Human, to dog: What's on the outside of a tree? Dog: Bark! Human: And how does it feel? Dog: Ruff!
Also.. Human: What's on top of a house? Dog: Roof!
@OhioMike Thanks for the additional pics. It’s great seeing the trees throughout the seasons. Right now when I look outside my window, the neighbors still dominate my view 😕. But patience is a virtue, I guess.
@Allerdale Thanks for introducing a concept that I never knew about. People have a hard enough time grasping each other’s sentience. So it’s a challenge to extend this understanding to the natural world. Honestly, I always thought that humanity would end up laying waste to the planet and living in biodomes. So it’s encouraging to think that the trees and plants could have some sort of sentience. That they could find a way to survive, maybe even outsmart us.
@DarrenWalker I'd advise you to check your premise re: the sentience of trees and pain that plants feel when cut/consumed/poisoned etc. I can send you links if you wish.
@Designergirl: Well, I do think it would be lovely if plants could suffer. So by all means—send me the evidence. If plants can be tortured, I'd very much like to believe they can be tortured. Think what I'd be missing out on if they could, and I didn't!
Will change that slightly: if good cuddles were trees they would be deeply rooted with their tops reaching the heavens...
@DarrenWalker https://e360.yale.edu/features/are_trees_sentient_peter_wohlleben
Thanks, @Designergirl. That gives me a nice bit of reading to do over my weekend.
Edit: ...Wait.... This is Peter Wohlleben. This is about the Wood Wide Web, isn't it? Whee. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Trees 'communicate' the way cameras 'see': without awareness, without thought, without sentience.
Computer programs swap more data than plants—communication isn't sentience.
Lol japanese maple?
@DarrenWalker "able to perceive or feel things" is the definition, do you have a different one?
Not at all, @Designergirl. What about you—do you think perception doesn't require awareness?
Personally, I wouldn't say a camera perceives anything. A scale doesn't feel weight. They register these things, as a tree registers the presence (or absence) of photons or nutrients, but there's no feeling going on; no perception, no awareness, no sentience.
Or do you believe surveillance networks are sentient?
@Designergirl I took the liberty of looking this up.
perceive (v) 1. To take in or apprehend with the mind or senses. (OED)
Perceive is not the same as detect, or be affected by. A crystal glass can detect being hit by a train: you could even claim that it reacts appropriately. But it does not 'perceive' the train, because that requires a mind, which it does not have.
Similarly, a light-dependent resistor does not perceive light, even though it reacts to it.
Any cell, in any living creature, is able to detect various stimuli and respond appropriately - that is how cells work. The cells in the tips of tree roots are no different.
A tree may be able to detect an adjacent tree of the same species and respond in a particular way. Hooray, we didn't know that before and now we have improved our understanding of trees. But that is not evidence for 'perception'.
@DarrenWalker I'm a not a scientist by training, just did the lazy thing and google articles on the subject, read a few, made my comment. You've doubtless done this too, so you've seen the multiple articles out there. Curious do you believe animals are sentient? What about engineering species like coral or bees? Also if this interests you would you prefer a PM as this seems to be a derailment.
@Designergirl: It's fortunate that the scientific method isn't restricted to scientists. Observation, logic, and reason work for anybody who has a capacity for them!
This subject is such an interesting one that it seems a shame to exclude other participants. It might be time for a new thread.
Sentience isn't restricted to the human animal, no—but we definitely seem to have the highest level of conscious awareness out there, on average. Cats pass the mirror test, for instance. Bees? Haven't looked into it. Coral? I very much doubt it. No brains there, you see. Sentience requires a mind.
And do you think groups of interconnected cameras are sentient? You never answered that.
@DarrenWalker It may be interesting for you, but I believe scientists possess more knowledge that the average logical reasoning human. I trust you will find others to engage you.
@Designergirl: In their areas of expertise, all experts have more knowledge than non-experts. That's kinda the point of experts.
Fortunately for everybody, it doesn't take specialized knowledge to read a definition, look at a piece of reality, and go: "Oh, no... since sentience requires perception, which requires a mind, mindless things aren't sentient no matter how neat it is that this traffic light can detect a vehicle at it, and turn green in response."
I get that you're trying to argue for the presence of vegetable minds, though.
You like the thought! It pleases you! And you've found at least one forester and author willing to stretch the definition of sentience to make trees (yes, and surveillance systems) fit—though he's not a scientist, and doesn't explore the implications of his newly stretched definition, I can see how accepting his definition could be fun for people.
Mycorrhizal networks aren't evidence of sentience, though. I studied the subject briefly a few years back, and didn't see anything written by any scientist who would argue that they were.
That you're willing to engage me in private ("would you prefer a PM") but not in public (where at least one other person has been interested enough to try and participate)... well, that suggests that all you're really looking for is agreement and fun in public, not truth. Which is fair enough!
I do find myself wondering how you'd treat the topic in private, though.
Would you still argue insufficient competency? You may lack scientific training, but the scientific method isn't complex—all you need is practice! And knowledge, why, that comes with study. I believe in you, Designergirl. If you really want to, I believe you'll never have to say "I'm not a scientist by training" ever again. You can become one! Or... so I believe.
I have that faith in your mental capacity. You are human, after all. Surely it's a rare human who can't learn to observe clearly and think logically!
(@UltimateChungus and I have... differing opinions on this point. Oh well; that's another topic.)
@DarrenWalker Since you are sentient you should be aware that she said in a tactful way to drop it and pursue this with someone else. This is where you sometimes go off the rails with people. Not trying to be an ass to you, just pointing this out before you are left wondering why someone is once again mad at you.
...Oh. Thanks, @FunCartel.
@DarrenWalker I’m not sure if you’re trying to be mean on purpose here since tones can be off when read, but multiple people have stated they believe in the sentience of trees. Can you just drop it and stop arguing (and also calling the people who do believe stupid and non-scientific). Your way of thinking is not the only way even if you’re backed by scientific theories. Stop it.
@Allerdale: I... don't think I've called anyone stupid, or non-scientific.
Reality is what it is no matter what anyone believes about it—so if trees really are sentient, why, I'd like to believe they are. Show me the reality! That's what I'm doing: asking for evidence.
Is asking for evidence mean? Is it rude not to accept the vegetable sentience version of "Dear Virginia" as evidence? I mean... it's not evidence. And if I'm going to have beliefs that are true (you know, that match reality), I'm going to need proof for them, aren't I?
I didn't realize it was mean to want to make sure your own beliefs match reality.
Dear All, I googled evidence of tree communication... following results came up::
Mycorrhizal Networks Facilitate Tree Communication, Learning, and Memory Suzanne W. Simard
Rapid Changes in Tree Leaf Chemistry Induced by Damage: Evidence for Communication Between Plants IAN T. BALDWIN1, JACK C. SCHULTZ1
I am not an expert at this but one of the authors could perhaps help.
I've been the spirit of a lot of trees over the years. The first was a swamp oak whose purpose was to rejuvenate the last pool of a dying swamp and give it back to its nearby brethren who were stuck at the edge of an encroaching desert. The next was a birch that learned to keep a large flock of chickens safe from suffocating themselves. Another began as an oak that extended its roots to such an extreme that they tunneled across the world and burst out in fabulous swirls that resembled vines; one root even grew a gigantic flower where it surfaced. One cherry tree extended its roots through dimensional portals and enjoyed growing a gigantic copy of itself. One dark oak was the source of rivers across the world. One banyan housed a village. One giant spruce gave birth to an entire forest. One golden tree that I can't remember the name of spent most of its time increasing the power of the world's magical energy nodes. And there are others that have faded into the background of memories.
I like the long-lived patience and stillness of trees. I like how they dance with the wind and show it's invisible beauty to the world. I like how sturdy they are and how fragile they are. And I like how they never shy away from touch; if you give them something, they'll wrap it up tight.
I spent years playing the Tree Spirit Challenge in Minecraft and ran a server specifically for hosting a tree spirit community. Its old forums still exist for the curious who want to explore the past. We were called Treecrafters, and I've always been Mailleweaver. Here's the story of my first tree. https://treecrafters.forumotion.com/t371-reminiscence
@DarrenWalker
Your logic and reason hurts and offends me. Stop asking questions—it's very upsetting, and it calls into question the validity of who I am as an individual. I will not stand for it. You've called people who believe in the sentience of trees "knuckle-dragging dirt people" and "genome-throwbacks" at least a dozen times in each of your posts, and it's exceedingly cruel.
YOU ARE BEING A BRAIN TERRORIST. STOP THINKING.
@UltimateChungus: That... clears up a lot, actually. Thank you.
I feel like this thread has gotten a bit off track. It started off as a light-hearted question for fun and has turned into a debate over the sentience of trees.. I feel like there's a different place for this discussion.
I am reminded of this though (Rush - The Trees):
@FlyingToaster: I know, right? I've tried making new threads to move debates to before, but somehow it never works—people keep posting in the derailed thread instead.
No.
You ask questions. Too many questions. You shouldn't do this, because you might make people feel bad. It doesn't matter if anyone makes extraordinary claims about reality and they lack extraordinary evidence to support their claims—it's not your place (especially in a public forum where people often exchange ideas) to introduce doubt and fear, to attack another person with reason and logic.
Stop it. Just stop it.
STOP.
If you keep doing this, the wily goblin who lives in my closet will exact vengeance upon you for fraying the very fabric of who I am. I know, I know, you're thinking "What goblin? What sort of vengeance?"
You're doing it again. Stop it stop it stop it!
I stamped my foot three times while writing "stop it" just now. You better hope that I didn't wake up a nearby moleperson, because if I did, I'll be sending them your way.
@UltimateChungus The sarcasm is strong here.
Trees? Nevermind. I'll just go away again. There's no point in watching people argue.