8 ms·

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 mecha

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.

mclide 4y ago
By now, there is at least one other organism that can detect and act upon the signal. If farmers applies knowledge about this signal to improve their yields, plants may be selected for their ability to emit sounds under stress.
q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago
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.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > many humans aren't able to do that with each other Many doesn’t disprove that some do. And it need not be plants; if symbiotic insects pick up on the cue, that’s still interesting.
- passterby 4y ago
  potatos have more genes that you
  - tpoacher 4y ago
    This just means that the potato dna-source-code devs were being evaluated by management against a "kLOC" metric.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  You reminded me one of my favourite quotes: "There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists" ~ Quote by a forest ranger at Yosemite National Park, on why it is hard to design the perfect garbage bin to keep bears from breaking into it.
LegitShady 4y ago
I'm not sure why you can assume that without any direct evidence.
- haswell 4y ago
  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/interdependence is the continuing unfolding of everything, and so I tend to think a more helpful default is to wonder what those interactions are instead of if they exist. At a minimum, Newton’s 3rd law applies, and however subtle the effects, they are almost certainly there. Where or not they’re particularly interesting to us or “useful” to human inquiry is another question entirely.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > 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.
    - haswell 4y ago
      That’s not quite what I’m getting at here. I’m not claiming that something specific exists without evidence, or making any claims about some particular phenomena that I believe exists and must do <x>. 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.
alwaysbeconsing 4y ago
Not entirely. Efficiency maximization can also result in a state where a feature is interesting to us but neutral, or just not harmful enough to be worth the energy to change. Remember that the watchmaker is completely blind.
2-718-281-828 4y ago
I like that line of thinking. But I still fail at giving a good explanation of that concept. Maybe it's intuitive for me due to having learned about cellular automata during my youth. I know I'm entering esoteric and new age territory but something tells me this can even be applied to phenomena like quantum entanglement. My idea is that if there is an information receivable and possibly even emittable by a biological system then that system will through evolutionary pressure begin to incorporate this transmission in a way that improves fitness. Telepathy maybe even. That's also why I don't "believe" anymore in this compartmentalization of the human body into separate organs. Tissue can isolate an organ to some extent but even then there will be hormonal or mechanic exchange. Example would be relevance of belly breathing for intestinal function. At the extreme we reach this sense of connectedness between all or most or some living beings. It just appears to me that this would make sense.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  The rule of thumb in evolutionary biology is if it has a cost and lasts through evolutionary time, it is beneficial. Because otherwise a similar organism that doesn't waste that time/energy on the useless thing/behavior will outcompete. Here's some odd and obvious examples. Religion has a cost (lots of resources and time are spent on them) and they have lasted through time, therefore it is evolutionarily beneficial. A small percentage of the population is psychopaths, this has an obvious cost to communities, but the pattern has lasted through time, therefore has a benefit. Likely it's for war/fighting/hunting. Growing light sensitive cells has a cost in energy and materials, and has lasted through time, therefore it must have a benefit (sight). This strongly suggests that SOMETHING is listening to that plant make noise and it either directly or indirectly benefits the plant.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - geoelectric 4y ago
    Only applies to genetic traits though. If psychopathy, for example, turned out to be epigenetic, environmental, or entirely psychological, it would potentially defy that pattern.
atahanacar 4y ago
>has been evolved by other organisms Like, a human?
yread 4y ago
There is some reserach that trees already communicate indirectly via a network of fungi around their roots using sugars so it's not that far fetched https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering...
- homarp 4y ago
  add to that https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-trees-support-each-other-through-a-network-of-fungi/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-trees-support-... 'Do Trees Really Support Each Other through a Network of Fungi'
  - canadiantim 4y ago
    Interesting. Seems like the authors main contention is with the popularization of the concept that trees might be cooperating with each other instead of hyper competing as we historicallly assume via just natural selection pressures. I’m sympathetic to their argument that we need to be careful how far we take the cooperation argument but I think they’re also throwing out the baby with the bath water. These authors are highly focused on showing the validity of the opposite point of view and so have conducted a meta analysis of the literature that is very, I would say, biased towards the exclusion of studies that show communication and transfers of chemicals between trees using mycorrhizal networks. I still find their meta analysis interesting but would caution people to also take their cutting down of the idea of transfers between plants using mycorrhizal networks with large grains of salt. They, as researchers, are also incentivized to kind of go a bit too far the other way from what they were arguing against (transfers between plants using mycorrhizal networks)
wruza 4y ago
Sometimes signal is just there regardless. If you hit your tissue hard enough, it becomes blueish for a while (a bruise, a hemorrhage). It may benefit something by accident, but a bruise just can’t stay as pink as the rest of you, due to the physics of the process. (From tfa) Plants exposed to drought stress have been shown to experience cavitation – a process where air bubbles form, expand and collapse in the xylem, causing vibrations In other words, dry wood cracks.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  > In other words, dry wood cracks. How dare you translate academic technobabble to common tongue?
- reb 4y ago
  The person you’re responding to is talking about other organisms (ie not the tree), which seems compatible with your observation here. Trees might be screaming/bubble-popping into the abyss for simple physical reasons, but if cavitation is very important to some creature, there’s a decent chance that creature has evolved to sense these vibrations.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    Random guess: woodpeckers might, as for them this may be a way to detect which trees offer most food for least effort. Ironically, something I didn't realize until now, and what also confirms the original point: apparently[0] the drumming itself turned into form of communication for woodpeckers. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodpecker#Drumming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodpecker#Drumming
- Pompidou 4y ago
  Maybe this bruise evolved with our social behaviour : most animals skin don't show this, or for higher stress. The bruise is very important in a social envirronment and is a good optimisation for mutual Care.
- _a_a_a_ 4y ago
  >> (From tfa) Plants exposed to drought stress have been shown to experience cavitation – a process where air bubbles form, expand and collapse in the xylem, causing vibrations > In other words, dry wood cracks. I don't think it's saying that at all
hugh-avherald 4y ago
Conversely, perhaps humans evolved to not hear plants.

mclide 4y ago

By now, there is at least one other organism that can detect and act upon the signal. If farmers applies knowledge about this signal to improve their yields, plants may be selected for their ability to emit sounds under stress.

q7xvh97o2pDhNrh 4y ago

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.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> many humans aren't able to do that with each other Many doesn’t disprove that some do. And it need not be plants; if symbiotic insects pick up on the cue, that’s still interesting.
passterby 4y ago
potatos have more genes that you
- tpoacher 4y ago
  This just means that the potato dna-source-code devs were being evaluated by management against a "kLOC" metric.
tpoacher 4y ago
You reminded me one of my favourite quotes: "There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists" ~ Quote by a forest ranger at Yosemite National Park, on why it is hard to design the perfect garbage bin to keep bears from breaking into it.

LegitShady 4y ago

I'm not sure why you can assume that without any direct evidence.

haswell 4y ago
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/interdependence is the continuing unfolding of everything, and so I tend to think a more helpful default is to wonder what those interactions are instead of if they exist. At a minimum, Newton’s 3rd law applies, and however subtle the effects, they are almost certainly there. Where or not they’re particularly interesting to us or “useful” to human inquiry is another question entirely.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > 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.
  - haswell 4y ago
    That’s not quite what I’m getting at here. I’m not claiming that something specific exists without evidence, or making any claims about some particular phenomena that I believe exists and must do <x>. 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.

alwaysbeconsing 4y ago

Not entirely. Efficiency maximization can also result in a state where a feature is interesting to us but neutral, or just not harmful enough to be worth the energy to change. Remember that the watchmaker is completely blind.

2-718-281-828 4y ago

I like that line of thinking. But I still fail at giving a good explanation of that concept. Maybe it's intuitive for me due to having learned about cellular automata during my youth. I know I'm entering esoteric and new age territory but something tells me this can even be applied to phenomena like quantum entanglement. My idea is that if there is an information receivable and possibly even emittable by a biological system then that system will through evolutionary pressure begin to incorporate this transmission in a way that improves fitness. Telepathy maybe even. That's also why I don't "believe" anymore in this compartmentalization of the human body into separate organs. Tissue can isolate an organ to some extent but even then there will be hormonal or mechanic exchange. Example would be relevance of belly breathing for intestinal function. At the extreme we reach this sense of connectedness between all or most or some living beings. It just appears to me that this would make sense.

Consultant32452 4y ago
The rule of thumb in evolutionary biology is if it has a cost and lasts through evolutionary time, it is beneficial. Because otherwise a similar organism that doesn't waste that time/energy on the useless thing/behavior will outcompete. Here's some odd and obvious examples. Religion has a cost (lots of resources and time are spent on them) and they have lasted through time, therefore it is evolutionarily beneficial. A small percentage of the population is psychopaths, this has an obvious cost to communities, but the pattern has lasted through time, therefore has a benefit. Likely it's for war/fighting/hunting. Growing light sensitive cells has a cost in energy and materials, and has lasted through time, therefore it must have a benefit (sight). This strongly suggests that SOMETHING is listening to that plant make noise and it either directly or indirectly benefits the plant.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- geoelectric 4y ago
  Only applies to genetic traits though. If psychopathy, for example, turned out to be epigenetic, environmental, or entirely psychological, it would potentially defy that pattern.

atahanacar 4y ago

>has been evolved by other organisms Like, a human?

yread 4y ago

There is some reserach that trees already communicate indirectly via a network of fungi around their roots using sugars so it's not that far fetched https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering...

homarp 4y ago
add to that https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-trees-support-each-other-through-a-network-of-fungi/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-trees-support-... 'Do Trees Really Support Each Other through a Network of Fungi'
- canadiantim 4y ago
  Interesting. Seems like the authors main contention is with the popularization of the concept that trees might be cooperating with each other instead of hyper competing as we historicallly assume via just natural selection pressures. I’m sympathetic to their argument that we need to be careful how far we take the cooperation argument but I think they’re also throwing out the baby with the bath water. These authors are highly focused on showing the validity of the opposite point of view and so have conducted a meta analysis of the literature that is very, I would say, biased towards the exclusion of studies that show communication and transfers of chemicals between trees using mycorrhizal networks. I still find their meta analysis interesting but would caution people to also take their cutting down of the idea of transfers between plants using mycorrhizal networks with large grains of salt. They, as researchers, are also incentivized to kind of go a bit too far the other way from what they were arguing against (transfers between plants using mycorrhizal networks)

wruza 4y ago

Sometimes signal is just there regardless. If you hit your tissue hard enough, it becomes blueish for a while (a bruise, a hemorrhage). It may benefit something by accident, but a bruise just can’t stay as pink as the rest of you, due to the physics of the process. (From tfa) Plants exposed to drought stress have been shown to experience cavitation – a process where air bubbles form, expand and collapse in the xylem, causing vibrations In other words, dry wood cracks.

rightbyte 4y ago
> In other words, dry wood cracks. How dare you translate academic technobabble to common tongue?
reb 4y ago
The person you’re responding to is talking about other organisms (ie not the tree), which seems compatible with your observation here. Trees might be screaming/bubble-popping into the abyss for simple physical reasons, but if cavitation is very important to some creature, there’s a decent chance that creature has evolved to sense these vibrations.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Random guess: woodpeckers might, as for them this may be a way to detect which trees offer most food for least effort. Ironically, something I didn't realize until now, and what also confirms the original point: apparently[0] the drumming itself turned into form of communication for woodpeckers. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodpecker#Drumming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodpecker#Drumming
Pompidou 4y ago
Maybe this bruise evolved with our social behaviour : most animals skin don't show this, or for higher stress. The bruise is very important in a social envirronment and is a good optimisation for mutual Care.
_a_a_a_ 4y ago
>> (From tfa) Plants exposed to drought stress have been shown to experience cavitation – a process where air bubbles form, expand and collapse in the xylem, causing vibrations > In other words, dry wood cracks. I don't think it's saying that at all

hugh-avherald 4y ago

Conversely, perhaps humans evolved to not hear plants.