Good post, but obfuscating the terms ;). Plants don't "learn". Nor do they "feel". These are projections of symbolic word reference in order to analogously correspond an understanding we are familiar with to something else that isn't the same. My recent post today dealt with a partial explanation on this topic as well. Plants have responses to stimulus based on a basic bio-nature electro-chemical potential variance to the environmental factors and pressures.

Some have more sophisticated response devices for optimization of longevity until expiration and decay. We have many parts with us that don't require a conscious presence, although everything is attached to our brain to function. We don't need to think to breathe, or digest food, etc. Basic biological level functionality operates automatically from stimulus-response basics. No real "learning" or "feeling", but yes sensory apparatus for input/stimulus to process and output/respond at a basic level. There is adaptability, at that basic biological level, that can change their method of response to stimulus, and they can even revert back to their former "self" so to speak hehe. But a better use of terminology is something I've already spoken about before in this topic, so I already know the issues to respond here ;)

That's my gripe. Distinction is what we are talking about, because the words matter. I can get into the etymology if you want. You can go look it up and understand how those words really reference reality. Good post to show what plants can do. Plants are the lifeforce for the planet. They provide the soil for the growth of food and all the other plants.