On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:04:11 +0100, Andy Hunt wrote:

So how do plants know which way is 'up', then, when they are germinating in
the dark . . . ? Does this not imply some sort of perceptive and
decision-making capability, albeit on a fairly mundane level?

Gravity, mostly.

Imagine a white T-shirt you've just soaked in a colourful dye. Hang the
shirt up and the dye will run to the bottom creating a gradient. in the
same way, there will be a gradient of various hormones throughout the plant
from tip to root, from leaf tip tip stem etc.

To (over) generalise a bit, the hormones responsible (a group called auxins
IIRC) for root growth also sink to the bottom of the plant, through the
cells. Thus roots grow at the bottom (where there is more root-growth
hormone), and shoots grow a the top (where there is less root-growth
hormone....).

You can show this by cutting small cubes of (certain) plant tissue and
whichever way you put them down they will grow roots at the bottom. Turn
them round, then they'll start growing roots from the new bottom surface.
As roots tend to grow first, it's possible in fact to create a cube of
plant tissue with roots growing out of all six sides, if you're bored.


--
Tim C.

On 19 Apr 2004 11:15:54 GMT, Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article yrOgc.45$oI2.0@newsfe1-win,
"Andy Hunt" writes:
| So how do plants know which way is 'up', then, when they are germinating in
| the dark . . . ? Does this not imply some sort of perceptive and
| decision-making capability, albeit on a fairly mundane level?

No. It slightly goes against the grain to recommend anything by
Richard Dawkins (he is widely regarded as a pain in the a*** by
other scientists), but his books do explain how this for of thing
develops without consciousness.

Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Any textbook on basic botany will do as well.
Dawkins does tend to take a good idea and stretch it to the limit. But I
think his ideas are generally sound. Thought provoking at the least.

Andy,
Dawkin's book The Blind Watchmaker is a good example of what Nick
suggested.
--
Tim C.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:04:11 +0100, Andy Hunt wrote:

So how do plants know which way is 'up', then, when they are germinating in
the dark . . . ? Does this not imply some sort of perceptive and
decision-making capability, albeit on a fairly mundane level?

Here's a link : http://www.biology-online.org/3/5_plant_hormones.htm

--
Tim C.

So how do plants know which way is 'up', then, when they are germinating
in
the dark . . . ? Does this not imply some sort of perceptive and
decision-making capability, albeit on a fairly mundane level?

Here's a link : http://www.biology-online.org/3/5_plant_hormones.htm

Fair enough . . . but I do find myself wondering if biology is a function of
consciousness, or vice versa . . .

Andy
"The bridge flows, not the river" - Zen proverb

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:59:53 +0100, Andy Hunt wrote:


So how do plants know which way is 'up', then, when they are germinating
in
the dark . . . ? Does this not imply some sort of perceptive and
decision-making capability, albeit on a fairly mundane level?

Here's a link : http://www.biology-online.org/3/5_plant_hormones.htm

Fair enough . . . but I do find myself wondering if biology is a function of
consciousness, or vice versa . . .

You don't have to be conscious to be a biologist.

Seriously, who can say if a plant or animal are conscious? Scientists can't
even agree amongst themselves what consciousness is, let alone being able
to tell if other organisms possess it or not. I'm pretty sure about
bacteria and some fungi, but I often wonder about some humans.

--
Tim C.

Cereus-validus wrote:
Well, isn't that special?

When you think they are talking back is when you really know you have a
problem!!!


Thankfully I don't hear voices and I have vivid memories of Day Of The
Triffids from my childhood....

Kev,

The message CUxgc.11$mv.3@newsfe1-win
from "Ch. Rajinder Nijjhar Jatt"
contains these words:

It may seem a silly question but I have heard that the plants have
"lesser brain", the seat of instincts.

Some plants will react to being touched by rapidly becoming flaccid, so
some sort of nervous system could be involved.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Hmmmm.

You obviously slept all through the course on basic botany.

Read up on geotropism.


"Andy Hunt" wrote in message
news:yrOgc.45$oI2.0@newsfe1-win...
So how do plants know which way is 'up', then, when they are germinating
in
the dark . . . ? Does this not imply some sort of perceptive and
decision-making capability, albeit on a fairly mundane level?

Andy


"Cereus-validus" wrote in message
. ..
Well, isn't that special?

When you think they are talking back is when you really know you have a
problem!!!


"Kevin Groves" wrote in message
...
I dont care, I will still talk to my plants.
Kev,

Not so Paul Atreides.

The Mimosa plant quickly folds up its leaves because of a rapid drop in
water pressure akin to wilting. No nervous system is needed at all.

You really should read up on your basic botany instead making wild flights
of fantasy. The truth is far more interesting.


"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message CUxgc.11$mv.3@newsfe1-win
from "Ch. Rajinder Nijjhar Jatt"
contains these words:

It may seem a silly question but I have heard that the plants have
"lesser brain", the seat of instincts.

Some plants will react to being touched by rapidly becoming flaccid, so
some sort of nervous system could be involved.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

In article ,
"Cereus-validus" writes:
|
| The Mimosa plant quickly folds up its leaves because of a rapid drop in
| water pressure akin to wilting. No nervous system is needed at all.
|
| You really should read up on your basic botany instead making wild flights
| of fantasy. The truth is far more interesting.

It would a hell of a lot easier to see what you are wittering about
if you didn't both top post and leave the previous posting unedited.
Please do not be so lazy and inconsiderate.

Wilting is (largely) a loss of turgidity due to the water
evaporating - i.e. a direct effect. Mimosa pudica's response to
touch necessarily involves a more complex mechanism; in particular,
the response is not entirely local, which implies some degree of
communication. And nerves are nothing more than communication
links.

A far better analogy is the mechanism used for water transport
between the roots and leaves of a tree. No nervous system is
involved, but it is NOT as simple a mechanism as simple wilting.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Not so Paul Atreides.

For he IS the Kwisatz Haderach . . .


The Mimosa plant quickly folds up its leaves because of a rapid drop in
water pressure akin to wilting. No nervous system is needed at all.

Venus flytrap?


You really should read up on your basic botany instead making wild flights
of fantasy. The truth is far more interesting.

An old teacher of mine once pointed out that there can never be such a thing
as "extra-sensory perception", because perception by its very nature
requires sensation.

Arguments for the behaviour of plants being biology-based can be used
equally for people too - a scientific approach will boil our every action,
emotion and decision down to electrochemical processes in our brain, just as
the analysis of a car engine will reveal all the different moving parts and
how they fit together. But if you look for the _velocity_ in the engine, you
won't find it, just as if you look for the _soul_ in a person's body you
won't find it. Similarly, if you look for the _growth_ in a plant, you won't
find it . . .

Andy
"A ten-year-old child could understand this. Go out and find me a
ten-year-old child" - Marx

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:12:46 +0100, Andy Hunt wrote:

Similarly, if you look for the _growth_ in a plant, you won't
find it . . .

I know what you mean, but as I said elsewhere, who decides what is
consciousness? And how? Boiling it down again you end up with "I think,
therefore I am" and that's all you can prove. Well, *YOU* can't prove it,
because you're just a figment of my imagination, but *I* can.

What is your personal definition of consciousness? Are viruses conscious?
Bacteria? Fungi? Algae? Apple-trees? Sponges? Jellyfish? Octopuses? Fish?
Humans?
If some of these are conscious then why? And why not the others? That's the
hard bit; trying to identify the boiled-down chemical processes which make
something self-aware. Or even to reach a consensus on what is actually
meant by consciousness.
--
Tim C.

Why don't you go back to contemplating your navel, Tiny Tim, take your New
Age drivel to some newsgroup more appropriate where they might take you
silliness seriously and not show everyone in this one just how flaky you
are?

If you took a poll here, the overwhelming majority would
say you and your twinkie friends lack any consciousness.

I would recommend you stay away from woodlands lest you be attacked by
squirrels. Those critters already know what you are!


"Tim Challenger" "timothy(dot)challenger(at)apk(dot)at" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:12:46 +0100, Andy Hunt wrote:

Similarly, if you look for the _growth_ in a plant, you won't
find it . . .

I know what you mean, but as I said elsewhere, who decides what is
consciousness? And how? Boiling it down again you end up with "I think,
therefore I am" and that's all you can prove. Well, *YOU* can't prove it,
because you're just a figment of my imagination, but *I* can.

What is your personal definition of consciousness? Are viruses conscious?
Bacteria? Fungi? Algae? Apple-trees? Sponges? Jellyfish? Octopuses?
Fish?
Humans?
If some of these are conscious then why? And why not the others? That's
the
hard bit; trying to identify the boiled-down chemical processes which make
something self-aware. Or even to reach a consensus on what is actually
meant by consciousness.
--
Tim C.

The topic has been studies in detail many times over the years, even by
Charles Darwin, and there is no doubt that the various responses to stimuli
by plants have nothing at all to do with any type of intelligence. The topic
is the subject of many books and all anyone need to do is read them. If one
had been awake during any basic botany class they would know the truth about
plant physiology.

That some New Age clowns are too lazy to actually do any real research into
the subject show just how ignorant and stupid they really are and that they
should not be given any serious consideration at all. They have been
watching too much bad sci-fi on TV. They are clueless about the scientific
method and how to apply it to even the most basic problems.

In any case, the extent of their ineptitude has noting to do with gardening.


"Andy Hunt" wrote in message
news:2O6hc.20874$4N3.2404@newsfe1-win...

Not so Paul Atreides.

For he IS the Kwisatz Haderach . . .


The Mimosa plant quickly folds up its leaves because of a rapid drop in
water pressure akin to wilting. No nervous system is needed at all.

Venus flytrap?


You really should read up on your basic botany instead making wild
flights
of fantasy. The truth is far more interesting.

An old teacher of mine once pointed out that there can never be such a
thing
as "extra-sensory perception", because perception by its very nature
requires sensation.

Arguments for the behaviour of plants being biology-based can be used
equally for people too - a scientific approach will boil our every action,
emotion and decision down to electrochemical processes in our brain, just
as
the analysis of a car engine will reveal all the different moving parts
and
how they fit together. But if you look for the _velocity_ in the engine,
you
won't find it, just as if you look for the _soul_ in a person's body you
won't find it. Similarly, if you look for the _growth_ in a plant, you
won't
find it . . .

Andy
"A ten-year-old child could understand this. Go out and find me a
ten-year-old child" - Marx

Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article yrOgc.45$oI2.0@newsfe1-win,
"Andy Hunt" writes:
| So how do plants know which way is 'up', then, when they are germinating in
| the dark . . . ? Does this not imply some sort of perceptive and
| decision-making capability, albeit on a fairly mundane level?
No. How does water know which way is down when it is running down a
slope? How does a compass know to point north?



No. It slightly goes against the grain to recommend anything by
Richard Dawkins (he is widely regarded as a pain in the a*** by
other scientists)
Not by any scientists I know. I don't know many zoologists and
biologists though, so maybe in his own area he not so well thought off.
Is there a reason for this, has he upset them in some way or is it just
because he's famous?

, but his books do explain how this for of thing
develops without consciousness.
They do indeed.

Roger Penrose also wrote a couple of excellent book on conciousness
called "Shadows of the Mind" and "The Emperor's New Mind".