Psychological processes as: perception, memory, learning, emotion or motivation?
Indeed, there is enough data that indicates that the roots have a structure that could be assimilated -mutatis mutandi- to what would be a brain ... this is even more explicit in forests or similar where all of them interact for, p. For example, warn of possible dangers in order to ensure that the entire forest can adaptively "defend" itself.
One positive answer (on associative learning) is: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep38427
As a layman, I couldn't not sense any Psychological processes because living things only can have these things and not proven that plants too can have such behaviour. Otherwise we can apply such philosophy on any things by wearing same goggles...
Definitely not psychological process, but certainly sign-action.
Look up phytosemiotics, the study of phytosemiosis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytosemiotics
My feeling is that seeking to identify botanical psychological processes, and characteristics suggesting them, faces a fundamental problem, in that our own defining of psychological processes (anthropocentrically projected to encompass describing those of non-human animals) are grounded in processes underpinning intentional actions pertinent to our expressly mobile mode of survival. Human and other animal brains, the foundations of their psychologies, have evolved especially in the context of contending with that mode of existence. It's been noted that multicellular organisms that have no organs of free locomotion (including placozoa and sponges as well as plants) haven't evolved nervous systems, let alone ones with central nervous systems and brains. Given this zoocentric framework, I can't imagine how it would be possible to define plants' psychological attributes, lacking the appropriate criteria for doing so and for identifying them.
Trees engage in action and reaction with animals that live on them or use them. Many rely on animals often to spread their seeds. Not sure where vegetation stops and animals begin.
If you adopt a functionalist (or even computational) understanding of mind, then whether or not you think plants can "think" depends on how convinced you are by the behavioral paradigms used in each study.
There are about a dozen studies showing that plants show habituation and Pavlovian (classical) conditioning. These are both types of non-declarative (implicit) memory. There are also some studies reporting habituation in slime-molds, and even individual cells isolated from cancer cell-lines.
The other psychological categories you posited (perception, emotion, motivation) are a bit more tricky to demonstrate -- even to the more open-minded.
What would a convincing behavioural definition of emotion be that a plant can show? We would have to really abstract away, and fight an uphill battle with the neuro-centric crowd. There is already so much skepticism (denial?) that microscopic animals are capable of experiencing memory, despite them sharing similar genes and behaviours.
Logic and reason dictate no, just sign processes, but then -- I don't know what it's like to be a plant. Didn't behaviourists consign animals to being merely stimulus-response entities, at one time? Also- the mimiviruses blur the line between virus and living organism, and some species of bacteria are proving to be surprising in the complexity of their behaviour. There might be other dimensions to the concept of 'mind' that we don't know about yet, or even other extant plants we don't know about at the moment! I know it's improbable (to the point of rendering the answer a simple "no"!) but I think it would be short-sighted to rule everything out.....
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Biota
- Eukaryota
- Viridiplantae
- Streptophyta
- Plants