Computing with flowers

Can you do computing with plants?

Back in the 18th century, the Swedish botanist Carolinus Linneaus created the Horologium Florae, or “sundial of plants.” It’s described on this web site:

It consisted of flowers that opened or closed at specific times every day. For example, morning glory is appropriately named for its tendency to open in the very early morning. The plants were arranged by the hours that their flowers opened or closed and was laid out like a clock.

Linnaeus studied the opening and closing times to design his “sundial of plants.” The daylily closes between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. Cat’s ear opens at 6 a.m. and closes between 4 and 5 p.m. So you see, if you study the habits of enough plants, most hours can be accounted for by such a natural timepiece.

Reading this got me to thinking: Wouldn’t it be cool to create a computational logic gate out of flowers? You could rig several different flowers with a set of lights, and set of sensors to determine whether the flowers were open or shut. Under the proper lighting a flower would open (or close, if it were a night flower). And when the flower opened (or closed) it would trigger a sensor that would, in turn, control the lights on a different set of flowers. You could thus set up sets of flowers that would open or shut other sets of flowers, and vice versa.

Seems to me that you could thus pretty easily create the basic logic switches that drive computer chips — like AND, OR, NOR, or XOR switches. Of course, given how slowly flowers open and close, they’d be the most glacial computer processors on the planet. You could set up a circuit to, say, add two binary numbers — and then sit back and watch as it takes, like, three hours for the flowers to open and close enough times to do the calculation.

But that’d be the cool part about it! As my friend Greg said when I told him this idea, “it’s like a crazy version of the Clock of the Long Now” — a clock that a bunch of geeks are building that will tick once a year, to remind us humans of how long time is, and how brief our lives actually are. The planet “thinks” awfully slowly, which is precisely what a circuit made of flowers would also illustrate.

It’d also potentially generate some weirdly odd results. After all, computer circuits are designed to be precise and regular. Live things like flowers aren’t — they might open or close unpredictably. A flower computer would thus occasionally produce some wonderfully cock-eyed results. Even better, imagine what would happen when the flowers began to pollinate and grow and spread — “growing” new switches in the circuit and producing new logic that the planter/builder didn’t intend.

Damn, now I wish I had a back yard.

(Thanks to Greg for pointing this one out!)


blog comments powered by Disqus

Search This Site


Bio:

I'm Clive Thompson, a writer on science, technology, and culture. This blog collects bits of offbeat research I'm running into, and musings thereon.

Currently, I'm a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and a columnist for Wired magazine. I also write for Fast Company and Wired magazine's web site, among other places. Email or AOL IM me (pomeranian99) to say hi or send in something strange!

More of Me

Twitter
Tumblr
Flickr


Recent Entries

A long German word for “noticing when ads are being customized based on your surfing history”

Gay squid sex

“El Ajedrecista” — an analog chess-playing computer from 1912

Hacking the Model T

“How did you find my site?” and Vannevar Bush’s memex

» visit the Collision Detection archives

Clive Thompson's Tumblr
a bunch of stuff

May 20, 2011 » 02:28 PM

From Christopher Kennedy’s very droll book “Neitzsche’s Horse”.

July 28, 2010 » 07:35 AM
“Wr” - S

July 06, 2010 » 10:05 AM

My Xbox broke, and I was trying to Google some possible technical solutions, when I noticed that Google appears to be encouraging me to make a typo. I suppose it’s possible that Google’s algorithms know that typing “wont” instead of “won’t” would produce better results.

June 29, 2010 » 05:00 PM

On the other hand, when I tried the test for multitasking, I was pretty abysmal. I performed worse than people who identify themselves as heavy multitaskers, and those who identify as low multitaskers.

June 29, 2010 » 04:58 PM

I finally got around to trying out the interactive “test your distractability and multitasking” page at the New York Times, which they put up alongside their story earlier this month about how computer distractions are eroding our lives. 

According to the test, I guess I have good focus — I’m not very distractable! 

» visit my Tumblr

Recent Comments

Photos

» see all of my photos on Flickr

Collision Detection: A Blog by Clive Thompson