Do plants have intelligence?

Hume

Verified User
If intelligence for biological individuals is defined as ‘adaptively variable behaviour within the lifetime of the individual’, distinguished from genetically determined, developmental processes, then it makes sense to describe plant behaviour as intelligent.

It makes sense further to specify the definition for plants. Trewavas accordingly defines plant intelligence as ‘adaptively variable behaviour during the lifetime of the individual’. Examples of this adaptively variable behaviour in plants include directional root growth towards water sources, phototropism (the orientation of a plant towards light) and the release of volatile chemicals as a response to herbivore attack.

 
If intelligence for biological individuals is defined as ‘adaptively variable behaviour within the lifetime of the individual’, distinguished from genetically determined, developmental processes, then it makes sense to describe plant behaviour as intelligent.

It makes sense further to specify the definition for plants. Trewavas accordingly defines plant intelligence as ‘adaptively variable behaviour during the lifetime of the individual’. Examples of this adaptively variable behaviour in plants include directional root growth towards water sources, phototropism (the orientation of a plant towards light) and the release of volatile chemicals as a response to herbivore attack.

is not intelligence the ability of an individual brain of a individual body to navigate in a desired direction between everything outside its body?

Plants respond the environmental changes of seasonal shifts and lifespans of each generation from seed to dead each plant when mature produces seeds or suckers replacing its current location after it dies and the replacements are left alive future rotations the corpse becomes composed lasting long enough to reach fossil fuel..
 
If intelligence for biological individuals is defined as ‘adaptively variable behaviour within the lifetime of the individual’, distinguished from genetically determined, developmental processes, then it makes sense to describe plant behaviour as intelligent.

It makes sense further to specify the definition for plants. Trewavas accordingly defines plant intelligence as ‘adaptively variable behaviour during the lifetime of the individual’. Examples of this adaptively variable behaviour in plants include directional root growth towards water sources, phototropism (the orientation of a plant towards light) and the release of volatile chemicals as a response to herbivore attack.

No
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe
Philosophers aren't generally trained or equipped to talk about biology, neuroscience, ecology.

The word 'intelligent' is a human convention that doesn't bear any more reality to the objectively true reality of nature than the word 'red' does.
 
Philosophers aren't generally trained or equipped to talk about biology, neuroscience, ecology.

The word 'intelligent' is a human convention that doesn't bear any more reality to the objectively true reality of nature than the word 'red' does.
Most philosophers know more about science than you do. I think you took a few classes at community college.
 
If intelligence for biological individuals is defined as ‘adaptively variable behaviour within the lifetime of the individual’, distinguished from genetically determined, developmental processes, then it makes sense to describe plant behaviour as intelligent.

It makes sense further to specify the definition for plants. Trewavas accordingly defines plant intelligence as ‘adaptively variable behaviour during the lifetime of the individual’. Examples of this adaptively variable behaviour in plants include directional root growth towards water sources, phototropism (the orientation of a plant towards light) and the release of volatile chemicals as a response to herbivore attack.


Do you?
 
No, really. You do not know that philosophers specialize in science.
Plus, you did not bother to read the article. Botanists and biologists are referenced.
That does nothing to address my point that the word 'intelligent' is a human convention that doesn't bear any more reality to the objectively true reality of nature than the word 'red' does.

It sounds like these cats just wanted to get an article published that was edgy and controversial. Those lacking talent usually have more luck getting published if they can be edgy and seemingly "controversial".
 
That does nothing to address my point that the word 'intelligent' is a human convention that doesn't bear any more reality to the objectively true reality of nature than the word 'red' does.

It sounds like these cats just wanted to get an article published that was edgy and controversial. Those lacking talent have more luck getting published if they can be edgy.
Your stupidity is boring.
 
Your stupidity is boring.
The word "intelligence" is a human convention that has no ontological reality, and is used most commonly to refer to self-awareness, knowing, learning, reasoning, understanding. It may be colloquially used sometimes for the higher sentient mammals.

To call algae, grass, coniferous trees intelligent is retarded.
 
Back
Top