3 ms·

One way to differentiate "communication" is whether it is possible to avoid a behavior. The tree can't avoid shading the saplings. Another aspect to look at (o

One way to differentiate "communication" is whether it is possible to avoid a behavior. The tree can't avoid shading the saplings. Another aspect to look at (or possibly this is two, tangled up together) is whether the behavior directly induces changes in the target in a generic fashion, rather than via a reception channel that receives the information and transmutes it into an effect. Allelopathic chemical release that kills off competitors is not communication. Tightly interconnected symbiotic associations of bacteria "communicate" chemically, but it's so optimized down and the feedback loops are so tight that it's more like they're a single organism. (Are hormone releases inside your own body communication?) Jumping at someone and waving your arms is communication, but it's similarly borderline, because you're probably invoking an instinctual reaction to move away from sudden large movements. Communication should also involve some sort of feedback loop. What does the tree "expect" the results of the sound of a creaking branch to be, either consciously, or in that anthropomorphizing way we discuss fitness and evolution? Without an answer to that, I think we can file it away as "not communication". --- All that said, many trees absolutely do communicate with chemical signals. Famously, they may release warning chemicals during herbivore activity, and surrounding trees (conspecifics, but IIRC this can cross species boundaries) will ramp up production of defense chemicals. Other plants use chemical signaling to attract predators of the herbivores that are munching on them. And I believe I recall some process by which trees advertise themselves to mycorrhizal fungi that they would like to establish partnerships with, but I could be mistaken.

koliber 8y ago
Some trees can avoid shading each other. See (1). Your progression of thought makes a lot of sense. The question of whether any of this is deliberate, or a behavior encoded into genes and/or physical and chemical processes that can not be avoided. That being said, some people make an argument that our consciousness is also a chain chemical reaction with lots of feedback loops, and that our consciousness is just an illusionary byproduct. I know that I presented multiple examples and all or not on the same level, no matter along which axis you evaluate them. The point is that deciding whether anyone/anything communicates is not an easy question to answer. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_shyness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_shyness
- phyzome 8y ago
  I suppose I would avoid any involvement of the terms "deliberate" or "intentional" in this discussion, for the reasons you mention. (Does the tree have free will in attracting herbivore predators? Do you have free will in deciding to go to work?) Another thing to chew on: Does communication involve a level of indirection? What if your chemical signal directly modifies a behavior pathway in the target, rather than starting a cascade that dispatches to that mechanism?
  - nikki93 8y ago
    I think what you’re looking for is that languages are more language when they are interpreted by something that looks more like a VM, and interpreters are more VMy when they have constructs that look like “if” and “load from memory” (letting you choose how to act on observing current data, based on past experience). If it’s easier to study the language as a what you term “direct,” it seems less languagey, or whatever. I personally think this distinction is distracting because you can always create a (large) bijection between encodings and their output when interpreted and then it looks “direct”, without actually writing the VM (just a huge lookup table). I feel like smart languages just look nicer to use because they compress better (length to output blowup is exponential), and we think that seems more like human communication.

koliber 8y ago

Some trees can avoid shading each other. See (1). Your progression of thought makes a lot of sense. The question of whether any of this is deliberate, or a behavior encoded into genes and/or physical and chemical processes that can not be avoided. That being said, some people make an argument that our consciousness is also a chain chemical reaction with lots of feedback loops, and that our consciousness is just an illusionary byproduct. I know that I presented multiple examples and all or not on the same level, no matter along which axis you evaluate them. The point is that deciding whether anyone/anything communicates is not an easy question to answer. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_shyness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_shyness

phyzome 8y ago
I suppose I would avoid any involvement of the terms "deliberate" or "intentional" in this discussion, for the reasons you mention. (Does the tree have free will in attracting herbivore predators? Do you have free will in deciding to go to work?) Another thing to chew on: Does communication involve a level of indirection? What if your chemical signal directly modifies a behavior pathway in the target, rather than starting a cascade that dispatches to that mechanism?
- nikki93 8y ago
  I think what you’re looking for is that languages are more language when they are interpreted by something that looks more like a VM, and interpreters are more VMy when they have constructs that look like “if” and “load from memory” (letting you choose how to act on observing current data, based on past experience). If it’s easier to study the language as a what you term “direct,” it seems less languagey, or whatever. I personally think this distinction is distracting because you can always create a (large) bijection between encodings and their output when interpreted and then it looks “direct”, without actually writing the VM (just a huge lookup table). I feel like smart languages just look nicer to use because they compress better (length to output blowup is exponential), and we think that seems more like human communication.