Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How I Started to See Trees as Smart

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#21

Post by emmelaich »

ncmncm wrote: post #2

When you don't need answers in a hurry, there is no need for all the thinking bits to being one place. A lot less of that is needed because everything doesn't need to be done all at once; the same bits can work on different stages of a problem. It is safer to distribute it all more or less evenly throughout the organism. The bits can do other jobs besides, when not needed for thinking with. There is no need to connec…

If trees could speed up their activity a thousand-fold, they might be as smart as us.

I know, definitely not, but it's a thought I amuse myself with.

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#22

Post by mellavora »

ncmncm wrote: post #2

When you don't need answers in a hurry, there is no need for all the thinking bits to being one place. A lot less of that is needed because everything doesn't need to be done all at once; the same bits can work on different stages of a problem. It is safer to distribute it all more or less evenly throughout the organism. The bits can do other jobs besides, when not needed for thinking with. There is no need to connec…

I've been thinking about plant intelligence for over a decade (and have a neuroscience-related Ph.D.), yet never took it down the path of computation efficiency/time/energy tradeoffs as you have done. Thank you for this new perspective, including its obvious conclusion:

> trees can afford to be very, very smart.

Hopefully I can use some of my perspective to address your follow-on question:

> What could a smarter tree do to outcompete rivals?

This may represent a limited understanding of Darwinian evolution.

Trees have an economy, sharing resources with each other and with other living things.

Tree also are (more or less) fixed in place, thus these economic games are repeated games with known participants.

They thus have a vested interest in maximizing the wealth of the community, rather than their individual wealth. They may (and studies suggest they do) have a preference for supporting their offspring over other trees, but not to the point of killing the community their offspring will also depend on.

Where I am going with this. Repeated economic games are not zero-sum; the pie can get bigger. "Competition" in this setting does not look like competition in a zero-sum "I have to beat the other guy" game.

What trees can do with their intelligence is learn how to build long-term stable and nuturing communities which generate substantial wealth for many members. And that this is a logical local (perhaps global) optimium.

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#23

Post by mellavora »

emmelaich wrote: post #21
ncmncm wrote: post #2

When you don't need answers in a hurry, there is no need for all the thinking bits to being one place. A lot less of that is needed because everything doesn't need to be done all at once; the same bits can work on different stages of a problem. It is safer to distribute it all more or less evenly throughout the organism. The bits can do other jobs besides, when not needed for thinking with. There is no need to connec…

If trees could speed up their activity a thousand-fold, they might be as smart as us. I know, definitely not, but it's a thought I amuse myself with.

Even more amusing to consider directional of change.

If we assume trees are smarter than us, and speeding it up 1000 times brought them down to our level...

and conversely, if we could learn to think slower, would we be smarter?

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#24

Post by [deleted] »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #13

> In the game of survival, an insect’s reaction time easily beats my attempts to swat it. I may think of myself as the smartest creature in the room, but a fly can make me look foolish. This just seems completely wrong. The wrongness comes from conflating completely orthogonal concepts: speed of detection, speed of response and "smartness". The fly is very fast at detecting and responding to motion in its vicinity, b…

[deleted]

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#25

Post by ncmncm »

mellavora wrote: post #22
ncmncm wrote: post #2

When you don't need answers in a hurry, there is no need for all the thinking bits to being one place. A lot less of that is needed because everything doesn't need to be done all at once; the same bits can work on different stages of a problem. It is safer to distribute it all more or less evenly throughout the organism. The bits can do other jobs besides, when not needed for thinking with. There is no need to connec…

I've been thinking about plant intelligence for over a decade (and have a neuroscience-related Ph.D.), yet never took it down the path of computation efficiency/time/energy tradeoffs as you have done. Thank you for this new perspective, including its obvious conclusion: > trees can afford to be very, very smart. Hopefully I can use some of my perspective to address your follow-on question: > What could a smarter tree…

I wrote something along those lines, then replaced it with what I did post, just for brevity. You said it better than I would have.

Mutualism is a well-proven successful strategy. There does seem more scope for intelligence in crafting positive-sum arrangements than in simply competing. (Arguably our own brains hypertrophied in response to sexual selection of better storytellers, with other results secondary.)

http://cantrip.org/slow.pdf

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#26

Post by popcube »

ncmncm wrote: post #25
mellavora wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking about plant intelligence for over a decade (and have a neuroscience-related Ph.D.), yet never took it down the path of computation efficiency/time/energy tradeoffs as you have done. Thank you for this new perspective, including its obvious conclusion: > trees can afford to be very, very smart. Hopefully I can use some of my perspective to address your follow-on question: > What could a smarter tree…

I wrote something along those lines, then replaced it with what I did post, just for brevity. You said it better than I would have. Mutualism is a well-proven successful strategy. There does seem more scope for intelligence in crafting positive-sum arrangements than in simply competing. (Arguably our own brains hypertrophied in response to sexual selection of better storytellers, with other results secondary.) http:/…

usually, we just presume the strategies were stored in genetic level.

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#28

Post by ncmncm »

popcube wrote: post #26
ncmncm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote something along those lines, then replaced it with what I did post, just for brevity. You said it better than I would have. Mutualism is a well-proven successful strategy. There does seem more scope for intelligence in crafting positive-sum arrangements than in simply competing. (Arguably our own brains hypertrophied in response to sexual selection of better storytellers, with other results secondary.) http:/…

usually, we just presume the strategies were stored in genetic level.

We can presume, but Nature keeps her own counsel. Anywhere there is any scope for intelligent behavior and capacity to exercise it, we should expect to see nature explore that, sooner or later. I know no reason to think that could not have been done yet.

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#29

Post by CaptainPistache »

I do think trees are more evolve than us. Simply by existing, trees constantly create opportunity for life to grow.

They shelter quantity of animals, feed billions of more or less microscopic living creatures (insects, mushrooms, bacteria), induce rain, create an environment with ideal climatic conditions, prevent landslides, provide us incredible useful resources (wood, fruits, substances for medication)... Not even talking about the air you're breathing. And when they die, it's another cycle of benefits that begins.

Meanwhile we may have invented iPads, but as for now, we are at the exact opposite of trees and only know to live the destructive way.

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#30

Post by eimrine »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #13

> In the game of survival, an insect’s reaction time easily beats my attempts to swat it. I may think of myself as the smartest creature in the room, but a fly can make me look foolish. This just seems completely wrong. The wrongness comes from conflating completely orthogonal concepts: speed of detection, speed of response and "smartness". The fly is very fast at detecting and responding to motion in its vicinity, b…

> but a fly can make me look foolish.

You should keep trying buddy. Try approaching your hand to a fly very slowly and when the distance will be ~20cm slap it with one powerful movement. Remember that a fly survives ~70% of slaps because it manages to hide between your fingers or something - you need to kill it after slap with squeezing. Keep trying and you will be able to kill flies with your hand with 50% efficiency in average. There are even easier way of killing a fly btw, for example do slowly approaching it with a thin pin which is too hard for a fly to see it coming.

Post reply on HN