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

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

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 250 posts

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

#241

Post by koliber »

mod wrote: post #233
koliber wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I've had dogs communicate with me by angrily running towards me and barking. This conveyed danger and told me to get out of the way. I've once had a small avalanche do the same as well. People would call me looney though if I told them that the mountains communicate with me, and I listen.

The dog conveyed to you its intent to harm you (even if it was being deceitful). The mountain communicated nothing to you. If you were hunted and killed by a mountain lion, it would be akin to the avalanche. It did not intend to send you any message, even if you managed to spot it before it attacked you. The dog fully intended for you to know.

According to one definition of communication, you are absolutely right. There are other ways of defining it.

You define it as requiring intent. Fair.

I can formulate just as valid of a definition of communication without intent. The way you dress communicates certain things about you, whether you intend to do so or not. My pheromones communicate a lot of things about me, even though I don't intend them to do so.

Again, it's not so simple unless you use a single narrow definition and forcefully ignore all other ones (some of which are easier to accept than others).

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

#242

Post by ctrl-j »

perl4ever wrote: post #231
ctrl-j wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Couldn't you argue that instinct doesn't "intend" anything - it's just adaptive, because evolution selected for it? Having a temper is useful, but it wasn't designed in by any conscious entity, it's just that people who get angry tend to do better than people who don't.

> Couldn't you argue that instinct doesn't "intend" anything - it's just adaptive, because evolution selected for it?

You can argue that if you want. I'll argue the opposite: If a dog growls at me when I reach for his steak - but doesn't bite - I take that as him intending to inform me that he doesn't want me to take his steak.

It may be instinct, it may be adaptive, but it sure as hell was intended to get a message across to me.

Communication is about sending and receiving messages. A car tire cannot send or receive - it cannot communicate.

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

#243

Post by perl4ever »

ctrl-j wrote: post #242
perl4ever wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't you argue that instinct doesn't "intend" anything - it's just adaptive, because evolution selected for it? Having a temper is useful, but it wasn't designed in by any conscious entity, it's just that people who get angry tend to do better than people who don't.

> Couldn't you argue that instinct doesn't "intend" anything - it's just adaptive, because evolution selected for it? You can argue that if you want. I'll argue the opposite: If a dog growls at me when I reach for his steak - but doesn't bite - I take that as him intending to inform me that he doesn't want me to take his steak. It may be instinct, it may be adaptive, but it sure as hell was intended to get a message…

It's not adaptive for anger to be communication though. For instance, a small dog may not be willing to fight to the death against a much larger creature. But the visceral response of anger comes automatically, and the reason it's useful is because it doesn't convey information, but conceals it. You snarl so that people think you might be combative, but you are quite definitely not communicating that you are combative. A world where a growl really was communication would be a world where anyone who didn't growl could be abused.

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

#244

Post by XorNot »

Tehnix wrote: post #170
XorNot wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is overly simplistic. Our bodies process sugars in vastly different ways. Fructose for example was historically rare for us to have and is metabolized in basically unlimited quantity as fast as possible by the liver and transferred to fat reserves. So yes, quantity matters but you will have incredible difficulty not putting on weight from high fructose foodstuffs because your body will tell you "eat more food" t…

Sure, but the view that it's just sugar that's bad, is even more overly simplistic, and in fact harmful. Obesity is always more deeply rooted in habits, comfort, stress and the way a person deals with things, than it is with just sugar---it's a behavioral issue that needs to be tackled at a deeper level. One calorie is one calorie, regardless of were it comes from. You'd find very little actual scientific backing for…

Your reference [0] is talking about the concept that such a thing as "sugar addiction" exists. That is not at all what I was arguing. The fructose metabolic pathway is well known, and particularly in the US, excess fructose in the diet is common due to the corn industry.

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

#245

Post by torstenvl »

I recently read The Hidden Life of Trees and found it fascinating, even if I left not entirely convinced. There are certainly characteristics of some tree species that look like pro-sociality. I'll be interested to watch where the research goes.

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

#246

Post by chris_wot »

dang wrote: post #236
petecox wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steady on, it's mentioned in the article. "the Waorani aren’t alarmed by the notion that a tree might scream when cut"

That's not the issue.

What is the point, dang?

It was a whimsical comment, and you are being overly critical. And I was considering the way man affects our environment. And yes, it is mentioned in the article.

Your hair trigger response says far more about you than me. I literally have made one whimsical comment in literally hundreds of comments, and you decide to threaten me.

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

#247

Post by dang »

chris_wot wrote: post #246
dang wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the issue.

What is the point, dang? It was a whimsical comment, and you are being overly critical. And I was considering the way man affects our environment. And yes, it is mentioned in the article. Your hair trigger response says far more about you than me. I literally have made one whimsical comment in literally hundreds of comments, and you decide to threaten me.

The issue is that you have a long history of posting borderline comments and creating drama on the site as well as in abusive emails. This was a problem. We took the rate limit off your account out of courtesy to you, but that's provisional on the problem not starting up again. Since multiple unsubstantive comments were starting to show up again from your account, I thought I'd better say something.

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

#248

Post by vincvinc »

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.

Linguist here - in the field of biology, the word communication is also used to describe signals that are being sent out by organisms, and received as information by others, regardless of the intent of the 'sender'. This has confused me a few times as well.

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

#249

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #247
chris_wot wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point, dang? It was a whimsical comment, and you are being overly critical. And I was considering the way man affects our environment. And yes, it is mentioned in the article. Your hair trigger response says far more about you than me. I literally have made one whimsical comment in literally hundreds of comments, and you decide to threaten me.

The issue is that you have a long history of posting borderline comments and creating drama on the site as well as in abusive emails. This was a problem. We took the rate limit off your account out of courtesy to you, but that's provisional on the problem not starting up again. Since multiple unsubstantive comments were starting to show up again from your account, I thought I'd better say something.

[deleted]

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

#250

Post by chris_wot »

dang wrote: post #247
chris_wot wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point, dang? It was a whimsical comment, and you are being overly critical. And I was considering the way man affects our environment. And yes, it is mentioned in the article. Your hair trigger response says far more about you than me. I literally have made one whimsical comment in literally hundreds of comments, and you decide to threaten me.

The issue is that you have a long history of posting borderline comments and creating drama on the site as well as in abusive emails. This was a problem. We took the rate limit off your account out of courtesy to you, but that's provisional on the problem not starting up again. Since multiple unsubstantive comments were starting to show up again from your account, I thought I'd better say something.

I posted a response, then thought better of it and deleted it.
Post reply on HN