They have tested other organisms and found the same thing, to me the fact that all living things are intelligent is obvious. If you simply look at their behavior it's fairly apparent they possess some form of intellect and cognition. The fact they are 'proving' it is awesome though. It also begs the question of consciousness. A lot of scientists would simply claim that intelligent behavior can exist without consciousness, but I disagree, and I can't wait until they delve into that topic. Although it's an impossible one tbh.
Anyway, the fact that simple cells can not only carry, but transfer memories, behaviors, and other information is a huge deal, it has implications that span a gamut of fields. From biology, neurology, behavior sciences, to computer science (Ai, neural networks, etc.), just to name a few.
Evidence mounts that organisms without nervous systems can in some sense learn and solve problems, but researchers disagree about whether this is “primitive cognition.”
For Dussutour, “that such organisms have the capacity to learn has considerable implications beyond recognizing learning in nonneural systems.” She believes that slime molds may help scientists to understand when and where in the tree of life the earliest manifestations of learning evolved.
Even more intriguingly, and perhaps controversially, research by Dussutour and others suggests that slime molds can transfer their acquired memories from cell to cell, said František Baluška, a plant cell biologist at the University of Bonn. “This is extremely exciting for our understanding of much larger organisms such as animals, humans and plants.”
Here is the Article:It’s not just slime molds that may be able to learn. Researchers are investigating other nonneural organisms, such as plants, to discover whether they can display the most basic form of learning.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/slime-mo ... -20180709/
It's so funny how scientists are so resistant to change, even when offered plentiful evidence.
Some other interesting stuff:
If you have any interest in neural science or Artificial Intelligence:
But some mainstream biologists and neuroscientists are critical of the results. “Neuroscientists are objecting to the ‘devaluing’ of the specialness of the brain,” said Michael Levin, a biologist at Tufts University. “Brains are great, but we have to remember where they came from. Neurons evolved from nonneural cells, they did not magically appear.”
Some biologists also object “to the idea that cells can have goals, memories and so on, because it sounds like magic,” he added. But we have to remember, he said, that work on control theory, cybernetics, artificial intelligence and machine learning over the last century or so has shown that mechanistic systems can have goals and make decisions. “Computer science long ago learned that information processing is substrate-independent,” Levin said. “It’s not about what you’re made of, it’s about how you compute.”
Substrate-Independence is one of the main ideas developed by philosopher Nick Bostrom, one of the leading minds behind the Simulation Argument. Substrate-independence is the simple, logical, yet profound idea that mental states can reside on multiple types of physical or digital substrates. A conscious, intelligent, self-aware person can reside in an organic brain, a silicon brain, a magnetic brain - the physical construction is fundamentally irrelevant.
As he notes, "a computer running a suitable program would be conscious."