5 ms·

They are not “communicating” stress. There’s no active action by the plants. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/30/science/plant-sounds-stress.html https://www.ny

They are not “communicating” stress. There’s no active action by the plants. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/30/science/plant-sounds-stress.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/30/science/plant-sounds-stre... > To be clear, the sounds made by harried plants are not the same as the anxious mumbling you might utter if you have a big deadline at work. The researchers suspect the nervous, popping noise is instead a byproduct of cavitation, when tiny bubbles burst and produce mini-shock waves inside the plant’s vascular system, not unlike what happens in your joints when you crack your knuckles. It’s the equivalent of stepping on a twig and knowing how dry it was based on the sound of the snap it makes.

nradov 2y ago
There are active communications between plants. https://www.kariega.co.za/blog/do-giraffe-make-trees-talk-to-each-other https://www.kariega.co.za/blog/do-giraffe-make-trees-talk-to...
- refulgentis 2y ago
  As much as me farting and you moving away is active communication. It's cute, I like it, I'd tell my kid it. But I don't think active communication is a useful way to describe every single process where one's action causes another's reaction.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    Any exchange of information between two systems is communication.
    - nis0s 2y ago
      Not exactly, the conscious intent of communicating is important too. For example, someone in a coma may react reflexively, but they’re not communicating per se.
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        ^ this. The "active" in "active communication" really highlights this as a necessary condition.
      - soulofmischief 2y ago
        If they react reflexively, it communicates all sorts of things. It's not a traditional conversation, and there may not be bidirectional communication, but information is still being communicated.
        nis0s 2y ago
        No, a reflex action is not communication. You can hit someone’s knee and it produces a response. The knee isn’t communicating with you, it’s reacting to a stimuli.
        soulofmischief 2y ago
        No. You're confused about what constitutes as "communication". Communication does not mean conversation. The knee isn't conversing with you, but information is absolutely being communicated. I would recommend familiarizing yourself with information theory and systems theory. From the opening line on the Wikipedia article for Communication: > Communication is commonly defined as the transmission of information. Its precise definition is disputed and there are disagreements about whether unintentional or failed transmissions are included and whether communication not only transmits meaning but also creates it. If you argue from a position ignorant of information theory, it might seem that a knee jerk is not communication. But read through Shannon's A Mathematical Theory of Communication and you will understand differently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
        nis0s 2y ago
        I appreciate the detailed response. I am aware of the information theoretic definition, and I get that this definition is rejected or controversial. From the wiki you cited, > Another interpretation is given by communication theorists Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, who characterize communication as a transmission of information brought about by the interaction of several components, such as a source, a message, an encoder, a channel, a decoder, and a receiver.[17] *The transmission view is rejected by transactional and constitutive views, which hold that communication is not just about the transmission of information but also about the creation of meaning.* (emphasis mine) I’ll go one step further and say that I don’t think the Shannon definition of communication applies to physical responses to external stimuli (reflexive knee response, signals produced by plants when cut), or signals produced by chemical reactions (light given off the stars or suns). Induced reactions or chemical changes are not communication per se because the meaning of the transmitted signal would not exist without an observer as there’s no internal mechanism which creates the signal without the observer. In cell to cell communication, for example, a cell will create signals without the existence of another cell to interpret those signals. If a second cell picks up those signals, then it’s receiving communication. If however the second cell produces a stimulus to invoke a response from the first cell, the signal received would not have existed without the observer. In this sense, I think communication depends on the ability to transmit information without the provocation of observers or receivers, which is especially meaningful for biological systems because the signals they convey determine their survival. By simply existing does not mean something is communicating (sun or stars), and reacting to external stimuli does not represent communication per se, only signaling.

nradov 2y ago

There are active communications between plants. https://www.kariega.co.za/blog/do-giraffe-make-trees-talk-to-each-other https://www.kariega.co.za/blog/do-giraffe-make-trees-talk-to...

refulgentis 2y ago
As much as me farting and you moving away is active communication. It's cute, I like it, I'd tell my kid it. But I don't think active communication is a useful way to describe every single process where one's action causes another's reaction.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  Any exchange of information between two systems is communication.
  - nis0s 2y ago
    Not exactly, the conscious intent of communicating is important too. For example, someone in a coma may react reflexively, but they’re not communicating per se.
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      ^ this. The "active" in "active communication" really highlights this as a necessary condition.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      If they react reflexively, it communicates all sorts of things. It's not a traditional conversation, and there may not be bidirectional communication, but information is still being communicated.
      - nis0s 2y ago
        No, a reflex action is not communication. You can hit someone’s knee and it produces a response. The knee isn’t communicating with you, it’s reacting to a stimuli.
        soulofmischief 2y ago
        No. You're confused about what constitutes as "communication". Communication does not mean conversation. The knee isn't conversing with you, but information is absolutely being communicated. I would recommend familiarizing yourself with information theory and systems theory. From the opening line on the Wikipedia article for Communication: > Communication is commonly defined as the transmission of information. Its precise definition is disputed and there are disagreements about whether unintentional or failed transmissions are included and whether communication not only transmits meaning but also creates it. If you argue from a position ignorant of information theory, it might seem that a knee jerk is not communication. But read through Shannon's A Mathematical Theory of Communication and you will understand differently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
        nis0s 2y ago
        I appreciate the detailed response. I am aware of the information theoretic definition, and I get that this definition is rejected or controversial. From the wiki you cited, > Another interpretation is given by communication theorists Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, who characterize communication as a transmission of information brought about by the interaction of several components, such as a source, a message, an encoder, a channel, a decoder, and a receiver.[17] *The transmission view is rejected by transactional and constitutive views, which hold that communication is not just about the transmission of information but also about the creation of meaning.* (emphasis mine) I’ll go one step further and say that I don’t think the Shannon definition of communication applies to physical responses to external stimuli (reflexive knee response, signals produced by plants when cut), or signals produced by chemical reactions (light given off the stars or suns). Induced reactions or chemical changes are not communication per se because the meaning of the transmitted signal would not exist without an observer as there’s no internal mechanism which creates the signal without the observer. In cell to cell communication, for example, a cell will create signals without the existence of another cell to interpret those signals. If a second cell picks up those signals, then it’s receiving communication. If however the second cell produces a stimulus to invoke a response from the first cell, the signal received would not have existed without the observer. In this sense, I think communication depends on the ability to transmit information without the provocation of observers or receivers, which is especially meaningful for biological systems because the signals they convey determine their survival. By simply existing does not mean something is communicating (sun or stars), and reacting to external stimuli does not represent communication per se, only signaling.