The philosophy of plant neurobiology: a manifesto

Paco Calvo

doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1040-1

Synthese

May 2016, Volume 193, Issue 5, pp 1323–1343

The philosophy of plant neurobiology: a manifesto

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Paco CalvoEmail author

S.I.: Neuroscience and Its Philosophy

First Online:: 20 February 2016

Received:: 24 November 2015
Accepted:: 05 February 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s11229-016-1040-1

Cite this article as:: Calvo, P. Synthese (2016) 193: 1323. doi:10.1007/s11229-016-1040-1

Abstract

‘Plant neurobiology’ has emerged in recent years as a multidisciplinary endeavor carried out mainly by steady collaboration within the plant sciences. The field proposes a particular approach to the study of plant intelligence by putting forward an integrated view of plant signaling and adaptive behavior. Its objective is to account for the way plants perceive and act in a purposeful manner. But it is not only the plant sciences that constitute plant neurobiology. Resources from philosophy and cognitive science are central to such an interdisciplinary project, if plant neurobiology is to maintain its target well-focused. This manifesto outlines a road map for the establishment and development of a new subject—the Philosophy of Plant Neurobiology—, a new field of research emerging at the intersection of the philosophy of cognitive science and plant neurobiology. The discipline is herewith presented, introducing challenges and novel lines of engagement with the empirical investigation, and providing an explanatory framework and guiding principles that will hopefully ease the integration of research on the quest for plant intelligence.

Keywords

Plant neurobiology (philosophy of) Plant intelligence Cognitive science

This material draws from preliminary work presented at the following workshops and conferences: De-Intellectualizing the mind workshop (Madrid); International symposium on plant signaling and behavior (Delhi); 12th European workshop on ecological psychology (Madrid); and Smart solutions from the plant kingdom: beyond the animal models (Florence). This research was also presented in seminars held at the University of Washington (Seattle), the University of Western Australia (Perth) and the Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive (CNRS and Aix Marseille Université). I would like to thank all these audiences. Special thanks to František Baluška, Bill Bechtel, Tony Chemero, Andy Clark, Monica Gagliano, Antoni Gomila, Fred Keijzer, Arjun Khakhar, Stefano Mancuso, Emma Martín, Ariel Novoplansky, Gustavo Picazo, Vicente Raja, Sarah Robins, Andrew Sims, and Elizabeth Van Volkenburgh for helpful comments and suggestions on a previous draft of this manifesto.

References

Alpi, A., Amrhein, N., Bertl, A., Blatt, M. R., Blumwald, E., Cervone, F., et al. (2007). Plant neurobiology: No brain, no gain? Trends in Plant Science, 12(4), 135–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appel, H. M., & Cocroft, R. B. (2014). Plants respond to leaf vibrations caused by insect herbivore chewing. Oecologia, 175(4), 1257–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, I. T., Halitschke, R., Paschold, A., von Dahl, C. C., & Preston, C. A. (2006). Volatile signaling in plant-plant interactions: “talking trees” in the genomics era. Science, 311(5762), 812–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baluška, F. (2010). Recent surprising similarities between plant cells and neurons. Plant Signal Behavior, 5(2), 87–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baluška, F., Hlavacka, Andrej, Mancuso, Stefano, & Barlow, Peter W. (2006). Neurobiological view of plants and their body plan. In F. Baluška, S. Mancuso, & D. Volkmann (Eds.), Communication in plants: Neuronal aspects of plant life (pp. 19–35). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baluška, F., & Mancuso, S. (2007). Plant neurobiology as a paradigm shift not only in the plant sciences. Plant Signal Behavior, 2(4), 205–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baluška, F., & Mancuso, S. (2009a). Plant neurobiology: From sensory biology, via plant communication, to social plant behavior. Cognitive Processing, 10(Suppl. 1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baluška, F., & Mancuso, S. (2009b). Deep evolutionary origins of neurobiology: Turning the essence of ‘neural’ upside-down. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 2(1), 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baluška, F., & Mancuso, S. (2009c). Plants and animals: Convergent evolution in action? In F. Baluška (Ed.), Plant-environment interactions: From sensory plant biology to active plant behavior (pp. 285–301). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baluška, F., & Mancuso, S. (2013). Root apex transition zone as oscillatory zone. Frontiers in Plant Science, 4, 354.Google Scholar
Bastien, R., Bohr, T., Moulia, B., & Douady, S. (2013). Unifying model of shoot gravitropism reveals proprioception as a central feature of posture control in plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(2), 755–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, P. W. (2008). Reflections on ‘plant neurobiology’. BioSystems, 92(2), 132–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W. (1993). Integrating sciences by creating new disciplines: The case of cell biology. Biology & Philosophy, 8(3), 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W. (2009). Constructing a philosophy of science of cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(3), 548–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W. (2010). How can philosophy be a true cognitive science disciplines? Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, W. (2014). Cognitive biology: Surprising model organisms for cognitive science. In Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Bechtel, W., & Herschbach, M. (2010). Philosophy of the cognitive sciences. In Fritz Allhoff (Ed.), Philosophy of the sciences (pp. 237–261). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickle (2003) Philosophy and neuroscience. A ruthlessly reductive account. Springer.
Bose, J. C. (1926). The Nervous mechanism of plants. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Bouché, N., & Fromm, H. (2004). GABA in plants: Just a metabolite? Trends in Plant Science, 9(3), 110–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouché, N., Lacombe, B., & Fromm, H. (2003). GABA signalling: A conserved and ubiquitous mechanism. Trends Cell Biology, 13, 607–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, E. D., Stahlberg, R., Mancuso, S., Baluška, F., & van Volkenburgh, E. (2007). Plant neurobiology: The gain is more than the name. Trends in Plant Science, 12(7), 285–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenner, E. D., Stahlberg, R., Mancuso, S., Vivanco, J. M., Baluška, F., & van Volkenburgh, E. (2007). Plant neurobiology: An integrated view of plant signaling. Trends in Plant Science, 11(8), 413–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brook, A. (2009). Philosophy in and philosophy of cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, P. (2007). The quest for cognition in plant neurobiology. Plant Signaling and Behavior, 2(4), 208–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, P. (2012). Plant neurobiology: Lessons for the unity of science. In O. Pombo, J. M. Torres, J. Symons, & S. Rahman (Eds.), Special sciences and the unity of science (pp. 121–136). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Calvo, P., & Baluška, F. (2015). Conditions for minimal intelligence across eukaryota: A cognitive science perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1329. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01329.Google Scholar
Calvo, P., Baluška, F., & Sims, A. (submitted). ‘Feature detection’ versus ‘predictive coding’ models of plant behavior. Frontiers in Psychology.
Calvo, P., & Gomila, A. (2008). Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Calvo, P., & Keijzer, F. (2011). Plants: Adaptive behavior, root brains and minimal cognition. Adaptive Behavior, 19(3), 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, P., Martín, E., & Symons, J. (2014). The emergence of systematicity in minimally cognitive agents. In P. Calvo & J. Symons (Eds.), The architecture of cognition: Rethinking Fodor and Pylyshyn’s systematicity challenge (pp. 397–434). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Calvo, P., Raja, V. & Lee, D. N. (technical report) Guidance of circumnutation of climbing bean stems: An ecological exploration, MINTLab Technical Report #15-11(1). November 2015.
Carello, C., Vaz, D., Blau, J. J. C., & Petrusz, S. C. (2012). Unnerving intelligence. Ecological Psychology, 24(3), 241–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P. (2004). On being simple minded. American Philosophical Quarterly, 41(3), 205–220.Google Scholar
Chamovitz, D. (2012). What a plant knows: A field guide to the senses. New York, NY: Scientific American/Farrar, Staus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind-brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. S. (2002). Brain-wise: Studies in neurophilosophy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2015). Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dale, R., Dietrich, E., & Chemero, A. (2009). Explanatory pluralism in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 33(5), 739–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. (2009). The part of cognitive science that is philosophy. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 231–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicke, M., Agrawal, A. A., & Bruin, J. (2003). Plants talk, but are they deaf? Trends in Plant Science, 8(9), 403–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumais, J. (2013). Beyond the sine law of plant gravitropism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(2), 391–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, F. C., & Dickinson, J. A. (1994). Development of sun compensation by honeybees: How partially experienced bees estimate the sun’s course. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 91, 4471–4474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egner, T., Monti, J. M., & Summerfield, C. (2010). Expectation and surprise determine neural population responses in the ventral visual stream. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30(49), 16601–16608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esch, H. E., Zhang, S., Srinivasan, M. V., & Tautz, J. (2001). Honeybee dances communicate distances measured by optic flow. Nature, 411, 581–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friston, K. (2005). A theory of cortical responses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 360(1456), 815–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fumerton, R. (1999). A priori philosophy after an a posteriori turn. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23(1), 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagliano, M., Mancuso, S., & Robert, D. (2012). Towards understanding plant bioacoustics. Trends in Plant Science, 17(6), 323–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gagliano, M., Renton, M., Depczynski, M., & Mancuso, S. (2014). Experience teaches plants to learn faster and forget slower in environments where it matters. Oecologia, 175(1), 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gilroy, S. (2008) Plant tropisms. Current Biology, 18, R275–R277.
Greenspan, R. J., & Baars, B. J. (2005). Consciousness eclipsed: Jacques Loeb, Ivan P. Pavlov, and the rise of reductionistic biology after 1900. Conscious Cogn, 14, 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruntman, M., & Novoplansky, A. (2004). Physiologically-mediated self/nonself discrimination in roots. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 3863–3867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, A. (2009). Root decisions. Plant, Cell & Environment, 32(6), 628–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. (1965). Receptive fields and functional architecture in two nonstriate visual areas (18 and 19) of the cat. Journal of Neurophysiology, 28(2), 229–289.Google Scholar
Keijzer, F., van Duijn, M., & Lyon, P. (2013). What nervous systems do: Early evolution, input-output versus skin brain theory. Adaptive Behavior, 21(2), 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kok, P., Brouwer, G. J., van Gerven, M. A., & de Lange, F. P. (2013). Prior expectations bias sensory representations in visual cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(41), 16275–16284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. N. (1998). Guiding movement by coupling taus. Ecological Psychology, 10(3–4), 221–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. N. (2009). General Tau Theory: Evolution to date. Perception, 38(6), 837–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. N., & Reddish, P. L. (1981). Plummeting gannets: A paradigm of ecological optics. Nature, 293, 293–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, P. (2007). From quorum to cooperation: Lessons from bacterial sociality for evolutionary theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38, 820–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, G. O. (1970). Neuroid conduction and the evolution of conducting tissues. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 45(4), 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mancuso, S., & Viola, A. (2015). Brilliant green. The surprising history and science of plant intelligence, (Joan Benham, Trans.). Island Press.
Marder, M. (2011). Vegetal anti-metaphysics: Learning from plants. Continental Philosophy Review, 44(4), 469–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marder, M. (2012a). The life of plants and the limits of empathy. Dialogue, 51(2), 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marder, M. (2012b). Plant intentionality and the phenomenological framework of plant intelligence. Plant Signaling & Behavior, 7(11), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marder, M. (2013). Plant-thinking: A philosophy of vegetal life. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Mazzolai, B., Laschi, C., Dario, P., Mugnai, S., & Mancuso, S. (2010). The plant as a biomechatronic system. Plant Signaling & Behavior, 5(2), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaels, C. F., & Carello, C. (1981). Direct perception. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Novoplansky, A. (2009). Picking battles wisely: Plant behaviour under competition. Plant, Cell & Environment, 32(6), 726–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novoplansky, A. (2016). Future Perception in Plants. In Mihai Nadin (Ed.), Anticipation across disciplines (pp. 57–70). Springer.
Ovsepian, S. V., & Vesselkin, N. P. (2014). Wiring prior to firing: The evolutionary rise of electrical and chemical modes of synaptic transmission. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 25(6), 821–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeifer, R., & Scheier, C. (1999). Understanding Intelligence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pickard, B. G. (1973). Action potentials in higher plants. The Botanical Review, 39(2), 172–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Port, R., & Van Gelder, T. (1995). Mind as motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rao, R. P. N., & Ballard, D. H. (1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extraclassical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, M. J., Shockley, K., Fajen, B. R., Riley, M. A., & Turvey, M. (2008). Ecological psychology: Six principles for an embodied-embedded approach to behavior. In P. Calvo & A. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive science: An embodied approach (pp. 161–190). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge handbook of situated cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rock, I. (1983). The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rock, I. (Ed.). (1997). Indirect perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, T. J., & Grant, S. G. (2009). The origin and evolution of synapses. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(10), 701–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenk, H. J., Callaway, R. M., & Mahall, B. E. (1999). Spatial root segregation: Are plants territorial? Advances in Ecological Research, 28, 145–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahlberg, R. (2006). Historical overview on plant neurobiology. Plant Signaling & Behavior, 1(1), 6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stahlberg, R., Cleland, R. E., & van Volkenburgh, E. (2006). Slow wave potentials: A propagating electrical signal unique to higher plants. In F. Baluška, S. Mancuso, & D. Volkmann (Eds.), Communication in plants: Neuronal aspects of plant life (pp. 291–308). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepp, N., Chemero, A., & Turvey, M. (2011). Philosophy for the rest of cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepp, N., & Turvey, M. (2010). On strong anticipation. Cognitive Systems Research, 11(2), 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taiz, L., & Zeiger, E. (2010). Plant physiology (5th edn.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Takahashi, N., Hirata, Y., Aihara, K., & Mas, P. (2015). A hierarchical multi-oscillator network orchestrates the arabidopsis circadian system. Cell, 163(1), 148–159. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thagard, P. (2009). Why cognitive science needs philosophy and vice versa. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 237–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trebacz, K., Dziubinska, H., & Krol, E. (2006). Electrical signals in long-distance communication in plants. In F. Baluška, S. Mancuso, & D. Volkmann (Eds.), Communications in plants. Neuronal aspects of plant life (pp. 277–290). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Trewavas, A. (2005a). Green plants as intelligent organisms. Trends in Plant Science, 10(9), 413–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trewavas, A. (2005b). Plant intelligence. Naturwissenschaften, 92, 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trewavas, A. (2007). Response to Alpi et al.: Plant neurobiology—all metaphors have value. Trends in Plant Science, 12(6), 231–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trewavas, A. (2009). What is plant behaviour? Plant, Cell & Environment, 32(6), 606–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trewavas, A. (2014). Plant behaviour and intelligence. Oxford University Press.
Varela, F., Rosch, E., & Thompson, E. (1991). The embodied mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vergara-Silva, F. (2003). Plants and the conceptual articulation of evolutionary developmental biology. Biology and Philosophy, 18(2), 249–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volkov, A. G. (Ed.). (2006). Plant electrophysiology. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Wheatherson, B. (2003). What good are counterexamples? Philosophical Studies, 115(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Funding information

Funder Name	Grant Number	Funding Note
Fundación Séneca (ES)	11944/PHCS/09

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Paco Calvo
- 1
Email author

1.Minimal Intelligence Lab (MINT Lab), Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MurciaMurciaSpain

Personalised recommendations

Actions

Unlimited access to the full article
Instant download
Include local sales tax if applicable

Subscribe to Journal

Get Access to

Synthese

for the whole of 2017

The philosophy of plant neurobiology: a manifesto

Abstract

Keywords

Funding information

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cookies