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

#211

Post by veddox » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 3:09 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #189

ckastner wrote: post #4

> Because they relate to the trees as live beings with intimate ties to surrounding people and other creatures, the Waorani aren’t alarmed by the notion that a tree might scream when cut, or surprised that harming a tree should cause trouble for humans. That sounds like textbook anthropomorphizing, and the article seems to follow down that path as well...

I always wondered, why is anthropomorphizing looked upon with such disdain? To me, that attitude smacks of the idea that humans are "special." Additionally, if it really is wrong to generalize from human internal experience to that of animals, logic implies that it is wrong to generalize from a specific human's internal experience to that of any other human. Since we don't seem to want to give up on making sweeping g…

> anthropormophizing is a useful metaphorical aid to help people understand

Absolutely. So does simplification. Simplifying things to make them understandable to non-experts is an incredibly important skill - ask any teacher (or their students, for that matter). The problem comes with oversimplification, simplifying explanations to a degree when they are just dead wrong. At that point, the simplification doesn't only not help with the understanding, it can actively hinder future understanding by suggesting that you have already understood (when in fact you haven't).

This article over-anthropomorphizes.

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

#212

Post by jjeaff » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 3:43 PM 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…

Umm, no, more like humans are a lot more like other animals than we care to admit.

We have some oppossums ND raccoons that constantly try to break in to our chicken coop. If successful, they will, without fail, kill every single chicken they can get their hands on. They'll only be able to eat one or so. But they will kill all of them. Either out of greed or just for the fun of it.

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

#213

Post by novia » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 3:57 PM UTC

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #147

novia wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The other animals introduced to the Mauritius also had a taste for the Dodo and its eggs in particular. Which species introduced the other animals to the Mauritius?

Indeed in this case it was humans, though the same thing happens with regularity without humans. Creatures migrate, environments change leading certain creatures to prosper and others to flounder, and so on. Acting like there's some beautiful harmony in nature is missing the fact that it's a cruel and selfish system that humans, as a whole, have managed to rise above and indeed had to rise above for the sake of all l…

Humans are to blame for the extinction of the dodo then. It doesn't matter if such things happen without humans. The point is that humans are directly responsible for the extinction of many more species on top of the normal extinction rate. I'm not talking about beauty and harmony and balance, I'm talking about the facts.

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

#214

Post by close04 » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

thret wrote: post #89

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War It's not the behaviour that is unique to humans; it is the ability to act counter to instinct, counter to appetite, to choose and be aware of the consequences. We alone can be held accountable for our actions.

Unique? I specifically used the word mostly and not unique. And the scale is vastly different. Also "killing" was just an over-encompassing metaphor.

I'm not implying that needless killing is the only, or the main thing that sets us apart from animals, except in the context of the comment I was replying to (about lions feeding on an impala). But it's taking this kind of actions despite having the ability to be aware consequences that makes us special. You would expect the threshold for some of these actions to increase with these newfound abilities but it went the other way around. A person is willing to kill a last member of a species not for survival but for little more than a trophy on a wall.

There are probably far more things that set us apart from animals than instinct or awareness of consequence. Most children actually lack these abilities because they are partly taught, they have to be groomed. So the main difference might be that we are able to learn up to a point that no animal can rival us. This is the perfect example of what a human can be without "learning": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxana_Malaya

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

#215

Post by raadore » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 4:03 PM UTC

fifnir wrote: post #198

raadore wrote: post #179

Catholics have know this truth about God’s creations for a very long time :) http://blog.franciscanmedia.org/franciscan-spirit/saint-fran...

So choosing to believe that a person 900 years ago actually talked to animals (and incidentally had nothing better to say to them besides how god is great) is now "knowing the truth" that there are molecular systems that would be interpreted as communication between plants?

Who’s saying anything about believing?

Just stating facts based on eye witness accounts from 900 years ago.

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

#216

Post by tekno45 » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 4:04 PM UTC

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.

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

#217

Post by close04 » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 4:09 PM UTC

sjy wrote: post #112

dumb2223 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is a great explanation of the difference between 'because of' and 'out of' in an answer to this question on English Language Learners SE [1]: > You should use "because of" in cases like this when the thing in question is the catalyst for something to happen, and use "out of" when the thing in question metaphorically "gives rise" to something else. [1]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/115445/can-i-use-be…

I always assumed out of necessity idiom means no other choice. And because of would mean I have choices and this is the justification for the one I made.

For the purpose of the comment "out of need" felt a lot more appropriate for an animal that kills.

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

#218

Post by yosito » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 4:10 PM UTC

fipple wrote: post #29

yosito wrote: post #18

If by "speak a language" you mean "have unique ways of sharing information", then of course trees speak a language and of course we can learn about it.

It's not "of course" obvious that trees "share information." That's pretty cool if true and not something that all or even most plants are known to do.

Anything with DNA shares information.

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

#219

Post by pishpash » Thu, Jul 12, 2018, 4:17 PM UTC

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't necessarily about anthropomorphizing, but about using abstract and compact representation of what you're talking about. Humans emit sound waves, but we abstract that to segments, time-frequency descriptions, then phonemes, morphemes, ..., and finally language. You get the point. It's easier to reason about that way.

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

#220

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

raadore wrote: post #215

fifnir wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So choosing to believe that a person 900 years ago actually talked to animals (and incidentally had nothing better to say to them besides how god is great) is now "knowing the truth" that there are molecular systems that would be interpreted as communication between plants?

Who’s saying anything about believing? Just stating facts based on eye witness accounts from 900 years ago.

Yeah,

I'm gonna need a better source than what you sent to consider this "facts".