I would say no, plants do not have cognition. A key aspect of cognition is the concept of a mental representation. A mental representation can be regarded as an isomorphism to something in the physical environment--i.e., it has structural elements that map to structural elements in the world, and relations between those elements that map to relations in the world in some way--and also operations that can transform the representation in ways that real objects are transformed in the world. Take mental imagery. If you form a mental image of a coffee cup, you have a representation or mental model of the coffee cup. That representation has elements (the handle, the opening, the base) that map to elements in the world, that are related to one another in the way that the elements in the world are related (the handle is imagined on the side of the cup); moreover, if you mentally rotated the image, it would sort of look like the physically rotated object--depending on your mental imagery skill. In general, cognitive processes operate on such representations of the world (whether they be images, propositions, or whatever) to achieve novel results that can constrain and guide behavior. Plants, when they respond to light, do not exhibit behavior that depends on such representations, and can be explained without them. So, given that most cognitive psychologists subscribe to this notion of representation as a fundamental part of cognition, plants would be unlikely to have it. I hope that helps.

Best wishes,

Mike Anderson

Hi Matt,

Sure, it can be hard to proof addition takes place, and then, what use would it have for a tree, that usually does not walk much. But... it appears that with some electrodes you cán hear the music of oranges, and that some physicist also hear sounds of a few hertz (oscillations per minute) that are relevant to plants' juices. And then, jokingly, what to say about the famous mathematician (Brouwer) who climbed a tree, kept his mouth shut for a day or two, and came down to state that yes, God dóes exist. Would it have been another marital crisis?

Hi Joris, Matt,

not so sure about the axiom "A tree does not walk much". [Sorry, I'm a physicist].

— I have 2 considerations:

#1, It seems like root apex runs a brain-like gear for his plant "navigation” — underground, obviously :). And

#2, experiments say that transfer of a tree from one location to another, for grubbing and replanting, causes to… *him* some neural problems completely identical to jet-lag for humans, in terms of same specialised genes. I was not aware of this before, then I read an interview by Daniel Chamowitz on Sc. American, 2012.

g

Giuseppe,

Thanks. As a physicist, do you agree that trees do not do math?

Again, not so sure.

If I read math through the last Hersh's vision [math does not make sense outside of the context of human], I would say that Yes: tree do math in a plant-istic tree-version of the human-Hersh [=~ math does not make sanse outside the context of trees].

But the truth is that I think that trees pre-adapt [—biologists forgive me!] themselves to all the absurdities that would make sense being in a math session: roots growing concentric instead of branching, leaves pissing water as fountains, squares instead of concentric circles inside the trunk - all those wonders mathematics in the country of Alice. Then they choose what makes life more comfortable.

g

Hi giuseppe,

Thanks. And frankly, math sometimes does make life more comfortable.

I would say no, plants do not have cognition. A key aspect of cognition is the concept of a mental representation. A mental representation can be regarded as an isomorphism to something in the physical environment--i.e., it has structural elements that map to structural elements in the world, and relations between those elements that map to relations in the world in some way--and also operations that can transform the representation in ways that real objects are transformed in the world. Take mental imagery. If you form a mental image of a coffee cup, you have a representation or mental model of the coffee cup. That representation has elements (the handle, the opening, the base) that map to elements in the world, that are related to one another in the way that the elements in the world are related (the handle is imagined on the side of the cup); moreover, if you mentally rotated the image, it would sort of look like the physically rotated object--depending on your mental imagery skill. In general, cognitive processes operate on such representations of the world (whether they be images, propositions, or whatever) to achieve novel results that can constrain and guide behavior. Plants, when they respond to light, do not exhibit behavior that depends on such representations, and can be explained without them. So, given that most cognitive psychologists subscribe to this notion of representation as a fundamental part of cognition, plants would be unlikely to have it. I hope that helps.

Best wishes,

Mike Anderson

Hi Michael,

That sounds reasonable enough, except for how to define a mental representation.

Joris

Yes, I agree. Very difficult to assess something that is intrinsically difficult to observe. If you would like to read a fascinating, and truly first-rate analytic treatment of mental representations across the animal kingdom, try reading "The Organization of Action" and "The Organization of Learning" by CR (Randy) Gallistel. He covers everything from sun-compass navigation in honey bees to dead reckoning in migrant waterfowl, all with an eye towards understanding the mind in general. He describes experiments that show that these species of sophisticated representations of time and the geometry of space. Very scholarly, beautifully argued, and very convincing. By the time you are done with this, you'll think that it might just be possible to understand representation.

Thanks a lot Michael, I will order it once I have the time. And consider 'The handicap principle' by Zahavi and Zahavi if you want to have a really disturbingly fresh and fascinating account on meaning of biological signals with as yet unclear consequences for cognitive studies .... and a lot more.

@Joris, something I've just read today. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/12/23/131223fa_fact_pollan?mobify=0

Best,

g

Hi Giuseppe, A good read that is! The website took ages to process links from pubads.g.doubleclick.net or cdn.api.twitter.com and the like, making me feel like my attention has been auctioned and sold in advance. So I had to stop reading to maintain my intellectual integrity, just after finding out that plants have signals and behavior but do not necessarily have cognition as well.

Oh Joris, I am very very sorry for the great risk going out of your intellectual integrity.

Maybe next time I'll print the article for you on vegetable paper, and I'll send via courier (I hope to find one with a wind engine).

For the rest of that dirty text good for ordinary people, if you want I'll prepare a summary for you, perhaps the eleventh page ended up saying something curious.

Cheers, g.

Hi Giuseppe,

I meant no cynicism at all. What I saw is a good read indeed, and very relevant to this thread.

But I díd have to wait about ten minutes to see the end of page one, and díd feel that somebody else owned my attention and my time, and I díd stop reading when it became clear they say that plants do have signals, behavior and some brainy behavior but not necessarily do have cognition.

Please do not be cross with me when I feel frustrated by much modern technology. Many people are, and it often takes much time, and also does relate to subjects like integrity because it too often appears that they own you, your text, your time, and, indirectly perhaps, own your thoughts too.

Thanks Joris.

There's probably a moment of background noise in this common virtual environment, and this prevented me from understanding exactly what you meant.

Now it is clear, my apologies.

g

I agree with Michael

Hi Tarak,

Thanks for commenting.

Probably when he says that plants do not have cognition because they can not have mental representations as they do not have a nervous system. Now I had time to go over Gallistel's books, and liked much, but note that he claims psychology appears to need that sort of thing to explain, say, orientation. But he will not say if the adressable memory like mechanisms with abstraction too would be located in, say, mRNA, or, synapsen after all, or, say, eigenfrequencies of codes of neurons that have yet to be discovered. So basically you and Michael say no, plants do not have cognition, because they do not have a central nervous system.

According to the Fractal Catalytic Model all living processes are cognitive.

Davia, C.J (June 2006), "Life, Catalysis and Excitable Media: A Dynamic Systems Approach to Metabolism and Cognition", in Tuszynski, J.A, The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (The Frontiers Collection), Springer, pp. 255–292, ISBN 978-3540238904

Hi Christopher,

Funny!

Joris

Don't knock it ;til you have tried it, Joris!

Hi Joris, 

I realise I am joining this conversation, somewhat, late, but I think your question has already found answers in science. I have recently written a review exactly on this topic and I feel you will find some of the examples of great interests. Moreover, I have conducted experiments in my lab recently that confirm (beyond any philosophical doubt) that plants are cognitive agent - will share the results once they are officially published (you know how this publishing game works). Hope you enjoy the review for now. Best wishes, Monica

Article In a green frame of mind: Perspectives on the behavioural ec...

it is not fare to compare the cognitive power of the plants with animals or CNS.

Plants have their own way of cognition, in India since Vedic era plants were treated as cognitive organisms, even before harvesting a plant as food or medicine one has to invite the soul of the plant to provide full vigor and pray the plant to be available with full medicinal ans nutritive potential at the time of collection.

Plant do have an awareness and communicate with other beings in the environment including us . They speak in many ways we are only beginning to understand with growing scientific knowledge. 

Dear Joris,

This article and author's research work could be of help to you.....

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230685611_Insights_into_plant_consciousness_from_neuroscience_physics_and_mathematics_A_role_for_quasicrystals

Article Insights into plant consciousness from neuroscience, physics...

You may find these of interest to answer your question...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268789282_In_a_green_frame_of_mind_Perspectives_on_the_behavioural_ecology_and_cognitive_nature_of_plants

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259587596_Experience_teaches_plants_to_learn_faster_and_forget_slower_in_environments_where_it_matters

and there is some new experimental work on this topic coming soon.

All the best!

Article In a green frame of mind: Perspectives on the behavioural ec...

Article Experience teaches plants to learn faster and forget slower ...

Hi Monica, thanks. I am extremely busy at the moment, so can not read them now, but thanks a lot.

It depends on how you think about the virtual world of the plant. It is a long definition.

Being somewhat under qualified but with an interest that keeps distracting me from many a task at hand........

A recent paper by Baluska & Mancuso discusses recent studies suggesting that plants are able to sense shapes and colours via plant-specific ocelli.

Another paper by Sassi & Traas talks about how growth generated mechanical stress can feedback on plant developmental programs by modifying cell growth

Another paper by Hamant & Moulia discusses 'How do plants read their own shape'

The papers by Gagliano are also fascinating and somewhat bizarre in illuminating a deeper level of physics based communication

Though I have yet to see Oxalis triangularis use a calculator, (though with later illumination I see I stand corrected (Scialdone et al. eLife 2013;2:e00669 / DOI: 10.7554/eLife.00669.001), I thought the adaptive mimicry by the woody vine Boquila trifoliolata, was pretty impressive

What do you mean with cognition? Thinking. You mean a tree can think? definitely not.

How can we be 'definitely' sure that they do not? I am not so 'definitely' sure... shouldn't we be disturbed by our own 'sureness' about what we actually do not know? Just think out loud!

Article The mind of plants: Thinking the unthinkable

perhaps a less anthropocentric definition of 'cognition' is appropriate? it seems we are falling into the same trap of defining things in 'our' terms. if 'cognition' is a human attribute, then perhaps another word to describe 'plant cognition' though that too falls into the trap that words are still human constructs and 'our world' is ultimately limited by 'our definitions'.

Hi Monica, Brian, Thanks for understanding. Me too I wonder how to approach this, say if you can leave out the mental representation stuff and still talk about thinking. Joris 

Dear All:

I agree that plants do not form mental representations and do not think. However, they can learn, communicate with each other and adapt to the environment according to complex signal processing. They are also sentient systems, presenting electric graded potentials evoked by stimuli, like most multicellular animals. For those - like myself - who conceive sentience as the basis of consciousness, it can be said that plants are conscious, or with an elementary degree of consciousness.

I agree with you Dr Michael C Anderson.

Sharing link:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216301269

REGARDS!

Yes. Plants have a measure of cognition