I’m disappointed that there is not one mention of Triffids in the whole article but apart from that error it’s very interesting.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34849374

It is interesting, but I suspect they may be over-compensating on the not underestimating plant intelligence front.

The Rev Dodgson said:

It is interesting, but I suspect they may be over-compensating on the not underestimating plant intelligence front.

Perhaps we should have been studying them longer?

In the show Farscape one of the characters is a sentient humanoid plant

Back in the seventies there was a book called the secret life of plants that easily describes that the work done for this release had been done back then.

roughbarked said:

Back in the seventies there was a book called the secret life of plants that easily describes that the work done for this release had been done back then.

There is also a BBC documentary series of the same name produced in the late 1990s. Hosted by DA.

intelligence, generalized, is the resources brought to bear in overcoming obstacles in achieving goals

consciousness involves self-awareness, and more broadly probably involves assigning significance to unknowns/uncertainties.

transition said:

intelligence, generalized, is the resources brought to bear in overcoming obstacles in achieving goals

consciousness involves self-awareness, and more broadly probably involves assigning significance to unknowns/uncertainties.

Might I say (entirely un-sarcastically) that both of those statements are both clearly stated and perceptive.

The Rev Dodgson said:

intelligence, generalized, is the resources brought to bear in overcoming obstacles in achieving goals

consciousness involves self-awareness, and more broadly probably involves assigning significance to unknowns/uncertainties.

Not disagreeing but without consciousness, there are no obstacles: just a bunch of stuff that either happens or does not happen. Without consciousness, there aren’t goals.

I would also add that evolution of any sufficiently complex living thing must inevitably lead to intelligent behaviour, and that many (if not all) plants are undoubtedly sufficiently complex.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

intelligence, generalized, is the resources brought to bear in overcoming obstacles in achieving goals

consciousness involves self-awareness, and more broadly probably involves assigning significance to unknowns/uncertainties.

Not disagreeing but without consciousness, there are no obstacles: just a bunch of stuff that either happens or does not happen. Without consciousness, there aren’t goals.

I did consider that, and decided that unconscious goals were a possibility. i.e. increased “fitness” can be a goal, whether the living thing is conscious of it or not.

Of what benefit would intelligence be to a typical plant? Given that they’re not equipped to do anything much about the circumstances in which they find themselves, beyond adaptations that clearly owe nothing to intelligence.

>Without consciousness, there aren’t goals.

a mechanism in a plant that tends it to point toward light has about it – evolved – a goal, it can be said.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

intelligence, generalized, is the resources brought to bear in overcoming obstacles in achieving goals

consciousness involves self-awareness, and more broadly probably involves assigning significance to unknowns/uncertainties.

Not disagreeing but without consciousness, there are no obstacles: just a bunch of stuff that either happens or does not happen. Without consciousness, there aren’t goals.

I did consider that, and decided that unconscious goals were a possibility. i.e. increased “fitness” can be a goal, whether the living thing is conscious of it or not.

But I would certainly agree that that conclusion is open to debate.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

intelligence, generalized, is the resources brought to bear in overcoming obstacles in achieving goals

consciousness involves self-awareness, and more broadly probably involves assigning significance to unknowns/uncertainties.

Not disagreeing but without consciousness, there are no obstacles: just a bunch of stuff that either happens or does not happen. Without consciousness, there aren’t goals.

I did consider that, and decided that unconscious goals were a possibility. i.e. increased “fitness” can be a goal, whether the living thing is conscious of it or not.

I think that we have to agree to disagree. Sometimes fitness within an ecosystem increases, sometimes it doesn’t, just as some times stars undergo heavy fusion, and sometimes they don’t. They don’t care. It’s just stuff that happens. Heavy fusion isn’t a goal.

You could give a sheep the brain of an Einstein, but it would still have to spend most of its time eating grass.

They quote one example of an experiment to test intelligence.
The fern that shrinks down when you touch it forget the name.
Anyway when they dropped a pot with that plant in it it shrunk down when it hit the floor but after doing it several times the plant realised that there was no danger in being dropped so it stopped shrinking down when dropped.

Bubblecar said:

Of what benefit would intelligence be to a typical plant? Given that they’re not equipped to do anything much about the circumstances in which they find themselves, beyond adaptations that clearly owe nothing to intelligence.

They are equipped to adjust the direction and speed of their growth, the opening and closing of their leaves and flowers, amongst other things.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Of what benefit would intelligence be to a typical plant? Given that they’re not equipped to do anything much about the circumstances in which they find themselves, beyond adaptations that clearly owe nothing to intelligence.

They are equipped to adjust the direction and speed of their growth, the opening and closing of their leaves and flowers, amongst other things.

Does that require intelligence, or just instinctive responses to various stimuli?

In some ways humans are not the best creatures for discussing these matters because we have too much skin in the game.

On the other hand we obviously are very much the best creatures for discussing these matters as far as we know so I guess you’ve got to take what you can get.

Peak Warming Man said:

They quote one example of an experiment to test intelligence.
The fern that shrinks down when you touch it forget the name.
Anyway when they dropped a pot with that plant in it it shrunk down when it hit the floor but after doing it several times the plant realised that there was no danger in being dropped so it stopped shrinking down when dropped.

I thought that was just the receptors or the things that make it move getting overwhelmed and exhausted.

dv said:

I think that we have to agree to disagree. Sometimes fitness within an ecosystem increases, sometimes it doesn’t, just as some times stars undergo heavy fusion, and sometimes they don’t. They don’t care. It’s just stuff that happens. Heavy fusion isn’t a goal.

I’d certainly agree that heavy fusion is not a goal, but I think that the end results of behaviour that has evolved because the living entities that had it out-bred those that didn’t might be described as goals.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Of what benefit would intelligence be to a typical plant? Given that they’re not equipped to do anything much about the circumstances in which they find themselves, beyond adaptations that clearly owe nothing to intelligence.

They are equipped to adjust the direction and speed of their growth, the opening and closing of their leaves and flowers, amongst other things.

Does that require intelligence, or just instinctive responses to various stimuli?

I don’t think there is a clear dividing line between “intelligence” and “instinctive response”.

Of functional arrangement (whatever scale, mechanisms), these can be seen as having about them design intelligence, which is accumulated through selections variously, and replicated. There’s an interesting bit of territory though of seeing and understanding happened-upon structures, what of it when we get our brains around it is the product of applying our minds to it.

I mean it intrigues me, but I know it wasn’t anything like intrigue that made it all happen, it was much more mundane.

Without wanting to get bogged down in words, some discussion about the breadth and scope of meaning of some of them can aid clarity. We have a term intelligence that we apply to human behaviour: we can’t assume that it can be applied meaningfully to anything else. It relates to the ability to find solutions to problems, but problems only exist if you have intelligence, so it is a little circular. Rocks don’t have problems. Interstellar gas doesn’t have any problems.

Bubblecar said:

You could give a sheep the brain of an Einstein, but it would still have to spend most of its time eating grass.

In fact it’s very unlikely it would be able to eat enough grass to feed the energy requirements of a much larger brain.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

You could give a sheep the brain of an Einstein, but it would still have to spend most of its time eating grass.

In fact it’s very unlikely it would be able to eat enough grass to feed the energy requirements of a much larger brain.

Actually it would probably just eat the brain

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

You could give a sheep the brain of an Einstein, but it would still have to spend most of its time eating grass.

In fact it’s very unlikely it would be able to eat enough grass to feed the energy requirements of a much larger brain.

Actually it would probably just eat the brain

I doubt even Einstein could work out how to eat his own brain. Especially if he was a sheep.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

In fact it’s very unlikely it would be able to eat enough grass to feed the energy requirements of a much larger brain.

Actually it would probably just eat the brain

I doubt even Einstein could work out how to eat his own brain. Especially if he was a sheep.

Well you just said to give the brain to the sheep

dv said:

Well you just said to give the brain to the sheep

Sheep don’t eat meat.

• Sheep don’t eat meat.

Not on purpose, anyway…

furious said:

• Sheep don’t eat meat.

Not porpoises, anyway…

No, but they do eat seaweed in some places:

North Ronaldsay sheep eat seaweed and little else

Living on an isolated Scottish island, and prevented from venturing onto inland pastures, these sheep have adopted an unconventional diet.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150924-north-ronaldsay-sheep-eat-seaweed-and-little-else

I think wondering if a plant has intelligence or consciousness is a red herring. What makes more sense, is does life generally have those features? Personally I think all life has senses to understand its environment, no life operates purely by instinct, but will adjust to changing circumstance for as much it is physically able, but whether this is intelligence of consciousness is debateable.

It was and with some people still is thought that humans were the only intelligent and conscious beings, but it is now generally considered that other animals like the elephant, dolphin, octopus and others also do, and are not just robotic creatures relying completely on instinct. So what you have is levels of intelligence and consciousness, with some having a lot and others less, with plants and probably even individual species of plants existing somewhere on this continuum, with us at the top and a single celled microbe at the bottom.

Could plants develop intelligence or even sentience and actually think I wonder

Cymek said:

Could plants develop intelligence or even sentience and actually think I wonder

There are creatures without a brain that exhibit intelligence. Was listening on the radio recently about Box Jellyfish, that have eyes around the bell, with which they use to actively hunt prey and move around its environment. Also the octopus does not have a brain, yet it is clearly intelligent. This would indicate to me that life has evolved in many different ways and with many ways to solve problems that affects it life.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Could plants develop intelligence or even sentience and actually think I wonder

There are creatures without a brain that exhibit intelligence. Was listening on the radio recently about Box Jellyfish, that have eyes around the bell, with which they use to actively hunt prey and move around its environment. Also the octopus does not have a brain, yet it is clearly intelligent. This would indicate to me that life has evolved in many different ways and with many ways to solve problems that affects it life.

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Could plants develop intelligence or even sentience and actually think I wonder

There are creatures without a brain that exhibit intelligence. Was listening on the radio recently about Box Jellyfish, that have eyes around the bell, with which they use to actively hunt prey and move around its environment. Also the octopus does not have a brain, yet it is clearly intelligent. This would indicate to me that life has evolved in many different ways and with many ways to solve problems that affects it life.

Glad to see you reading my posts Stumpy, you have obviously changed your mind. Yes, badly expressed by me, they do have a brain, but nothing like we would recognised as one, also its arms act independently with limited input from this brain and it is thought each has a rudimentary brain of its own.

The brains of many creatures are little more than a network of nerves, but presumably act like a brain, but like most things in biology, it is the degree of it and how it relates to others. This is what makes much of our discussion on nature so ineffectual, because we like to place things in boxes.

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Could plants develop intelligence or even sentience and actually think I wonder

There are creatures without a brain that exhibit intelligence. Was listening on the radio recently about Box Jellyfish, that have eyes around the bell, with which they use to actively hunt prey and move around its environment. Also the octopus does not have a brain, yet it is clearly intelligent. This would indicate to me that life has evolved in many different ways and with many ways to solve problems that affects it life.

lulz.

meal ‘bout to be served

poikilotherm said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

There are creatures without a brain that exhibit intelligence. Was listening on the radio recently about Box Jellyfish, that have eyes around the bell, with which they use to actively hunt prey and move around its environment. Also the octopus does not have a brain, yet it is clearly intelligent. This would indicate to me that life has evolved in many different ways and with many ways to solve problems that affects it life.

lulz.

Pf, lol, you have a brain pf, trouble is you keep loosing bits of it every time you take a dump

The_observer said:

poikilotherm said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

lulz.

Pf, lol, you have a brain pf, trouble is you keep loosing bits of it every time you take a dump

Straining can burst blood vessels, more fibre in his diet

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

poikilotherm said:

lulz.

Pf, lol, you have a brain pf, trouble is you keep loosing bits of it every time you take a dump

Straining can burst blood vessels, more fibre in his diet

What is the matter with you people, are you totally stupid?

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

The_observer said:

Pf, lol, you have a brain pf, trouble is you keep loosing bits of it every time you take a dump

Straining can burst blood vessels, more fibre in his diet

What is the matter with you people, are you totally stupid?

I suppose you’ve done heaps of research on octopuses brains pf

your papers conclusion must have been “ octopuses have no brain unless someone can provide evidence to the contrairy, then, yes they do have brains, but!”

got a link to that paper Pinocchio?

Let’s all be nice to one another.

Bubblecar said:

Let’s all be nice to one another.

Shut-up octopus brain!

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

Straining can burst blood vessels, more fibre in his diet

What is the matter with you people, are you totally stupid?

I suppose you’ve done heaps of research on octopuses brains pf

your papers conclusion must have been “ octopuses have no brain unless someone can provide evidence to the contrairy, then, yes they do have brains, but!”

got a link to that paper Pinocchio?

You really are stupid Observer. I gave an explanation, but you and others have chosen to ignore that, I wonder why? If you want to criticise me Observer, please do so, but do it in a fair and rational manner.

Octopuses are quite intelligent actually.

dv said:

Octopuses are quite intelligent actually.

Very.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

What is the matter with you people, are you totally stupid?

I suppose you’ve done heaps of research on octopuses brains pf

your papers conclusion must have been “ octopuses have no brain unless someone can provide evidence to the contrairy, then, yes they do have brains, but!”

got a link to that paper Pinocchio?

You really are stupid Observer. I gave an explanation, but you and others have chosen to ignore that, I wonder why? If you want to criticise me Observer, please do so, but do it in a fair and rational manner.

Read your own posts pinocchio, you said octopus do not have a brain.

your words, idiot

I don’t agree with the_observer on much but you really are fucking cray cray, PermeateFree.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I suppose you’ve done heaps of research on octopuses brains pf

your papers conclusion must have been “ octopuses have no brain unless someone can provide evidence to the contrairy, then, yes they do have brains, but!”

got a link to that paper Pinocchio?

You really are stupid Observer. I gave an explanation, but you and others have chosen to ignore that, I wonder why? If you want to criticise me Observer, please do so, but do it in a fair and rational manner.

Read your own posts pinocchio, you said octopus do not have a brain.

your words, idiot

Why don’t you read the posts before and after? You intentionally set out to create as much bad feeling as you can. Any intelligent comment is inevitably brought down to your level of stupidity. You are just an ignorant, unintelligent troll Observer..

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

I suppose you’ve done heaps of research on octopuses brains pf

your papers conclusion must have been “ octopuses have no brain unless someone can provide evidence to the contrairy, then, yes they do have brains, but!”

got a link to that paper Pinocchio?

You really are stupid Observer. I gave an explanation, but you and others have chosen to ignore that, I wonder why? If you want to criticise me Observer, please do so, but do it in a fair and rational manner.

Read your own posts pinocchio, you said octopus do not have a brain.

your words, idiot

hey pf, octopi do not have legs,,,

ah, yeh but no but not like we would recognise

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

You really are stupid Observer. I gave an explanation, but you and others have chosen to ignore that, I wonder why? If you want to criticise me Observer, please do so, but do it in a fair and rational manner.

Read your own posts pinocchio, you said octopus do not have a brain.

your words, idiot

Why don’t you read the posts before and after? You intentionally set out to create as much bad feeling as you can. Any intelligent comment is inevitably brought down to your level of stupidity. You are just an ignorant, unintelligent troll Observer..

PF everyone makes mistakes. I make mistakes, Bubblecar makes mistakes. The best thing to do is just apologise, thank the other person for the correction, move on to substantive matters. Reading the posts before and after doesn’t provide greater context to your statement that octopuses don’t have brains.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Read your own posts pinocchio, you said octopus do not have a brain.

your words, idiot

Why don’t you read the posts before and after? You intentionally set out to create as much bad feeling as you can. Any intelligent comment is inevitably brought down to your level of stupidity. You are just an ignorant, unintelligent troll Observer..

PF everyone makes mistakes. I make mistakes, Bubblecar makes mistakes. The best thing to do is just apologise, thank the other person for the correction, move on to substantive matters. Reading the posts before and after doesn’t provide greater context to your statement that octopuses octopodes don’t have brains.

*fixed

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Read your own posts pinocchio, you said octopus do not have a brain.

your words, idiot

Why don’t you read the posts before and after? You intentionally set out to create as much bad feeling as you can. Any intelligent comment is inevitably brought down to your level of stupidity. You are just an ignorant, unintelligent troll Observer..

PF everyone makes mistakes. I make mistakes, Bubblecar makes mistakes. The best thing to do is just apologise, thank the other person for the correction, move on to substantive matters. Reading the posts before and after doesn’t provide greater context to your statement that octopuses don’t have brains.

I gave my explanation, but that has been totally ignored and of which you still do. dv, you obviously don’t like me, but I thought you had enough interest in science to put that to one side, but apparently you do not.

dv said:

PF everyone makes mistakes. I make mistakes, Bubblecar makes mistakes. The best thing to do is just apologise, thank the other person for the correction, move on to substantive matters. Reading the posts before and after doesn’t provide greater context to your statement that octopuses don’t have brains.

I think you are mistaken about Mr Car making mistakes.

This is the annoying thing about this forum and many people in it. You ignore or must rubbish intelligent comment and you do this by picking on some minor comment only slightly related to the main subject matter, then you build your strawmen around it, so you can all burn it down and feel good for doing so. If you want to be so delusional then go ahead, for all you do is portray your lack of intelligence. You are neither fair or rational, but then that was never your intention, is it any wonder I don’t hold most of you in high regard?

The fact brains exist that are nothing like the human brain is very interesting

According to the answer to everything, 2/3 of the octopus’s neurons are outside its “brain”. On that basis it seems a reasonable suggestion that the central 1/3 of the neurons should not be accorded “brain” status, since this would be misleading when comparing the octopus with other intelligent creatures that do have highly centralised brains.

PermeateFree said:

This is the annoying thing about this forum and many people in it. You ignore or must rubbish intelligent comment and you do this by picking on some minor comment only slightly related to the main subject matter, then you build your strawmen around it, so you can all burn it down and feel good for doing so. If you want to be so delusional then go ahead, for all you do is portray your lack of intelligence. You are neither fair or rational, but then that was never your intention, is it any wonder I don’t hold most of you in high regard?

You like to put everyone down in this resort pf,

when ever they differ with you

trust me, i know

Cymek said:

The fact brains exist that are nothing like the human brain is very interesting

only vertebrates have grey matter. Octopus brains are typical of invertebrates… clusters of neurons. The different thing about octopodes is that they are riddled with neuron clusters throughout their tentacles that are similar to a network communicating back to a central cluster in the equivalent of a skull.

This way, tentacles continue to have ‘intelligent touch’ after they have been severed from the main body

PermeateFree said:

This is the annoying thing about this forum and many people in it. You ignore or must rubbish intelligent comment and you do this by picking on some minor comment only slightly related to the main subject matter, then you build your strawmen around it, so you can all burn it down and feel good for doing so. If you want to be so delusional then go ahead, for all you do is portray your lack of intelligence. You are neither fair or rational, but then that was never your intention, is it any wonder I don’t hold most of you in high regard?

Don’t slam the door on your way out.

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to the answer to everything, 2/3 of the octopus’s neurons are outside its “brain”. On that basis it seems a reasonable suggestion that the central 1/3 of the neurons should not be accorded “brain” status, since this would be misleading when comparing the octopus with other intelligent creatures that do have highly centralised brains.

Which is not disputed by me and is reflected in my explanation post (the one everyone has ignored).

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

This is the annoying thing about this forum and many people in it. You ignore or must rubbish intelligent comment and you do this by picking on some minor comment only slightly related to the main subject matter, then you build your strawmen around it, so you can all burn it down and feel good for doing so. If you want to be so delusional then go ahead, for all you do is portray your lack of intelligence. You are neither fair or rational, but then that was never your intention, is it any wonder I don’t hold most of you in high regard?

You like to put everyone down in this resort pf,

when ever they differ with you

trust me, i know

Difference I can handle, the deliberate distortion of information I cannot.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Cymek said:

The fact brains exist that are nothing like the human brain is very interesting

only vertebrates have grey matter. Octopus brains are typical of invertebrates… clusters of neurons. The different thing about octopodes is that they are riddled with neuron clusters throughout their tentacles that are similar to a network communicating back to a central cluster in the equivalent of a skull.

This way, tentacles continue to have ‘intelligent touch’ after they have been severed from the main body

Thank you for agreeing with my explanation post (the one you have previously ignored).

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to the answer to everything, 2/3 of the octopus’s neurons are outside its “brain”. On that basis it seems a reasonable suggestion that the central 1/3 of the neurons should not be accorded “brain” status, since this would be misleading when comparing the octopus with other intelligent creatures that do have highly centralised brains.

Which is not disputed by me and is reflected in my explanation post (the one everyone has ignored).

PF – don’t be so touchy. I read what you said, and I wrote what I did because it makes sense to me.

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Cymek said:

The fact brains exist that are nothing like the human brain is very interesting

only vertebrates have grey matter. Octopus brains are typical of invertebrates… clusters of neurons. The different thing about octopodes is that they are riddled with neuron clusters throughout their tentacles that are similar to a network communicating back to a central cluster in the equivalent of a skull.

This way, tentacles continue to have ‘intelligent touch’ after they have been severed from the main body

Thank you for agreeing with my explanation post (the one you have previously ignored).

I haven’t ignored any of your posts..
Just watching you dig yourself a bigger hole…

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

This is the annoying thing about this forum and many people in it. You ignore or must rubbish intelligent comment and you do this by picking on some minor comment only slightly related to the main subject matter, then you build your strawmen around it, so you can all burn it down and feel good for doing so. If you want to be so delusional then go ahead, for all you do is portray your lack of intelligence. You are neither fair or rational, but then that was never your intention, is it any wonder I don’t hold most of you in high regard?

Don’t slam the door on your way out.

When not involved, your antics can be quite amusing.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

This is the annoying thing about this forum and many people in it. You ignore or must rubbish intelligent comment and you do this by picking on some minor comment only slightly related to the main subject matter, then you build your strawmen around it, so you can all burn it down and feel good for doing so. If you want to be so delusional then go ahead, for all you do is portray your lack of intelligence. You are neither fair or rational, but then that was never your intention, is it any wonder I don’t hold most of you in high regard?

You like to put everyone down in this resort pf,

when ever they differ with you

trust me, i know

Difference I can handle, the deliberate distortion of information I cannot.

No, the differing view is what you have great trouble with, cause your a know all

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to the answer to everything, 2/3 of the octopus’s neurons are outside its “brain”. On that basis it seems a reasonable suggestion that the central 1/3 of the neurons should not be accorded “brain” status, since this would be misleading when comparing the octopus with other intelligent creatures that do have highly centralised brains.

Which is not disputed by me and is reflected in my explanation post (the one everyone has ignored).

PF – don’t be so touchy. I read what you said, and I wrote what I did because it makes sense to me.

I did not mean to be controversial in any way. It is probably just the way I express myself.

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

only vertebrates have grey matter. Octopus brains are typical of invertebrates… clusters of neurons. The different thing about octopodes is that they are riddled with neuron clusters throughout their tentacles that are similar to a network communicating back to a central cluster in the equivalent of a skull.

This way, tentacles continue to have ‘intelligent touch’ after they have been severed from the main body

Thank you for agreeing with my explanation post (the one you have previously ignored).

I haven’t ignored any of your posts..
Just watching you dig yourself a bigger hole…

Then you are no more than a fool, more intent of scoring points than in rational debate.

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to the answer to everything, 2/3 of the octopus’s neurons are outside its “brain”. On that basis it seems a reasonable suggestion that the central 1/3 of the neurons should not be accorded “brain” status, since this would be misleading when comparing the octopus with other intelligent creatures that do have highly centralised brains.

that may be so, but the anatomy of an octopus does class the central cluster of neurons as a brain, most probably because it is situated in the skull, which is a defining feature for vertebrate brains.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

You like to put everyone down in this resort pf,

when ever they differ with you

trust me, i know

Difference I can handle, the deliberate distortion of information I cannot.

No, the differing view is what you have great trouble with, cause your a know all

I suppose that is why I do not comment on over 90% of the stuff that goes through here? Very observant of you Observer.

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

Thank you for agreeing with my explanation post (the one you have previously ignored).

I haven’t ignored any of your posts..
Just watching you dig yourself a bigger hole…

Then you are no more than a fool, more intent of scoring points than in rational debate.

“Also, the octopus does not have a brain”

Difference I can handle, the deliberate distortion of information I cannot.

stumpy_seahorse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to the answer to everything, 2/3 of the octopus’s neurons are outside its “brain”. On that basis it seems a reasonable suggestion that the central 1/3 of the neurons should not be accorded “brain” status, since this would be misleading when comparing the octopus with other intelligent creatures that do have highly centralised brains.

that may be so, but the anatomy of an octopus does class the central cluster of neurons as a brain, most probably because it is situated in the skull, which is a defining feature for vertebrate brains.

Well I am glad to see you are coming around to what I wrote and how easily it was to misinterpret.

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

I haven’t ignored any of your posts..
Just watching you dig yourself a bigger hole…

Then you are no more than a fool, more intent of scoring points than in rational debate.

“Also, the octopus does not have a brain”

Difference I can handle, the deliberate distortion of information I cannot.

As you normally do, ie, shift the goal posts, I think you should read what you have written and how close it is to what I have written.

dv said:

I don’t agree with the_observer on much but you really are fucking cray cray, PermeateFree.

I strongly recommend that you do not make such comparisons in future dv.

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

Then you are no more than a fool, more intent of scoring points than in rational debate.

“Also, the octopus does not have a brain”

Difference I can handle, the deliberate distortion of information I cannot.

As you normally do, ie, shift the goal posts, I think you should read what you have written and how close it is to what I have written.

so reposting your own words verbatim is shifting the goalposts now?

Stating that the octopus does not have a brain, when biologically it clearly does, how is that not “deliberately distorting information”?

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I don’t agree with the_observer on much but you really are fucking cray cray, PermeateFree.

I strongly recommend that you do not make such comparisons in future dv.

Hah… can I be sued too?

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

“Also, the octopus does not have a brain”

Difference I can handle, the deliberate distortion of information I cannot.

As you normally do, ie, shift the goal posts, I think you should read what you have written and how close it is to what I have written.

so reposting your own words verbatim is shifting the goalposts now?

Stating that the octopus does not have a brain, when biologically it clearly does, how is that not “deliberately distorting information”?

Instead of giving us your distorted opinion, why don’t you just read my explanation post and comment on that if you must.

Are we all being nice to one another?

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I don’t agree with the_observer on much but you really are fucking cray cray, PermeateFree.

I strongly recommend that you do not make such comparisons in future dv.

Hah… can I be sued too?

I don’t, nor have ever sued anyone, nor have I any intention of doing so. As usual Witty it is all in your troubled mind.

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

and apologise to Kingy too, for misleading him about what you DID say, pinocchio

stumpy_seahorse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to the answer to everything, 2/3 of the octopus’s neurons are outside its “brain”. On that basis it seems a reasonable suggestion that the central 1/3 of the neurons should not be accorded “brain” status, since this would be misleading when comparing the octopus with other intelligent creatures that do have highly centralised brains.

that may be so, but the anatomy of an octopus does class the central cluster of neurons as a brain, most probably because it is situated in the skull, which is a defining feature for vertebrate brains.

But there are lots of accepted conventions that don’t make a lot of sense.

The_observer said:

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

and apologise to Kingy too, for misleading him about what you DID say, pinocchio

What people say and the intended comical meaning are often different and become what the reader wants it to be, especially when they don’t want to see the funny side of it.

stumpy_seahorse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to the answer to everything, 2/3 of the octopus’s neurons are outside its “brain”. On that basis it seems a reasonable suggestion that the central 1/3 of the neurons should not be accorded “brain” status, since this would be misleading when comparing the octopus with other intelligent creatures that do have highly centralised brains.

that may be so, but the anatomy of an octopus does class the central cluster of neurons as a brain, most probably because it is situated in the skull, which is a defining feature for vertebrate brains.

OTOH, octopuses are not vertebrates and don’t have skulls.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I don’t, nor have ever sued anyone, nor have I any intention of doing so. As usual Witty it is all in your troubled mind.

Idle threats then.

What are the consequences of suggesting you exaggerate your scientific credentials?

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I don’t, nor have ever sued anyone, nor have I any intention of doing so. As usual Witty it is all in your troubled mind.

Idle threats then.

What are the consequences of suggesting you exaggerate your scientific credentials?

In what way have I exaggerated my scientific credentials?

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

and apologise to Kingy too, for misleading him about what you DID say, pinocchio

What people say and the intended comical meaning are often different and become what the reader wants it to be, especially when they don’t want to see the funny side of it.

But that isnt what you said to Kingy, you denied saying it while bagging me as a liar, gutless hypocrite

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

and apologise to Kingy too, for misleading him about what you DID say, pinocchio

What people say and the intended comical meaning are often different and become what the reader wants it to be, especially when they don’t want to see the funny side of it.

But that isnt what you said to Kingy, you denied saying it while bagging me as a liar, gutless hypocrite

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

and apologise to Kingy too, for misleading him about what you DID say, pinocchio

What people say and the intended comical meaning are often different and become what the reader wants it to be, especially when they don’t want to see the funny side of it.

But that isnt what you said to Kingy, you denied saying it while bagging me as a liar, gutless hypocrite

Triplicate

I think we can all agree that the nervous systems of octopuses are indeed unusual, whatever terminology is used, and I’m sure PF now accepts that the term “brain” is commonly used by the experts to refer to that particular clump.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

and apologise to Kingy too, for misleading him about what you DID say, pinocchio

What people say and the intended comical meaning are often different and become what the reader wants it to be, especially when they don’t want to see the funny side of it.

But that isnt what you said to Kingy, you denied saying it while bagging me as a liar, gutless hypocrite

It is all in your stupid mind.

Bubblecar said:

I think we can all agree that the nervous systems of octopuses are indeed unusual, whatever terminology is used, and I’m sure PF now accepts that the term “brain” is commonly used by the experts to refer to that particular clump.

Quite so.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

I think we can all agree that the nervous systems of octopuses are indeed unusual, whatever terminology is used, and I’m sure PF now accepts that the term “brain” is commonly used by the experts to refer to that particular clump.

Quite so.

I might add that I never denied it, as is evident in my explanation post. However, certain people were just trying to make political capital from my earlier post.

The Rev Dodgson said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to the answer to everything, 2/3 of the octopus’s neurons are outside its “brain”. On that basis it seems a reasonable suggestion that the central 1/3 of the neurons should not be accorded “brain” status, since this would be misleading when comparing the octopus with other intelligent creatures that do have highly centralised brains.

that may be so, but the anatomy of an octopus does class the central cluster of neurons as a brain, most probably because it is situated in the skull, which is a defining feature for vertebrate brains.

But there are lots of accepted conventions that don’t make a lot of sense.

in biological classification terms, they kinda do, and are therefore classed as such

Bubblecar said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

According to the answer to everything, 2/3 of the octopus’s neurons are outside its “brain”. On that basis it seems a reasonable suggestion that the central 1/3 of the neurons should not be accorded “brain” status, since this would be misleading when comparing the octopus with other intelligent creatures that do have highly centralised brains.

that may be so, but the anatomy of an octopus does class the central cluster of neurons as a brain, most probably because it is situated in the skull, which is a defining feature for vertebrate brains.

OTOH, octopuses are not vertebrates and don’t have skulls.

they do have a structure that is classed a skull and is named as such

PermeateFree said:

In what way have I exaggerated my scientific credentials?

AFAICT you claim to be an expert in fields but can only provide personal blog posts as evidence.

Bubblecar said:

I think we can all agree that the nervous systems of octopuses are indeed unusual, whatever terminology is used, and I’m sure PF now accepts that the term “brain” is commonly used by the experts to refer to that particular clump.

*fixed

stumpy_seahorse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

that may be so, but the anatomy of an octopus does class the central cluster of neurons as a brain, most probably because it is situated in the skull, which is a defining feature for vertebrate brains.

But there are lots of accepted conventions that don’t make a lot of sense.

in biological classification terms, they kinda do, and are therefore classed as such

There are a great number of opinions regarding biology matters out there and your comments above are not helpful.

PermeateFree said:

I might add that I never denied it, as is evident in my explanation post. However, certain people were just trying to make political capital from my earlier post.

So you admit that your post as written implied the opposite from what you meant? Thank you.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

What people say and the intended comical meaning are often different and become what the reader wants it to be, especially when they don’t want to see the funny side of it.

But that isnt what you said to Kingy, you denied saying it while bagging me as a liar, gutless hypocrite

It is all in your stupid mind.

My god, you said it, im not the only one to see it, you denied what you said, to Kingy, & now you deny denying it

you’re really fucked up pf

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

What people say and the intended comical meaning are often different and become what the reader wants it to be, especially when they don’t want to see the funny side of it.

But that isnt what you said to Kingy, you denied saying it while bagging me as a liar, gutless hypocrite

It is all in your stupid mind.

My god, you said it, im not the only one to see it, you denied what you said, to Kingy, & now you deny denying it

you’re really fucked up pf

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

What people say and the intended comical meaning are often different and become what the reader wants it to be, especially when they don’t want to see the funny side of it.

But that isnt what you said to Kingy, you denied saying it while bagging me as a liar, gutless hypocrite

It is all in your stupid mind.

My god, you said it, im not the only one to see it, you denied what you said, to Kingy, & now you deny denying it

you’re really fucked up pf

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

In what way have I exaggerated my scientific credentials?

AFAICT you claim to be an expert in fields but can only provide personal blog posts as evidence.

What fields do I claim to be an Expert Witty?

stumpy_seahorse said:

they do have a structure that is classed a skull and is named as such

You’re right:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But there are lots of accepted conventions that don’t make a lot of sense.

in biological classification terms, they kinda do, and are therefore classed as such

There are a great number of opinions regarding biology matters out there and your comments above are not helpful.

My comments are precisely what the anatomy of an octopus are , and you will find them as such in any reputable book/abstract/website describing the anatomy of a cephalopod.

where are your comments from?

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

I might add that I never denied it, as is evident in my explanation post. However, certain people were just trying to make political capital from my earlier post.

So you admit that your post as written implied the opposite from what you meant? Thank you.

Please read the posts in question, BEFORE making comment.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

But that isnt what you said to Kingy, you denied saying it while bagging me as a liar, gutless hypocrite

It is all in your stupid mind.

My god, you said it, im not the only one to see it, you denied what you said, to Kingy, & now you deny denying it

you’re really fucked up pf

Troll!

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

In what way have I exaggerated my scientific credentials?

AFAICT you claim to be an expert in fields but can only provide personal blog posts as evidence.

What fields do I claim to be an Expert Witty?

So you’re not an expert in any fields?

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

In what way have I exaggerated my scientific credentials?

AFAICT you claim to be an expert in fields but can only provide personal blog posts as evidence.

What fields do I claim to be an Expert Witty?

Fucking everything

Bubblecar said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

they do have a structure that is classed a skull and is named as such

You’re right:

a year of cephalopod culture gives me a bit of background when discussing matters such as this

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

in biological classification terms, they kinda do, and are therefore classed as such

There are a great number of opinions regarding biology matters out there and your comments above are not helpful.

My comments are precisely what the anatomy of an octopus are , and you will find them as such in any reputable book/abstract/website describing the anatomy of a cephalopod.

where are your comments from?

WHY can’t you just read my explanation post, instead of continually making these ridiculous comments.

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

AFAICT you claim to be an expert in fields but can only provide personal blog posts as evidence.

What fields do I claim to be an Expert Witty?

So you’re not an expert in any fields?

Well you tell me, you are the one making the accusations, I’m just asking for clarification.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Bubblecar said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

they do have a structure that is classed a skull and is named as such

You’re right:

a year of cephalopod culture gives me a bit of background when discussing matters such as this

But ss, it not a skull as as we wpuld recognise it

lol

stumpy_seahorse said:

Bubblecar said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

they do have a structure that is classed a skull and is named as such

You’re right:

a year of cephalopod culture gives me a bit of background when discussing matters such as this

There you are then. I’d always thought of the “head” part as the mantle, and didn’t realise there was part of it called a skull.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

AFAICT you claim to be an expert in fields but can only provide personal blog posts as evidence.

What fields do I claim to be an Expert Witty?

Fucking everything

I think we have answered that one Observer, in as much I comment very little on the vast majority of subjects and only do so if I think I can add something.

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

What fields do I claim to be an Expert Witty?

So you’re not an expert in any fields?

Well you tell me, you are the one making the accusations, I’m just asking for clarification.

He takes a good photo

lol

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

What fields do I claim to be an Expert Witty?

So you’re not an expert in any fields?

Well you tell me, you are the one making the accusations, I’m just asking for clarification.

Okay i apologist for suggesting that you are in any way an expert in the scientific fields you comment on.

stumpy_seahorse said:

Bubblecar said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

they do have a structure that is classed a skull and is named as such

You’re right:

a year of cephalopod culture gives me a bit of background when discussing matters such as this

So you are not talking oysters here?

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

Bubblecar said:

You’re right:

a year of cephalopod culture gives me a bit of background when discussing matters such as this

So you are not talking oysters here?

we can, if you want to look an even bigger fool

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

But that isnt what you said to Kingy, you denied saying it while bagging me as a liar, gutless hypocrite

It is all in your stupid mind.

My god, you said it, im not the only one to see it, you denied what you said, to Kingy, & now you deny denying it

you’re really fucked up pf

And you do this type of thing repeatedly

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

a year of cephalopod culture gives me a bit of background when discussing matters such as this

So you are not talking oysters here?

not possible

we can, if you want to look an even bigger fool

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

So you’re not an expert in any fields?

Well you tell me, you are the one making the accusations, I’m just asking for clarification.

Okay i apologist for suggesting that you are in any way an expert in the scientific fields you comment on.

Please yourself, you are entitled to your opinion, being it right or wrong.

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

a year of cephalopod culture gives me a bit of background when discussing matters such as this

So you are not talking oysters here?

we can, if you want to look an even bigger fool

Just questioning if you realised that cephalopods were not oysters?

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Well you tell me, you are the one making the accusations, I’m just asking for clarification.

Okay i apologist for suggesting that you are in any way an expert in the scientific fields you comment on.

Please yourself, you are entitled to your opinion, being it right or wrong.

I’ll look forward to a wide range of personal anecdotes from you in the future.

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

So you are not talking oysters here?

we can, if you want to look an even bigger fool

Just questioning if you realised that cephalopods were not oysters?

you are the one that brought up octopodes in a plant thread, and then oysters in a conversation about octopodes…

yeah, i’m the confused one…

Witty Rejoinder said:

PermeateFree said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Okay i apologist for suggesting that you are in any way an expert in the scientific fields you comment on.

Please yourself, you are entitled to your opinion, being it right or wrong.

I’ll look forward to a wide range of personal anecdotes from you in the future.

You seem to have a very troubled mind Witty, just ask as I might be able to help. :)

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

we can, if you want to look an even bigger fool

Just questioning if you realised that cephalopods were not oysters?

you are the one that brought up octopodes in a plant thread, and then oysters in a conversation about octopodes…

yeah, i’m the confused one…

You are not answering the question Stumpy. You didn’t do year on the culture of cephalopods did you?

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

Just questioning if you realised that cephalopods were not oysters?

you are the one that brought up octopodes in a plant thread, and then oysters in a conversation about octopodes…

yeah, i’m the confused one…

You are not answering the question Stumpy. You didn’t do year on the culture of cephalopods did you?

yes I did.

It was not a core subject, but i was keeping a cuttlefish in a tank at the time, so i enrolled in that subject to give me some better knowledge in it as it was my first cuttlefish

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

you are the one that brought up octopodes in a plant thread, and then oysters in a conversation about octopodes…

yeah, i’m the confused one…

You are not answering the question Stumpy. You didn’t do year on the culture of cephalopods did you?

yes I did.

It was not a core subject, but i was keeping a cuttlefish in a tank at the time, so i enrolled in that subject to give me some better knowledge in it as it was my first cuttlefish

I kept a blue ring octopus in a tank for several months too. Who would have believed we have something in common.

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

You are not answering the question Stumpy. You didn’t do year on the culture of cephalopods did you?

yes I did.

It was not a core subject, but i was keeping a cuttlefish in a tank at the time, so i enrolled in that subject to give me some better knowledge in it as it was my first cuttlefish

I kept a blue ring octopus in a tank for several months too. Who would have believed we have something in common.

we had 2…

it only took 3 weeks to discover they were carnivorous…

(although it did lead to mass panic throughout the aquarium when 1 went missing and the tours were only 2 hours away with a touch tank in the adjoining room)

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

yes I did.

It was not a core subject, but i was keeping a cuttlefish in a tank at the time, so i enrolled in that subject to give me some better knowledge in it as it was my first cuttlefish

I kept a blue ring octopus in a tank for several months too. Who would have believed we have something in common.

we had 2…

it only took 3 weeks to discover they were carnivorous…

(although it did lead to mass panic throughout the aquarium when 1 went missing and the tours were only 2 hours away with a touch tank in the adjoining room)

sorry, replace carnivrous with canniballistic

stumpy_seahorse said:

PermeateFree said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

yes I did.

It was not a core subject, but i was keeping a cuttlefish in a tank at the time, so i enrolled in that subject to give me some better knowledge in it as it was my first cuttlefish

I kept a blue ring octopus in a tank for several months too. Who would have believed we have something in common.

we had 2…

it only took 3 weeks to discover they were carnivorous…

(although it did lead to mass panic throughout the aquarium when 1 went missing and the tours were only 2 hours away with a touch tank in the adjoining room)

Ha!