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

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#41

Post by peterburkimsher »

bowsamic wrote: post #39
peterburkimsher wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The Buddha didn't say he was coming back. The Buddha said that there would be a future Buddha at some point: Maitreya. That could be many thousands of years away. In Buddhism we forsake God, we explicitly reject Him. We reject all creation, and embrace only the dark: emptiness, in which all things are fundamentally non-distinct.

"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die"? I might not live for thousands of years, but would like to make the world a little better during this time here.

"Always leave the code better than you found it."

https://github.com/dwmkerr/hacker-laws#the-scout-rule

Please let's not derail this conversation into religious debate here. I love talking about philosophy, and if you'd like to talk more about absolute/relative morality, I am currently online for a video/audio/text chat on the BeWelcome chatroom.

https://meet.jit.si/BeWelcome-Chat_4MembersVolunteers

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#42

Post by bowsamic »

peterburkimsher wrote: post #41
bowsamic wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Buddha didn't say he was coming back. The Buddha said that there would be a future Buddha at some point: Maitreya. That could be many thousands of years away. In Buddhism we forsake God, we explicitly reject Him. We reject all creation, and embrace only the dark: emptiness, in which all things are fundamentally non-distinct.

"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die"? I might not live for thousands of years, but would like to make the world a little better during this time here. "Always leave the code better than you found it." https://github.com/dwmkerr/hacker-laws#the-scout-rule Please let's not derail this conversation into religious debate here. I love talking about philosophy, and if you'd like to talk more about absolute/relat…

No post body was provided.

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#43

Post by ncmncm »

falling_ wrote: post #34
ncmncm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is some scope for winged humans, and hypothetically some capacity to exercise it. Nature did not explore this route. The opportunity cost of exploratory settling into a non-preferred niche usually outweighs the benefits of that exploration simply due to the scarcity of available resources to buffer against the opportunity cost.

But, as noted, for this case there is very little in the way of cost.

Nature did, in fact, explore the winged-bipeds body plan to full fruition twice, once in mammals, and did winged quadrupeds before and again in mammals. She is progressing on a another as I write this. And, humans did end up conquering the air without growing wings. Nature isn't picky about methods.

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#44

Post by chahex »

top_sigrid wrote: post #32

While I think this was a good read, I do not like the mingling of scientific reasoning and esoteric thinking in some places. A scientist tripping on a drug has an idea for an experiment and puts it as the plant told her which is then taken as an argument for intelligence in other things than animals. Not a good argument.

The thing is for people with some ESP capability it is part of their living experience that the world is more alive than what average person perceives. In such a world of feelings the material science inevitably falls short as it started with the fundamental assumption of a dead and mechanical world, which deals well with general objects but still having trouble understanding consciousness.

The material science is good at dealing with material in general, but it is not the proving method that is illogical but the assumption needs to be challenged altogether

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#45

Post by LegitShady »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #12
LegitShady wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't attest to its veracity but this animal perception is discussed b In this video by musician benn Jordan https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvg242U2YfQ

As I indicated in my comment there, I think Benn got this one severely wrong: --- I'm not convinced that the visual/time part of this is correct. If we follow the analogy with sonic fusion frequency ... there's a point at which a repeating sound will change from being a rythmic experience and instead becomes a pitch. So, if you are in an acoustic environment that is generally filled with pitch information, and you co…

I imagine in a competition about the perception of sound you would do much better than I would, given your experience, so I'll take your word on it. You and Benn Jordan can hash it out!

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#46

Post by kafkaesque »

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…

It's hilarious that so many people have these crazy timing techniques and use their hands or a swatter

Use a spray bottle to get its wings wet, I usually use Windex or a multi-surface cleaner, then get a paper towel and kill it as slow or as fast as you want

Re: How I Started to See Trees as Smart

#47

Post by mandmandam »

peterburkimsher wrote: post #36

The article says: "First, I took an acid trip. Then I asked scientists about the power of altered states." Please, don't do drugs. If you play with fire, you might get burned. There is an alternative. Play with electricity! With a plasma globe. And a radiometer. What happens when you wave a plasma globe next to high-voltage power cables under a bridge, alone at night? Nothing unusual. What happened when I walked away…

Fire is powerful. And the war on drugs was a mistake.

Fire requires caution. Matches aren't for everyone. But we don't ban lighters for adults, nor would it be smart to.

The incredible health and therapeutic potential in mind altering substances has been held back long enough. It's time for facing reality; ironically enough.

Post reply on HN