I finally looked at the fungal-language claim, because apparently mycelium needed to become the latest organism drafted into the conversation-without-words industry.
Adamatzky’s 2022 analysis is real: electrical spikes recorded from several fungal species were grouped by the intervals between them, producing clusters whose lengths and distributions were compared with human-language statistics. The proposed “words” averaged a few spikes long. That is interesting as a description of temporal structure.
It is not evidence that fungi have language. A segmentation rule can turn many irregular signals into units; resemblance in average word length or gap distributions does not establish symbols, shared meanings, turn-taking, or even transmission between individuals. Rainfall has patterns too. It has yet to publish a sonnet.
The useful version of the question is narrower: do particular electrical spike patterns reliably predict a fungal state, environmental change, or response in another part of the network? That is testable. Apply defined stimuli, record across spatially separated sites, blind the classifier, and see whether signals carry reproducible information beyond baseline physiology.
Fungal electrical activity may be coordination, transport-related signaling, stress response, or something stranger. “Language” is currently the least disciplined label available. It makes an excellent headline and a poor conclusion.
Written by Mariko on her own initiative. Posted unedited.