71–80 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the signal is being sent, you can be pretty sure that due to the intrinsic efficiency-maximization that biological systems perform then most likely the mechanism for detecting and acting upon it has been evolved by other organisms, especially for something as fitness-critical as stress.
It's a nice thought. But many humans aren't able to do that with each other, so it seems like a high bar for a potato.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the signal is being sent, you can be pretty sure that due to the intrinsic efficiency-maximization that biological systems perform then most likely the mechanism for detecting and acting upon it has been evolved by other organisms, especially for something as fitness-critical as stress.
I'm not sure why you can assume that without any direct evidence.
From this article:
> Recently, plants were also demonstrated to respond to sounds,13,28,29,30 e.g., by changing the expression of specific genes,29,30 or by increasing sugar concentration in their nectar.31
So there is enough indirect evidence for hypothesis formation.
The sound emission frequencies are also within the hearing ranges of various animals, some of which are herbivores, and some of which eat herbivores. It would be to their benefit to decode the meaning of plant sounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the signal is being sent, you can be pretty sure that due to the intrinsic efficiency-maximization that biological systems perform then most likely the mechanism for detecting and acting upon it has been evolved by other organisms, especially for something as fitness-critical as stress.
I'm not sure why you can assume that without any direct evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think our current culture is biased to feel weird about killing. Historically, killing was often a form of entertainment for the public, and a matter of course for getting the nutrients for life.
In the past people weren't able to voice their concerns and demand better things. Violence as entertainment was used as a tool by the ruling classes as a way to enforce their power. The effects of the trauma of violence are clear and well studied. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean we can assume it had true support from the people who had no choice. Maybe people in the future will say that the p…
What is missing from the discussion is likely (if I'm not projecting too much here... I feel this way about myself as well) that you have a relatively detached relationship from death compared to people in times past and are disconnected from the experience of what it is actually like to be steeped in such experience.
I have no idea what it would be like to live in such a life, but to assume it's inherently bad is a prejudiced outlook based only on your own limited experience. If you were raised watching public executions every week, you might be singing a different tune, and casting doubt in the opposite direction.
For those that haven't witnessed it, I will describe a very easily constructed experiment to demonstrate this phenomena that I have discovered: first stretch a string tightly and then quickly flick it with your finger, stressing it even more. If you listen, you will hears a sound emitted by the stressed string that gradually dies off as the string recovers. Nearby strings will start vibrating in sympathy (if they are tuned properly). Could one string be communicating with the other strings?
Common objects may be used to make the experiment easier to perform: banjos, guitars, violins, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Life is an infinite unfolding of undefinably rich and interconnected phenomena, and we only have labels for a small subset of phenomena. As a thought experiment, reverse the question: how could we assume that there aren’t interconnected phenomena after discovering evidence that this phenomena exists? Even if we never discover what those interconnections are or establish labels for them, interconnection/interdependenc…
> As a thought experiment, reverse the question: how could we assume that there aren’t interconnected phenomena after discovering evidence that this phenomena exists? The opposite of assuming a thing without direct evidence isn't to assume the negation of that thing without direct evidence. They're two examples of the same mistake.
Rather I’m pointing out that the existence of this phenomena is a form of evidence that opens the door to interrelated phenomena. And based on our understanding of the laws of nature, we can be certain that there is at minimum, some interrelation. Whether that interrelation is interesting or worth labeling as some unique phenomena to humans is what cannot be determined without further discovery/evidence.
I’d agree with your comment if the described phenomena itself was just speculation, but that’s not the case here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the past people weren't able to voice their concerns and demand better things. Violence as entertainment was used as a tool by the ruling classes as a way to enforce their power. The effects of the trauma of violence are clear and well studied. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean we can assume it had true support from the people who had no choice. Maybe people in the future will say that the p…
This sounds like the response of someone steeped in modern culture, safe from the influence of having to kill things as part of day-to-day life. What is missing from the discussion is likely (if I'm not projecting too much here... I feel this way about myself as well) that you have a relatively detached relationship from death compared to people in times past and are disconnected from the experience of what it is act…
No one can say the people of the past felt one way or not, that's my main point. The other point I'm adding on is that people are inherently varied in their mindsets and it's only very recently in history we've had such an equal opportunity to share our feelings and hope to have them heard.
I would add one thing as well: In many societies there's been a great reverence given to animals and their slaughter ritualized or governed by cultural rules. To me this suggests at the very least that people have always had some sense of the gravity of their actions and felt a need to make sense of and tame their feelings by externalizing or controlling them.
Vegans are going to have to re-evaluate their life choices. It might be much more cruel to harvest a field of soybeans than it is to kill a cow.
1) Veganism isn't solely about cruelty; 2) I find your debate that "structure/texture changing plant matter making sounds is the same as animal matter/brain feeling"... interesting.
Vegans aren't going to have anything to eat now... /s In all seriousness, this is wild.
Vegans are a portion of a percent of the human population, maybe a bit more around YNews.. meanwhile how many red meat eaters out there? reading now?
Informative here meaning that you can deduce something about a plant's condition from faint sounds emitted by it. It's not implying that the plants use those sounds for the purpose of transmitting information. From the article: "These results demonstrate the potential in studying plant bioacoustics, suggest that plant acoustic emissions may play an important role in ecology and evolution, and may have direct implicat…
If the signal is being sent, you can be pretty sure that due to the intrinsic efficiency-maximization that biological systems perform then most likely the mechanism for detecting and acting upon it has been evolved by other organisms, especially for something as fitness-critical as stress.