We often hear about planting seeds and sowing ideas in our minds but I have one rather odd question to pose to you. What exactly are seeds?
Well, it is obvious isn’t it? They consist of an outer shell to protect embryonic plant seeds. And that is it, isn’t it?
I don’t think so. What must they be? If Darwin’s theory is correct, what must they be?
Studies have shown that plants actually react and adapt to their environment. Doesn’t this make them intelligent? After all isn’t how quickly someone or something adapts one of the greatest signs of intelligence?
A brilliant piece by PRI interviewing Michael Pollan (shame his surname isn’t pollen) states that when a certain plant was played the sound of a caterpillar munching on leaves the plant re-acted. For years if someone had said that plants are intelligent they would have been sneered at, and perhaps much worse, but now, scientific research is actually backing this up with facts. Michael mentions the book ‘secret life of plants’ from 1979 and it is rather fascinating.
Back then people were encouraged to talk to and play music to their plants and it all got very odd and weird and as he stated the sciences behind the book didn’t really stand up. As a result Michael says, scientist shied away from going into plant research because if they did they would be dismissed as a ‘wacko’.
As is usual I have a theory and I am not sure if it is best to say it or to try and prove it. Obviously the latter is better, and I’d like to know, has it been tried before?
The theory is fine; and just makes me seem odd which I am fine with, it is the trying to prove it could get a little gross and even odder.
Ok, brace yourself; this is the very odd idea. I would like to prove that seeds are in essence, or used to be, dried up brains. Not brains as we know them now to be but a primitive version, millions of years out of date. I think we must at some point wish to disprove or prove that our brains, and animal brains as we know them now can be nurtured. How interesting would that be?
Now, I know, this could all get a little gross. Initially we could start with a dead fish. Extract the brain and basically plant it. Just a pot with some compost and perhaps growth fertiliser. Nothing too extravagant and nothing that could compromise the integrity of the experiment. See what happens. Now if this doesn’t work, (wouldn’t be a surprise would it?) We could try it with a newly caught fish and try extracting the brain and planting it immediately after death. Obviously you would then be obliged to eat the fish and I would also ask that while the dissection is done, we, and by this I mean you, are gentle and treat it as though it was living even though it is in fact dead.
This is because I would like someone to tell me when does a brain actually die? Is it immediately at death? How are we sure? Just because as a whole how we see a living thing in its entirety has changed with death, does that mean all of the brain is dead?
I am guessing the fish would be easy to work on as it is most familiar to a non scientist and easy from an anatomical point of view too. No skull as such and no other heavy bones. If the fish is a no go, then to completely disprove the theory we would have to move onto something from the land.
Now from an evolutionary standpoint this could make sense. In terms of a ‘land brain’ being more adaptable and evolutionary connected with something from land could make the ‘take’ easier.
Again the gross part would be more gross because we would first have to extract a brain from a dead animal, and here I am thinking bird or squirrel and if that didn’t work then perhaps a newly dead bird or squirrel.
The idea of either of these sounds rather disgusting and disturbing to me. I wouldn’t fancy trying it at all and I would feel rather nauseous and crazy. So, who would try it? Will anyone ever?
Oh c’mon, yes, it sounds crackers but I bet some of you talk to your plants?
Imagine the concept – ‘Don’t bury your pet, plant them’
Imagine where this could lead? Surely not……
Mark Scotchford © 29/11/2014