Plants 'can think and remember' - Page 5 - Cannabis Botany and Advanced Growing Science - International Cannagraphic Magazine Forums

Clackamas Coot · 11-25-2010, 02:20 PM

This was originally posted by CT Guy on the Organic Soil forum.

Stefano Mancusco: The Roots of Plant Intelligence

This is a 14-minute video at TED.com and is a presentation which includes videos explaining Mancusco's points. Well worth the time.

CC

MrFista · 11-25-2010, 09:34 PM

Bwa ha haaa!

Pavlov's plants - coming soon. No shit, no revealing till it is done.

An understanding of feedback mechanisms both positive and negative will help explain delayed response in plant mechanisms. Many feedback loops continue to operate in the absense of the original stimulus as once a pathway is started it more often than not goes to completion.

I think Mancusco got too excited too early and needs to gather more statistical evidence and hard science - he oversells and underdelivers a fatal mistake in the cynical world of science. I'm hoping to prove the same thing myself. My idea is not that plants are elevated to sentient beings - that we are demoted to ordinary.

Most everything humans do is a kneejerk reaction to a stimulus. Genes show a predisposition for many 'personality' disorders these days. We are biological organisms responding to external inputs. So are plants. Our thinking is merely an emergent property of the central nervous system. An intricate dance of chemicals creating new synaptic associations. These get programmed in - like pavlovs dog - and we have 'learned' something new. Memory is the retention of these synaptic associations and memory loss is the loss of them.

The parasitoid wasp arrives as it detects a chemical gradient the plant emitted. The plant emits this as the saliva in the attacking caterpillar also has detectable chemicals. The saliva sets off a transcription factor which activates a gene which codes a protein which attracts a wasp. This is a genetically predetermined kneejerk reaction much like you pulling your hand back from a flame. Mechanical sensors relay chemicals which signal muscle fibres and you pull back. No thinking required by either party.

What I'm saying is we are not so amazing as we think we are, and plants are not so primitive either. If plants can think and remember thay also are capable of learning. I've yet to see some learned behaviour presented, rather, genetically predetermined morphological pathways - successful strategies for survival.

I think I can easily set up an experiment to determine a plants capability of learning. More will be revealed...

VerdantGreen · 11-25-2010, 09:46 PM

hi g0v

CC, thanks for that link

cool stuff mr F, lots of food for thought. keep us posted on the experiments!
you sound like you might be a fan of B F Skinner?

MrFista · 11-25-2010, 10:04 PM

Not familiar with B F Skinner, but I have a few pages left in my friendship book if you hook us up with a link.

VerdantGreen · 11-25-2010, 11:03 PM

skinner was into animal behavior, including humans. the famous 'skinner box'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner

https://www.terapia-conductual-cognit...20Behavior.pdf

might be a good read if you are comparing plant and human behavior

VG

MrFista · 11-26-2010, 01:12 AM

Thanks I'll check those out.

In "Evidence for Light Wavelength-Specific Photoelectrophysiological Signaling and Memory of Excess Light Episodes in Arabidopsis"... the systemic response is genetically controlled. From figure 3 - "SAA Is Dependent on Spectral Composition of Light and Is Associated with Wavelength-Specific Changes in PEPS That Is Regulated by APX2 Expression".

Both plants and animals sense -> relay -> respond. And genes are involved. I call this kneejerk reaction as we are preprogrammed to respond in such a manner. Localised cell gradients of signal molecules from sensory equipment affect localised conditions including systemic responses as they can influence both genetic transcription and hormonal production which can set off all manner of events. New events (like pollution) will be dealt with as best as the existing equipment (gene pool) allows for. Some mutations may then have an edge - this is not learning - it is genetic, albeit a genetic 'mutation'.

Is abberant behaviour in animals including humans a genetic mutation that in differing circumstances might find favour. Violence in cavemen would work better for them than in modern day man. (big brow for breaking coconuts on too!). Slowly the behaviour is weeded out of the gene pool through less sexual selection of the 'freaks' (unless you got a polygamy cult going on). When we get to the end of just how much of 'us' is actually kneejerk genetically preprogrammed response to environmental stimulus I fear our souls may shrink considerably.

Pavlov rang his bell and his dog salivated on cue. It learned that the bell was associated with food. If plants can learn they will be able to associate a new stimulus with a secondary event and respond accordingly much the same as pavlovs dog. Only, plants might be smarter than dogs.

Should I bribe the plants with treats, or frighten them with punishment!

I'm going to run with this one, I will keep you posted in future.

Microbeman · 11-26-2010, 01:27 AM

Being unsure if jokes are approved in this forum, I'm hesitant but;
Mr Fista, What happens if a dog wearing a bell pees on a plant?

MrFista · 11-26-2010, 06:38 AM

"Mr Fista, What happens if a dog wearing a bell pees on a plant?"

Exactly! The plant gets fed and the dog tinkles. Eventually a plant will associate the tinkle of a bell wearing dog with a liquid supplement.

I am not denying plants having some form of sentience though. I just think the study overreaches. Massive amount of other research to back up each sentence in the study each little wee detail saying little and loads of long winded overly complicated explanations of what I thought was basic biology in between overly complex alliterations of acronyms...

It needed more pictures of hot chix.

Hash Zeppelin · 11-26-2010, 01:51 PM

the best thing about this thread is that I get to see hoosier's name up here with banned under it.

VerdantGreen · 11-27-2010, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrFista

........ If plants can learn they will be able to associate a new stimulus with a secondary event and respond accordingly much the same as pavlovs dog. Only, plants might be smarter than dogs.

Should I bribe the plants with treats, or frighten them with punishment!

I'm going to run with this one, I will keep you posted in future.

could one argue that plants don't need to learn because they already know what they're doing?

11-25-2010, 02:20 PM	#41
Clackamas Coot Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: The People's Republic of Oregon Posts: 3,987	This was originally posted by CT Guy on the Organic Soil forum. Stefano Mancusco: The Roots of Plant Intelligence This is a 14-minute video at TED.com and is a presentation which includes videos explaining Mancusco's points. Well worth the time. CC __________________ One minute I held the key Next the walls were closed on me And I discoverd that my castles stand Upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand
	Quote

11-25-2010, 09:34 PM	#42
MrFista Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,036	Bwa ha haaa! Pavlov's plants - coming soon. No shit, no revealing till it is done. An understanding of feedback mechanisms both positive and negative will help explain delayed response in plant mechanisms. Many feedback loops continue to operate in the absense of the original stimulus as once a pathway is started it more often than not goes to completion. I think Mancusco got too excited too early and needs to gather more statistical evidence and hard science - he oversells and underdelivers a fatal mistake in the cynical world of science. I'm hoping to prove the same thing myself. My idea is not that plants are elevated to sentient beings - that we are demoted to ordinary. Most everything humans do is a kneejerk reaction to a stimulus. Genes show a predisposition for many 'personality' disorders these days. We are biological organisms responding to external inputs. So are plants. Our thinking is merely an emergent property of the central nervous system. An intricate dance of chemicals creating new synaptic associations. These get programmed in - like pavlovs dog - and we have 'learned' something new. Memory is the retention of these synaptic associations and memory loss is the loss of them. The parasitoid wasp arrives as it detects a chemical gradient the plant emitted. The plant emits this as the saliva in the attacking caterpillar also has detectable chemicals. The saliva sets off a transcription factor which activates a gene which codes a protein which attracts a wasp. This is a genetically predetermined kneejerk reaction much like you pulling your hand back from a flame. Mechanical sensors relay chemicals which signal muscle fibres and you pull back. No thinking required by either party. What I'm saying is we are not so amazing as we think we are, and plants are not so primitive either. If plants can think and remember thay also are capable of learning. I've yet to see some learned behaviour presented, rather, genetically predetermined morphological pathways - successful strategies for survival. I think I can easily set up an experiment to determine a plants capability of learning. More will be revealed... __________________ I'm in it for the tomatoes. I been growing tomatoes for a long long time. Sometimes I get to thinking I know everything about tomatoes. My tomatoes make me completely delusional.
	Quote

11-25-2010, 10:04 PM	#44
MrFista Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,036	Not familiar with B F Skinner, but I have a few pages left in my friendship book if you hook us up with a link. __________________ I'm in it for the tomatoes. I been growing tomatoes for a long long time. Sometimes I get to thinking I know everything about tomatoes. My tomatoes make me completely delusional.
	Quote

11-26-2010, 01:12 AM	#46
MrFista Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,036	Thanks I'll check those out. In "Evidence for Light Wavelength-Specific Photoelectrophysiological Signaling and Memory of Excess Light Episodes in Arabidopsis"... the systemic response is genetically controlled. From figure 3 - "SAA Is Dependent on Spectral Composition of Light and Is Associated with Wavelength-Specific Changes in PEPS That Is Regulated by APX2 Expression". Both plants and animals sense -> relay -> respond. And genes are involved. I call this kneejerk reaction as we are preprogrammed to respond in such a manner. Localised cell gradients of signal molecules from sensory equipment affect localised conditions including systemic responses as they can influence both genetic transcription and hormonal production which can set off all manner of events. New events (like pollution) will be dealt with as best as the existing equipment (gene pool) allows for. Some mutations may then have an edge - this is not learning - it is genetic, albeit a genetic 'mutation'. Is abberant behaviour in animals including humans a genetic mutation that in differing circumstances might find favour. Violence in cavemen would work better for them than in modern day man. (big brow for breaking coconuts on too!). Slowly the behaviour is weeded out of the gene pool through less sexual selection of the 'freaks' (unless you got a polygamy cult going on). When we get to the end of just how much of 'us' is actually kneejerk genetically preprogrammed response to environmental stimulus I fear our souls may shrink considerably. Pavlov rang his bell and his dog salivated on cue. It learned that the bell was associated with food. If plants can learn they will be able to associate a new stimulus with a secondary event and respond accordingly much the same as pavlovs dog. Only, plants might be smarter than dogs. Should I bribe the plants with treats, or frighten them with punishment! I'm going to run with this one, I will keep you posted in future. __________________ I'm in it for the tomatoes. I been growing tomatoes for a long long time. Sometimes I get to thinking I know everything about tomatoes. My tomatoes make me completely delusional.
	Quote

11-26-2010, 01:27 AM	#47
Microbeman The Logical Gardener Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 4,436	Being unsure if jokes are approved in this forum, I'm hesitant but; Mr Fista, What happens if a dog wearing a bell pees on a plant? __________________ Anybody can be wrong about anything. "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." ~John Maynard Keynes~ Sorry: No questions by PM, check my webpage
	Quote

11-26-2010, 06:38 AM	#48
MrFista Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,036	"Mr Fista, What happens if a dog wearing a bell pees on a plant?" Exactly! The plant gets fed and the dog tinkles. Eventually a plant will associate the tinkle of a bell wearing dog with a liquid supplement. I am not denying plants having some form of sentience though. I just think the study overreaches. Massive amount of other research to back up each sentence in the study each little wee detail saying little and loads of long winded overly complicated explanations of what I thought was basic biology in between overly complex alliterations of acronyms... It needed more pictures of hot chix. __________________ I'm in it for the tomatoes. I been growing tomatoes for a long long time. Sometimes I get to thinking I know everything about tomatoes. My tomatoes make me completely delusional.
	Quote