Re: talk.origins

On 5/12/25 9:48 AM, erik simpson wrote:

On 5/12/25 8:40 AM, Martin Harran wrote:

On Mon, 12 May 2025 08:05:08 -0700, erik simpson
<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 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 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 simpson
<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.

I 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.

>
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.
>
>
>

Trees do indeed communicate, but this "study" has many 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.
>

We can predict eclipses, I don't believe plants have that capacity.

>
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 naïve, 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?
>
>
>

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 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.

Anathema is too strong.  Unconvinced is more like it.

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.