N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 08 2015,11:13) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,05:52) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 08 2015,06:40) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,06:30) | | Also, although you have been ad hoc-ing the heck out of your miserable text to accommodate Watson as intelligent, you still do not have a definition that includes plants. You want intelligence at all levels from molecules on up, but plants are excluded? |
Plants are already covered in the theory. But I have to run! |
No, they aren't. They don't have "motor muscles", among other things. |
Hi, Henry,
While what a Venus flytrap uses isn't technically a muscle, it does produce a controlled motion when a bug steps in the wrong place. |
I was thinking about those while I wrote about plants being excluded. First, note that other plants are not that sophisticated. In the Venus flytrap, stimulation of trigger hairs releases an electrical signal of a fixed voltage, which decays away over thirty-five seconds, and which is not sufficient to trigger cell closure. However, if another trigger hair fires within 35 seconds, the second peak occurs on the shoulder of the first peak and the combined voltage exceeds the threshold to trigger leaf closure. Specifically, the electricity opens some pores that allow water to flow from some cells that were full of water to some which were not, which flexes the leaf and makes it change shape. This is not a muscle, and it is not active control that involves any level of decision-making.
Plants can grow directionally so vine tendrils in fast-forward photography can be viewed as "exploring the territory" or "searching for light". Also, root tips can insert into crevices by water pressure and growth. But those aren't muscles, they aren't motors, they aren't controlled by nerves, and no "virtual model" is involved.
|
