P www.landesbioscience.com Country Basque Vitoria-Gasteiz, Country; Basque ofthe University The ofPhilosophy; &Department Science for Foundation Basque IKERBASQUE: Marder Michael intelligence intentionality and the phenomenological framework of plant Email: [email protected] Correspondence to: Michael Marder; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/psb.21954 08/23/12 Accepted: 08/23/12 Revised: 07/07/12 Submitted: development modular intentionality, life-world, communication, phenomenology, Keywords: lant Signaling &Behavior 7:11,1365–1372;November 2012;©2012LandesBioscience plant intelligence,

T life. plant in embodied of amind image the is discussions these from emerges What tissues. plant and between and within of communication concept (5) the and of intelligence; understanding our for development of modular significance the (4) plants; to appear environments underground and aboveground how (3) attention; and of sentience concepts the (2) being-in-a-place; and of being-sessile (1) meaning the rethink to framework, phenomenological the with keeping in necessary, be it would organisms, sile of ses perspective the world from the considering Besides disciplines. both enriching to view the with intelligence els of intelligence fail to account for the for the to account fail of intelligence els mod evolutionary and ecological tational, compu case, first the In behaviors. plant and animal between analogies to draw or organisms, of non-animal plasticity phenotypic for the to account attempt an in intelligence, of definition general the to broaden It not is enough nication. commu and behavior plant concerning findings of new work interpretation for the frame conceptual-methodological grated inte an require studies intelligence plant and neurobiology plant in advances Recent § 77 mechanical causes.” mere from grass of a blade of even eration gen the understand to hope to […] son “It is utterly impossible for human rea human for impossible utterly “It is Immanuel Kant enology and the study of plant of plant study the and enology phenom bridge to aims article his P lant Signaling &Behavior Introduction , Critique of Judgment, of Judgment, , Critique

------beings,” “afor, to of be living is science biology if world a“plantthe from point of view,” to look at is challenge The levels. mental environ and organismic cellular, at the expressed perspective, unique to their as well do as can plants to what refers gence intelli plant proposal, this Following question. in organism of the capacities on the based organisms non-human in behavior intelligent for judging calls Warwick conduct. animal in exclusively to lie assumed is behavior of any basis accusations of being metaphoric, of being accusations prone are to comparisons such, as edged acknowl is behavior plant if even case, second the In respectively. adaptability, or unit, organism-plus-environment ing, process of information amere example as behavior,considered of plant specificities this shaky supposition. shaky this upon subjectivity of plant atheory to build to “persons”autonomous and or identical necessarily are subjects that presuppose to It unwarranted be would lematic. not is unprob or intelligence subjectivity also its subjects. its also but study of scientific objects not the only be would organisms, unicellular including beings, living that means This ofform life. distinct each with correlated perspectives tions of ways in which the world is given world given the is which in of ways tions descrip meticulous through Proceeding environment. lived of experiencing modes diverse the nomenology, scrutinizes which phe is respect of workthis in bodies fertile for biology. non qua sine most One of the a therefore, is, subjectivity on reflection An alternative approach, proposed by proposed approach, alternative An Nevertheless, the meaning of either meaning the Nevertheless, 9 it must investigate the particular particular the it investigate must 3 and supported by Trewavas, supported and 10 11 Philosophical Philosophical Per sp 1,2 ective as the the as 1365 5-8 s ------4

©2012 Landes Bioscience. Do not distribute. Thompson, to paraphrase is, aresult as emerges What tissues. plant and plants between and within of communication concept (5) the and of intelligence; understanding our development for of modular significance the (4) to plants; appear environments underground and how aboveground (3) attention; and of sentience concepts the (2) being-in-a-place; and of being-sessile meaning (1) very the work, to rethink frame phenomenological the with ing keep- in necessary, it be would organisms, of sessile perspective world the the from reconsidering Besides disciplines. both to enriching view the with studies gence intelli plant and phenomenology ing habitats. or supports passive its as life, of animal background to the relegated remain plants book, world-view. his plant in Indeed, of a possibility the notbut entertain did animals among environment on the tives perspec in differences of cross-species thesis the he accepted spot: blind a fatal 1366 Humans of author work ofvon abiologist Uexküll, Merleau-Ponty, on the and heavily drew Heidegger movement, including lectual intel this of segment twentieth-century the in figures important most of the Some . to its phenomenology back to bring fact, in is, studies intelligence plant to framework phenomenological world subject. for agiven of the meaningfulness the from sociable indis becomes of subjectivity meaning The standpoints. experiential specific their reconstructs phenomenologist the it, within acting to subjects appears and idea of “soul,”idea Greek ancient the that It stated be must reproduction. and for nourishment ties to threptikon soul, avegetative have plants Aristotle, to According genealogy. venerable and a long has subjectivity of plant idea the of Western philosophy, history the In life. plant in mind Philosophy: A Very BriefOverview A Foray into the World of Animals and and of World Animals the into A Foray The goal of this article is to start bridg to start is article of this goal The To argue for an extension of the of the To extension for an argue Plant SubjectivityinWestern

. 10 But Uexküll’s work includes work includes But Uexküll’s 12 , with the signature capaci signature the , with the picture of an embodied embodied of an picture the psukhé , does not coincide , does ------known neurotransmitters, known all almost express plants Additionally, expression,” evolutionary latest but the are capacities superlative our which from organisms lower in behavior of intelligent aspects be… should “[t]here if Furthermore, of capacities Aristotelian do, can plants what as of activity, terms in human. of the soul rational the in and animal of the psyche sensitive the in existence on “potential” carries soul tive ment to drought by shedding ). by shedding ment to drought (e.g., adjust alterations environmental to response in changes morphological plants as “deficient animals.” Due to the Due to animals.” “deficient as plants he identified that much so so capacities, animal and to human it inferior to be he considered soul, of vegetative existence believed. thinkers classical as rigid not as are regna biological tion, between implica by and, non-consciousness and consciousness between capacities, “lower” the and “higher” the between demarcation of lines the Hence, to them. allotted ers follow his and Aristotle activities the of to threptikon extension the or by the rejecting plant itself,) plant rejecting or by the allele the sharing plant byuted arelated contrib of (rejection recognition foraging for rich soil patches, soil for rich root foraging For example, of resources. availability the to related decisions complex entail tion reproduc and nourishment themselves, of and In to plants. capacities” “higher so-called of the ascription the ever, in is how Aristotle, from differ studies ligence - intel plant theory. Where to evolutionary reference with it updated is as even effect, in remains of capacities continuity of the which follows,” which that in (dunamei) potentially exists always type “the earlier the that in organisms, of classes different the among continuity aclear also, is, There soul. vegetative the to thought—superadded rational and capacities—sensation other have who or human, animal they be beings, living to all common are for Aristotle, plants, of capabilities The divine. to the nected con entity invisible not an organism, an term. of this sense alater,with Judeo-Christian When today plant behavior is defined defined is behavior plant today When Although Aristotle corroborated the the corroborated Aristotle Although 4,14 this definition harkens back to the to back harkens definition this Psukhé P lant Signaling &Behavior 15 is a set of active capacities of capacities of active aset is then Aristotle’s hypothesis hypothesis Aristotle’s then 13 implying that the vegeta the that implying 18 to threptikon confirming confirming well beyond beyond well

17 or rapid 16 kin kin 14 ------.

are the expressions of will-to-power. its expressions the are growth plant’s and the nourishment that idea Nietzsche’s is Second, patches. rich for resource- search in soil the navigating of capable and sensitive organ, a brain-like has shown. has chemicals plant volatile through predators herbivore against into defenses research as erroneous, downright is hand, other on the to plants, oftion absolute passivity attribu The genetics. to animal parison com in for self-expression its possibilities of viable number unlimited for avirtually still immediately identical.” immediately still are subjectivity its and organism objective “the plants, in to which, according nature, of Hegel’s philosophy in it culminated when century, nineteenth the up until unchanged largely remained had view this philosophy, of metaphysical nature static the Darwins’ “root-brain hypothesis,” “root-brain Darwins’ the First studies. intelligence of plant state current the anticipate also they izations, conceptual preceding the over advances definite represent they though because, mentioning, worth are life of plant tions theoriza nineteenth-century in ments localized adjustment. often through circumstances ronmental envi to changing to respond ability their plasticity, phenotypic plants’ the explains actually physiology and morphology plant in inferior to be found have Hegel world. inorganic of the grip the in jectivity sub their of status deficient for the tions - justifica as life of plant features these all conceives soil—Hegel the in rooted plants of passivity perceived the subordinated, be would organs plant whole to which ismic organ of an absence the tissues, of plant undifferentiation relative The proximate. conceptually and it physically is to which world or the of minerals) “other” (sunlight inorganic the but in itself, only in tion comple not notis autonomous, find does it that in negative, is for Hegel, of plants, tion oftion late, much atten receiving been has which with all of mutations its all with lives that plant asingle within diversity of genetic increase for the responsible are and behavior of plant foundations the are of critique) Hegel’s two objects first (the development modular and action matic Two other emblematic develop Two emblematic other Much of what philosophers such as as such philosophers Much of what 21 23 postulated the root apex as as root apex the postulated 14 In fact, meriste fact, In 20 and, therefore, therefore, and, V 19 olume 7 The selfhood The selfhood I ssue 11 22 24 ------

©2012 Landes Bioscience. Do not distribute. www.landesbioscience.com what is “up” and what is “down,” “up” is is what what and between difference the to discern plant the allows gravitropism in sensing gravity development. Directional and life ismic of organ course the in constructed and differentiated inhabited, are they fixed; not objectively are by organisms occupied places The alocale. in inclusion a passive conditions. mental environ to changing responding and ing monitor and neighbors of their roots the toward or growing avoiding to sunlight, exposure their maximizing environments, their explore incessantly plants aplace, in anchored to be appear they Although level. ground below and above both extensions vertical and lateral their given mistake, impressionistic an is of plants fixedness biology. of plant texture unique the obfuscating of price atthe for life substratum versal uni the represented processing—that on information emphasis cognitive rary contempo to the concept—akin general on abroad relied by Darwinism, enced influ also was who Nietzsche, analogy, aplant-animal constructed Darwin While ent in plant life. ent plant in pres are of which all (metamorphosis), of state change and decay growth, being of three movement, other the types four one only of is latter the that recognized credit, to his Aristotle, locomotion. with of movement identification exclusive the from resulting prejudice, modern sentially or pudica Mimosa in observed movements of rapid notableexceptions the with ness, impassive and immobility plants’ the for mistaken been has sessility often, too All sessile. are plants that fact the is life of plant features obvious most One of the plant’s orientation; they change as the the as change plant’s they orientation; to the relative also are of place contours The of milieu. its “degree-zero” atthe is who subject, of orientation the bodily the to relative is space lived shows, enology phenom As orit ahabitat. into aplace onto grid transforming it and meaningful a imposing space, intotion environmental differentia orientational first the ducing The plants’ being-in-a-place is far from from far is being-in-a-place plants’ The Dionaea muscipula Dionaea and Being-in-a-Place Being-Sessile 25 It is evident that the the that It evident is . This is aquintes is . This

53,55 intro ------

they could enjoy light.” could the they where way, opening the order to in reach the knew they if as wall up“climb the he wondered sprouts at how the cellar, sproutedthe in that potatoes citing ior; behav of plant feature of this aware was too, Hegel, of light. sources and soil rich of nutrient- patches optimal the toward directed movement the of growth, as stood under be may of plants intentionality the definition, of this light In “will”). is plants notion sup this concept metaphysical (the object intended the toward directed to say, is that to be to intend something, is toward…” To “directedness conscious be as terms, of...” spatial or, strikingly in “consciousness as conceived was tionality life. plant in inherent intentionality the hold clueto the will that regulation, ate deliber its with along of growth, tionality lose. cellu of rigid walls the within enclosed are cells plant that fact by the buttressed of torpor, astate conclusion in the live plants that conclusion general the toward it point does passivity, with synonymous environment. its with tion interac of and interpretation plant’s living the from emerges dynamically place the ity,” by insensibil and asleep by “consciousness characterized are plants that extrapolates of new leaves and . and leaves of new placement non-random,on the deliberate depends therefore of place Itssense signals. biochemical belowground and airborne volatile releases and laterally and vertically both further reach its extends grows, plant cles; when plants intend something, their their intend something, plants when cles; mus their by moving directedness-toward their enact they intend something, mals and sensory.” and excitable “inherently are that cells plant requires adaptation and growth of plant nature dynamic the Still, behavior. plant of possibility atthe ible tendency, hinting arevers more than nothing to be bility insensi plant by considering claim this direction of growth. root direction the underlying files ment of root cell proper arrange for the responsible RHD3, protein the synthesize and potentials action generate they bodies, animal do in they as of plants, bodies the in circulate At the origins of phenomenology, origins the inten At Only when sessility is taken to be to be taken is sessility when Only 26 20 though he immediately moderates moderates he immediately though From this, the philosopher Bergson Bergson philosopher the From this, P lant Signaling &Behavior 18,27,28,49 Even if cells do not Even cells if 14 29 In other words, words, other In It is this direc It this is 19 - ani When

------riential temporal dimension. temporal riential expe its this, without incomplete remains of place sense The subject. by aconscious “now-moment” intoprojection afuture “now-moment”retention of a past the and the as of time description nomenological phe the with consistent is anticipation the help of circadian clocks. help of circadian the with estimation time is plants and animals of consciousness time internal the between enacted. are capacities these wherein framework, temporal specific the to relative be too, must these, then plants, of capacities to the relative is intelligence phenomenology of plant the If ferences. dif cross-kingdoms and to cross-species extend but also not interpersonal only are perspectives temporal in variations such that moment. given It likely any is at mood on their for example, depending, or slow fast either as of time passage the sciousness,” orexperience on how subjects con time on “internal ment, put emphasis move intellectual of this origins at the “clock time,” stood who objective Husserl, to the contrast it. In experiences who subject to the indexed is of time that also but of place sense not point, the only tage - van phenomenological From the weeks. or even days take may responses plant many since of plants, growth the ceive to per it impossible is settings everyday In lives. plant and of human scales time the in difference the is immobility plant life. plant in operative concept, phenomenological crucial of this aspects other describe will article present of the sections subsequent the tionality: inten of plant but is one example This model. spatial extended, an as acts growth of for which intentionality, directedness the exemplifies files of root cell ordering RHD3 The comportments. intentional respective their in set goals ofments the accomplish the are behaviors animal and Plant plasticity. phenotypic and growth modular in expressed is intentionality days. for several tracking solar from prevented been have they after even oftion sunrise, cretica Lavatera as such of some plants, leaves clocks, dian to exploit circa animals and plants permit mechanisms molecular same the that fact One area where there is a partial overlap apartial is there where One area of illusion the behind cause chief The 32 The combination of memory and and of memory combination The , can anticipate the direc the anticipate , can 30,31 Besides the the Besides 1367 ------

©2012 Landes Bioscience. Do not distribute. non-automatic manner. non-automatic a in signals conflicting among deciding and signals the of interpreting but also not of receiving only it amatter is case, each In recognition. kin in other and self from) (or away toward as well sitivity, as thermo-sen of in heat sources toward ness - photosensitivity, directed in light toward directedness of intentionality: a mode its expresses perception of plant type lar, each about their surroundings. their about of information types various update stantly con and gather and abiotic stressors and biotic from dangers environmental assess gradients, resource distributed unevenly pursue and explore plants that fact the from sentience plant It to infer possible is of animals. that exceeds at times that by asensitivity hence, and, of growth context and place to the attention extreme by characterized then, is, thinking and of mode being Arooted exposure. surface of their maximization by the evidenced as inhabit, they niche ecological the with ity contigu in oppositionnot much as in so grow plants that is success this behind 1368 ground of other stimuli and thus becomes becomes thus and stimuli of other ground back undifferentiated out the from stands or object signal aparticular selectivity: imply sphere Both of the attention. and of intentionality concept the between lap over others. some objects intended of choice and prioritization a deliberate of sense more colloquial the here assumes ited. lim not atall are of sensing abilities their that view the support further tissues and cells plant in potentials of action existence the and signaling long-distance Electrical dients and so forth. so and dients gra humidity temperature, in changes minute into account ronment, taking envi local in orientation point of view) or pragmatic practical the (from cessful by asuc marked is behavior Plant selves. them plants by the time and space lived of constitution subjective the level, basic discrimination than the roaming animal.” roaming the than discrimination and sensitivity greater with and signals tal more environmen perceive may they isms, organ sessile are plants “[b]ecause states, Plant SentienceandBio-Attention For Husserl, there is a significant over asignificant is For there Husserl, Plant intelligence entails, at the most most atthe entails, intelligence Plant

29,56 In the phenomenological vernacu phenomenological the In 15 One of the reasons reasons One of the 4 Intentionality Intentionality 33 As Trewavas Trewavas As ------4

and affecting perceptions of each other, of each perceptions affecting and degrees different in acting factors mental 15 to roughly respond environ plants that Given stimuli. encroaching to new way give and background same to the recede to only subject, attentive for the lighted high by being place their take others and indifference of relative background the to recede some stimuli that extent to the debatable. remains of bio-attention instance this underlying reason exact the though even for plants, significant are signals acoustic that gests with insect feeding. insect with not associated provoke elicitors does the that wound induced amechanically and herbivore damage between to differentiate plant’s the in ability manifest similarly is of intelligence, feature akey Discernment, background. atemporal from but also tial aspa not from of attention only targets ful noise, background transient and signals longed pro between of discriminating capable are Moreover, behavior. their plants constitute that responses variable of selectively tions - varia infinite in results bio-attention their angles and pay attention to its distinct distinct to its attention pay and angles different it slightly approach from they object, same the with dealing when even identical: never people are two of any tives perspec the subjects, human of various worlds the overlap between substantial a is there Although standpoints. own their from meaningful subjects, distinct of worlds to the down ment narrowed is environ objective how the it discusses importantly, More behavior. for bases the of explanation causal objective stop atthe not it does that is reconstruction logical ing root tips toward sound source, sound toward root tips ing bend sounds, to different react and detect plants that evidence existing the example, For subject. attentive of the perspective the from significance, acquire first objects detrimental or beneficial either that tude atti attentive an It through is subjects. for human important existentially is road abusy crossing before vehicles passing to attentive being as just survival, their upon directly bear factors these because to plants significant are attack predator a from of threat levels or the soil the in levels moisture Monitoring meaningful. The sphere of attention is dynamic dynamic sphere is ofThe attention One of the advantages of phenomeno advantages One of the 35 that is to say, of drawing meaning to say, is that of drawing P lant Signaling &Behavior 21

34 sug 15 ------

meaningless for a tick. meaningless be will responses mammal prompting signs” of “directional status the receive that stimuli many while oftion mammals, atten the to capture not is likely instance, for for a tick, meaningful acid of butyric smell The contexts. to cross-species ences differ these extended Uexküll aspects. development. and growth their to modify deliberately prompt neighbors plants by encroaching emitted signals and (jasmonate) signaling hormonal signals, light between actions inter complex the For instance, gration. inte of signal aproduct its is for aplant enology is not what appears to the subjects subjects to the appears not is what enology of phenom questions crucial One of the behavior. plant of tors fac precipitating to the objects intended merely from pass and signs” “directional called Uexküll into what turn priority est high the accorded are that Those lence. excel par organ sensitive the root remain the though exception, without organs its all throughout dispersed and localized plant’s for the vie attention, signals ing immune system. immune of the functioning the and division of cell timing the of neurons, growth axonal trol con for photosensitivity responsible genes plant to light, responses animal regulating besides well: as reasons genetic for good and of plants, to that closest comes haps per attention somatic This fact. of the cognizance taking without temperature, the as such factors, environmental ous to numer attentive are subjects human time, same to. the At attentive be would animal an what from diverge instances, most in will, meaning with imbued thus, is, sphere and of attention into their comes What to them. salient most are that uli stim those through life-world own their construct plants signals, environmental of to a manifold Sensitive apparatus. tual percep or, thought animal even, abstract either preconditions its as not require forsurvival. its significant are and itself, life with synonymous attention, its before up” “light that ofments environment its ele those from assembled is animal each The Appearance ofPlantWorld Taken in its entirety, the world Taken the of entirety, its and in Tellingly, this idea of attention does does ofTellingly, attention idea this 37,38 36 In other words, compet words, other In 10 The life-world of life-world The V olume 7 I ssue 11 ------

©2012 Landes Bioscience. Do not distribute. of resources, mosaic temporal and spatial acomplex as plants? to so, how And ance. appear how but ofof the this perception www.landesbioscience.com localized tissuelocalized responses does not depend either on the explicit explicit not on either the depend does awhole as orientation bodily tigations, inves phenomenological from know we map. But, as into acognitive integrated being to information thanks only possible is response aglobal that viz., premise, false on a predicated is plant entire of the level atthe changes or morphological ological integration, of path assumption the without memory on rely adecentralized may navigation insect as Just orientation? spatial for their to account plants in space oftion foraging representa or a coherent map global nitive of acomplete cog existence the postulate to it Is necessary environment? of the of human need. of human limits the with keeping in reality delimit that perception of ontopure flux tions the imposi are representations objective that argued has Bergson as alimitation, sarily not is neces This objects. oftion discrete aconglomera as notit itself present does perspective, plant shadow, the from then, the future. in whole(e.g., forArabidopsis) plant the of survival chances to improve the leaves by some excess in absorbed photon energy the to use plants it permits as itself, light of amemory is memory light cellular their and itself, but light of light, representation a do not register plants Similarly, itself. thing but the (“picture-consciousness”) thing of the not is arepresentation subjects to human appears what that propose who of aconclusion phenomenologists, also is for consciousness not is required thought direction.” and root growth new about sions necessary deci into the signals internal numerous and oxide nitrous or even dioxide carbon like of gases presence the or nitrate, cium of water, cal distribution polarized the invertebrates, temperature, penetration, light stones, hardness, of soil signals the “integrate memory, roots as decentralized version of aplant such with operate may patches soil of resource-rich search in roots If, for plants, the environment appears appears environment the If, for plants, But what about spatial representations representations spatial about But what 42 40 41 The choice between highly highly between choice The 15,16 so maze navigation by the by the navigation maze so as well as of light and and of light as well as 39 That representational representational That does the world appear world the appear does

43 and physi and ------future-oriented goals. If space appears as as appears space If goals. future-oriented and history developmental past plants, of neighboring proximity the conditions, environmental to the attuned rhythm but avariable events sive developmental succes with filled continuum empty not is an temporality their so totality, abstract to an irreducible is of plants ality spati the as just And, counterparts. erant intol shade their as to space relation their in plasticity same the not may exhibit cies spe tolerant shade although occupation, space- or horizontal of lateral phases with alternate growth vertical and struction - space-con phenomenological of Periods argues. Firn as alone, events to past not limited to us man.”to us whole world the plant; “to is plant, the that, assertion his in correct is Nietzsche why is (This places. favor of resource-rich in made of choices history the evinces objectively that construction modular their parallels plants of higher life-world the this, In for foraging. preferential more ofsome ofsites, them network plex acom but as totality undifferentiated an as of plants perspective the from intelligence of plants. decentralized the regarding conclusion lar simi a reaches Garzón phenomenology, with dovetails science,” which cognitive route grow. of the “embodied and live Via they wherein space of the map cognitive integrated awhole an without involved as behaviorally be can changes phological mor its with plant the movementsits and with body The execution. fluid their with interferes body’sof the operations routine reconstruction mental deliberate fact, in elements; constitutive its into movement of or analysis on the of space cognition sites. feeding of optimal search in space habitat or into “spacers,” projected are branches, of ends atthe located shoots and roots ditions of high resource availability. resource of high ditions conthe under intensifies branching and shorten loop, spacers afeedback in not is unidirectional: growth of their environment. the in deposited being thing-like impassive an from far is that for a plant of space sense the create they and intentionality of plant exemplars In other words, space does not appear not appear does space words, other In Plants’ spatial relation to the places places to the relation spatial Plants’ 16,45 43 Spacers are, indeed, the organic organic the indeed, are, Spacers According to Bell et al., both both al., et to Bell According P lant Signaling &Behavior 44 ) Still, this spatial archive is is archive spatial this ) Still, 31

16 ------

of a meta-population. a of the future order to in predict regularities ronmental of envi assessment the Garzón’s terms, in (or, future into projection the their and events memorialized of past retrieval the i.e., model, retention-protention logical phenomeno the with keeping in rienced expe is time then of resources, a mosaic plants feature social intelligence, akin to akin intelligence, social feature plants of lower Colonies life. of plant teristic charac also are of intentionality tories trajec Scattered atonce. multiple goals to of subjects or directedness striving oft-disjointed the intentionality, persed of adis thesis the long have accepted life everyday and of embodiment questions plant roots. plant in behavior of swarming studies the in behavior, for example and signaling plant of discussions in of individuals property emergent an is intelligence that idea the from departure amarked been has there recently, Nonetheless, to decentralization. and openness of flexibility degree greater a with albeit systems, bytion intelligent of informa processing central the sizes empha that approach scientific cognitive the in visible also is presupposition this of A trace meta-populations. within tion interconnec meaningful any negating to areductio model ad absurdum this in inherent multiplicity the submitted sciousness of plant life. of plant sciousness con time inner the multiple interactions, their but form, across axis temporal ing a preexist do not fill adaptation ment and federacy,” con to a“democratic aplant to liken enough careful was Trewavas Actually, entity. individual an is plant entire the that convincingly to argue ability their and paradigm proponents new of the the with of proof burden lies the that assumed interlocutors both Firn, and Trewavas between exchange now classic the In for intelligence. of possibility tions condi to the pertaining issues mological) episte concretely, (more philosophical the to do with has intelligence, of plant , in subject on the Much confusion Phenomenologists interested in the the in interested Phenomenologists and DispersedIntelligence Modular Development 15 31 in keeping with the model model the with keeping in ). The events of plant develop of plant events The ). 46 42 Firn, conversely, conversely, Firn,

1369 by ------

©2012 Landes Bioscience. Do not distribute. growth: development or iterative modular in ity intentional of dispersed image perfect a furnishes plants worldthe of higher Similarly, anthill. or an of abeehive that plant. for agiven niche optimal the to recover order in conditions niche sub-optimal to respond effectively that patterns ing branch complex involves and uneven 1370 ture of higher plants implies the existence existence the implies plants of higher ture struc amodular that Itplasticity. follows modular and bio-attention intentionality, of its character lively exquisitely to the testimony is a “deficiency” this image, ideal not up to this live does plant the If death. of on afigure life of animal ing to amodel whole of leads the demands to the subjugated of parts integration total its with aggregate organismic the turn, In moment atthe come of death. over only is which itself, ofpersion life dis the betokens time and space lived in intentionality and of attention dispersion the Phenomenologically, processor. allel role of the apar playing of intentionality organ every with model, processing leling aparal as terms, cognitive in explicable, is intelligence plant’s non-totalized the aredundancy, from to it. Far proximate variations environmental minutest the monitors rootlet and , vertical every “hyper-attention,” as call we may what is bio-attention their Rather, tion. concentra lasting like anything achieve to inability due to their of distraction state apermanent not signify does plants meta-populations. etal veg and of organisms life-worlds the in engagement of intelligent modes two the to applies incompatibility same the —and characteristics of undetermined organs into of growing capable , active from plasticity behavioral its draws that development modular with incompatible simply is model organismic limited The organs competing with one another.” with competing organs or of a“population redundant organism” a“poorly integrated as plant the present development and of growth style animal the idealize who those Only whole. the of asymmetry to the contributing often, most and, it strives to which resources of distribution uneven the ity, reflecting of intentional trajectory own its sues The dispersion of intentionality in in of intentionality dispersion The

15 Each shoot and part of root pur part shoot and Each 20 adaptively variable growth is is growth variable adaptively 20,47 14 ------

it is comprised of a series of internal of internal of aseries it comprised is milieu; its not organize does plant The organism, and so forth. so and organism, of an totality encompassing the will, (free) or of withdrawn ahidden concept the namely prejudices, scientific and physical meta pernicious most some of the against astruggle in join forces may neurobiology plant phenomenology and that way this it. It in is experienced has that body the onevent exterior of an trace ortion the inscrip accessible the riority, is memory exte toward atendency is terms, simplest the in consciousness, whereas interiority; sphere of a hidden subjective is memory nor consciousness Neither modification. it, elicits that context the from divorced be cannot behavior moreover, intelligent that and, being living entire of the a property but is organ asingle in not concentrated is intelligence that it observed is When without losing its original meaning.” original its losing without to referred be itself cannot which ence, of a center refer around and from milieu the it to organize is “To to radiate; is live Canguilhem: physician, and philosopher by French expressed succinctly life, ismic of organ category the under not fall does it non-hierarchical, being besides that, means structure Itsdecentralized itself. plant sessile the context-dependentas as is intelligence plant rationality, abstract free context- presumably the Unlike disrupted. cellular level. cellular to the down way the all extends that ness or aware consciousness as define Baluška Trewavas and what with world resonates outside the toward (directedness) striving logic. organismic to the do not correspond likewise, that, ligence intel modular and memory of modular the example of stilt palm of stilt example the cf. global: sometimes local—and through growth optimal to ensure milieu their with and other each with interacting meristems of the cells by the attunement sion of this expres developmentan merely is Modular environment. to their of cells munities or- by com by cells response of the ness appropriate on the hinges consciousness and PartiallyOverlappingWorlds 4 several longstanding Western biases are are Western biases longstanding several The dispersion of intentionality in its its in of intentionality dispersion The Plant Communication P lant Signaling &Behavior 33 The intelligence of such of such intelligence The 15,42 —behavioral —behavioral

48 ------

cell-cell communication tem, coupled with its environment. its tem, coupledwith sys open an It thus, is, environment. to its it connect that pathways communication populations and plant communities—the communities—the plant and populations meta- plant between and within self” “non- and “self” between difference the into of individuality—particularly, tions into concep of ambiguities a set ducing atomato plant. as grouped lation world of the by ameta-popu constitution Shorea, pinea Pinus and aromatica Dryobalanops as such cies, spe same of the in shyness Crown abound. phenomenon this of Examples life-worlds. various between aclash and of aworld common in construction of the “other” and but terms in of “self” egories cat notthe in understood best perhaps is recognition for kin capacity Their sense. phenomenological the in worlds are ties communi plant and meta-populations, as conceived plants, Both subject. this from inseparable and question in subject ing liv world for the to the of and referring or “life-world,” “world” is system open channels, hormonal and cal (e.g., biochemi networks communicative Cakile edentula Cakile of volumes rooting moreto modest the applies same world.of The acommon subjects as act same the comprising meta-population the and specimen tree tor. fac abiotic stress by this unaffected plants pea to other roots by the emitted messages biochemical through conditions mental environ of adverse onset the municate com sativum of Pisum specimen drought, a In species. plant or of another species of animal that world, whether another of encroachment the indicate herbivores, insect against a defense as of volatiles release the as well as plants, stranger with edentula Cakile of roots Conversely, more aggressive the plant, of the regions aerial distal other in and site of atthe injury inhibitor proteinase of activation by the evidenced as plant, tomato same of the leaves unwounded the to awounded from trauma mechanical of Communication common. in plished In light of modular development intro of modular light In The phenomenological word for this word for phenomenological this The 52 Their world-construction is accom is world-construction Their 53,54 20 confirms that both individual individual both that confirms is equally an example of ajoint example an equally is , or within a single crown of crown asingle , or within grown with kin plants. kin with grown grown in the same pots pots same the in grown 18,49 V ) and external external ) and olume 7 37 or synaptic or synaptic 31 I ssue 11 17,50 ------

©2012 Landes Bioscience. Do not distribute. www.landesbioscience.com onies and individual units. individual and onies col time same atthe are that trees, as such plants, to higher much as as colonies in live that to lower plants applicable is term phenomenological This behavior. and ing signal of plant study problem the in ical methodolog and aterminological resolves world the of notion phenomenological sonhood or will. The centerpiece of this of this centerpiece The or will. sonhood autonomy,with per unity, individuality, of subjectivity equation metaphysical Western the nor accepts life) of animal background to the relegated structures (or quasi-mechanical objects passive as plants it neither treats that is nomenology phytophe of advantage methodological Acrucial ways. mechanistic and linear in not determined are that behaviors and choices decisions, plant surrounding debates current to inform as so sideration, con further here merits discussion under ogy phytophenomenol term we may approach ecology—an population and ogy, botany of phenomenol combination plinary interdisci fruitful prolegomena to the the no provided more than article This plant- interactions. plant-pollinator do most as this, herbivores corroborates of the enemies natural attract that plants insect-damaged from of volatiles example abovementioned The to them. municates com that life-world phenomenological the fulfillment—of ment of intentional enhance the goals—thus, of the thering fur for the utilized but be may threat, a as worlds” perceived do not to be need “other so-called of the parts that also, Note, resources). (e.g., limited targets intended same the toward directed tures struc with or intentionalities divergent with worlds clashing oroverlapping even partially several accommodates usually ecosystem same the that respect, this in colony. or aplant meta-population Note, of a members constituent by the initiatives of of multiplicity sense the preserves ality co-intention will, of the unity the Unlike directed. are they to which environment the and (co-intentionality) intentionalities multiple interacting ofcomplex mutually . Each of the phenomenological themes themes phenomenological of the . Each of PhenomenologicalPlant Conclusion: ThePromises Intelligence Research

20,51 A world a is ------framework. intocoherent explanatory a data scientific of amounts large of synthesizing capable thus is phytophenomenology intelligence, on plant perspectives ecological and ary tive (information-processing), evolution Asupplement cogni to the interactions. nition cross-species/cross-kingdoms and recog kin of communication, descriptions theoretical as intentionalities clashing and co-intentionality plant finally, and, dispersion; development to this modular of appropriateness the intentionalities; of dispersed anetwork world through of plant construction temporal and spatial the bio-attention; and sentience vegetal in intentionality of plant dispersion the mobile beings; and of sessile characteristic of behaviors descriptor ageneral as ality of intention directedness-toward the life: to plant relevance its and of intentionality concept phenomenological the is approach 9. 7. 6. 4. 3. V. intel Plant Zárský H, F, Lipavská vrcková 1. 13. 12. 11. 10. 8. 5. 2. 14.

S B P T W A C T H v G 2012. &Giroux Staus /Farrar, American Scientific York: New senses. the C cib.2.1.7620. http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/ PMID:19513267; 5; 2:60- 2009; Biol Integr Commun upside-down. ‘neural’ of essence the Turning neurobiology: of 2002. House Random York: New world. the 2001. Piatkus tplants.2007.03.002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. PMID:17368081; 6; 12:135- 2007; Sci Plant Trends gain? no brain, no neurobiology: Plant F, al. et Cervone E, University Press 2010. Press University Harvard Cambridge: mind. of sciences the and ogy, 2011. Press SUNY Albany: Minneapolis Press 2010. of University &London: Minneapolis humans. and 2000. org/10.3181/0709-MR-241. http://dx.doi. PMID:18367626; 233:385-93; 2008; (Maywood) Med Biol Exp beyond. and nucleus dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.01929.x. http:// PMID:19143994; 32:606-16; 2009; Environ org/10.4161/psb.4.5.8276. PMID:19816094; 4:394-9; 2009; http://dx.doi. Behav Signal Plant where? or not why, why ligence: K 1957. Press University Harvard A dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01183.x. http:// 11:727-39; PMID:18400016; 2008; Lett Ecol on Uexküll J. A foray into the worlds of animals animals of worlds the into A foray J. Uexküll on aha RN, Dudek SM. Action potentials: to the the to potentials: Action SM. Dudek RN, aha ollan M. The botany of desire: a plant’s-eye view of of view aplant’s-eye desire: of botany The M. ollan rewavas A. What is plant behaviour? Cell Plant behaviour? plant is What A. rewavas aluška F, Mancuso S. Deep evolutionary origins origins evolutionary Deep S. F, Mancuso aluška lpi A, Amrhein N, Bertl A, Blatt MR, Blumwald Blumwald MR, Blatt A, Bertl N, Amrhein A, lpi ristotle. On the soul. Cambridge & London: &London: Cambridge soul. the On ristotle. hompson E. Mind in life: biology, phenomenol biology, life: in Mind E. hompson hamovitz D. What a plant knows: a field guide to to guide afield knows: aplant D. What hamovitz arban R. Plant behaviour and communication. communication. and behaviour Plant R. arban oldstein K. The organism. New York: Zone Books Books Zone York: New organism. The K. oldstein all M. Plants as persons: a philosophical botany. botany. aphilosophical persons: as Plants M. all arwick K. The quest for intelligence. London: Judy Judy London: intelligence. for quest The K. arwick P lant Signaling &Behavior References

------17. 16. Ann intelligence. plant of Aspects A. rewavas 15. 26. Harvard Cambridge: physics. The 25. Aristotle. 24. 21. 20. 19. 18. 34. 33. 32. 31. 30. 29. 28. 27. 23. 22. 36. 35.

org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60215-9. http://dx.doi. 25:159-238; 1994; Res Ecol Adv tion. acquisi resource in plasticity morphological of role H org/10.1093/aob/mcg101. http://dx.doi. PMID:12740212; 92:1-20; 2003; Bot T University Press 1933-35. Press University Books 1968. http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/psb.4.12.10574. 4:1121-7; PMID:20514226; 2009; Behav Signal Plant 125 years. than more after Revival Darwin: Francis and Charles of hypothesis ‘root-brain’ The B D P 2002. H 2004. Press University Oxford Oxford: (1830). sciences philosophical the of paedia H 285-301. 2009; Springer &Heidelberg: F. Berlin Baluška Ed. plants. in communication and signaling, interactions, In:Plant-environment action? in evolution vergent B org/10.1093/jxb/erq250. http://dx.doi. PMID:20696656; 61:4123-8; 2010; Bot JExp unsolved. behaviour amysterious plants: B cfm?id=do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article. 2012; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.218. 2011; PMID:22094270; Rep 12:1221-5; EMBO ness. org/10.1104/pp.80.3.778. http://dx.doi. PMID:16664701; 80:778-81; 1986; Lavatera of cretica. leaves tracking psb.2.4.4470. http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/ PMID:19516990; 2:208-11; 2007; Behav Signal Plant robiology. org/10.1016/j.cell.2003.08.004. http://dx.doi. PMID:13678578; 114:537-43; 2003; Cell time. circadian determine to animals psb.5.2.11237. http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/ PMID:20150757; 5:87-9; 2010; Behav Signal Plant neurons. and cells plant org/10.1016/j.tplants.2006.06.009. http://dx.doi. PMID:16843034; 11:413-9; 2006; Sci Plant Trends signaling. plant of view integrated an neurobiology: Plant E. F, Van Volkenburgh Baluška org/10.1007/BF02960261. http://dx.doi. PMID:11539934; 60:265-367; 1994; Rev Bot cells. internodal characean on emphasis cial 2005. Noble Books 1880. Murray John London: org/10.1104/pp.121.2.325. http://dx.doi. PMID:10517823; 121:325-32; 1999; Physiol Plant herbivores. insect against defense C org/10.1038/nsmb0610-642. http://dx.doi. PMID:20520656; 17:642-5; 2010; Biol Mol Struct Nat integration. signaling hormone J org/10.1016/j.tplants.2012.03.002. http://dx.doi. PMID:22445066; 17:323-5; 2012; Sci Plant Trends bioacoustics. plant understanding G T S G C B B W B N aillais Y, Chory J. Unraveling the paradoxes of plant plant of paradoxes the Unraveling J. Y, Chory aillais chwartz A, Koller D. Diurnal phototropism in solar solar in phototropism D. Diurnal Koller A, chwartz aré PW, Tumlinson JH. Plant volatiles as a as volatiles Plant JH. PW, Tumlinson aré rewavas AJ, Baluška F. The ubiquity of conscious of F.ubiquity The Baluška AJ, rewavas renner ED, Stahlberg R, Mancuso S, Vivanco J, J, Vivanco S, Mancuso R, Stahlberg ED, renner aluška F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. D, Barlow Volkmann S, F, Mancuso aluška con animals: and Plants S. F, Mancuso aluška in recognition HP. Kin Bais ML, iedrzycki aluška F. Recent surprising similarities between between similarities surprising F. Recent aluška ergson H. Creative evolution. New York: Barnes & Barnes York: New evolution. Creative H. ergson hamovitz D. Do plants think? Scientific American American Scientific think? plants D. Do hamovitz ashmore AR. Cryptochromes: enabling plants and and plants enabling Cryptochromes: AR. ashmore arzón FC. The quest for cognition in plant neu plant in cognition for quest The FC. arzón agliano M, Mancuso S, Robert D. Towards D. Towards Robert S, Mancuso M, agliano ietzsche F. The will to power. New York: Vintage Vintage York: New power. to F.will The ietzsche arwin CR. The power of movement in plants. plants. in movement of power The CR. arwin utchings MJ, de Kroon H. Foraging in plants: the the plants: in Foraging H. Kroon de MJ, utchings egel GWF. Hegel’s philosophy of nature: encyclo nature: of philosophy Hegel’s GWF. egel allé F. In praise of plants. Cambridge: Timber Press Press Timber Cambridge: plants. of F. praise In allé ayne R. The excitability of plant cells: with aspe with cells: plant of excitability The R. ayne Plant Physiol Physiol Plant 1371 ------

©2012 Landes Bioscience. Do not distribute. 1372 38. 37. 42. 41. 40. 39.

org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037382. http://dx.doi. PMID:22629387; 7:e37382; 2012; One PLoS plants. in communication of means native alter mind: of out not but sight of Out S. Mancuso G http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mch059. PMID:15023702; 93:353-7; 2004; Bot Ann Firn. to http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002009. PMID:21445233; 2011; Biol 7:e1002009; Comput PLoS navigation. insect for memory decentralized T C org/10.1105/tpc.109.069302. 2010; 22:2201-18; http://dx.doi. PMID:20639446; Cell Plant Arabidopsis. in episodes light excess of memory and signaling ic photoelectrophysiological wavelength-specif light for Evidence S. Karpinski B, S 1990. Books B err142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ PMID:21705384; 2011; Bot 62:4087-100; JExp development. and defence during signalling jasmonate and light K

zechynska-Hebda M, Kruk J, Górecka M, Karpinska Karpinska M, Górecka J, Kruk M, zechynska-Hebda rewavas A. Aspects of plant intelligence: an answer answer an intelligence: plant of Aspects A. rewavas ergson H. Matter and memory. New York: Zone Zone York: New memory. and Matter H. ergson ruse H, Wehner R. No need for a cognitive map: map: acognitive for need No R. Wehner H, ruse azan K, Manners JM. The interplay between between interplay The JM. Manners K, azan agliano M, Renton M, Duvdevani N, Timmins M, M, Timmins N, Duvdevani M, Renton M, agliano - - 43. 46. 45. 44. 49. 48. 47.

Sunderland: Sinauer 1984:48-65. Sunderland: ecology. population plant on Perspectives ed. J, Sarukhan R, Dirzo In: ecology. population plant B 2009. Press University Cambridge Cambridge: N http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mch058. PMID:15023701; 93:345-51; 2004; Bot Ann view. Fi org/10.1016/j.tplants.2006.06.009. http://dx.doi. PMID:16843034; 11:413-9; 2006; Sci Plant Trends signaling. plant of view integrated an neurobiology: Plant E. F, Van Volkenburgh Baluška 2008. Press University Fordham org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.1993.tb00498.x. http://dx.doi. 16:765-70; 1993; Environ Cell Plant organs. redundant of populations peting B C S nal.pone.0029759. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/jour PMID:22272246; 7:e29759; 2012; One PLoS roots. plant in ior - behav Swarming T, al. et FT, Vicsek F, Arecchi C achs T, Novoplansky A, Cohen D. Plants as com as D. Plants Cohen A, T, Novoplansky achs renner ED, Stahlberg R, Mancuso S, Vivanco J, J, Vivanco S, Mancuso R, Stahlberg ED, renner ell AD. Dynamic morphology: a contribution to to acontribution morphology: Dynamic AD. ell iszak M, Comparini D, Mazzolai B, Baluska Baluska B, D, Mazzolai Comparini M, iszak anguilhem G. Knowledge of life. New York: New life. of Knowledge G. anguilhem ietzsche F. Writings from the early notebooks. notebooks. early the from F. Writings ietzsche rn R. Plant intelligence: an alternative point of of point alternative an intelligence: Plant R. rn P lant Signaling &Behavior

- - 56. 55. 54. 53. 52. 51. annual an in recognition Kin AL. File SA, udley 50.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/psb.1.1.2278. PMID:19521469; 1:6-8; 2006; Behav Signal Plant gy. S annurev.arplant.043008.092042. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ PMID:19152486; 61:705-20; 2010; Biol Plant Rev Annu tropism. M dx.doi.org/10.1038/360062a0. http:// 360:62-5; 1992; Nature plant. wounded the in induction proteinase-inhibitor systemic and signaling Electrical al. et YD, Skipper AJ, Reilly W 2012. &Giroux Straus Farrar, Oxford: beyond. garden—and your of senses the to C nal.pone.0023625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/jour PMID:22073135; 2011; One 6:e23625; PLoS plants. in cues stress of communication relay it...: has Rumor A. F 1979:21-9. CNRS de International Colloques Paris: spongaires. des Biologie In: cellules. des sociétés R http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0232. PMID:17567552; 3:435-8; 2007; Lett Biol plant. D tahlberg R. Historical overview on plant neurobiolo plant on overview Historical R. tahlberg alik O, Mordoch Y, Quansah L, Fait A, Novoplansky Novoplansky A, Fait L, Y, Quansah O, Mordoch alik asmont R. Les éponges: des métazoaires et des des et métazoaires des éponges: Les R. asmont hamovitz D. What a plant knows: a field guide guide afield knows: aplant D. What hamovitz orita MT. Directional gravity sensing in gravi in sensing gravity MT. Directional orita ildon DC, Thain JF, Minchin PEH, Gubb IR, IR, Gubb PEH, JF, Minchin Thain DC, ildon V olume 7 I ssue 11 - - -

©2012 Landes Bioscience. Do not distribute.