Water isn't an organism, but is also amazing at solving maze and routing problems. In fact, using an inanimate model is often a powerful method of solving such problems.
I think my point was more that something is lost when test problems are extrapolated out of their intended class. You can compare a rat and a dog performance at a maze problem and draw some interesting hypothesis about memory and spatial awareness. but what does it mean to compare a rat vs water? Certainly not the same ideas of cognitive function
Definitely. And water works well to illustrate that point.
But hyphae are not fluids. They could grow one way or another in a 3 dimensional space. They pick one direction, and as a system they often pick a efficient one.
They are not subject to gravity or whatever force make water runs ( I’m that ignorant … )
Unlike water, they also focus their forces when a resource is found, the rest of the network stop searching and redirect effort toward food.
That makes it … alive for a start. And remarkable.
But I’m with you that jumping on the « intelligence » thing is weird.
I would say It’s more like plant finding the perfect orientation to optimise photosynthesis .
Plants are not genius. But they do process information in some way that is efficient and act on it.
>But I’m with you that jumping on the « intelligence » thing is weird
Agreed, And the article going down the route of ascribing "mindfulness" and "memory" to the fungi simply detracts and distracts from the amazing and fascinating phenomenon going on. Anthropomorphizing it and saying it "wants" to do something glosses over the driving mechanism which is the most interesting part!
I think my point was more that something is lost when test problems are extrapolated out of their intended class. You can compare a rat and a dog performance at a maze problem and draw some interesting hypothesis about memory and spatial awareness. but what does it mean to compare a rat vs water? Certainly not the same ideas of cognitive function