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

#221

Post by koliber » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 4:21 PM UTC

tekno45 wrote: post #216

koliber wrote: post #187

The question I see is what do we define as language and communicating. Do we mean that trees can relay information to each other, as well to other species? Sure, that makes sense. For example, you could make a case that a large tree communicates with the saplings in the underbrush. By shading them, it is letting them know that it is the alpha individual in this area, convincing them not to grow. We can also say that…

Doesn't communication require intent? The truck example is weird, cause it isn't trying to communicate. The person who made it may be trying to communicate something, but the truck would be a use of language, not using a language itself.

I don't think so. I get angry occasionally. I don't intend to, nor do I like it. However, my anger is communicated to those around me.

This is just an example off the top of my head.

This is a really interesting conversation and I think we will find that the true definition will elude a simple answer with solid boundaries.

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

#222

Post by mikro2nd » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

swebs wrote: post #176

>Trees exchange chemicals with fungus, and send seeds—essentially information packets—with wind, birds, bats, and other visitors for delivery around the world. Simard specializes in the underground relationships of trees. Her research shows that below the earth are vast networks of roots working with fungi to move water, carbon, and nutrients among trees of all species. These complex, symbiotic networks mimic human n…

I think the term "language" is hyperbole in the context of computer algorithm notations. I'm willing to bet that tree communications far surpass computation notations in sophistication, complexity and subtlety.

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

#223

Post by koliber » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 4:23 PM UTC

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #209

erydo wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a massive rift between "sun makes tree grow, preventing other trees from getting the light" and "I'm trying to sell my wares by expressing concepts of value, numbers, and desire". Like a tree bearing bright red, juicy-looking fruits filled with sugar and vitamins?

Are you arguing that's communication, or somehow driven by a tree's desires?

Arguably, you could say that it is driven by evolutionary pressure. Could you convince me that the term "evolutionary pressure" is a form of desire? I don't know. Does desire require consciousness? Are trees conscious?

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

#224

Post by koliber » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 4:30 PM UTC

pishpash wrote: post #219

koliber wrote: post #187

The question I see is what do we define as language and communicating. Do we mean that trees can relay information to each other, as well to other species? Sure, that makes sense. For example, you could make a case that a large tree communicates with the saplings in the underbrush. By shading them, it is letting them know that it is the alpha individual in this area, convincing them not to grow. We can also say that…

The bar for communication isn't whether a message is decoded, but whether any given arbitrary message can be encoded, that is, you are looking for signs of encoder capability. Though I can't prove that trees do encode, I can at least prove that they can encode, and that tires cannot, because tires don't have free energy. Also disagree about the last statement, and not specifically in this case, but generally. It isn'…

I really like this discussion! I'm loving all these different points of looking at the situation. Thank you.

A tire bouncing along at 65 mph seems to have a lot of free energy (kinetic), as does one stuck on an icy slanted roof (potential) :). I may be unaware of the concept of "free energy" you are using here though. Can you point me to where I can find out more?

I absolutely agree that abstractions are necessary to efficiently convey concepts in a discussion. I also understand that abstractions are never perfect. What I wanted to really say is that I would be much more inclined to agree with the first and less with the second of these two statements:

Trees can transfer information to each other, and we have the ability to understand these mechanisms. Trees speak to each other in a language, and we can listen in.

It's a matter of phrasing, nuance, and insinuation. Different listeners may form different ideas when they read the above two statements.

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

#225

Post by koliber » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 4:37 PM UTC

phyzome wrote: post #207

koliber wrote: post #187

The question I see is what do we define as language and communicating. Do we mean that trees can relay information to each other, as well to other species? Sure, that makes sense. For example, you could make a case that a large tree communicates with the saplings in the underbrush. By shading them, it is letting them know that it is the alpha individual in this area, convincing them not to grow. We can also say that…

One way to differentiate "communication" is whether it is possible to avoid a behavior. The tree can't avoid shading the saplings. Another aspect to look at (or possibly this is two, tangled up together) is whether the behavior directly induces changes in the target in a generic fashion, rather than via a reception channel that receives the information and transmutes it into an effect. Allelopathic chemical release t…

Some trees can avoid shading each other. See (1).

Your progression of thought makes a lot of sense. The question of whether any of this is deliberate, or a behavior encoded into genes and/or physical and chemical processes that can not be avoided. That being said, some people make an argument that our consciousness is also a chain chemical reaction with lots of feedback loops, and that our consciousness is just an illusionary byproduct.

I know that I presented multiple examples and all or not on the same level, no matter along which axis you evaluate them. The point is that deciding whether anyone/anything communicates is not an easy question to answer.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_shyness

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

#226

Post by ctrl-j » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 5:14 PM UTC

koliber wrote: post #221

tekno45 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't communication require intent? The truck example is weird, cause it isn't trying to communicate. The person who made it may be trying to communicate something, but the truck would be a use of language, not using a language itself.

I don't think so. I get angry occasionally. I don't intend to, nor do I like it. However, my anger is communicated to those around me. This is just an example off the top of my head. This is a really interesting conversation and I think we will find that the true definition will elude a simple answer with solid boundaries.

> I don't think so. I get angry occasionally. I don't intend to, nor do I like it. However, my anger is communicated to those around me.

You're distinguishing conscious intent and latent or subconscious intent.

Your body and instinct are very much intending to communicate that you are upset.

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

#227

Post by pygy_ » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

Angostura wrote: post #140

pygy_ wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 usua…

I'm not sure "restraint" is the correct word in the examples you cite. Individual size is typically the result of a combination of evolutionary selection pressure and physics. Colonies are constrained by resources which influence reproductive rates.

Everything in biology is the result of a combination of evolutionary selection and physics, I don't understand where you're going with that.

These are both instances of restraint hard-coded in DNA. Not growing/reproducing in some circumstances is part of the program.

Contrast it with cancer, or breakthrough, overaggressive infectious agents that kill their host quickly (but gradually give way to milder versions of themselves).

Some cancers grow so fast that part of the tumors die of necrosis (and off course most often the host ultimately dies).

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

#228

Post by anonytrary » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

Obfuscation via personification. It's funny how chemical communication can be sugar coated to such an extent. There's an old rule for teaching quantum mechanics -- avoid low-hanging "honey-pot" analogies, you'll just lead people to a false, but easy misunderstanding. Does that apply here? Is personification really useful here?

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

#229

Post by 0xdeadbeefbabe » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 6:27 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #184

fifnir wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We will decide it is alive but not understand fully what that means. I don't understand fully what this comment means. If alien life has DNA (chemistry) like ours, we learn that life as we know it either started somewhere and spread or was re-invented. If it doesn't, but is obviously alive (move on its own will, hunts, i dont know) we learn that life can exist with different chemistries. If it's not obviously alive…

The odds that alien life would reinvent DNA are basically nil. If we find DNA based life elsewhere that is a slam-dunk for panspermia.

Presuming we are exceptional finders. I think it's safe to presume the opposite though.

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

#230

Post by phyzome » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 6:35 PM UTC

koliber wrote: post #225

phyzome wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way to differentiate "communication" is whether it is possible to avoid a behavior. The tree can't avoid shading the saplings. Another aspect to look at (or possibly this is two, tangled up together) is whether the behavior directly induces changes in the target in a generic fashion, rather than via a reception channel that receives the information and transmutes it into an effect. Allelopathic chemical release t…

Some trees can avoid shading each other. See (1). Your progression of thought makes a lot of sense. The question of whether any of this is deliberate, or a behavior encoded into genes and/or physical and chemical processes that can not be avoided. That being said, some people make an argument that our consciousness is also a chain chemical reaction with lots of feedback loops, and that our consciousness is just an il…

I suppose I would avoid any involvement of the terms "deliberate" or "intentional" in this discussion, for the reasons you mention. (Does the tree have free will in attracting herbivore predators? Do you have free will in deciding to go to work?)

Another thing to chew on: Does communication involve a level of indirection? What if your chemical signal directly modifies a behavior pathway in the target, rather than starting a cascade that dispatches to that mechanism?