THE JOHN LE'BELIZA

jtotheizzoe:

An interesting summary of current “plant neurobiology” over at NPR’s 13.7 blog, asks when a complex information processing system (which I think aptly describes a plant, because they really do respond quite well to a number of stimuli) becomes a “mind”:

The guiding idea of this literature seems to be, first, that plants do in fact act, and they act in ways which, when animals act that way, we are disposed to think of as signs of intelligence. Some examples: plants orient and react appropriately not only in response to light, but also wind, water, predators, quality of soil and the volume of available soil, among many other factors.

Plants reshape themselves — extending, growing, opening, closing, altering leaf size, etc — in direct response to what they need, what they have good reason to shun and to a broad range of local conditions. In developing underground networks of roots, they show sensitivity to obstacles in the ground, and there is evidence that they differentiate their response to the roots of other plants from their response to their own roots.

Granted, by human and animal measures, plants are very slow. But surely it is prejudice to think that only movements and responsiveness that occurs on time scales that seem natural to us count as legitimately expressive of intelligence and mind.

Are we being unfair to plants when we classify them as “mindless”? Or are we being unfair to minds when we try to reconcile where stimulus/response becomes thinking?

Here’s some primary research on the subject, too (subscription may be required).