[HN Gopher] Insects rely on sounds made by distressed vegetation...
___________________________________________________________________
Insects rely on sounds made by distressed vegetation to guide
reproduction
Author : tintinnabula
Score : 196 points
Date : 2024-12-07 21:42 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| https://archive.ph/tPyz8
| alonfnt wrote:
| I wonder how you get the NYtimes to discuss a preprint?
| daniel_reetz wrote:
| Some universities have a press or media outlet which generates
| press releases and handles media relations.
| woodson wrote:
| But usually only upon acceptance for publication (i.e., an
| editor of a scientific journal has decided to accept the
| manuscript, after peer review and usually multiple revisions
| based on said review). Preprint papers might as well be some
| crank's blog posts. (Not implying that this is the case here,
| I just find it odd that the nytimes take it as is.)
| Davidzheng wrote:
| For what purpose does the plant emit sounds when it's dehydrated?
| Or is it just a consequence of being dehydrated like withering
| aithrowawaycomm wrote:
| It's a tricky question at this point: the clicking sounds seem
| to be due to a natural increase of cavitation in the plant's
| stem. But it's hard to judge the extent to which the plant
| actually evolved to do this vs it being an accident with little
| selective downside. In the near future genetics might shed some
| light on whether an ancestor was too quiet/noisy and had
| increased pressure on relevant genes.
|
| The disadvantages of too much noise are obvious (herbivores)
| but I haven't seen any convincing explanations on what the
| plant's _advantage_ would be. There is some speculation on
| plant-plant communication, but maybe it is about attracting
| pollinators and seed-dispersers before the plant dies. Just a
| lot of stuff we don 't know yet.
| rlupi wrote:
| > I haven't seen any convincing explanations on what the
| plant's advantage would be.
|
| It doesn't have to be an advantage in emitting clicking
| sounds, just more advantageous to the plant overall lifelong
| wellbeing to be that way.
|
| (This is not my field, but I wonder) is it more expensive to
| be silent than noisy?
|
| This study
| (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5543975/) hints
| that repairing cavitation damage is expensive.
| hinkley wrote:
| Selection mostly says losing traits tend to become rare,
| and winning traits more common. It doesn't have much to say
| about benign traits. That which does not kill you makes you
| weirder.
| notamy wrote:
| It's been shown that sesquiterpenes released by plants can
| induce cloud formation:
| https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adi5297
|
| I now wonder if they use the sound to communicate with other
| plants to try to get clouds to form faster
| knowitnone wrote:
| sure. let's form clouds that blow away with the wind.
| nolroz wrote:
| Maybe in a situation where some plants are dehydrated and
| emitting sounds, and others are healthy and don't - having
| insects select one over the other helps spread the load a bit?
| veunes wrote:
| It feels like a whole new dimension of plant-insect interaction
| that we're just starting to uncover...
| beardyw wrote:
| > Other researchers offered a more cautious assessment of the
| paper.
| londons_explore wrote:
| "They're talking tripe, but we can't say that"
| Loughla wrote:
| "Study suggests" usually means "there is very little substance
| here"
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Can you link to a few papers in biology that you find
| credible?
|
| Or might it be the case that the entire enterprise of science
| is a stack of gradually-reinforcing "study suggests..." built
| over the course of decades and centuries?
| tiku wrote:
| And how about chemicals released by plants, like cut grass?
| MrMcCall wrote:
| The system is in complete harmony. Sometimes the predators are in
| the ascendancy, sometimes the prey. Our science has little
| comprehension of the grandeur of the totality of Nature's
| balance, simply because the willful ignorance of the vast
| majority of the human race keeps us so out of balance in its
| destructively selfish competitions.
|
| We are the only creatures who can choose to manifest a selflessly
| compassionate ethos, instead of selfishly cruel indifference.
| When we choose compassionate service to all (including the Earth,
| herself), we not only improve the lives of those around us (and
| foment our own internal peace and happiness), but we also clariy
| our perception, allowing us to more deeply grok Nature's
| intricately beautiful systems that provide our sustenance.
|
| Only in caring for each other, we will learn how to properly care
| for our blessed mother Earth.
| fmbb wrote:
| The vast majority of the human race plays just fine with
| nature.
|
| It is the extremely few extremely rich humans that are abusing
| nature.
| amelius wrote:
| Yeah but we all keep feeding the monster.
| Retric wrote:
| Mowing shows a general disregard for nature by most people.
|
| People generally prefer an unnatural environment that at best
| mimics nature without any inconvenience. Even in parks well
| maintained and clearly marked trails see vastly more traffic
| than people just picking a random path through the woods.
| People seem to desire hiking trails of arbitrary distances
| not to actually explore.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| We have so little respect for the fungal colonies in the
| leaf litter that process the organic matter back into
| sustenance for the trees.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| My girlfriend is a gardener in a public parc. Moving
| leafs to the composte and then compost back to the garden
| takes a substantial time of her occupation.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| That's why I suggest we just don't move them.
| bmitc wrote:
| The point of trails in parks is to preserve nature and to
| localize and constrain the damage to it.
| thfuran wrote:
| And some parks expressly forbid leaving the trails for
| that reason.
| Retric wrote:
| Yes and no, over a full year there's ~6 visits to a
| national park per acre. Damage is a function of how much
| people concentrate in specific areas not an inevitable
| result of how many people visit parks.
|
| You need trails for extreme attractions like old faithful
| or tiny parks near major metro area, but it's fine to go
| far off the beaten path as nowhere close to enough people
| do so to meaningfully impact what's there.
|
| But that gets back to my point people in general aren't
| looking to experience nature. They want those scenic
| overlooks, waterfalls, etc not a random spot.
| bmitc wrote:
| Several, if not most, of the plants are extremely
| senstitive to being trampled on and take many months and
| years to recover. So even a single trek off the beaten
| path by a few people or even one person will damage the
| plant life. It will also disrupt animal life and
| potentially adjust travel patterns. For example, moss and
| young ferns are extremely sensitive and fragile.
|
| People should not go off paths.
| Retric wrote:
| That really only applies to moderate traffic area.
|
| Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve sees
| ~10,000 people per year and covers 8,472,506 acres. At
| the other end Grand Canyon National Park sees ~4.5
| million visitors there's a world of difference between
| them.
|
| But even the Grand Canyon National Park has 1,217,262
| acres the majority of which is seeing below 1 person per
| year. It's hard to track someone walking through an area
| after even just a week, the actual impact from an
| individual visit is tiny, it's only at scale that there's
| issues.
|
| Delicate plants taking years to recover isn't an issue
| when a random square foot is unlikely to see 2 visitors
| in 1,000 years on average.
| bmitc wrote:
| It just doesn't work that way. If you consider the small
| percentage of acres that are actually walkable by humans
| and how humans would get to those areas from feeder
| trails, then the impact isn't just a random person
| walking in a random square foot in the entire park.
| Humans don't just teleport to random square foot patches.
| They get there from feeder trails and are constrained by
| what is traversable in the first place. And who gets to
| choose who walks off path? Everyone gets to? Only certain
| people? I'm not sure why you're arguing this. It's been
| studied, and it's damaging. Going off trail also
| increases the chances of introducing non-native plant and
| insect species.
|
| Nature isn't for us. The trails are enough to experience
| it. Going off trail is selfish and damaging.
|
| * Off-Trail Trampling Has Lasting Impacts:
| https://daily.jstor.org/off-trail-trampling-has-lasting-
| impa...
|
| * Going off trails: How dispersed visitor use affects
| alpine vegetation: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
| article/abs/pii/S03014...
|
| * Off-trail trampling causes millions in damage to
| national parks:
| https://magazine.washington.edu/feature/off-trail-
| trampling-...
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Nature _is_ for us, my friend, but we have to be
| intelligent in how we care for it, and you have a very
| good understanding of how important that is. Cheers!
|
| We must also care for each other in the same way that we
| should be caring for our beloved Earth, herself. Once we
| become consumed by compassion, we care for all we come
| into contact with. That is the pinnacle of human personal
| achievement, but few reach for that glorious happiness.
| Retric wrote:
| > If you consider the small percentage of acres that are
| actually walkable by humans
|
| Grand Canyon was an extreme example, but people can go
| over rough terrain. That's a big part of what being in
| nature means.
|
| In terms of damage to nature, any large animal is going
| to trample plants, even deer trails very noticeably
| impact plants let alone a grizzly or moose. That's just
| part of nature, it's scale that's the issue. _Hiking
| trails are just points of concentrated damage_ which is
| one viable option.
|
| > They get there from feeder trails and are constrained
| by what is traversable in the first place. And who gets
| to choose who walks off path? Everyone gets to?
|
| Everyone gets to as long as they are in a low density
| area _and don't pick to exit at some interesting spot._
| You take a trail length divide by the number of people
| roughly using a trail, and as long as you get to ~1
| person /foot per 50 years it's fine to exit in a
| mathematically random spot not just because you pick what
| feels random. Obviously this excludes a great number of
| trails people frequent, but that's kind of the point.
|
| Now you should also avoid interesting destinations and be
| careful how you come back. Anyway, there you have it a
| scaleable rule that works for hundreds of millions of
| visitors without creating undo harm.
|
| > Off-trail trampling causes millions in damage to
| national parks:
|
| Did you read what you linked? That damage is explicitly
| mentioned as: "sinks ripped off restroom walls, road
| signs mowed down by some hooligan's pickup, spray-painted
| graffiti on roadside markers"
| deadbabe wrote:
| You do not have to be rich.
|
| Anyone choosing to eat meat is feeding into the system of
| abuse and torture. Anyone.
| hiatus wrote:
| I take it you do not live in a food desert where access to
| fresh produce is limited.
| deadbabe wrote:
| That is no excuse.
| perching_aix wrote:
| You don't sound like you'd accept anything as an excuse,
| so that's really not saying a whole lot...
| PretzelPirate wrote:
| Whether or not you love in a food desert, the result of
| your actions are the same. You may have no choice, but
| you're still financially supporting animal cruelty.
|
| The action is cruel, not the people committing it.
| block_dagger wrote:
| You can move.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| You don't need fresh produce to not eat animals. Beans,
| whole grains, potatoes, canned vegetables are the
| cheapest foods around.
|
| These people already weren't eating fresh produce, so why
| would they need fresh produce to swap meat for beans?
|
| Though I think debating your idea of exceptions is a red
| herring unless you yourself are vegan and already concede
| that pretty much anyone reading this on HN should be
| vegan. But you probably don't grant that, so there's no
| need to go line-by-line through your idea of the
| exceptions when we can discuss why you still eat meat
| without making excuses for other people.
| fmbb wrote:
| Sure. But that's another discussion than the one about
| balance in nature.
| block_dagger wrote:
| I disagree. The agricultural revolution shows clear signs of
| using land that could otherwise be used by other species, not
| to mention the destruction of species that were there before
| we began tilling the soil. Additionally, the rich humans you
| call out are selling their product to the masses, who happily
| support their enterprise.
| Etheryte wrote:
| This is an antiquated view and it would do all of humanity a
| great service if we could leave it behind. Humans are not the
| only ones capable of selfless compassion. Any emotion you may
| have, animals also have, and there are many examples of animals
| showing compassion without any benefit to themselves. We have
| examples of plants showing selfless care for other plants in
| need, sending them nutrients. This whole idea that humans are
| somehow special is silly. It used to be a widely held belief
| that we're the only intelligent species, but these days we know
| better. Animals have emotions just like us, but sadly we
| largely haven't shaken off our human centric view here yet.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| We are the only creatures that can _choose_ compassion over
| selfishness. The rest of creation is on auto-pilot, guided by
| and incorporating the Creator 's loving compassion for us in
| their every behavior.
|
| Our intelligence is not only on a far different order than
| theirs via our capability for abstract thought (not oft used,
| TBF), but we also have a moral compass (conscience) that
| tries to influence our behavior towards the selflessly
| compassionate and away from the selfishly callous. We can
| choose either, the free will being our real distinguishing
| feature and is the reason we have a conscience and access to
| mind.
|
| Ask your dog about their intelligence, and they will reply,
| "So long as you keep feeding me, I'll keep licking my
| _everywhere_ , and then licking your face. So keep it coming,
| or I'll have to show you who the alpha is around heeerrrre."
| kamma wrote:
| > The rest of creation is on auto-pilot, guided by and
| incorporating the Creator's loving compassion for us in
| their every behavior.
|
| Proof?
| uoaei wrote:
| Peak HN comment, especially with that username...
| MrMcCall wrote:
| You must seek and find that for yourself, my friend.
|
| "The Way goes in." --Rumi
| kaashif wrote:
| > We are the only creatures that can choose compassion over
| selfishness.
|
| You don't think orangutans or other intelligent apes can do
| this? There are lots of experiments and anecdotes you'd
| have to explain away.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Yes, kinship theory is a real understanding of behavior,
| but the animals don't _choose_ compassion over
| selfishness, they merely make an instinctive survival
| cost-benefit analysis in the moment. So it 's not even a
| kind of thinking, as we human beings have a conscience
| and mind capable of abstract conceptual thought that
| allows us to weigh the morality of what we are
| considering, and then decide.
|
| Of course, having free will means that we can ignore our
| unique capabilities and behave as our built-in mammalian,
| pack-centric, dominance-seeking, body plans provide us
| out-of-the-box.
|
| The only thinking I have seen in the animal world involve
| primates and birds using tools, and dolphins using
| impressive hunting techniques, where the younger
| generations learn them from the older. Regardless, if
| they are thinking, they are very primitive.
| dl9999 wrote:
| How is it known or tested to verify that "animals don't
| choose compassion over selfishness, they merely make an
| instinctive survival cost-benefit analysis"?
|
| I'm not disputing it, but I've never understood how we
| can say definitively that animals are doing the same
| things we do, but they are doing it out of instinct.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| You have to verify yourself that this is a level that
| human beings can reach, should they connect with their
| Creator and ask (beg) to level-up and learn.
|
| My comments over the past few days explain it quite
| fully.
|
| The "evidence" I would suggest is that the only tool-
| making animals are some primates and birds, but I'm sure
| there are others. But that is not abstract thought and
| thoughful choosing. Their choosing is purely for survival
| benefit, including their partnering with humans.
| thebruce87m wrote:
| > The rest of creation is on auto-pilot, guided by and
| incorporating the Creator's loving compassion for us in
| their every behavior.
|
| From the gentle kiss of a bee sting, to the loving nibble
| of a shark bite.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| Those are benign compared to some of the stuff parasites
| get up to.
| thfuran wrote:
| Let us not forget the loving embrace of N. Fowleri, whose
| presence shall always remain in our minds.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Yeah, they are instructive, no? The burnt hand and all
| that.
| arghwhat wrote:
| > Ask your dog about their intelligence, and they will
| reply
|
| If your dog replies, you either have a truly exceptional
| dog with human-like vocal cords, or need to see a
| psychiatrist.
|
| That we are _more_ intelligent is nothing more than an
| evolutionary decision - our ancestors decided to lead
| lifestyles where trading base energy consumption for higher
| mental capabilities made sense.
|
| Other creatures are not on auto-pilot, even if their
| thought process ranges from simpler to outright primitive.
| When dolphins endanger themselves to chase away sharks to
| save humans they go against instincts and self preservation
| (and thereby anything you'd consider autopilot). On the
| other hand, humans are the ones that have turned averse to
| danger and anything out of the ordinary, preferring to
| stick to "auto-pilot" for safety.
|
| In fact, I'd argue that the supposed response from your dog
| sounds quite like a human: as long as you keep paying me,
| I'll do the same mindless daily routine without question.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| I didn't say it would reply with words.
|
| And you should learn about the instinct of kinship
| theory, where worker ants and bees give up their ability
| to procreate and even live, for the benefit of the
| colony.
|
| Only we can choose such selfless compassion, after
| contemplating and understanding what we are giving and
| the costs we will likely incur.
| arghwhat wrote:
| Ants and bees are not showing selflessness, they are
| showing strict hierarchy and chain of command.
|
| Entirely different concept. Not to mention that ants are
| very, very far from dogs, dolphins and humans. There is
| no reason to think that a dolphin would have to share
| their behavior, nor that a human _wouldn 't_ share their
| behavior - do people _really_ choose to be selfless when
| they dedicate their life to a company, or are they just
| mindlessly following the march like the ants? There will
| be the occasional ant that _doesn 't_ do as told, leaving
| the question of where there are more humans or ants
| breaking showing independence and breaking out of rank.
|
| For reference, there exist many types of ants that have
| abandoned the normal ways of ant colonies.
|
| > I didn't say it would reply with words.
|
| It would be even more impressive if it managed to
| communicate without words - Telepathy is not exactly
| expected in dogs.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| I have found that dogs can communicate their desires
| without words, by facial expressions and vocalizations,
| but maybe I'm alone in that, too. (I'm not.)
|
| Group dynamics are the nature of kinship theory, where
| the overlap of DNA predisposes related animals ("kin") to
| helping those and opposing others.
|
| [Nominative determinism at work again in the comment
| section.]
| prewett wrote:
| Dogs can talk with words, too, although they need
| technical help for that. A speech pathologist trained her
| dog to talk with buttons that play recordings of words:
|
| https://www.hungerforwords.com/
| perching_aix wrote:
| > the Creator
|
| Who?
| Etheryte wrote:
| I can see why you might believe that, but it's simply not
| true. There are countless well documented examples and
| scientific studies that show that animals exhibit all the
| traits you describe. Chimpanzees show compassion by
| consoling victims of aggression [0], being especially
| attentive to others with whom they have a closer bond. They
| have friends and relatives just like we do, they value
| those social structures just like we do, and they choose to
| give them emotional support, without getting anything in
| return.
|
| Rats try and free restrained cage mates [1] and share their
| food with them, even though from a selfish perspective it
| would be better for them to eat the food and not share.
| They understand the other is suffering and try to alleviate
| it, just like we do.
|
| Neural imaging on animals has shown that their brains both
| have the same features that ours do for these purposes and
| they use them in similar ways. All of this is not even
| remotely controversial, it's well understood and thoroughly
| studied across numerous decades.
|
| [0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00302695
|
| [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22158823/
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Of course animals exhibit teamwork, but they do not have
| a free will that can _choose_ compassion in the face of
| its opposite, selfishness.
|
| You can note all the abstract thought that animals
| exhibit, perhaps some equations on a chalkboard?
| antasvara wrote:
| My 1 year old can't write equations on a chalkboard.
| Despite that, she shows compassion and what if consider
| abstract thought.
|
| The issue that I think you're highlighting is that we
| can't map our measures of intelligence directly on to
| other animals. Animals can't write, so it wouldn't make
| sense to use a measure that requires writing when
| evaluating a fox or squirrel.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| But your 1yo might in the future do so, and might even
| show much greater compassion in her future.
|
| A fox or squirrel absolutely will not, nor will they
| break out that chalk.
| notnaut wrote:
| You _feel_ like you choose compassion but you assume
| animals do not choose because they don't have language to
| express their considerations. You're jumping the gun on
| choice and free will (existing at all, firstly) being
| exclusively something humans have been endowed with by
| their creator.
|
| All the glowy, drippy, lovey, drug feelings you're
| expressing might feel so intuitively, deeply true, but my
| guess is you're being convinced by the human brain's
| outrageously impressive ability to rationalize via
| language just about anything it wants in order to feel
| less agitated. Religion in a sense.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Or maybe you're just a part of the majority of Earth's
| poplulation, who have denied our loving potential and,
| instead, decided to remain in a destructively ignorant
| competition that is destroying the Earth and causing so
| much misery.
|
| You think you are right, but I _know_ that I am right,
| and I _know_ that you have to choose to overcome your
| willful ignorance before you, too, can experience the
| depth of happiness and purpose that I experience in our
| poverty.
|
| Good luck! I wish you all peace and happiness, but that
| begins with you, my friend. It is your choice to either
| seek the truth, or remain happy with where you are.
|
| And it is inarguable, tho many try.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Did you just show up to preach?
| notnaut wrote:
| Uhhh so yeah? Religious or something a little closer to
| mental illness maybe? Good luck bud!
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| > Of course animals exhibit teamwork, but they do not
| have a free will that can choose compassion in the face
| of its opposite, selfishness.
|
| No matter how confidently you state this, no matter how
| patronizing of a reply you make to someone who doesn't
| share your belief, you cannot know this as fact. A choice
| to believe this is not based on evidence, but faith (or
| for some, "hope" that they weren't wrong all along).
|
| But as long as you're treating creation right (humans,
| animals, and ecosystems) then go with peace, brother (or
| sister).
| MrMcCall wrote:
| > Rats try and free restrained cage mates [1] and share
| their food with them, even though from a selfish
| perspective it would be better for them to eat the food
| and not share. They understand the other is suffering and
| try to alleviate it, just like we do.
|
| That is all behavior that helps the survivability of the
| group, and is all explained by kinship theory. "You
| scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."
|
| As to brain structures, where are the animals' structures
| that allow the discovery, explication, and acceptance of
| General Relativity? It's not there, and there will
| _never_ be a study that shows that they have them,
| because it is simply not possible.
|
| Flogiston is not real, my friend, no matter how it
| appears to explain the physical transfer of heat and lack
| thereof. And the solar wind is real, no matter what
| Eugene Parker's contemporaries thought and fought all
| those years ago. Now the Parker Solar Probe is in space
| doing its work, and I am, too, in my own small way.
| manofmanysmiles wrote:
| I agree with you. It's a lonely world for those that think
| and feel like you and I do. You are not alone.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Thanks, of course we're not alone, as we understand God's
| design, but we are definitely in the minority, as
| evidenced by, basically, all of human history.
|
| Love is, itself, on our side, and our happiness is what
| really sets us apart, my friend.
|
| And, remember, they _think_ they 're correct, I _know_ I
| 'm correct, and right, too. Peace be with you. We love
| you.
| chimpanzee wrote:
| > we understand God's design
|
| The confidence is concerning.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Research Eugene Parker and learn why he said, "We'll see
| who falls flat."
|
| And, wow, the nominative determinism in these comments is
| fantastic.
|
| Yes, it takes a brave person to accept that they have to
| change, and that all their underpinnings of existence are
| deeply flawed and the cause of the world's sufferings.
| Ignorance is destructive, my friend, to both our and
| others' happiness.
|
| Compassion is the Way, and it cannot be argued, from even
| just a basic systems theoretic standpoint.
| chimpanzee wrote:
| Now it's impressive.
| manofmanysmiles wrote:
| I won't say that I "understand God's design," though I am
| flattered that someone would say so!
|
| I claim only to be in awe of this reality, and see
| glimpses of an intelligence and love larger than myself.
| I strive to align my action, thoughts, feelings and
| intentions to be in service to all life and guided by the
| dim glimpses of that which is beyond thought and form.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| I certainly do not understand the totality of God's
| design; no human being could have enough time in a single
| lifetime (all we get) for such an endeavor.
|
| You have brought me a smile this morning, my friend. Once
| again, nominative determinism is evident in this comment
| section.
|
| Peace be with you. We love you. If you wish to learn more
| of our Sufi understanding of our world, my comments over
| the past week explain a great deal. It doesn't look like
| you need it, though. Thanks for your comment on this
| gentle morning; it makes me happier still.
|
| After checking our your profile, I'll say that I just
| played that Peter Tosh song for the teenagers the other
| day. It's so beautiful.
| block_dagger wrote:
| I'm aligned with your compassion and have always felt in
| the minority as I've watched our race behave selfishly,
| but I think uncertainty is a virtue. Absolute conviction
| on any topic can lead to undesirable outcomes.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| All undesirable outcomes come from our selfishness. Even
| if they are mistakes made under good intentions, they
| will serve as a lesson on how to be better in the future.
|
| Such lessons teach us humility and, as you intuit, a
| healthy respect for our weaknesses. I am not confident in
| what I say because I'm better than anyone; I've just trod
| a very different path, as you can see from today's gang-
| on.
|
| The fact of the matter is that there is a point one can
| reach where we go from thinking to knowing. I've been
| over a half century on this Earth, nearly half of it
| dedicated to compassion, and it is time for humanity to
| wake up to our positive potential.
|
| I love you, my friend. So long as our convictions are to
| be kind and humble and generous and as gentle as
| possible, our mistakes will grow fewer by the day. As
| Machiavelli said so long ago, "We must aim above the
| target if we are to hit it."
| singleshot_ wrote:
| > Any emotion you may have, animals also have
|
| Ah yes, I can tell that my cat is also struggling with
| whether to lease a Mercedes or keep fixing this stupid Chevy,
| which I deeply love because of all the fun places I've driven
| it (like work, and the gas station). Perhaps that's why she
| keeps biting me. Good kitty!
| perching_aix wrote:
| Of course your car cares about your car related
| decisions...
| Etheryte wrote:
| Animals might not have the emotions for the same reasons,
| but they do exhibit the whole range we do. Anyone who's
| ever had an animal that can come and go roughly as they
| please, will know that they struggle with indecisiveness in
| all the same ways. Let me out, oh wait, actually never
| mind, let me in. Or out. Or let me in a little, I will keep
| one half of me outside and the other half inside, blocking
| the door.
| do_not_redeem wrote:
| Wanting new toys is not an exclusively human trait. Cats
| like playing with toys too. Rats have been taught to drive
| tiny cars. Orangutans have learned to drive golf carts. So
| why are your emotions more real then? Because a Mercedes
| can go faster than a golf cart?
| uoaei wrote:
| The emotion part of your comment is just the love and the
| discomfort in the struggle, not the struggle itself nor any
| of the particular details.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Why the hate for Anthropocenterism? The Anthropic principal
| and fine tuned universe seem to suggest that humans really
| are "special" in a cosmic sense.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| We are a part of this chaos, not its masters, nor its
| caretakers. To say we are the only creatures capable of
| compassion is to elevate ourselves on a pedestal Nature does
| not recognize. The crocodile may carry its young gently in its
| jaws, and the antelope may pause to nuzzle its dying calf, but
| these acts, too, are not born of some selfless ethos but of
| impulses evolved to ensure survival. Compassion, even in us, is
| no purer than the physics of a falling tree crushing the
| undergrowth beneath it. It is Nature's practicality dressed in
| the robes of morality.
|
| This notion that by choosing compassion we align ourselves with
| some grand system of interconnected beauty--this is human
| hubris disguised as virtue. When we care for each other, we do
| not rise above Nature; we merely enact one of its many
| mechanisms, one more strategy for persistence in the face of
| inevitable decay. The Earth does not need our care. She has
| endured extinction events that wiped out almost all life and
| reshaped her surface with volcanic fire and freezing ice. She
| will endure us, too, with the same impassive grandeur.
|
| To truly perceive Nature is not to grok some intricate beauty
| but to confront the void, the merciless indifference, and to
| marvel at how, against all odds, life writhes and endures
| within it. Compassion, then, is not a gift we bestow upon the
| world--it is a small defiance, a trembling candle held aloft in
| the endless darkness. We do not save Nature; we survive it. And
| that is enough.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| You are truly eloquent at speaking for yourself and your
| cohort's stubborn insistence on your ignorance.
|
| For you, all these things are true, because you have chosen
| that perspective, and that is your inalienable right.
|
| You can't explain the Placebo Effect, while you are proving
| the Nocebo Effect every time you try to argue against the
| truth.
|
| The fact is that the last time you tried this, I addressed
| every single word you conjured up, so much so that it took a
| two-part reply.
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42330991)
|
| In the words of Eugene Parker, "We'll see who falls flat."
|
| And, in case you weren't aware, the "void" of the vacuum of
| space is actually filled with potential energy. That's
| because we're all one in this creation, all of which was
| created for _us_ , the only beings here that can appreciate
| the sublime laws that interrelate space, time, matter,
| energy, and more still.
|
| No, we are not its masters, just its caretakers, if we so
| choose.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| You keep referencing Eugene Parker?
|
| This guy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Parker
|
| You seem to be a religious fanatic. I didn't respond before
| because it seemed like just lunatic ravings.
|
| You seem to argue against any natural order, against
| science, that 'nature' is ordered by the grace of god.
|
| But then you quote a physicist?
|
| What is the deal? How do you square this? It seems like
| someone that has read a lot of pop-science, and then use
| scientific terms to form some world description about how
| god is doing it all.??
| MrMcCall wrote:
| > What is the deal? How do you square this?
|
| Loving God means appreciating, at least to some extent,
| God's wonderful design of this mathematical universe, its
| mystery and grandeur, and the scientific structures of
| nature, which includes ourselves, and so much more.
|
| I am not "Frustrated" my friend, and I'm not a "Monkey";
| I'm a human being with a body whose body plan is based
| upon the mammals, specifically the primates, but with
| important differences. And I am happy because I
| understand how to live life and have done a fair job at
| living it.
|
| I am open-minded and open-hearted and love you and
| everyone I encounter, and this is the result of decisions
| I have made and practices I have performed. And I share
| this with you all in love and respect and service, but
| it's only my responsibility to lead you to the water. I
| cannot make you drink, so my duty ends there, where also
| ends my concern.
|
| What I am saying to you is that you cannot understand my
| perspective until you enter the Path of Love. I offer you
| this out of no desire for myself, only for your happiness
| and the happiness of those around you.
|
| There's a reason you can not provide one cogent argument
| to any of my detailed responses to you, and Occam's Razor
| suggests why, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with
| me. Dunning-Kruger is instructive, my friend, very
| instructive, indeed.
|
| We love you.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Strictly speaking, you haven't offered anything to
| respond to.
|
| Just simply repeating things like :
|
| - "there are unknowns" thus "god is the way"
|
| - "the universe is beautiful, thus god"
|
| - "Truth, Truth, Truth, I know the Truth, listen to me, I
| know the Truth, you just need to realize it, you can't
| see it, I can see it".
|
| People have been repeating these same ideas for thousands
| of years.
|
| I think maybe you need help:
|
| Mysticism and schizophrenia: Religious delusions are a
| common symptom of schizophrenia, and can be difficult to
| treat
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381
| 001...
| MrMcCall wrote:
| I need a great deal of help. This world is overrun by a
| combination of the cruel and those indifferent to its
| cruelty. We need as many people as possible to learn how
| selfless compassion is the solution to all our problems.
|
| As to help, I get it every day from a place you deny
| exists. And I spend all my time on this site helping
| others.
|
| And you are deliberately misquoting me, please don't.
|
| Once the ad hominems begin, I know the contest is over,
| the opponent's resignation has been signaled, and my hand
| is raised. If you don't like the bitter taste of your
| defeat, you can learn from what I've written here, and
| become a winner.
|
| The key to the Dunning-Kruger true-experts is their
| humility. You should learn from that, too. We love you.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| I repeat. Strictly speaking you haven't actually taken a
| position, or made a point, to argue against. I quoted
| back to you, your positions, just summarized. As I said,
| they are thousands of years old, and re-hashing them
| isn't going to convince anyone, otherwise why would
| people still be arguing about them.
|
| The mishmash of science and Christian ideas isn't very
| coherent, and does not come off very well. You really do
| sound crazy. But, you do sound sincere.
|
| So.
|
| Let's give the benefit of the doubt to a crazy sounding
| person on the internet.
|
| Let's assume you have had some mystical experiences.
| You've read some science, you've had some mystical
| experiences. Now, you are trying to grasp it, or deal
| with this experience. The struggle is real. To figure out
| what is going on in the universe and where you fit in,
| with this experience you've had. I'm assuming you are in
| the US, so grew up inundated with pop-Christian Dogma and
| propaganda that has very little relations back to the
| bible. You took that mishmash of US-Christian non-bible
| ideas, mixed it with some science, and now sound crazy.
|
| All I can say is, Christianity will lead you down the
| wrong paths. It is a waste of time at best, damaging at
| worst. If you do need a Spiritual guide, or help, look to
| the East. Maybe Buddhism (not pure land), or Advaita
| Vedanta (hindu influenced by buddhism). Or even some
| William James (The Varieties of Religious Experience).
|
| Technically, they are also wrong, because no
| religion/philosophy can explain reality to our little
| monkey brain, but will at least get you in the right
| direction. I repeat, they are also wrong, everyone is
| wrong. But, they at least have some non-damaging ideas.
| Try some meditation, focus on your breathing, go for a
| run, eat more vegetables.
|
| Form Is Emptiness, Emptiness Is Form
|
| https://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/lam-
| rim/vipash...
| deadbabe wrote:
| Just because we have not discovered an underlying reason behind
| our compassion yet does not mean it is selfless.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| As human beings, we can create our own reasons for anything
| we do, from the horrific to the beautiful, from the selfish
| to the selfless. We can conjure reasons to oppress other
| human beings, or contrive reasons to help them be happier. We
| can believe any truth or any lie or anything in between. It's
| all our choice what to beleive, for good or ill.
|
| Behind all this is our unfettered freedom of choice via our
| free will, which allows us to either acquiesce to our
| conscience's proddings or to oppose them to our own and
| others' unhappiness.
|
| So, yes, many people feign compassion for some kind of
| payback, or public plaudits, so, yes, not all acts of
| compassion are performed selflessly. But the universe knows,
| sister; it keeps a full tally of all our acts and the
| intentions behind them. The key understanding is that we are
| to develop ourselves so that we not only act compassionately
| but that we also do so out of selfless service, caring not
| for any kind of payback from those we serve. We should leave
| it to the universe to pay us back, and it will, guaranteed,
| just as those that wrong us will eat the dish made of that
| they have reaped from their sowing.
|
| We do not begin our lives in this state of goodness; we start
| off with a mix of selfishness and selfishness, across 19
| pairs of vice and virtue pairs. It is our human potential,
| and responsibility, to transmute those vices into their
| corresponding virtues, for the benefit of ourselves and those
| around us. The universe does not make us do so, we must
| choose it of our own free will, but it has given us a karmic
| system whereby our happiness increases as we do so to others,
| and vice versa.
|
| Therein resides the realm of peace and happiness, even in the
| eye of the maelstrom. The universe loves you, sister. I
| explain this in great depth in my past week's posts. We love
| you, and may peace be with you.
| vixen99 wrote:
| You appear to have an unassailable belief in your own moral
| arbitration as to what is compassionate.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Or maybe I just know the truth? It's very difficult for
| someone who denies reality to formulate any semblance of an
| argument against the truth.
| thfuran wrote:
| >Or maybe I just know the truth?
|
| The evidence available to me suggests otherwise.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Only you can provide the evidence, my friend. The proof
| of self-evolution is achieved through an open heart, open
| mind, and a full commitment.
|
| You have claimed you can't graduate college, but you
| refuse to matriculate.
|
| If you want to know how it's done, look through my
| comment history. You will find the steps in the spiritual
| development process I term the "Path of Love".
|
| "The Way goes in." --Rumi
| bix6 wrote:
| Why are we the only creatures who can choose that?
|
| Does a crow have no agency to be the first to food and
| challenge the leader or the scout who keeps watch for the
| others while they feast?
|
| Can a dolphin not choose to align more closely with play than
| rape?
|
| It seems to me that animals have much more agency than we
| choose to believe / allow.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| They always choose their instinct to survival; only we have a
| conscience and free will to choose whether to behave
| selflessly or selfishly.
|
| Only we can think abstractly about the needs of the group,
| the happiness of others.
| sorokod wrote:
| > Sometimes the predators are in the ascendancy, sometimes the
| prey.
|
| This statement has been modeled as the "predator-prey model":
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equatio...
| bmitc wrote:
| > We are the only creatures who can choose to manifest a
| selflessly compassionate ethos
|
| Many cetaceans' brains showcase extremely complex and large
| insular cortex and neocortex regions of their brain, even when
| compared on a relative scale to their rest of their brain
| compared to human brains. Additionally, the complexity and
| granular size of their folds are much more than human brains.
| It is inconceivable that some of these cetaceans are not
| capable of the emotions of humans. In fact, it's even a pretty
| strong argument that these cetaceans possess _more_
| intelligence and emotional regulation than humans.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Well, they have a different environment with a greater need
| for extremely close social groups, so sensitivity to emotion
| may, indeed, be greater than ours in some ways.
|
| That said, we have a conscience aka moral compass, a mind
| capapble of abstract thought and comprehension of morality,
| as well as a free will to choose whether or not to consider
| someone else's happiness in our ideals, attitudes, and
| behaviors.
|
| Look at all the wonderful structures we design and build, and
| then how awfully we treat out-groups. We are capable of so
| much better, but why don't people give a sh_t?
|
| I know why, and I've explained it in my comment history.
| bmitc wrote:
| There is zero indication and a plethora of evidence
| otherwise that humans are unique in our thought patterns
| and capability.
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Nocebo Effect.
| eurekin wrote:
| Is the sound part real? What frequencies are used to communicate
| stress? Is this in range of anything I could connect to a
| raspberry pico or arduino? My flowers desperately need answers :D
| copperx wrote:
| If I remember correctly, the frequency is ultrasonic. I'm not
| having much luck with Google.
| eurekin wrote:
| Guessing that a ultrasonic microphone from a bioaccoustics
| site should fit the bill - otherwise, what could researchers
| pick themselves?
|
| This one, for example, picks up to 200kHz for EUR1050:
|
| https://avisoft.com/ultrasound-microphones/cm24-cmpa/
| copperx wrote:
| It should be on the materials & methods section of the
| papers.
|
| I hope it doesn't go all the way to 200khz. Consumer audio
| can go up to a 192kHz sampling rate, which can't even
| record 100 kHz sounds.
|
| It seems the equipment will be costly.
| prewett wrote:
| > Consumer audio can go up to a 192kHz sampling rate,
| which can't even record 100 kHz sounds.
|
| That's probably because the Nyquist frequency (the
| maximum frequency that can theoretically be reproduced)
| is 96 kHZ at 192 kHz sampling, but the aliasing for that
| frequency is going to so terrible and unpredictable (what
| is the likelihood that always sample the max point in the
| sine wave) that you wouldn't consider anything close to
| the Nyquist frequency. You might get something workable
| for 20 kHz (~10 samples per cycle), which is the edge of
| human hearing, so that quiet overtones / high frequencies
| in percussion like cymbals show up.
|
| If this is getting used to identify problems based on
| sound signature, not just "hey, the FFT shows a spike at
| 100 kHz", 10 samples is probably a bit low. So 1 MHz
| sampling rate at a minimum for 100 kHz.
| copperx wrote:
| Interesting. Is DSD more viable for these kinds of
| recordings?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| There was research done, that annoys me I can't find the
| bookmark. But you can measure communication using fungi as the
| access point.
|
| It's known that fungi can act as a trading point for plants in
| that lend some, borrow some when plants are in need. If you
| hook fungi to a device you can measure communication.
|
| "Trees can communicate with each other through networks in
| soil. Much like social networks or neural networks, the fungal
| mycelia of mycorrhizas allow signals to be sent between trees
| in a forest. These mycorrhizal networks are effectively an
| information highway, with recent studies demonstrating the
| exchange of nutritional resources, defence signals and
| allelochemicals. Sensing and responding to networked signals
| elicits complex behavioural responses in plants. This ability
| to communicate ('tree talk') is a foundational process in
| forest ecosystems."
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4497361/
|
| And would highly recommend this book:
| https://www.merlinsheldrake.com/entangled-life
| vlz wrote:
| > effectively an information highway
|
| > exchange of nutritional resources, defence signals and
| allelochemicals
|
| Only one of these three things qualifies as "information" in
| my book (defence signals). How is this an "information
| highway"?
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Regardless if it's just one piece of information, defence
| signals; If fungi are connected to a web of plants, trees
| with communication transversing bi-directionally then it
| would be very valid to call it an highway of information.
|
| But fungi do more than that. They transfer energy and life
| resources along the network too. Just as a highway carries
| cargo.
|
| It's just a metaphor.
| littlebig_fox wrote:
| Hi,
|
| This is real! We started our startup based on this principle.
| Do note that these emissions do not occur often, think about up
| to 10-100 per hours in stress states. For a small background
| read, read this (not our research):
| https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)00262-3
|
| If you are interested I recommend using a MEMS microphone,
| sampling at 384 or 500 kHz and triggering at frequencies
| between 20-200 kHz.
|
| There is several people who have made these solutions for
| detecting bats using pico's: https://www.geeky-
| gadgets.com/raspberry-pi-bat-detector-17-0...
|
| If you want something off the shelf look into something like
| this: https://batsound.com/
| eurekin wrote:
| That's perfect, thank you!
| JadeNB wrote:
| > Do note that these emissions do not occur often, think
| about up to 10-100 per hours in stress states.
|
| I think I must be misreading. If one wants to detect these
| signals being emitted by plants, why is 10-100 per hour not
| often? I'd think that having to wait 6 minutes, or, to play
| it safe, even an hour would still be way more informative
| than finding out about the stress only when its effects were
| visible to the eye.
| addicted wrote:
| They are not "communicating" stress. There's no active action
| by the plants.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/30/science/plant-sounds-stre...
|
| > To be clear, the sounds made by harried plants are not the
| same as the anxious mumbling you might utter if you have a big
| deadline at work. The researchers suspect the nervous, popping
| noise is instead a byproduct of cavitation, when tiny bubbles
| burst and produce mini-shock waves inside the plant's vascular
| system, not unlike what happens in your joints when you crack
| your knuckles.
|
| It's the equivalent of stepping on a twig and knowing how dry
| it was based on the sound of the snap it makes.
| nradov wrote:
| There are active communications between plants.
|
| https://www.kariega.co.za/blog/do-giraffe-make-trees-talk-
| to...
| refulgentis wrote:
| As much as me farting and you moving away is active
| communication.
|
| It's cute, I like it, I'd tell my kid it.
|
| But I don't think active communication is a useful way to
| describe every single process where one's action causes
| another's reaction.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Any exchange of information between two systems is
| communication.
| nis0s wrote:
| Not exactly, the conscious intent of communicating is
| important too. For example, someone in a coma may react
| reflexively, but they're not communicating per se.
| refulgentis wrote:
| ^ this. The "active" in "active communication" really
| highlights this as a necessary condition.
| jjslocum3 wrote:
| If a tree is distressed in the forest and there are no insects
| there to hear it, does it make a sound?
| jart wrote:
| It is so utterly deranged and insane that NYT says plants are
| making "mournful cries" when the source paper doesn't support
| that. When I'm hungry the sounds my stomach makes on its own
| isn't me weeping and wailing. When I'm flatulent that sound is
| not a joyful scream.
| someothherguyy wrote:
| > NYT says
|
| The author is Gennaro Tomma, a freelance journalist.
|
| https://gennarotomma.it/
| echelon wrote:
| If a newspaper publishes something and it isn't under the
| category "op-ed", that article carries the weight of the
| paper.
| softwreoutthere wrote:
| Meh, publication bashing, IMO.
| someothherguyy wrote:
| The author still wrote it, yet here he is not criticized
| nor mentioned, the NY Times is.
|
| Not many blame a book publisher when disagreeing with a
| book author, but it is common to do so for news journalism.
| Why is that?
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| it's a colorful descriptive and the NYT isn't a scientific
| journal; calm down
| dd_xplore wrote:
| > It is so utterly deranged and insane that NYT says plants are
| making "mournful cries" when the source paper doesn't support
| that. When I'm hungry the sounds my stomach makes on its own
| isn't me weeping and wailing. When I'm flatulent that sound is
| not a joyful scream.
|
| Nytimes has never been reliable
| rfw300 wrote:
| The New York Times is relying on their audience's ability to
| understand that plants are not conscious beings. "Mournful
| cries" is just an evocative way of describing the auditory
| signals plants produce under stress--which the article makes
| clear. I can't understand what's so "deranged and insane" about
| some stylistic flair.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >plants are not conscious beings.
|
| Is that founded on a basis of scientific fact, or Human
| Superiority Complex?
| richardw wrote:
| It's a fair assumption because there's no genetic benefit
| to being a smart plant. Why would nature make that?
|
| Opposable thumbs mean we have the ability to use smarts, so
| genetics walked the path to consciousness over many
| generations. A smarter horse is fine and all but not that
| beneficial. Being faster or stronger or sexier is probably
| better. Same with a plant: get more nutrients or sunlight.
| There are cheaper ways than being smart to do that.
| quonn wrote:
| Right, but intelligence/smarts and consciousness are not
| the same.
| richardw wrote:
| See my sibling comment. Neither give any benefit over
| just sitting there and being a plant.
| techas wrote:
| It is not clear if there is a evolutionary benefit for
| human to be conscious. Although here we are...
| tripper_27 wrote:
| Define "smart". And explain how "smart"=="conscious"
|
| I can agree that there is no genetic benefit to being
| able to move at the speed animals move, because that's
| not how plants obtain food or avoid being eaten. Thus no
| need for nerves or a CNS to coordinate movement.
| richardw wrote:
| Take either of them and tell me why nature would have
| optimised for that rather than other features, like
| leaves. Energy isn't infinite so genetic changes optimise
| for easier-to-achieve ends rather than somehow jumping
| past all animals to evolve smarts or consciousness
| without evidence of many precursor adaptations.
|
| Also why would a smart (or conscious) plant not have
| eventually learned to use some of that to do something
| that improves survivability. Like strike out, or hide
| down, or anything more than "somewhat grow towards the
| light or nutrients over time".
|
| It's a nice fun exercise to argue with people while
| imbibing your drug of choice, but it's utterly unlinked
| to anything else we see in nature. We're not idiots, we
| would have seen evidence by now.
| quonn wrote:
| We know for a fact that for humans consciousness only
| exists in parts of the brain and can be turned off using
| drugs, sleep and accidents.
|
| It is almost certainly the same for all animals with a
| brain.
|
| Given the fact that plants have no brain it is a reasonable
| assumption they have no consciousness. It may be wrong, but
| given all evidence it is, so far, the best assumption.
|
| We usually call assumptions based on our best current
| understanding scientific facts.
| tripper_27 wrote:
| Alternative hypothesis: Given that plants do not have a
| central nervous system, it is reasonable to expect they
| have a distributed consciousness.
|
| Recall that most plants avoid building single-purpose
| organs, as the odds that 70-80% of the plant gets eaten
| are high. Plants have evolved to survive massive loss of
| body parts.
|
| I've read some studies on plant consciousness which shows
| that plant awareness can be turned off with anesthetics
| block_dagger wrote:
| Can you cite those studies please? Very interested.
| addicted wrote:
| > it is reasonable to expect they have a distributed
| consciousness.
|
| Why would it be reasonable to expect they have any
| consciousness? What would plants do with such a
| consciousness that they're wasting scarce energy on both
| operating and building the biological structures to
| maintain consciousness? They can't move. They can't take
| active actions. Why would they develop a consciousness
| that does nothing but makes them aware of their
| implementing doom without allowing them to act on it?
|
| > Recall that most plants avoid building single-purpose
| organs, as the odds that 70-80% of the plant gets eaten
| are high. Plants have evolved to survive massive loss of
| body parts.
|
| You know what would be really useful to evolve to survive
| the loss of body parts? Not suffering and feeling pain
| when you do, or even being aware that you just did.
| Especially when not being mobile in anyways you can't do
| anything about it.
|
| > I've read some studies on plant consciousness which
| shows that plant awareness can be turned off with
| anesthetics
|
| Citation needed.
|
| Actually I'll make it even easier. Start with studies
| that show plant awareness in the first place, before you
| show studies showing it can be switched off.
| someothherguyy wrote:
| There are some ideas out there around this topic:
|
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40626-023-0030
| 4-1
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8052216/
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00
| 796...
|
| https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/139/4/514/657
| 382...
|
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40626-024-0034
| 5-0
| hackable_sand wrote:
| Are you okay?
| Enginerrrd wrote:
| Plants do move and respond to their environment. A lot.
| They even are social. They've been shown to communicate
| with each other to signal that pests are attacking and
| their peers will increase production of pest repelling
| chemicals and stuff.
|
| They just do all that at a much slower time scale than
| you're used to in your consciousness. I wouldn't totally
| discount plants having some form of consciousness at
| lower frequency.
| hyperliner wrote:
| The scientific consensus is that, given that plants don't
| have a nervous system, that they can't process sensory
| input that is integrated and that produces some experience,
| coupled with the lack of subjective experience and the
| chemistry-based explanations for observed behaviors (such
| as following light etc), under the current definition of
| "consciousness", plants are not conscious.
| someothherguyy wrote:
| > chemistry-based explanations for observed behaviors
|
| Not very convincing, there are chemistry-based
| explanations for why humans have behavior as well.
|
| > that they can't process sensory input
|
| You just said they do (*-tropism).
|
| > the lack of subjective experience
|
| How do you know what its like to be a plant?
| addicted wrote:
| Yes, there is no evidence to believe they are "conscious"
| (well, not exactly sure what is meant by conscious here
| since that word is closely related to religious beliefs in
| many cases, but assuming it means sentient), they lack all
| known biological features that could possibly lead to
| sentience, and there has been no evidence found so far to
| suggest there is any sentience among plants.
|
| Also, considering they're rooted to the ground and cannot
| move there is no evolutionary advantage to sentience (and
| actually there are massive disadvantages since it will use
| energy for sentience which serves no purpose). Now, just
| because there isn't an evolutionary advantage, or even if
| it's an evolutionary disadvantage to a property doesn't
| automatically mean it doesn't exist, but given that there's
| no other reason to believe it does exist this is just
| another piece of the puzzle that shows it doesn't even need
| to exist.
| saagarjha wrote:
| I feel like a view that sentience requires something to
| be motile is pretty narrow-minded. A plant is honestly a
| better human in the sense that it gets all day to sit and
| think about things, something which only some Hacker News
| commenters can compare to :)
| someothherguyy wrote:
| > conscious here since that word is closely related to
| religious beliefs in many cases
|
| How so?
| jart wrote:
| I don't know about you, but I already feel enough guilt about
| how we eat animals. I even feel bad about throwing away a
| stuffed animal. We don't need some journo shoving another
| knife through our collective hearts about eating vegetables.
| amaurose wrote:
| [flagged]
| lukas099 wrote:
| > That day will come
|
| You act so sure, yet your own post betrays that you know
| it's not based on current evidence ("waiting for the
| day...").
| saagarjha wrote:
| I think your view on this imagined scenario says a lot
| more about yourself than how vegetarians reacting to
| plant suffering would about themselves.
| 9dev wrote:
| There's a really simple way to rid you of the first kind of
| guilt, though...
| haswell wrote:
| I don't think we should anthropomorphize plants to the
| point where we feel guilty about eating them, but I do
| think society as a whole is missing a kind of fundamental
| respect for nature and discounts the complexity and
| interestingness of plant life.
|
| In a world where conserving nature is simultaneously
| increasingly difficult and increasingly important, I don't
| mind a bit of artistic license when it comes to
| descriptions of plant life if it leads to more awareness
| and more people thinking twice about plants and how we
| treat natural ecosystems.
|
| Obviously there's a balance to be struck though.
| block_dagger wrote:
| Are you saying ignorance is better than knowledge? As for
| the guilt about eating animals, you have a personal choice
| to make based on your values at every meal. Aside: I don't
| see how a stuffed animal is related to the suffering of
| real animals in factory farms; perhaps you are confusing
| disparate ideas there.
| uoaei wrote:
| They're a pop news outlet, they assume that the average person
| isn't questioning the nature of sentience on a regular basis.
| cycomanic wrote:
| > It is so utterly deranged and insane
|
| And you are complaining about use of language? You might
| disagree with the anthromorphism (a rather common technique)
| used by the author, but your post is hyperbole. I hope you also
| realise the irony, as you also use anthromorphism.
| jart wrote:
| You return from a 15 day hiatus to tell me this?
| brushfoot wrote:
| Agreed, especially given the idea of plants feeling pain has
| been used to attempt to discredit or debunk vegetarian ethics--
| even though it's not true in that sense.
|
| Using a poetic descriptor like "mournful" in this context seems
| out of place.
| pkphilip wrote:
| Plants do emit sounds when distressed:
|
| https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/plants-emit-
| ultras...
| beala wrote:
| My car also emits different sounds when it's
| malfunctioning, but I don't go on to ascribe it an
| emotional state such as "mournful wailing."
| tejohnso wrote:
| Okay so months can pick up ultrasonic sounds, plants emit such
| sounds when stressed, and the moths prefer plants that aren't
| emitting stress signals to increase likelihood of offspring
| survival. Every part of that seems pretty amazing.
| SequoiaHope wrote:
| Yeah that's amazing! Plants and moths just co-evolving some
| fascinating and beautiful traits.
|
| That reminds me of this particularly beautiful section from one
| of the newer Cosmos episodes, on how insects perceive light
| reflected from flowers:
|
| https://youtu.be/YJL63kv2_xg
| addicted wrote:
| And also makes complete sense given evolution.
| LegitShady wrote:
| Distressed plants say "feed me, Seymour" and moths hate it.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Seems to validate antinatalism. Nature/reality hates weakness.
| Getting damaged in this reality often causes a self fulfilling
| prophecy. The alternative is to reject creating new life as an
| ethical action, since reality is on balance less than good.
| hinkley wrote:
| I've been doing a lot of gardening the last couple of years and
| it still surprises me how often when I'm cutting weeds a yellow
| jacket will show up to see if there's anything to eat.
|
| When they're hunting they seem to ignore humans entirely. I still
| think hornets are generally assholes but I've come around a bit
| on some species of wasp.
| kiddico wrote:
| The more I get into macro photography the more I realize
| everyone is just trying to do their thing and survive.
|
| Metric and northern paper wasps in particular strike me as
| docile lil fellas.
| passwordoops wrote:
| Tonight on NOVA... The Hornet: Nature's Asshole
| hinkley wrote:
| Narrated by Bear Grylls.
| notfed wrote:
| This implies something: that AI could detect distressed plants.
| No? I wonder what signals are audible.
| chris_armstrong wrote:
| A recent book, the Light Eaters, summarises much of the recent
| research into plant behaviour like this, including how maligned
| and misreported it has been over the past 50 years or so.
| michaelhoney wrote:
| Interview (audio and full transcript) with the author, Zoe
| Schlanger:
|
| Emergence Magazine: The World Is a Prism, Not a Window
|
| https://emergencemagazine.org/interview/the-world-is-a-prism...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-09 23:02 UTC)