A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to • Hacker News Board

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#61

Post by ItsMe000001 » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:27 AM UTC

close04 wrote: post #45

jpttsn wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cats, birds, and pigs are in turn happy to eat humans when convenient.

I think he mean the main difference would be that animals mostly kill (probably applies to most of their other actions) out of need (protection, food). Humans destroy things because they can many times. Sometimes it's not about needs ... unless for example you consider greed to be a need.

Animals kill "for fun" too. Not just cats (example: https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-04-30/wolf-a... -- note: that was a single wolf, not a pack; and do you know what happens when a marten finds its way into the chicken coop? Chicken genocide).

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#62

Post by superasn » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:28 AM UTC

some_account wrote: post #23

Humans can't perceive a lot of things, and on top of that, we have egos that makes us feel superior even though in reality, we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to ea…

"Humans are the most unique creatures on Earth. Well…not really. Yes we have developed technology, language, society, and have a great capacity for abstract thought. But if you look at our genetics, at our biology, we find that we may not be that unique after all. Primates share a vast majority of our genes and have organized their families into something akin to a social structure. Dolphins and whales communicate with diverse types of language using their larynx in ways similar to how we make sounds." - Carl sagan, pale blue dot

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#63

Post by dumb2223 » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:29 AM UTC

close04 wrote: post #57

dumb2223 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Learning English: They kill out of need, out of seems to me more like without. They kill without need. In Spanish we should say they kill because of need. How "out of" became because? Anyway, if you are out of luck I hope it is not because you are lucky.

Well... "out of necessity" is actually an idiom, meaning "because you have to". Since need and necessity are very similar in meaning I assume this is a correct statement. But I'm not a native English speaker this may of course be a common mistake. Regardless, I hope the idea stands.

Since we are trying to learn the tree language, I hope people don't get annoyed if I wonder about what is the mental state that converts "out of" into "because".

If necessity was a generator, a vector or force for movements or actions, then I could understand that use of "out of". Out of indicates the result produced by a force, algorithm or oracle. But I consider necessity not as a generator or force but as a passive state. Hence I wonder what is the mechanism for this use. If we collapse the concepts of passive and active then I think language get corrupted and poissoned. Analogies are not fruitful because they go far beyong the logical ground. I believe that if you are going to get something out of a state then that state should be a generator. I don't know if what I am trying to say is sound but I sharply feel the unsoundness of linguistic non logically generated derivations

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#64

Post by qazpot » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:29 AM UTC

mpfundstein wrote: post #30

kpnbg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too enjoy watching the perfect harmony of a lion eating a live impala

The huge difference is that lions dont put impalas into huge factories, where they feed them afwul food, rob them of any dignitiy, slaughter them by the masses, ship them across the globe in order to throw half of it away because it didnt hit the market’s taste of the month!

>> The huge difference is that lions dont put impalas into huge factories, where they feed them afwul food, rob them of any dignitiy, slaughter them by the masses, ship them across the globe in order to throw half of it away because it didnt hit the market’s taste of the month!

If they could, they would.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#65

Post by hiisukun » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:31 AM UTC

I once listened to a great radio show [1] on trees communicating (in a way) and sharing resources through a network of fungus that connects their roots in a forest. I can recommend listening if that interests you more than reading a related wiki page [2], but both are cool.

[1] https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/from-tree-to-shining-tree/ [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhizal_network

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#66

Post by rimliu » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:38 AM UTC

some_account wrote: post #23

Humans can't perceive a lot of things, and on top of that, we have egos that makes us feel superior even though in reality, we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to ea…

One of the most awful trait in humans I observe is disdain fo the own species in favour of other. There is no harmony in the nature, just an equilibrium. We are the nature as is everything else.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#67

Post by zjaffee » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:43 AM UTC

ItsMe000001 wrote: post #61

close04 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he mean the main difference would be that animals mostly kill (probably applies to most of their other actions) out of need (protection, food). Humans destroy things because they can many times. Sometimes it's not about needs ... unless for example you consider greed to be a need.

Animals kill "for fun" too. Not just cats (example: https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-04-30/wolf-a... -- note: that was a single wolf, not a pack; and do you know what happens when a marten finds its way into the chicken coop? Chicken genocide).

Do other animals go to war, commit genocide, or in the context of our relationship with other animals, do anything similar to factory farming.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#68

Post by vinchuco » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:43 AM UTC

sjclemmy wrote: post #37

I was thinking about communication the other day and came up with an aphorism: “We can’t even understand other people when we speak the same language - what hope do we have of communicating with an alien life?” By which I mean we wouldn’t even recognise the nature of the intelligence presented to us, never mind work out how to exchange information.

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place" -GBS

It's a bit sad we can't yet fully communicate with other life here effectively. I wonder what ethical implications it would have if we ever got there. An analogy to the current state may be that of a man from another language trying to ask for directions to an autistic kid.

What does it mean to understand?

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#69

Post by dumb2223 » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:45 AM UTC

dumb2223 wrote: post #63

close04 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... "out of necessity" is actually an idiom, meaning "because you have to". Since need and necessity are very similar in meaning I assume this is a correct statement. But I'm not a native English speaker this may of course be a common mistake. Regardless, I hope the idea stands.

Since we are trying to learn the tree language, I hope people don't get annoyed if I wonder about what is the mental state that converts "out of" into "because". If necessity was a generator, a vector or force for movements or actions, then I could understand that use of "out of". Out of indicates the result produced by a force, algorithm or oracle. But I consider necessity not as a generator or force but as a passiv…

Perhaps originally this use of "out of" indicates a mental state in which change is promoted, in which you fight against an hostile passive state, so you bootstrap from your needs.

Perhaps that kind of mental state could be used for sentiment analysis. The probability of that use of "out of" increases when you are in a mental state that promotes flipping active and passive states. For example, when you not any longer want to cope with your actual state, going to extremes: you put yourself in a fight for survival state that promotes a revolution by beating the slavery chains.

Edited many times.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#70

Post by pygy_ » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 7:46 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #42

some_account wrote: post #23

Humans can't perceive a lot of things, and on top of that, we have egos that makes us feel superior even though in reality, we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to ea…

> we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. This "harmony" is really just interlocking loops of unconstrained growth, followed by running out of resources, and starvation while the food supply regenerates. It only looks pretty if you ain't looking very carefully. In fact, human beings seem to be the only ones observed with a capability for restraint . We're not very good at prac…

Restrain is all over the place in nature. Unconstrained growth followed by starvation is the hallmark of primitive processes like fire and basic life forms.

Most individuals grow up to a genetically predetermined size. Colonies adapt their size to the amount of resources they have available, optimizing for long term perenniality.

The human economy behaves like a primitive life form, at the moment.

Ecosystems are usually resilient to such threats, but the fact we've been able to tap into fossil fuel gives us too large an advantage for them to strike back.