remember'". BBC News Online. July 14, 2010. BBC.co.uk. July 21, 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10598926

"compare." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010. Merriam-Webster Online. 21 July 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compare

 

[Idle Mind]

It would be very easy to overstate these outcomes. But when the proposition that someone might have identified a plant's nervous system° is met with responses that it can't be a nervous system because it doesn't look like an animal's nervous system, well, the response seems kind of ... um ... er ... yeah, stupid.

Look at the arguments against Karpinski's findings: insisting on narrowed definitions, calling him a bad scientist (and, presumably, everyone else in the Society for Experimental Biology who didn't object to his presentation), or arguing that it can't be called a nervous system because it doesn't look like an animal's nervous system. These aren't what we might call rational objections.

Well, hang on now. A nervous system does have a very specific definition within biological systems.

From the first sentence of the wiki article:

The nervous system is an organ system containing a network of specialized cells called neurons that coordinate the actions of an animal and transmit signals between different parts of its body.

Note: "an organ system containing a network of specialized cells called neurons." Plants do not have neurons and therefore, by definition, do not have a nervous system.

However, there is evidence provided by the article that they have some sort of parallel system which allows them basic means of interpreting and responding to data that they may receive, be it sunlight, physical damage, or whatever.

 

[phlogistician]

But there is something very desperate about the objections so far.

Not desperate. I have no emotional reason to not want plants to have a nervous system of sorts.

It's the press overblowing things, to make the science appeal to a popular market I have a problem with, and Scientists pandering to that by using terms like 'information', but in such a vague way as to demean the importance of the word, while implying it's significant at the same time.

The plant is either processing real information, and making decisions, or it's reacting to stimuli through some route not fully understood. The latter ain't big news.

 

[Hipparchia]

How about the idea of a plant's nervous system being the evolutionary seed of own human nervous system?

Other than the fact that the last common ancestor of plants and animals didn't have a nervous system I see nothing wrong with your idea.

 

[Tiassa]

A specific notion

Note: "an organ system containing a network of specialized cells called neurons." Plants do not have neurons and therefore, by definition, do not have a nervous system.

As long as you're being very specific, I would point out that your definition specifically applies to animal nervous systems:

The nervous system is an organ system containing a network of specialized cells called neurons that coordinate the actions of an animal and transmit signals between different parts of its body.

(Wikipedia, boldface accent added)​

Just ... you know, in the spirit of the specific.

:m:
____________________

Notes:

Wikipedia. "Nervous system". July 19, 2010. Wikipedia.org. July 23, 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_system

 

[IamJoseph]

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.

Thought is also biochemical - what other alternatives are there? Stones, an element, don't think - but they do act in accordance of their own realm, and are governed by the same mechanism as do life forms - only their quark [sub-atomic particles] are more densely packed with different traits so they react to different things - like rust from environmental impacts.

'THEY ALSO SERVE WHO ONLY STAND AND WAIT'.

 

[IamJoseph]

“Almost nothing”, eh? We know more about the genetics, biochemistry and cell biology of E.coli than any other organism on the planet.

That is because their strucutre is less complicated. They are mysterious in the sense they control some 95% of our involuntary actions, making them more us than ourselves. This is what I meant, as opposed knowing their nuclie and membranes.


I think you are being ridiculous. Go ban me. You are talking of a poster who asks for proof in almost every post - whreby the rules are abused. E.g. I stated the universe is finite 'because' it is expanding - the expansion is the proof, and this factor caused the premise of a finite universe. Here, one cannot again ask for proof - there is no means to prove the universe is expanding outside of this factor.

 

[IamJoseph]

Do you not see the contradiction?

You've had the correct term, 'sessile'.

By move, I mean from one place to another. One must adopt the most plausable path of thought available.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Here's a plant that can talk as well and if it doesn't like what you say it will just eat you!!

 

[phlogistician]

By move, I mean from one place to another. One must adopt the most plausable path of thought available.

You talk rubbish, and spell it badly, you know that?

 

[river-wind]

"[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.


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.
....
Really, what is it that makes people so uncomfortable about Karpinski's outcomes?

Note in the line you quote from me, my inclusion "so poorly reported". I'm not made uncomfortable by Karpinski's results, I'm saying the the OP's link and the public description of the findings is so bad that no useful information can be taken from it. The experimental model may be outstanding, but this report if those procedures is lacking.

I am, in fact, one of those who supports placing plants well above the common location of "unthinking automaton". I just don't think the claims of thinking or consciousness are in any way justified by the article. Even if seasonal immune reactions are based on light color, how does that suggest consciousness?

What about different biochemical reactions to different physical inputs outlaws a purely biochemical cause for the observed behavior? Assuming thought based on that behavior alone violates Occam razor and rules against undue anthropomorphism.

...they turn and point to the sun...This requires a thought transmission facility, which some call instinct.

Turgor pressure requires thought? Auxins require thought?

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?

1) This experiment doesn't seem to prove the existence of an electrical signaling system to me.
2) Humans didn't evolve from plants. They likely both had a common ancestor, but that was so long ago, we're talking about single-celled eukaryotes swimming around prior to the endosymbosis of the chloroplast. As already pointed out, no nervous system to be shared.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I think you are being ridiculous. Go ban me. You are talking of a poster who asks for proof in almost every post - whreby the rules are abused. E.g. I stated the universe is finite 'because' it is expanding - the expansion is the proof, and this factor caused the premise of a finite universe.

But you're incorrect. Expansion is NOT proof that the universe is finite, hence my request for a link.
And bear in mind that you have previously made claims that you have failed to back up... (false ones at that).

Here, one cannot again ask for proof - there is no means to prove the universe is expanding outside of this factor.

But I didn't ask for proof I asked for a link to support your assertion.

 

[Idle Mind]

As long as you're being very specific, I would point out that your definition specifically applies to animal nervous systems

Yes, that detail did not go unnoticed. But, I'm not sure the point you're trying to make.

Are you saying that our definition for nervous system needs to be adapted to include a plant "nervous system" of unknown mechanism?

 

[IamJoseph]

But you're incorrect. Expansion is NOT proof that the universe is finite, hence my request for a link.

Prove it.

And bear in mind that you have previously made claims that you have failed to back up... (false ones at that).

When you make such claims then be specific. I have produced responses and links but all you said was 'false' - that is not how a debate works.

But I didn't ask for proof I asked for a link to support your assertion.

It is wholly logical and commonly held with almost all science premises, if the universe is expanding it is thereby finite. It was not infinite 10 seconds ago. The link was provided by a line in Genesis, given not as a theological but scientific premise: the premise of 'CHANGE' is both the first recorded pointer of a finite and infinite proof. It is disproven with a counter proof there is anything in the universe which is subject to change and also infinite; or else that there is anything not subject to change and thereby finite.

These conditions of science and the universe being finite or infinite are only dealt with by theoretic logic or secondary evidences [like radiation backgrounds] - or reduced to factors in our midst. Perhaps you can show me something [like a piece of string] which changes ['expands'] but is not finite [it has no beginning]; or else something that does not change [?] but which is finite. That is acceptable counter evidence compared to a response saying 'false' or 'prove it'.

 

[IamJoseph]

Here's a plant that can talk as well and if it doesn't like what you say it will just eat you!!

I accept that a plant can move - and that it can also be said to be immobile compared to other life forms. There is no contradiction here. It is like a person in a coma [immobile] but still remains breething [moves].

If we look at the fundamental difference between plants [vegetation] as a seperation from other life forms, the most striking factor is mobility - as opposed eating, colors,reproduction, skeletal structures, etc. The same applies to divisions such as water born, air borne, land borne and speech endowed life forms. The later are the fundamental differences between life forms groups. Here I see Genesis as correct - because the other traits do not distinguish more fundamental differences. This does not violate the inter-special variances, but asserts that the fundamental things apply as pivotal.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Prove it.

Fail. You made the claim, show how it's true. Or are you under the impression that you can't add 1 to infinity?

I have produced responses and links but all you said was 'false' - that is not how a debate works.

Untrue.
You have failed to provide links or support at all in some cases, even to the extent of ignoring repeated requests to provide links/ support.

It is wholly logical and commonly held with almost all science premises, if the universe is expanding it is thereby finite.

Also untrue, hence science's quest to discren exactly what the geometry of the universe is: i.e. is it finite or infinie.

It was not infinite 10 seconds ago.

That's speculation on your part.

The link was provided by a line in Genesis, given not as a theological but scientific premise: the premise of 'CHANGE' is both the first recorded pointer of a finite and infinite proof.

Fail. Geneisis is not science, nor is it scientific.

That is acceptable counter evidence compared to a response saying 'false' or 'prove it'.

I see you don't know how this works. If YOU made the intial claim then is up to you to support tht claim, rather than me show you support for a counter claim.
Until you do anything more than make unsupported statements "wrong" and false" will be all you deserve.