Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins.-a It seems to be dead.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins.-a It seems to be dead.
On 4/28/2025 4:04 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked)
anything on talk.origins.-a It seems to be dead.
don't see anything yet
On 4/28/25 1:04 PM, erik simpson wrote:Several servers have nothing from T.O. since Simpson's post 4/30/2025
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins.-a It seems to be dead.
I see one post today, at 9:52 AM Pacific.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 18:23:31 -0700, John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/25 1:04 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins.-a It seems to be dead.
I see one post today, at 9:52 AM Pacific.
Several servers have nothing from T.O. since Simpson's post 4/30/2025I suspect GG is a dying internet artifact. Too bad; it was fun while it lasted.
On 5/4/25 12:57 AM, jillery wrote:It's dying from neglect.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 18:23:31 -0700, John HarshmanI suspect GG is a dying internet artifact. Too bad; it was fun while it >lasted.
<john.harshman@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/25 1:04 PM, erik simpson wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything >>>> on talk.origins.-a It seems to be dead.
I see one post today, at 9:52 AM Pacific.
Several servers have nothing from T.O. since Simpson's post 4/30/2025
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG. The last thing is see in TO is a post by me about an
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown
unless someone informs him.
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG. The last thing is see in TO is a post by me about an >absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown
unless someone informs him.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 07:53:56 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG. The last thing is see in TO is a post by me about an
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything >>>> on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown
unless someone informs him.
absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses.
Why dismiss it as absurd out of hand? It would have been more
convincing for you to explain why you think it is absurd.
You seem to be particularly annoyed about them bringing QFT into it
but trees are a lifeform just as we are and I can't see why applying
QFT to them is any more absurd that invoking it in regard to *any*
lifeform.
By coincidence, I was reading this article just before I saw your
post.:
"Never Underestimate the Intelligence of Trees" https://nautil.us/never-underestimate-the-intelligence-of-trees-237595/
I have posted previously about the research by Suzanne Simard, the
main focus of the article.
On 5/9/25 9:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 07:53:56 -0700, erik simpsonTrees do indeed communicate, but this "study" has many objections. You
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG. The last thing is see in TO is a post by me about an
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything >>>>> on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown
unless someone informs him.
absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses.
Why dismiss it as absurd out of hand? It would have been more
convincing for you to explain why you think it is absurd.
You seem to be particularly annoyed about them bringing QFT into it
but trees are a lifeform just as we are and I can't see why applying
QFT to them is any more absurd that invoking it in regard to *any*
lifeform.
By coincidence, I was reading this article just before I saw your
post.:
"Never Underestimate the Intelligence of Trees"
https://nautil.us/never-underestimate-the-intelligence-of-trees-237595/
I have posted previously about the research by Suzanne Simard, the
main focus of the article.
need to look at the original article. >https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.241786
The authors wired up trees in the Italian Dolomites and measured
something that they attributed to older trees anticipating the coming >eclipse by several hours(!) and warning younger trees.
A) In any gien location, eclipses are very rare.
B) Eclipse durations are very short, and absolutely of no import to
plants. (Nights are generally much darker and longer than eclipses).
C) The authors' gratuitously say their analysis uses methods of quantum >field theory.
All of the above should have triggered peer reviewers and editors of the >journal.
Just what the authors measured is unclear. Did they perform
similar experiments at other times or locations? How could any of this
be repeated or tested?
On Fri, 9 May 2025 10:52:17 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 07:53:56 -0700, erik simpsonTrees do indeed communicate, but this "study" has many objections. You
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG. The last thing is see in TO is a post by me about an >>>> absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything >>>>>> on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown
unless someone informs him.
Why dismiss it as absurd out of hand? It would have been more
convincing for you to explain why you think it is absurd.
You seem to be particularly annoyed about them bringing QFT into it
but trees are a lifeform just as we are and I can't see why applying
QFT to them is any more absurd that invoking it in regard to *any*
lifeform.
By coincidence, I was reading this article just before I saw your
post.:
"Never Underestimate the Intelligence of Trees"
https://nautil.us/never-underestimate-the-intelligence-of-trees-237595/
I have posted previously about the research by Suzanne Simard, the
main focus of the article.
need to look at the original article.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.241786
The authors wired up trees in the Italian Dolomites and measured
something that they attributed to older trees anticipating the coming
eclipse by several hours(!) and warning younger trees.
A) In any gien location, eclipses are very rare.
IOt seems far more important to me that they can be accurately
predicted in advance, allowing controlled studies to take place.
B) Eclipse durations are very short, and absolutely of no import to
plants. (Nights are generally much darker and longer than eclipses).
Again, I don't see the significance of that. Birds and other animals
are known to react in various ways to solar eclipses, I don't see why
trees should be any different.
C) The authors' gratuitously say their analysis uses methods of quantum
field theory.
They don't just "gratuitously say " they used it, they a detailed
explanation of why they think it is relevant and useful. Do you
dismiss the usefulness of QFT in researching intelligence in general
or just in relation to plants?
All of the above should have triggered peer reviewers and editors of the
journal.
I would like to think that peer reviewers and editors with the Royal
Society know what they are doing.
Just what the authors measured is unclear. Did they perform
similar experiments at other times or locations? How could any of this
be repeated or tested?
The article only reports on their work at one location but they give
precise details of the methods they used; why do you think anyone else
would have trouble repeating the study at another location?
On Fri, 9 May 2025 07:53:56 -0700, erik simpsonIt would have been more convincing for you to explain why you think
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG. The last thing is see in TO is a post by me about an >>absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything >>>> on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown
unless someone informs him.
Why dismiss it as absurd out of hand? It would have been more
convincing for you to explain why you think it is absurd.
You seem to be particularly annoyed about them bringing QFT into it
but trees are a lifeform just as we are and I can't see why applying
QFT to them is any more absurd that invoking it in regard to *any*
lifeform.
By coincidence, I was reading this article just before I saw your
post.:
"Never Underestimate the Intelligence of Trees" >https://nautil.us/never-underestimate-the-intelligence-of-trees-237595/
I have posted previously about the research by Suzanne Simard, the
main focus of the article.
I would like to think that peer reviewers and editors with the Royal
Society know what they are doing.
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown
unless someone informs him.
The last thing is see in TO is a post by me about an--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses.
On 5/10/25 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 10:52:17 -0700, erik simpsonWe can predict eclipses, I don't believe plants have that capacity.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 07:53:56 -0700, erik simpsonTrees do indeed communicate, but this "study" has many objections. You
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG. The last thing is see in TO is a post by me about an >>>>> absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything >>>>>>> on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown
unless someone informs him.
Why dismiss it as absurd out of hand? It would have been more
convincing for you to explain why you think it is absurd.
You seem to be particularly annoyed about them bringing QFT into it
but trees are a lifeform just as we are and I can't see why applying
QFT to them is any more absurd that invoking it in regard to *any*
lifeform.
By coincidence, I was reading this article just before I saw your
post.:
"Never Underestimate the Intelligence of Trees"
https://nautil.us/never-underestimate-the-intelligence-of-trees-237595/ >>>>
I have posted previously about the research by Suzanne Simard, the
main focus of the article.
need to look at the original article.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.241786
The authors wired up trees in the Italian Dolomites and measured
something that they attributed to older trees anticipating the coming
eclipse by several hours(!) and warning younger trees.
A) In any gien location, eclipses are very rare.
IOt seems far more important to me that they can be accurately
predicted in advance, allowing controlled studies to take place.
B) Eclipse durations are very short, and absolutely of no import to
plants. (Nights are generally much darker and longer than eclipses).
Again, I don't see the significance of that. Birds and other animals
are known to react in various ways to solar eclipses, I don't see why
trees should be any different.
In other words, the trees might react as they do at night. It would
have been an obvious thing for the investigators to have checked. It
might be harder to detect the reactions because the eclipse only lasts a
few minutes.
C) The authors' gratuitously say their analysis uses methods of quantum
field theory.
They don't just "gratuitously say " they used it, they a detailed
explanation of why they think it is relevant and useful. Do you
dismiss the usefulness of QFT in researching intelligence in general
or just in relation to plants?
QM determines chemistry, and has been used in studying light reception
in animal eyes and chloroplasts (molecular reactions). The authors
weren't doing that. They were sticking detectors into the trees. >"Intelligence" would need a rigorous definition before QM could be used
at all. Real living systems, even simple bacteria, are far beyond the >capacity of any available computation.
All of the above should have triggered peer reviewers and editors of the >>> journal.
I would like to think that peer reviewers and editors with the Royal
Society know what they are doing.
You have greater faith in the review process than I.
Just what the authors measured is unclear. Did they perform
similar experiments at other times or locations? How could any of this
be repeated or tested?
The article only reports on their work at one location but they give
precise details of the methods they used; why do you think anyone else
would have trouble repeating the study at another location?
I will eat my words if anyone else follows up.
On Sat, 10 May 2025 08:08:56 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/25 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 10:52:17 -0700, erik simpsonWe can predict eclipses, I don't believe plants have that capacity.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 07:53:56 -0700, erik simpsonTrees do indeed communicate, but this "study" has many objections. You >>>> need to look at the original article.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG. The last thing is see in TO is a post by me about an >>>>>> absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown >>>>>>> unless someone informs him.
Why dismiss it as absurd out of hand? It would have been more
convincing for you to explain why you think it is absurd.
You seem to be particularly annoyed about them bringing QFT into it
but trees are a lifeform just as we are and I can't see why applying >>>>> QFT to them is any more absurd that invoking it in regard to *any*
lifeform.
By coincidence, I was reading this article just before I saw your
post.:
"Never Underestimate the Intelligence of Trees"
https://nautil.us/never-underestimate-the-intelligence-of-trees-237595/ >>>>>
I have posted previously about the research by Suzanne Simard, the
main focus of the article.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.241786
The authors wired up trees in the Italian Dolomites and measured
something that they attributed to older trees anticipating the coming
eclipse by several hours(!) and warning younger trees.
A) In any gien location, eclipses are very rare.
IOt seems far more important to me that they can be accurately
predicted in advance, allowing controlled studies to take place.
They obviously can't *predict* in the way we can but why is it beyond
the bounds of possibility that they could be reacting to
environmental changes in the lead-up to an eclipse?
B) Eclipse durations are very short, and absolutely of no import to
plants. (Nights are generally much darker and longer than eclipses).
Again, I don't see the significance of that. Birds and other animals
are known to react in various ways to solar eclipses, I don't see why
trees should be any different.
In other words, the trees might react as they do at night. It would
have been an obvious thing for the investigators to have checked. It
might be harder to detect the reactions because the eclipse only lasts a
few minutes.
I would regard their findings as a starting point rather than a final
answer but you seem to be dismissing those findings out of hand.
.
C) The authors' gratuitously say their analysis uses methods of quantum >>>> field theory.
They don't just "gratuitously say " they used it, they a detailed
explanation of why they think it is relevant and useful. Do you
dismiss the usefulness of QFT in researching intelligence in general
or just in relation to plants?
QM determines chemistry, and has been used in studying light reception
in animal eyes and chloroplasts (molecular reactions). The authors
weren't doing that. They were sticking detectors into the trees.
"Intelligence" would need a rigorous definition before QM could be used
at all. Real living systems, even simple bacteria, are far beyond the
capacity of any available computation.
That is something that is changing all the time. I haven't kept up to
date with all that is going on in QM but I have seen several articles
about research on its application to the study of consciousness e.g.
https://alleninstitute.org/news/quantum-mechanics-and-the-puzzle-of-human-consciousness/
All of the above should have triggered peer reviewers and editors of the >>>> journal.
I would like to think that peer reviewers and editors with the Royal
Society know what they are doing.
You have greater faith in the review process than I.
I'm not na|>ve, I know that peer review can and does make mistakes but
those mistakes are generally caught by other scientists. I would
expect that to particularly be the case in regard to a prestigious
journal like that published by the Royal Society. Are you aware of any scientists attacking this article?
Just what the authors measured is unclear. Did they perform
similar experiments at other times or locations? How could any of this >>>> be repeated or tested?
The article only reports on their work at one location but they give
precise details of the methods they used; why do you think anyone else
would have trouble repeating the study at another location?
I will eat my words if anyone else follows up.
Whether or not anyone chooses to follow it up, do you withdraw your suggestion that it could not be repeated or tested?
On 5/12/25 5:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2025 08:08:56 -0700, erik simpsonI don't withdraw anything. It wouldn't surprise me if the authors
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/25 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 10:52:17 -0700, erik simpsonWe can predict eclipses, I don't believe plants have that capacity.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 07:53:56 -0700, erik simpsonTrees do indeed communicate, but this "study" has many objections. You >>>>> need to look at the original article.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG. The last thing is see in TO is a post by me about an >>>>>>> absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown >>>>>>>> unless someone informs him.
Why dismiss it as absurd out of hand? It would have been more
convincing for you to explain why you think it is absurd.
You seem to be particularly annoyed about them bringing QFT into it >>>>>> but trees are a lifeform just as we are and I can't see why applying >>>>>> QFT to them is any more absurd that invoking it in regard to *any* >>>>>> lifeform.
By coincidence, I was reading this article just before I saw your
post.:
"Never Underestimate the Intelligence of Trees"
https://nautil.us/never-underestimate-the-intelligence-of-trees-237595/ >>>>>>
I have posted previously about the research by Suzanne Simard, the >>>>>> main focus of the article.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.241786
The authors wired up trees in the Italian Dolomites and measured
something that they attributed to older trees anticipating the coming >>>>> eclipse by several hours(!) and warning younger trees.
A) In any gien location, eclipses are very rare.
IOt seems far more important to me that they can be accurately
predicted in advance, allowing controlled studies to take place.
They obviously can't *predict* in the way we can but why is it beyond
the bounds of possibility that they could be reacting to
environmental changes in the lead-up to an eclipse?
B) Eclipse durations are very short, and absolutely of no import toAgain, I don't see the significance of that. Birds and other animals
plants. (Nights are generally much darker and longer than eclipses). >>>>
are known to react in various ways to solar eclipses, I don't see why
trees should be any different.
In other words, the trees might react as they do at night. It would
have been an obvious thing for the investigators to have checked. It
might be harder to detect the reactions because the eclipse only lasts a >>> few minutes.
I would regard their findings as a starting point rather than a final
answer but you seem to be dismissing those findings out of hand.
.r
C) The authors' gratuitously say their analysis uses methods of quantum >>>>> field theory.
They don't just "gratuitously say " they used it, they a detailed
explanation of why they think it is relevant and useful. Do you
dismiss the usefulness of QFT in researching intelligence in general
or just in relation to plants?
QM determines chemistry, and has been used in studying light reception
in animal eyes and chloroplasts (molecular reactions). The authors
weren't doing that. They were sticking detectors into the trees.
"Intelligence" would need a rigorous definition before QM could be used
at all. Real living systems, even simple bacteria, are far beyond the
capacity of any available computation.
That is something that is changing all the time. I haven't kept up to
date with all that is going on in QM but I have seen several articles
about research on its application to the study of consciousness e.g.
https://alleninstitute.org/news/quantum-mechanics-and-the-puzzle-of-human-consciousness/
All of the above should have triggered peer reviewers and editors of the >>>>> journal.
I would like to think that peer reviewers and editors with the Royal
Society know what they are doing.
You have greater faith in the review process than I.
I'm not na|>ve, I know that peer review can and does make mistakes but
those mistakes are generally caught by other scientists. I would
expect that to particularly be the case in regard to a prestigious
journal like that published by the Royal Society. Are you aware of any
scientists attacking this article?
Just what the authors measured is unclear. Did they perform
similar experiments at other times or locations? How could any of this >>>>> be repeated or tested?
The article only reports on their work at one location but they give
precise details of the methods they used; why do you think anyone else >>>> would have trouble repeating the study at another location?
I will eat my words if anyone else follows up.
Whether or not anyone chooses to follow it up, do you withdraw your
suggestion that it could not be repeated or tested?
couldn't repeat their study. I don't expect that there will be any
attacks by reputable scientists, as most would consider it a waste of
time. Lots of stuff gets published that doesn't get thoroughly
reviewed because there are lots of potential reviewers who are also very >busyrushing to publish themselves.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:05:08 -0700, erik simpsonAnathema is too strong. Unconvinced is more like it.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/25 5:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2025 08:08:56 -0700, erik simpsonI don't withdraw anything. It wouldn't surprise me if the authors
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/25 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 10:52:17 -0700, erik simpsonWe can predict eclipses, I don't believe plants have that capacity.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 07:53:56 -0700, erik simpsonTrees do indeed communicate, but this "study" has many objections. You >>>>>> need to look at the original article.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Why dismiss it as absurd out of hand? It would have been more
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG. The last thing is see in TO is a post by me about an
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown >>>>>>>>> unless someone informs him.
absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses. >>>>>>>
convincing for you to explain why you think it is absurd.
You seem to be particularly annoyed about them bringing QFT into it >>>>>>> but trees are a lifeform just as we are and I can't see why applying >>>>>>> QFT to them is any more absurd that invoking it in regard to *any* >>>>>>> lifeform.
By coincidence, I was reading this article just before I saw your >>>>>>> post.:
"Never Underestimate the Intelligence of Trees"
https://nautil.us/never-underestimate-the-intelligence-of-trees-237595/ >>>>>>>
I have posted previously about the research by Suzanne Simard, the >>>>>>> main focus of the article.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.241786
The authors wired up trees in the Italian Dolomites and measured
something that they attributed to older trees anticipating the coming >>>>>> eclipse by several hours(!) and warning younger trees.
A) In any gien location, eclipses are very rare.
IOt seems far more important to me that they can be accurately
predicted in advance, allowing controlled studies to take place.
They obviously can't *predict* in the way we can but why is it beyond
the bounds of possibility that they could be reacting to
environmental changes in the lead-up to an eclipse?
B) Eclipse durations are very short, and absolutely of no import to >>>>>> plants. (Nights are generally much darker and longer than eclipses). >>>>>Again, I don't see the significance of that. Birds and other animals >>>>> are known to react in various ways to solar eclipses, I don't see why >>>>> trees should be any different.
In other words, the trees might react as they do at night. It would
have been an obvious thing for the investigators to have checked. It
might be harder to detect the reactions because the eclipse only lasts a >>>> few minutes.
I would regard their findings as a starting point rather than a final
answer but you seem to be dismissing those findings out of hand.
.r
C) The authors' gratuitously say their analysis uses methods of quantum >>>>>> field theory.
They don't just "gratuitously say " they used it, they a detailed
explanation of why they think it is relevant and useful. Do you
dismiss the usefulness of QFT in researching intelligence in general >>>>> or just in relation to plants?
QM determines chemistry, and has been used in studying light reception >>>> in animal eyes and chloroplasts (molecular reactions). The authors
weren't doing that. They were sticking detectors into the trees.
"Intelligence" would need a rigorous definition before QM could be used >>>> at all. Real living systems, even simple bacteria, are far beyond the >>>> capacity of any available computation.
That is something that is changing all the time. I haven't kept up to
date with all that is going on in QM but I have seen several articles
about research on its application to the study of consciousness e.g.
https://alleninstitute.org/news/quantum-mechanics-and-the-puzzle-of-human-consciousness/
All of the above should have triggered peer reviewers and editors of the >>>>>> journal.
I would like to think that peer reviewers and editors with the Royal >>>>> Society know what they are doing.
You have greater faith in the review process than I.
I'm not na|>ve, I know that peer review can and does make mistakes but
those mistakes are generally caught by other scientists. I would
expect that to particularly be the case in regard to a prestigious
journal like that published by the Royal Society. Are you aware of any
scientists attacking this article?
Just what the authors measured is unclear. Did they perform
similar experiments at other times or locations? How could any of this >>>>>> be repeated or tested?
The article only reports on their work at one location but they give >>>>> precise details of the methods they used; why do you think anyone else >>>>> would have trouble repeating the study at another location?
I will eat my words if anyone else follows up.
Whether or not anyone chooses to follow it up, do you withdraw your
suggestion that it could not be repeated or tested?
couldn't repeat their study. I don't expect that there will be any
attacks by reputable scientists, as most would consider it a waste of
time. Lots of stuff gets published that doesn't get thoroughly
reviewed because there are lots of potential reviewers who are also very
busyrushing to publish themselves.
Sorry but that all sounds a bit wishy-washy to me. I get the distinct impression that for some reason, the very idea of plants and trees
having even a primitive level of consciousness or intelligence is
simply anathema to you.
On 5/12/25 8:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:05:08 -0700, erik simpsonAnathema is too strong.-a Unconvinced is more like it.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/25 5:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2025 08:08:56 -0700, erik simpsonI don't withdraw anything.-a It wouldn't surprise me if the authors
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/25 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 10:52:17 -0700, erik simpsonWe can predict eclipses, I don't believe plants have that capacity.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 07:53:56 -0700, erik simpsonTrees do indeed communicate, but this "study" has many
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Why dismiss it as absurd out of hand? It would have been more
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG.-a The last thing is see in TO is a post by me >>>>>>>>> about an
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've
looked) anything
on talk.origins.-a It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown >>>>>>>>>> unless someone informs him.
absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses. >>>>>>>>
convincing for you to explain why you think it is absurd.
You seem to be particularly annoyed about them bringing QFT into it >>>>>>>> but trees are a lifeform just as we are and I can't see why
applying
QFT to them is any more absurd that invoking it in regard to *any* >>>>>>>> lifeform.
By coincidence, I was reading this article just before I saw your >>>>>>>> post.:
"Never Underestimate the Intelligence of Trees"
https://nautil.us/never-underestimate-the-intelligence-of-trees-237595/
I have posted previously about the research by Suzanne Simard, the >>>>>>>> main focus of the article.
objections. You
need to look at the original article.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.241786
The authors wired up trees in the Italian Dolomites and measured >>>>>>> something that they attributed to older trees anticipating the
coming
eclipse by several hours(!) and warning younger trees.
A) In any gien location, eclipses are very rare.
IOt seems far more important to me that they can be accurately
predicted in advance, allowing controlled studies to take place.
They obviously can't *predict* in the way we can but-a why is it beyond >>>> the bounds of possibility-a that they could be reacting to
environmental changes in the lead-up to an eclipse?
B) Eclipse durations are very short, and absolutely of no import to >>>>>>> plants.-a (Nights are generally much darker and longer than
eclipses).
Again, I don't see the significance of that. Birds and other animals >>>>>> are known to react in various ways to solar eclipses, I don't see why >>>>>> trees should be any different.
In other words, the trees might react as they do at night.-a It would >>>>> have been an obvious thing for the investigators to have checked.-a It >>>>> might be harder to detect the reactions because the eclipse only
lasts a
few minutes.
I would regard their findings as a starting point rather than a final
answer but you seem to be dismissing those findings out of hand.
.r
C) The authors' gratuitously say their analysis uses methods of >>>>>>> quantum
field theory.
They don't just "gratuitously say " they used it, they a detailed
explanation of why they think it is relevant and useful. Do you
dismiss the usefulness of QFT in researching intelligence in general >>>>>> or just in relation to plants?
QM determines chemistry, and has been used in studying light reception >>>>> in animal eyes and chloroplasts (molecular reactions).-a The authors >>>>> weren't doing that.-a They were sticking detectors into the trees.
"Intelligence" would need a rigorous definition before QM could be
used
at all.-a Real living systems, even simple bacteria, are far beyond the >>>>> capacity of any available computation.
That is something that is changing all the time. I haven't kept up to
date with all that is going on in QM but I have seen several articles
about research on its application to the study of consciousness e.g.
https://alleninstitute.org/news/quantum-mechanics-and-the-puzzle-of-human-consciousness/
All of the above should have triggered peer reviewers and editors >>>>>>> of the
journal.
I would like to think that peer reviewers and editors with the Royal >>>>>> Society know what they are doing.
You have greater faith in the review process than I.
I'm not na|>ve, I know that peer review can and does make mistakes but >>>> those mistakes are generally caught by other scientists. I would
expect that to particularly be the case in regard to a prestigious
journal like that published by the Royal Society. Are you aware of any >>>> scientists attacking this article?
Just what the authors measured is unclear.-a Did they perform
similar experiments at other times or locations?-a How could any >>>>>>> of this
be repeated or tested?
The article only reports on their work at one location but they give >>>>>> precise details of the methods they used; why do you think anyone >>>>>> else
would have trouble repeating the study at another location?
I will eat my words if anyone else follows up.
Whether or not anyone chooses to follow it up, do you withdraw your
suggestion that it could not be repeated or tested?
couldn't repeat their study.-a I don't expect that there will be any
attacks by reputable scientists, as most would consider it a waste of
time.-a Lots of stuff gets published that doesn't get thoroughly
reviewed because there are lots of potential reviewers who are also very >>> busyrushing to publish themselves.
Sorry but that all sounds a bit wishy-washy to me. I get the distinct
impression that for some reason, the very idea of plants and trees
having even a primitive level of-a consciousness or intelligence is
simply anathema to you.
On 5/12/25 9:48 AM, erik simpson wrote:Amen. "Tree Thinking" clarified my own understanding of phylogenetic
On 5/12/25 8:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:05:08 -0700, erik simpsonAnathema is too strong.-a Unconvinced is more like it.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/25 5:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2025 08:08:56 -0700, erik simpsonI don't withdraw anything.-a It wouldn't surprise me if the authors
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/25 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:They obviously can't *predict* in the way we can but-a why is it beyond >>>>> the bounds of possibility-a that they could be reacting to
On Fri, 9 May 2025 10:52:17 -0700, erik simpsonWe can predict eclipses, I don't believe plants have that capacity. >>>>>
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 07:53:56 -0700, erik simpsonTrees do indeed communicate, but this "study" has many
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Why dismiss it as absurd out of hand? It would have been more >>>>>>>>> convincing for you to explain why you think it is absurd.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG.-a The last thing is see in TO is a post by me >>>>>>>>>> about an
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've >>>>>>>>>>>> looked) anything
on talk.origins.-a It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown >>>>>>>>>>> unless someone informs him.
absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses. >>>>>>>>>
You seem to be particularly annoyed about them bringing QFT >>>>>>>>> into it
but trees are a lifeform just as we are and I can't see why >>>>>>>>> applying
QFT to them is any more absurd that invoking it in regard to *any* >>>>>>>>> lifeform.
By coincidence, I was reading this article just before I saw your >>>>>>>>> post.:
"Never Underestimate the Intelligence of Trees"
https://nautil.us/never-underestimate-the-intelligence-of-trees-237595/
I have posted previously about the research by Suzanne Simard, the >>>>>>>>> main focus of the article.
objections. You
need to look at the original article.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.241786
The authors wired up trees in the Italian Dolomites and measured >>>>>>>> something that they attributed to older trees anticipating the >>>>>>>> coming
eclipse by several hours(!) and warning younger trees.
A) In any gien location, eclipses are very rare.
IOt seems far more important to me that they can be accurately
predicted in advance, allowing controlled studies to take place. >>>>>>>
environmental changes in the lead-up to an eclipse?
B) Eclipse durations are very short, and absolutely of no import to >>>>>>>> plants.-a (Nights are generally much darker and longer than
eclipses).
Again, I don't see the significance of that. Birds and other animals >>>>>>> are known to react in various ways to solar eclipses, I don't see >>>>>>> why
trees should be any different.
In other words, the trees might react as they do at night.-a It would >>>>>> have been an obvious thing for the investigators to have checked.-a It >>>>>> might be harder to detect the reactions because the eclipse only
lasts a
few minutes.
I would regard their findings as a starting point rather than a final >>>>> answer but you seem to be dismissing those findings out of hand.
.r
C) The authors' gratuitously say their analysis uses methods of >>>>>>>> quantum
field theory.
They don't just "gratuitously say " they used it, they a detailed >>>>>>> explanation of why they think it is relevant and useful. Do you
dismiss the usefulness of QFT in researching intelligence in general >>>>>>> or just in relation to plants?
QM determines chemistry, and has been used in studying light
reception
in animal eyes and chloroplasts (molecular reactions).-a The authors >>>>>> weren't doing that.-a They were sticking detectors into the trees. >>>>>> "Intelligence" would need a rigorous definition before QM could be >>>>>> used
at all.-a Real living systems, even simple bacteria, are far beyond >>>>>> the
capacity of any available computation.
That is something that is changing all the time. I haven't kept up to >>>>> date with all that is going on in QM but I have seen several articles >>>>> about research on its application to the study of consciousness e.g. >>>>>
https://alleninstitute.org/news/quantum-mechanics-and-the-puzzle-of-human-consciousness/
All of the above should have triggered peer reviewers and
editors of the
journal.
I would like to think that peer reviewers and editors with the Royal >>>>>>> Society know what they are doing.
You have greater faith in the review process than I.
I'm not na|>ve, I know that peer review can and does make mistakes but >>>>> those mistakes are generally caught by other scientists. I would
expect that to particularly be the case in regard to a prestigious
journal like that published by the Royal Society. Are you aware of any >>>>> scientists attacking this article?
Just what the authors measured is unclear.-a Did they perform
similar experiments at other times or locations?-a How could any >>>>>>>> of this
be repeated or tested?
The article only reports on their work at one location but they give >>>>>>> precise details of the methods they used; why do you think anyone >>>>>>> else
would have trouble repeating the study at another location?
I will eat my words if anyone else follows up.
Whether or not anyone chooses to follow it up, do you withdraw your
suggestion that it could not be repeated or tested?
couldn't repeat their study.-a I don't expect that there will be any
attacks by reputable scientists, as most would consider it a waste of
time.-a Lots of stuff gets published that doesn't get thoroughly
reviewed because there are lots of potential reviewers who are also
very
busyrushing to publish themselves.
Sorry but that all sounds a bit wishy-washy to me. I get the distinct
impression that for some reason, the very idea of plants and trees
having even a primitive level of-a consciousness or intelligence is
simply anathema to you.
I strongly recommend the book "Tree Thinking", which is relevant to paleontology but not to the topic here, even though it sounds as if it
would be. Then again, the topic here is not relevant to this group,
while "Tree Thinking" is.
On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:05:08 -0700, erik simpsonConsider the *likelihood* that the experiment itself is reacting to environmental changes in the lead-up to an eclipse.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/12/25 5:57 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2025 08:08:56 -0700, erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/10/25 2:01 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 10:52:17 -0700, erik simpsonWe can predict eclipses, I don't believe plants have that capacity.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 9:47 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 07:53:56 -0700, erik simpsonTrees do indeed communicate, but this "study" has many objections. You >>>>>> need to look at the original article.
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/9/25 4:08 AM, Martin Harran wrote:Why dismiss it as absurd out of hand? It would have been more
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 13:04:35 -0700, erik simpsonI just wrote DIG. The last thing is see in TO is a post by me about an
<eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
Just out of curiosity, has anyone here seen (if you've looked) anything
on talk.origins. It seems to be dead.
Has anyone contact DIG? He doesn't always pick up on a breakdown >>>>>>>>> unless someone informs him.
absurd article indicating that pine trees can predict eclipses. >>>>>>>
convincing for you to explain why you think it is absurd.
You seem to be particularly annoyed about them bringing QFT into it >>>>>>> but trees are a lifeform just as we are and I can't see why applying >>>>>>> QFT to them is any more absurd that invoking it in regard to *any* >>>>>>> lifeform.
By coincidence, I was reading this article just before I saw your >>>>>>> post.:
"Never Underestimate the Intelligence of Trees"
https://nautil.us/never-underestimate-the-intelligence-of-trees-237595/ >>>>>>>
I have posted previously about the research by Suzanne Simard, the >>>>>>> main focus of the article.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.241786
The authors wired up trees in the Italian Dolomites and measured
something that they attributed to older trees anticipating the coming >>>>>> eclipse by several hours(!) and warning younger trees.
A) In any gien location, eclipses are very rare.
IOt seems far more important to me that they can be accurately
predicted in advance, allowing controlled studies to take place.
They obviously can't *predict* in the way we can but why is it beyond
the bounds of possibility that they could be reacting to
environmental changes in the lead-up to an eclipse?
IOW when Eric recognizes that the data don't support the authors'I don't withdraw anything. It wouldn't surprise me if the authors >>couldn't repeat their study. I don't expect that there will be any >>attacks by reputable scientists, as most would consider it a waste of >>time. Lots of stuff gets published that doesn't get thoroughlyB) Eclipse durations are very short, and absolutely of no import to >>>>>> plants. (Nights are generally much darker and longer than eclipses). >>>>>Again, I don't see the significance of that. Birds and other animals >>>>> are known to react in various ways to solar eclipses, I don't see why >>>>> trees should be any different.
In other words, the trees might react as they do at night. It would
have been an obvious thing for the investigators to have checked. It
might be harder to detect the reactions because the eclipse only lasts a >>>> few minutes.
I would regard their findings as a starting point rather than a final
answer but you seem to be dismissing those findings out of hand.
.r
C) The authors' gratuitously say their analysis uses methods of quantum >>>>>> field theory.
They don't just "gratuitously say " they used it, they a detailed
explanation of why they think it is relevant and useful. Do you
dismiss the usefulness of QFT in researching intelligence in general >>>>> or just in relation to plants?
QM determines chemistry, and has been used in studying light reception >>>> in animal eyes and chloroplasts (molecular reactions). The authors
weren't doing that. They were sticking detectors into the trees.
"Intelligence" would need a rigorous definition before QM could be used >>>> at all. Real living systems, even simple bacteria, are far beyond the >>>> capacity of any available computation.
That is something that is changing all the time. I haven't kept up to
date with all that is going on in QM but I have seen several articles
about research on its application to the study of consciousness e.g.
https://alleninstitute.org/news/quantum-mechanics-and-the-puzzle-of-human-consciousness/
All of the above should have triggered peer reviewers and editors of the >>>>>> journal.
I would like to think that peer reviewers and editors with the Royal >>>>> Society know what they are doing.
You have greater faith in the review process than I.
I'm not na|>ve, I know that peer review can and does make mistakes but
those mistakes are generally caught by other scientists. I would
expect that to particularly be the case in regard to a prestigious
journal like that published by the Royal Society. Are you aware of any
scientists attacking this article?
Just what the authors measured is unclear. Did they perform
similar experiments at other times or locations? How could any of this >>>>>> be repeated or tested?
The article only reports on their work at one location but they give >>>>> precise details of the methods they used; why do you think anyone else >>>>> would have trouble repeating the study at another location?
I will eat my words if anyone else follows up.
Whether or not anyone chooses to follow it up, do you withdraw your
suggestion that it could not be repeated or tested?
reviewed because there are lots of potential reviewers who are also very >>busyrushing to publish themselves.
Sorry but that all sounds a bit wishy-washy to me. I get the distinct >impression that for some reason, the very idea of plants and trees
having even a primitive level of consciousness or intelligence is
simply anathema to you.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 62:53:30 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,051 |