Plant intelligence is a difficult concept to accept because it necessarily creates a new vision or perspective on the definition of intelligence. Tony Trewavas' article, Plant Intelligence: An Overview, provides examples of the physiological complexity of plants that Trewavas interprets as intelligence. He defines that intelligence: “(a) is a property that an individual possesses when interacting with his or her environment(s), (b) is related to the agent's ability to succeed in or benefit from a goal or goal, and (c) depends on the agent's ability to adapt to different goals or environments.” One of the main qualifying factors for intelligence is flexible behavior or, using one facet of Trewavas' definition, the more flexible behavior an organism possesses, the more "able" the agent is to adapt to different goals. or environments”. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay I would like to focus on flexible behavior specifically because I think it is one of the most crucial to intelligence and, if correctly demonstrated in plants, can undermine any explanation of plant behavior other than intelligence. My view on flexible behavior is that it requires active thinking to go against physical mechanisms and allows the organism to act spontaneously but logically when faced with different situations. I would like to explain how certain physical structures and systems of plants could be interpreted as flexible behavior, because I believe there is a high probability that plants possess active thinking and thus can exhibit flexible behavior. I will first attempt to prove why it is logically possible to believe in plant intelligence, then I will provide scientific examples of the flexible behavior of plants, and finally I will attempt to defend my conclusions. I would like to start by introducing Robert Pargetter's article. “Theory of Inference to the Best Explanation,” which he writes in his article, The Scientific Inference to other Minds. He defines his best explanation theory of inference by writing that "if a hypothesis is the best available explanation of all of a person's available evidence at a given time, then it is rational for that person to believe that hypothesis." at that time. ". Pargetter basically writes that if a hypothesis is the best explanation of something, then it is rational to believe in the correctness of the hypothesis. I would like to use this theory of rationalization to test whether plant behavior can be explained as flexible. Scientists have already discovered that most plant systems are very complex and sophisticated. One of the most complicated is a plant's root cap. root present in Arabidopsis: the extreme end of the root is covered by a cap made up of approximately 200 cells. The cap is dynamic. It is constructed from a layer of dividing cells which adjoin the root meristem itself. The cells of the cap are gradually pushed outwards Upon reaching the surface of the cap, they detach themselves However, during their life, slowly moving towards the front of the cap, they serve both. detect and evaluate a variety of different signals. Like the cell and nervous system above, current information indicates that it has a similar architecture in terms of degree structure, withboth a core and a periphery – a structure that appears to underlie intelligent behavior. This architecture can engender resilience that is distinguished by the range of signals detected by the cap. The root cap has the ability to respond flexibly to its environment, shedding dead cells and moving in the direction of essential survival needs. However, this can easily be interpreted as a simple mechanistic process triggered by several chemical reactions. The root cap is attracted to survival needs and grows towards them. When it does not perceive survival needs, it stops growing towards them. Active thought causing flexible behavior that goes against a physical mechanism is simply not the best explanation. Another objection to the flexible behavior of plants is that they do not have neurons or brains, which generally means that there is no possibility of cognitive activity. . I believe, however, that there is no universal system of cognition, so the absence of a neural network does not necessarily eliminate cognition completely. Peter Godfrey-Smith, in his article, Cephalopods and the Evolution of the Mind, describes the neuronal difference between cephalopods and vertebrates, but still claims that they exhibit flexible behavior and possess intelligence (Godfrey-Smith 5). He writes that “cephalopods have a totally different organization, both in terms of body and brain” (Godfrey-Smith 5). While "the plan of vertebrates includes a head and a spinal cord, from which the peripheral nervous system originates", cephalopods present "a ladder-shaped nervous system", where "the neurons were grouped at the front between eyes, and many of the lymph nodes were fused. So there was a partial submergence of the invertebrate neuronal plane – but only partial” (Godfrey-Smith 5). He also mentions that “a common octopus has approximately 500 million neurons. Two-thirds of them are not in the brain at all, but in the arms themselves,” meaning that “their nervous system remains much more “distributed,” more widespread across the arms. the body, than ours (i.e. human)” (Godfrey-Smith 5). It also gives an example of flexible behavior in cephalopods. He writes: “A group of researchers in Indonesia were recently surprised to see octopuses carrying pairs of coconut halves, to use as portable shelters (Finn et al. 2009). One half shell would be nestled inside another, and the octopus would carry the pair under its body while walking on stilts on the seabed. The octopus then assembled the half-shells to form a sphere and climbed inside. Many animals use found objects as shelters (hermit crabs are one example), but it is rare to assemble and disassemble a compound tool like this. Cephalopods certainly exhibit flexible behavior in a way that involves active, spontaneous, and logical thinking in relation to the situation. ; it also appears to be more than just a physical mechanism. The complexity of the described behavior of coconut octopuses is too great for it to be simply a physical mechanism. It would therefore follow that they possess intelligence since this is the best explanation according to Pargetter's theory. Although the brain and neuronal structure of a cephalopod is entirely different from that of humans, and even that of all mammals, it is still concluded that the flexible structure of a cephalopod behavior signifies intelligence because This is the best explanation. This clearly shows that there is no universal structure forcognition or intelligence. So the lack of neuronal structure or brains in plants is not necessarily a problem. Their way of thinking may simply not have been discovered yet. It was only recently in human history that our closest evolutionary relatives, such as chimpanzees, were capable of thinking or possessing intelligence. We now consider other animal species originating from humans, such as octopuses and cuttlefish, according to Peter Godfrey-Smith's article. I believe that with more understanding and research in plant biology, we will discover a new approach to intelligence indicating plant structures. Returning to the task at hand, we concluded that the best way to explain cephalopod behavior is to define it as flexible, which means intelligence. Now, if we think that there is no universal structure for cognition, therefore there is no need for a neural network or a brain, then all that is missing is flexible behavior in plants , while flexibility is the best explanation for this behavior. This is where it gets tricky. Most plant systems are triggered by physical processes that are best explained as signs of intelligence. Research investigating the flexible behavior of plants is limited and even the experiments carried out have not led to definitive conclusions. The final section of Tony Trewavas's article, titled "Games, Plants Play," contains the most unique facets of plant physiology, and this section, I believe, presents real-world examples of flexible behaviors in plants. Tony Trewavas concludes his article by writing about the “prisoner behavior” of a legume. dilemma game” with rhizobia bacteria. The simple description of this plant's interactions with bacteria is that some rhizobia bacteria are more efficient than others at converting dinitrogen in the atmosphere into organic nitrogen through the process of nitrogen fixation. There are also several different types of rhizobia bacteria, and only some of them can fix dinitrogen into organic nitrogen. The plant will then form a “nodule” around the rhizobial bacteria which can attach and ignore those which do not, thus eliminating the “free riders”. Trewavas reviews this behavior very briefly, but I found more information on this topic in an article titled Partner Choice in Nitrogen-Fixation Mutualisms of Legumes and Rhizobia, written by Ellen L. Simms and D. Lee Taylor who provide more information on the symbiotic. relationship between legumes and rhizobia bacteria (Sims, Taylor 369). Simms and Taylor begin by describing the need for organic nitrogen that triggers the process. They write that although "nitrogen is extremely abundant, constituting approximately 79% of the atmosphere", it exists in the form of "dinitrogen", which plants "cannot convert... into useful organic forms" and that "l "Mineral nitrogen is labile and has a limited contribution to the atmosphere." soils” (Simms, Taylor 370). This means that nitrogen fixation is an essential process for the survival of the legume. This creates the need for a symbiotic relationship between these two organisms. Legumes provide carbohydrates to rhizobia bacteria by “paying the energetic price of the reduction reaction, carry out a complicated signal exchange with the rhizobia, produce leghemoglobin, and form a new organ: the nodule” (Sims, Taylor 372). The legume essentially traps bacteria that fix nitrogen for nutrients, while ignoring bacteria that don't. It is mutually beneficial between the two organizations;.