Brooklyn1 Gravesend1 writes:
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:11:50 -0500, wrote:
Bill who putters writes:
"The idea that plants basically have nerves ‹ a conclusion that grows
out of hard-to-interpret observations of electrical activity in plant
tissue ‹ has ignited a thunderstorm of its own among plant scientists in
recent years.
Article in question is a semantic game.
Here they are attempting to stretch the meaning of the phrase
"swarm intelligence".
Plants reacting to the environment is in no way intelligence as the
word is commonly understood.
That's a matter of perspective.
Actually it's not.
Flora survives well without fauna but
not vice versa...
The 2 have been co-existing a long time.
But probably animals need plants to survive.
But we were talking about intelligence, not survival.
plants have obviously evolved a higher form of
intelligence...
No they haven't.
reproduction and photosynthesis from the perspective
of plants is the higher intelligence...
Plant's don't have a perspective.
Any more than they have intelligence.
only humans make asinine
superiority judgements.
Resorting to name calling so soon?
Where did you read that animals are superior
to plants? Did someone in this thread imply anything like
that?
I prefer to use words that have meaning.
The word intelligence has a meaning.
Plants get by just fine without intelligence.