Plant intelligence is a concept that is not easily accepted because it necessarily creates a new perspective or perspective on the definition of intelligence. Tony Trewavas' article, Plant Intelligence: An Overview, provides examples of the plant physiological complexity that Trewavas interprets as intelligence. He defines that intelligence, "(a) is a property that an individual possesses when interacting with his environment or environments, (b) is related to the agent's ability to succeed or profit with respect to some goal or objective , and (c) depends on the agent's ability to adapt to different goals or environments.” One of the main factors that qualify intelligence is flexible behavior or, using an aspect of Trewavas' definition, the more flexible the behavior of an organism, the more “is the agent capable of adapting to different objectives 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 specifically on the flexible behavior because I believe it is one of the most crucial aspects of intelligence and, if properly displayed in plants, can undermine any other explanation of plant behavior except intelligence. My view on flexible behavior is that it requires active thinking to go against physical mechanisms and allow the organism to act spontaneously but logically in different situations. I would like to think about how some 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 can therefore exhibit flexible behavior. I will first try to demonstrate why it is logically possible to believe in the intelligence of plants, then I will provide scientific examples of the flexible behavior of plants, and, finally, I will try to defend my conclusions. I would like to begin by introducing Robert Pargetter's “Theory of Inference to the Best Explanation,” which he writes in his article, The Scientific Inference to other Minds. He defines his theory of inference as best explanation by writing that “if a hypothesis is the best available explanation of all of a person's available evidence at a particular time, then it is rational for that person to believe that hypothesis at that time. moment." ” Pargetter essentially writes that if a hypothesis is the best explanation for something, then it is rational to believe in the accuracy of the hypothesis. I would like to use this rationalization theory to test whether plant behavior can best be explained as flexible. Scientists have already discovered that most plant systems are highly complex and sophisticated. One of the most complicated is the root cap of a plant. Trewvas speaks of a root cap when describing the one present in Arabidopsis: the extreme tip of the root is covered by a cap made up of about 200 cells. The cap is dynamic. It is built from a layer of dividing cells that border the root meristem proper. The cap cells are gradually pushed outward. Once they reach the surface of the hat, they are eliminated. However, throughout their lives, as they slowly move towards the front of the cap, they act as both sensing and evaluating a variety of different signals. Like the cell and nervous system above, current information indicates that it has a similar architecture in degree structure, with both a nucleus and a periphery, a structure that appears to support intelligent behavior. This architecture cangenerate resilience distinct from the range of signals the hood perceives. The root cap has the ability to respond to its environment flexibly, eliminating dead cells and moving in the direction of essential survival needs. This, however, can easily be interpreted as a simple mechanistic process triggered by several chemical reactions. The radical hood is attracted to survival needs and grows towards them. When it does not perceive survival needs, it stops growing towards them. An active thought that causes flexible behavior that goes against a physical mechanism is simply not the best explanation. Another objection to flexible behavior in plants is that they do not possess neurons, or a brain, which generally means there is no possibility of cognitive activity. . I believe, however, that there is no universal system for cognition, so the absence of a neural network does not necessarily eliminate cognition entirely. Peter Godfrey-Smith, in his article, Cephalopods and the Evolution of the Mind, describes the neural difference of cephalopods compared to vertebrates, but still argues that they exhibit flexible behavior and possess intelligence (Godfrey-Smith 5). He writes that “cephalopods have a completely different organization, both in body and brain” (Godfrey-Smith 5). While "the vertebrate plant has a head and a spinal cord, from which the peripheral nervous system detaches", cephalopods have "a 'ladder' nervous system", where "the neurons were grouped in front, between the eyes, and many of the ganglia were fused. Thus there was a partial submergence of the invertebrate neural plane, but only a partial one” (Godfrey-Smith 5). He also mentions that "a common octopus has about 500 million neurons. Two-thirds of these are not found in the brain at all, but in the arms themselves," meaning that "their nervous system remains much more 'distributed,' more diffuse through the body, compared to our (meaning human)” (Godfrey-Smith 5). He also provides an example of flexible behavior in cephalopods. He writes: “A group of researchers in Indonesia were recently surprised to see octopuses carrying around pairs of half coconut shells, to be used as portable shelters (Finn et al. 2009). it would then assemble the half-shells into a sphere and climb inside. Many animals use found objects for shelter (hermit crabs are an example), but assembling and disassembling a composite tool like this is rare. Cephalopods certainly exhibit flexible behavior in a way that involves active, spontaneous, and logical thinking about 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 follow, then, that they possess intelligence since this is the best explanation according to Pargetter's theory. behavior means intelligence because it is the best explanation. This clearly shows that there is no universal framework for cognition or intelligence. The lack of neural structure or brains in plants is therefore not necessarily a problem. Their way of thinking may simply not have been discovered yet. It was only recently in human history that the idea that our closest evolutionary relatives, such as chimpanzees, were capable of thinking or possessed intelligence arose. Now let's also consider other animal species other than humans, such as octopuses and cuttlefish according to Peter Godfrey-Smith's article. I think with a greaterunderstanding and researching plant biology, we will discover a new approach to intelligence that indicates the structures of plants. Returning to the task at hand, we concluded that the best way to explain cephalopod behavior is to call it flexible, which means intelligence. Now, if we believe that there is no universal structure for cognition, so a neural network or brain is not needed, then all that is missing is flexible behavior in plants, while flexible is the best explanation for that behavior. This is where things get complicated. Most plant systems are triggered through physical processes that are best explained as not signs of intelligence. Research on the flexible behavior of plants is scarce, and even the experiments conducted have not produced definitive conclusions. Tony Trewavas' last section of his article, titled "Plant Games," contains the most unique aspects of plant physiology, and I believe this section presents examples of flexible and concrete behavior in plants. Tony Trewavas concludes his article by writing about the "prisoner" of a legume. dilemma game” with rhizobial bacteria. The simple description of this plant's interactions with bacteria is that some rhizobia bacteria are better than others at converting dinitrogen in the atmosphere into organic nitrogen through the process of nitrogen fixation. There are also several types of rhizobial bacteria, and only some can fix dinitrogen into organic nitrogen. The plant will then form a “nodule” around the rhizobia bacteria which will be able to attach itself and ignore others that do not, thus eliminating the “free riders”. Trewavas looks at 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 regarding the symbiotic relationship between legumes and rhizobial bacteria (Sims, Taylor 369). Simms and Taylor begin by describing the need for organic nitrogen that starts the process. They write that although “nitrogen is extremely abundant, comprising about 79% of the atmosphere,” it exists as a “dinitrogen,” which plants “cannot convert… into useful organic forms,” and that “mineral nitrogen is labile and of limited supply in soils” (Simms, Taylor 370). This means that nitrogen fixation is an essential process for the survival of the legume. This creates the need for the symbiotic relationship between these two organisms. Legumes provide carbohydrates to the rhizobia bacteria “paying the energetic price of the reduction reaction, they conduct a complicated exchange of signals with the rhizobia, produce leghemoglobin and form a new organ: the nodule” (Sims, Taylor 372). The legume essentially traps nitrogen-fixing bacteria for nutrients, while at the same time ignoring bacteria that don't. It is mutually beneficial between the two organisms; the relationship provides both with essential nutrients. The question now is whether this relationship constitutes flexible behavior. I would like to return to Peter Godfrey-Smith's example of the coconut octopus's behavior of finding, crawling, and hiding inside coconut halves as evidence of intelligence and flexible behavior (Godfrey-Smith Smith 5). The legume also uses objects from its environment to aid its survival. It eliminates the "free-rider" rhizobia bacteria and encapsulates the nitrogen-fixing rhizobia bacteria for its own benefit. It uses a tool from its environment to obtain organic nitrogen for survival. This would constitute active thinking and therefore exhibit flexible behavior. He must also choose actively, quickly and rationally, to.