Plants can detect sound(economist.com)
economist.com
Plants can detect sound
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/09/06/plants-dont-have-ears-but-they-can-still-detect-sound
117 comments
> One hypothesis is that volatile organic compounds emitted from host plant leaves induce a phenotypic change in nearby B. trifoliolata leaves. By receiving different host signals into its system, it is able to create specific signals and hormones in its tissues to regulate gene transcription of leaf morphology and developmental pathways for leaf differentiation.[12] The other hypothesis is that there could be horizontal gene transfer between the host and B. trifoliolata. A separate study also conducted by Gianoli et al. suggests that bacterial agents, which could mediate a horizontal gene transfer, may play a role in leaf mimicry by B. trifoliolata.
See, here are two perfectly reasonable explanations for the mimicry that don't involve "seeing" anything.
> A 2021 paper suggested that the plant has some sort of vision using ocelli. This hypothesis was presented on the basis of experiments in which the vine appeared to mimic plastic vines and artificial plants.
Plastic vines and artificial plants too!? There go those two theories.
See, here are two perfectly reasonable explanations for the mimicry that don't involve "seeing" anything.
> A 2021 paper suggested that the plant has some sort of vision using ocelli. This hypothesis was presented on the basis of experiments in which the vine appeared to mimic plastic vines and artificial plants.
Plastic vines and artificial plants too!? There go those two theories.
shadow patterns and reflected light from nearby leaves or leaf- like bits of plastic as signals perhaps?
Paper on the experiment, where they test if the plant will mimic the leaves of an artificial plastic plant: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8903786/
Quite a read, I hope others replicate the study, because this is fascinating. If we're able to really point in the direction that the plant uses vision to mimic other plants leaves (even artificial plant), I wonder how that vision works!
Quite a read, I hope others replicate the study, because this is fascinating. If we're able to really point in the direction that the plant uses vision to mimic other plants leaves (even artificial plant), I wonder how that vision works!
There should have been multiple types mimic-leaves because we cannot rule out this is the plants normal growth.
Also should have let the plant grow without any mimic leaves and with an actually growing plant.
Also should have let the plant grow without any mimic leaves and with an actually growing plant.
> There should have been multiple types mimic-leaves because we cannot rule out this is the plants normal growth.
From the Wikipedia article [0] linked by the GP:
> Ernesto Gianoli said "Boquila's leaves are extraordinarily diverse. The biggest ones can be 10 times bigger than the smallest, and they can vary from very light to very dark. In around three-quarters of cases, they are similar to the closest leaf from another tree, matching it in size, area, length of stalk, angle, and color. Boquila's leaves can even grow a spiny tip when, and only when, it climbs onto a shrub with spine-tipped leaves."[5]
> When there are no nearby host leaves to influence them, the normal leaves of B. trifoliolata are relatively short and light green with rounded edges.[6]
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boquila
From the Wikipedia article [0] linked by the GP:
> Ernesto Gianoli said "Boquila's leaves are extraordinarily diverse. The biggest ones can be 10 times bigger than the smallest, and they can vary from very light to very dark. In around three-quarters of cases, they are similar to the closest leaf from another tree, matching it in size, area, length of stalk, angle, and color. Boquila's leaves can even grow a spiny tip when, and only when, it climbs onto a shrub with spine-tipped leaves."[5]
> When there are no nearby host leaves to influence them, the normal leaves of B. trifoliolata are relatively short and light green with rounded edges.[6]
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boquila
>"This is a deeply flawed article based on a poorly designed experiment and reflects significant author bias in the interpretation of the results,” wrote Washington State University horticultural physiologist Linda Chalker-Scott in a blog post earlier this year.
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/can-plants-see-in...
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/can-plants-see-in...
Plants having some form of vision doesn't that extraordinary of an idea to me. They can clearly detect light because of photosynthesis. Plants will also grow/turn towards the light. Ie they have a way to detect light. It doesn't seem that crazy to me that they could have some mutation that uses the information the plant gets from light.
Wow this is insane. I wonder if this could have real world application?
Plant-based surveillance cameras, obviously.
Roald Dahl wrote a short story, 'The Sound Machine' that's on very similar lines. Looks like it can be found in its entirety here:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1949/09/17/the-sound-mach...
Oh wow. I've been trying to find that story for decades but couldn't remember title or author. I read it as a teenager and it left an impression. Thank you for posting!
Just read “The Day of the Triffids” by John Wyndham (1951)[1]. It’s a great, classic horror sci-fi novel where plants can hear and talk to each other. Big influence for “Annihilation” and “28 Days Later.” Gotta love it when some crazy fictional idea turns out to have some factual (?) basis.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids
I think Annihilation is more a shameless remake of Stalker, as far as going into a "Zone" where an alien influence has changed the nature of reality.
I wouldn't say Annihilation is in any way a remake of Stalker, shameless or not. It is clearly inspired by it a bit in terms of setting, but it has a very different message to say. Stalker was essentially a movie about faith. Annihilation is a movie about self-destruction, both in the destructive sense, but also as a necessary step to building a new self.
The concept of a special zone where things are not the same as in normal reality is merely a shared motif.
The concept of a special zone where things are not the same as in normal reality is merely a shared motif.
I think the setting is a pretty big part of Annihilation. The "about" is something that's shared by many different works, but the setting is a bit more unusual.
So while I don't agree that it's a shameless remake, I would say the most distinctive thing about it is the setting, and so to some extent it's a fair cop.
So while I don't agree that it's a shameless remake, I would say the most distinctive thing about it is the setting, and so to some extent it's a fair cop.
If we go into details about the setting, it is still vastly different from Stalker. The Zone in Stalker is only vaguely and mysteriously abnormal, in a subtle, mostly faith-based kind of way.
By contrast, the Zone in Annihilation is very overtly supernatural, and in very specific ways that are important to the point it's trying to make - merging and recombining humans and the problems that face them, and manifesting internal struggles externally. To be fair, the Zone in Roadside Picnic, the novel Stalker adapts, is also more overtly supernatural, but still in a very different way.
I really don't think it's fair to consider Stalker or Roadside Picnic anything more than inspiration for Annihilation.
By contrast, the Zone in Annihilation is very overtly supernatural, and in very specific ways that are important to the point it's trying to make - merging and recombining humans and the problems that face them, and manifesting internal struggles externally. To be fair, the Zone in Roadside Picnic, the novel Stalker adapts, is also more overtly supernatural, but still in a very different way.
I really don't think it's fair to consider Stalker or Roadside Picnic anything more than inspiration for Annihilation.
I thought the accepted explanation of Annihilation was a metaphor for cancer. The slow seemingly unstoppable spread. Mutations creating new things that mimic the familiar but in often grotesque ways, mechanistically expanding to destructively consume everything in its path into a new form of life.
The move Annihilation was based on the book of the same name (first of a trilogy):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation_(VanderMeer_novel...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation_(VanderMeer_novel...
VanderMeer wrote the introduction for the new (Modern Library) edition of “The Day of the Triffids”!
Similar structure, yes.
The questions about the realness of the Zone and the motives of the characters, allowed for much deeper and broader implications.
Annihilation was more specific and overlapped too much with explicit pre-existing myth(s), to be a remake of Stalker.
The questions about the realness of the Zone and the motives of the characters, allowed for much deeper and broader implications.
Annihilation was more specific and overlapped too much with explicit pre-existing myth(s), to be a remake of Stalker.
I thought Annihilation is more of a re-thinking of HP Lovecrafts story "The Colour out of Space". You should totally read it, it's fantastically creepy and clearly influenced the film.
Yes! I think you're right. That's a great connection, never thought of Annihilation in that way. "Color out of Space" is the first HPL story I ever read, and still one of my favorites.
Annihilation reminded me of Ballard’s The Crystal World in which all living things are slowly but surely being consumed.
I ththought of this: https://youtu.be/b9UO9tn4MpI?si=JhvoaRUdBLed-LBR
I thought of this [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants
This one of the same author is equally interesting [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGmlDY2sDg8
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGmlDY2sDg8
They don't have eyes but can detect light, too...
they don't have feet but they can detect gravity too and grow vertically when they can
Why the change in the title? It is not the original and there is nothing clikbaity about it. Is HN now editorializing the Economist?
The "plants don't have ears" part of the original title was, at best, unnecessarily folksy.
Guidelines say: "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
I'm saying is probably click bait.
Concision?
"Plants don't have ears." - Learn something new every day.
Don't trust everything on the internet. At least some plants have ears. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ear_(botany)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ear_(botany)
Equivocation fallacy.
As an aside, insects often use their feet to “hear” vibrations from the plant they are standing on, allowing them to seemingly “silently” communicate with others on that plant by transmitting vibrations through it, or detect when an animal is coming along.
Notably in my experience, corn rootworm beetle were especially adept at hearing me walking along through corn and hiding before there was any possibility of seeing me. I’d have to stop and be still for a minute for them to start crawling about again.
Notably in my experience, corn rootworm beetle were especially adept at hearing me walking along through corn and hiding before there was any possibility of seeing me. I’d have to stop and be still for a minute for them to start crawling about again.
There was an experiment where a scientist (I think it was Pask) built a cybernetic chemical machine in a petri dish. When the requirement to respond to sound was introduced, the machine grew "ears": spines of different lengths (that therefore vibrated at different resonant frequencies like the hairs in the inner ear.) (One of the most fascinating and terrifying experiments ever conducted IMO.)
Then there was the famous case of the program optimized by genetic programming that wouldn't function correctly on any but the FPGA it was evolved on; the program had adapted itself to idiosyncrasies of the hardware that were invisible on the level of the specification.
Just as Lord Kelvin's Thunderstorm evolves an electric charge so evolution, uh, evolves whatever potentialities are there and adaptive.
In sum, duh. Of course plants are sensitive to sound. The contradictory hypothesis would be that there's nothing useful to plants in their soundscape. And doesn't that sound obviously silly?
Then there was the famous case of the program optimized by genetic programming that wouldn't function correctly on any but the FPGA it was evolved on; the program had adapted itself to idiosyncrasies of the hardware that were invisible on the level of the specification.
Just as Lord Kelvin's Thunderstorm evolves an electric charge so evolution, uh, evolves whatever potentialities are there and adaptive.
In sum, duh. Of course plants are sensitive to sound. The contradictory hypothesis would be that there's nothing useful to plants in their soundscape. And doesn't that sound obviously silly?
This may sound like a dumb question but can anyone explain to me why our senses are not all just considered touch? Molecules touch your tongue and you taste things. Molecules touch your nose and you smell things. Air vibrates your inner ear hairs and you hear things. Photons hit your eyes and you see things (not sure if this counts but it seems like it could).
Touch is measuring motion or sustained pressure. Taste doesn't care about how hard the molecules hit your taste receptors, only if they bind to the taste receptors or not. Our eyes don't measure the photon pressure[1], the photons react with the atoms in our photoreceptor cells[2] triggering an electrochemical process.
Our sense of hearing is the closest to touch. We have hairs on our body which is part of our sense of touch, which react to motion and pressure, both from physical objects and the air around us.
Similarly the hairs in our ears react to the pressure waves of the air around us. However a big difference is that they're shielded by the ear drum and don't react to sustained pressure, only relatively high-frequency air pressure changes.
Why we call them different things is mostly because they're used for different tasks. An electrical generator and an electrical motor can be the same thing, it's just what it's used for.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_phototransduction
Our sense of hearing is the closest to touch. We have hairs on our body which is part of our sense of touch, which react to motion and pressure, both from physical objects and the air around us.
Similarly the hairs in our ears react to the pressure waves of the air around us. However a big difference is that they're shielded by the ear drum and don't react to sustained pressure, only relatively high-frequency air pressure changes.
Why we call them different things is mostly because they're used for different tasks. An electrical generator and an electrical motor can be the same thing, it's just what it's used for.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_phototransduction
If you're going to categorise senses into the usual five, which is what seems to be going on here, then hot, cold and pain are going to count as "touch" too. Those aren't about measuring motion so this explanation doesn't seem to work.
Hot and cold do measure motion, if we want to be very technical (since temperature is just a measure of the average momentum of molecules).
Pain should probably be considered a separate sense indeed, though it can also be argued it is something different from the senses themselves, since it is fully internal, it doesn't reveal some fact about the outside world.
Pain should probably be considered a separate sense indeed, though it can also be argued it is something different from the senses themselves, since it is fully internal, it doesn't reveal some fact about the outside world.
Trigger warning: description of medical procedure.
Yes pain seems more like the interpretation of sense data, like if something sounds nice or tastes good?
When I had an operation under local anesthetic I still felt the knife cutting into me, but was able to interpret it as not painful? This is how opiates (for pain relief) have been described to me -- still allowing you to feel the sensations but allowing you to not 'feel' the pain.
Perhaps seeing with human biology knowledge can tell me why this is wrong!?
Yes pain seems more like the interpretation of sense data, like if something sounds nice or tastes good?
When I had an operation under local anesthetic I still felt the knife cutting into me, but was able to interpret it as not painful? This is how opiates (for pain relief) have been described to me -- still allowing you to feel the sensations but allowing you to not 'feel' the pain.
Perhaps seeing with human biology knowledge can tell me why this is wrong!?
> Although in some cultures five human senses were traditionally identified as such (namely sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing), it is now recognized that there are many more.
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
Yes of course (e.g. orientation from inner ear; proprioception; and others). But the context of the conversation was about the traditional understanding of "touch". I was trying to avoid the commenter I was replying to backing out of their point saying that they considered hot/cold and pain to be separate senses.
If you want to get that reductive, ultimately everything in the universe is just particles and forces and interactions between them, and any concepts beyond that are arbitrary lines drawn by us humans in an attempt to organize the chaos.
In the case of senses, it's about perception. We perceive the signals from our retinas differently than the ones from our fingertips, so we give them different names (sight vs. touch).
There are also differences in the "hardware" -- sight and touch signals start with different kinds of receptors, travel down different nerves, and are processed in different parts of the brain -- but the hardware differences don't map 1:1 to the way that we categorize senses. For example, pain and pressure are processed by entirely different types of receptors, but we still call them both touch. On the flip side, balance and hearing share a lot of the same hardware, but we consider them to be different senses.
In the case of senses, it's about perception. We perceive the signals from our retinas differently than the ones from our fingertips, so we give them different names (sight vs. touch).
There are also differences in the "hardware" -- sight and touch signals start with different kinds of receptors, travel down different nerves, and are processed in different parts of the brain -- but the hardware differences don't map 1:1 to the way that we categorize senses. For example, pain and pressure are processed by entirely different types of receptors, but we still call them both touch. On the flip side, balance and hearing share a lot of the same hardware, but we consider them to be different senses.
touch isn't one sense either. You have separate organs in the skin for high and low frequency vibrations, pressure, and more.
Merkel's disks (close to surface, sense edges and slight pressure) Meissner corpuscles (close to surface, sense fine vibrations) Pacinian corpuscles (Deep, sense low frequency vibrations and heavy pressure) Ruffini endings (Sense skin stretching)
Not to mention other touch-like senses like pain, heat/cold, and burns. There are also separate dedicated mechanisms for erogenous zones (Krause end-bulbs) Your brain does a fine job interpreting all of these together but they are totally different biological mechanisms
Merkel's disks (close to surface, sense edges and slight pressure) Meissner corpuscles (close to surface, sense fine vibrations) Pacinian corpuscles (Deep, sense low frequency vibrations and heavy pressure) Ruffini endings (Sense skin stretching)
Not to mention other touch-like senses like pain, heat/cold, and burns. There are also separate dedicated mechanisms for erogenous zones (Krause end-bulbs) Your brain does a fine job interpreting all of these together but they are totally different biological mechanisms
> but can anyone explain to me why our senses are not all just considered touch
s/considered/named/ , if everything were called "touch" then we'd need new language to differentiate between stuff interacting with visible light, air pressure waves, etc. \
The other question is can the sense of "touch" be broken down further? And the answer is yes, there are distinct "sense of touch" systems that measure different kinds of movement (stretching, low frequency vibration, high frequency vibration, ...) and these are used in ways that may be surprising (e.g. feeling details of a surface is mediated more through vibrations than by "displacement/distance" type senses)
also for building practical intuition, they can be temporarily turned off via adaptation - i.e. hold on to something vibrating at 20Hz for a few minutes, now you've blown out the Meissner's Corpuscle / low freq system while retaining the others
Some intro material below
s/considered/named/ , if everything were called "touch" then we'd need new language to differentiate between stuff interacting with visible light, air pressure waves, etc. \
The other question is can the sense of "touch" be broken down further? And the answer is yes, there are distinct "sense of touch" systems that measure different kinds of movement (stretching, low frequency vibration, high frequency vibration, ...) and these are used in ways that may be surprising (e.g. feeling details of a surface is mediated more through vibrations than by "displacement/distance" type senses)
also for building practical intuition, they can be temporarily turned off via adaptation - i.e. hold on to something vibrating at 20Hz for a few minutes, now you've blown out the Meissner's Corpuscle / low freq system while retaining the others
Some intro material below
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatosensory_system
- https://pressbooks.umn.edu/sensationandperception/chapter/mechanoreceptors-draft/
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/mechanoreceptor
- chapters are on scihub: https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4377-2411-0.00024-1Sure, any interaction between our bodies and the universe can be considered an interaction of touch.
All of our senses involve some form of matter/energy touching us.
- Photons touching our retina cells...
- Molecules touching our taste buds...
- Air molecules touching our ear hairs...
- Some amount of matter or electromagnetic energy touching our skin...
- Molecules touching our olfactory sensory neurons...
IMO we do not describe them as all just being touch as:
1) Saying they all are touch doesn't help differentiate the different senses and how they work.
2) It's a bit too low level.
This is similar to saying there is no need for the separate disciplines of biology & chemistry because it's all just physics after all. So we might as well dump those subjects completely.
Imagine being introduced to science at school but there is only one subject, physics, so you only "eventually" learn chemistry & biology through the lens of their physical atomic interactions.
Imagine trying to describe a cell through the frame of atomic interactions and no higher level abstractions allowed.
All science being physics is far less useful than being able to step over the base level going's on and make higher level abstractions so that you work at the appropriate "topology/focus/subdivision" level for the scientific discipline in question.
Anyways that's what I thought of when considering all senses are touch, it's just a bit too low level and ambiguous to be useful.
All of our senses involve some form of matter/energy touching us.
- Photons touching our retina cells...
- Molecules touching our taste buds...
- Air molecules touching our ear hairs...
- Some amount of matter or electromagnetic energy touching our skin...
- Molecules touching our olfactory sensory neurons...
IMO we do not describe them as all just being touch as:
1) Saying they all are touch doesn't help differentiate the different senses and how they work.
2) It's a bit too low level.
This is similar to saying there is no need for the separate disciplines of biology & chemistry because it's all just physics after all. So we might as well dump those subjects completely.
Imagine being introduced to science at school but there is only one subject, physics, so you only "eventually" learn chemistry & biology through the lens of their physical atomic interactions.
Imagine trying to describe a cell through the frame of atomic interactions and no higher level abstractions allowed.
All science being physics is far less useful than being able to step over the base level going's on and make higher level abstractions so that you work at the appropriate "topology/focus/subdivision" level for the scientific discipline in question.
Anyways that's what I thought of when considering all senses are touch, it's just a bit too low level and ambiguous to be useful.
“The map is not the territory.”
- Alfred Korzybski
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
- Alfred Korzybski
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
I recommend you check out An Immense world by Ed Yong - many senses are arguably 'touch tuned for something'. Though taste and smell and vision are not.
Sort of reminds me of the argument that nothing can be artificial because we, as natural beings are making said things and thus following the chain, everything is technically originated from nature.
It's technically correct and does highlight that calling something artificial doesn't make it inherently inferior to something natural, but if we extended the meaning of natural like that, the term artificial would become meaningless while the need to distinguish between the "naturalness" of a CPU vs a plant would remain.
It's technically correct and does highlight that calling something artificial doesn't make it inherently inferior to something natural, but if we extended the meaning of natural like that, the term artificial would become meaningless while the need to distinguish between the "naturalness" of a CPU vs a plant would remain.
> Molecules touch your nose and you smell things. Air vibrates your inner ear hairs and you hear things. Photons hit your eyes and you see things (not sure if this counts but it seems like it could).
You can see things in the dark with your eyes closed, you can hear things in a vacuum sealed isolation chamber, you can smell things without any there being anything smelly and you can feel things without touching anything.
Rather than every sense being touch, every sense seems mental.
You can see things in the dark with your eyes closed, you can hear things in a vacuum sealed isolation chamber, you can smell things without any there being anything smelly and you can feel things without touching anything.
Rather than every sense being touch, every sense seems mental.
Similar to a question I had in physics class at school, which was quickly brushed aside by the teacher, who wanted to continue with the content: Why is temperature one of the base units? Isn't temperature just movement as well?
Nowadays I know I was more or less right. Just that 1 molecule moving hardly makes temperature and one probably needs a large number.
- The average movement of a solid is often zero, while its temperature is usually higher.
- Movement has an implied direction even if we ignore it sometimes. Temperature does not.
- A gas molecule can move a lot but have low temperature because it has little to collide with.
It's more accurate to talk about vibration/collisions rather than movement.
- Movement has an implied direction even if we ignore it sometimes. Temperature does not.
- A gas molecule can move a lot but have low temperature because it has little to collide with.
It's more accurate to talk about vibration/collisions rather than movement.
My idea back then was: What is vibration, other than movement of tiniest particles? But yes, maybe collision is what actually makes the temperature? Lets assume all the molecules where moving like they usually do, but for some insignificantly small chance, they do have no collisions for a few seconds. Would the object have a temperature?
>What is vibration, other than movement of tiniest particles?
Imagine a pendulum, moving back and forth. The average movement is zero! Even for different pendulums moving at different speeds. Vibration is a similar case.
Obviously movement is not the most useful way to examine these systems, we want to look at other things too. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy involved.
>maybe collision is what actually makes the temperature
Kinetic energy is involved in both collisions and vibrations.
>but for some insignificantly small chance, they do have no collisions for a few seconds
We can compare to atomic fission, where the fission is also probabilistic - but the result is very predictable.
Imagine a pendulum, moving back and forth. The average movement is zero! Even for different pendulums moving at different speeds. Vibration is a similar case.
Obviously movement is not the most useful way to examine these systems, we want to look at other things too. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy involved.
>maybe collision is what actually makes the temperature
Kinetic energy is involved in both collisions and vibrations.
>but for some insignificantly small chance, they do have no collisions for a few seconds
We can compare to atomic fission, where the fission is also probabilistic - but the result is very predictable.
[deleted]
You might enjoy reading Hermann von Helmholtz' and Ernst Mach's writings on sensory perception. If you do, you could do worse then to continue to read up on category philosophy. A seminal work would be Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.
Because that would be an incredibly useless categorisation of very different senses.
Don't confuse the word touching, or when two things get in contact, with the actual human sense of "touch".
You don't smell and see through your hand, do you...
You don't smell and see through your hand, do you...
I think collision or interaction are better words. The word touch is meant for bigger objects, like hands, animals, furniture, fabrics, not molecules and electromagnetic radiation.
Isn’t touch a biological pressure sensor though? Could be similar to hearing, sure, but taste, smell and sight are definitely more like chemical and electromagnetic sensors.
> This may sound like a dumb question but can anyone explain to me why our senses are not all just considered touch?
It is a dumb question. How would categorizing all our senses as "sense of touch" be in anyway useful? Why would we categorize obviously different things that work entirely differently as the same because, "at the end of the day, everything is atoms"
"Did you lose both your sense of touch and your sense of touch when you got COVID?"
"No, I thankfully, I only lost my sense of touch."
It is a dumb question. How would categorizing all our senses as "sense of touch" be in anyway useful? Why would we categorize obviously different things that work entirely differently as the same because, "at the end of the day, everything is atoms"
"Did you lose both your sense of touch and your sense of touch when you got COVID?"
"No, I thankfully, I only lost my sense of touch."
I would say: for useful abstraction. Both when speaking about them in everyday life, and studying them.
They could be. We have words to describe the special types of touch so we can differentiate them
Because all those things feel different to touch
I was reading about this last week and the thing that struck me is that every experiment was "plants respond more to <musical genre> than <other musical genre>", or male voices vs female voices or swearing vs compliments.
It's total pseudoscience designed to generate comedy science articles and press releases.
If anyone actually cared about this they'd be playing sine waves and white noise at various frequencies and amplitudes. You'd see a graph of growth vs frequency or whatever.
I couldn't find anything like that though. Does this article have it (can't read due to paywall).
It's total pseudoscience designed to generate comedy science articles and press releases.
If anyone actually cared about this they'd be playing sine waves and white noise at various frequencies and amplitudes. You'd see a graph of growth vs frequency or whatever.
I couldn't find anything like that though. Does this article have it (can't read due to paywall).
Science for clicks
in this regard, i am always reminded of pioneering (in true sense of that word) work of jagdish-chandra-bose (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagadish_Chandra_Bose).
it truly is fascinating !
it truly is fascinating !
Unpaywalled: https://archive.ph/SVoRk
Mother Earth's Plantasia — warm earth music for plants and the people who love them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZkR3PyHTs0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZkR3PyHTs0
This post definitely needs a link to the wonderful book by Ed Yong, An Immense World. Given all that even simple animals can sense and affect, it is not surprising that plants will hold further sensory surprises.
https://www.amazon.com/Immense-World-Animal-Senses-Reveal/dp...
https://www.amazon.com/Immense-World-Animal-Senses-Reveal/dp...
I understand that this is probably my ignorance making me kind of an ass here, but my gut response is "obviously?".
They're pressure waves, literally forces acting directly on the plant! Imagine reporting that plants can grow differently if you grab them and yank them around a bit every once in a while.
I think it's interesting to contrast to vision/light: similarly, there is a physical effect which we can perceive "from a distance". But vision varies wildly even among animals, and there are plenty of wavelengths of light that we can't perceive. I enjoyed a brief discussion of this in Andy Weir's The Martian (no spoilers here).
Ok, so I wonder if my plants would do better if I recorded jungle sounds and played them back when I'm not at home.
There were quite some experiments in that direction, but using music. I don't recall the name or have a link to such a study at hand (and I do question and never researched how scientific it was done) but the plants seemed to prefer Ravi Shankar instead of Heavy Metal.
"The Secret Life of Plants" is a great book on this subject.
Another obvious article....they make it too which was a lot more of an announcement. this is assumed by many people....notice how loud traffic affects Plants
Corn has ears.
Fortran77: 1
The Economist: 0
The Economist: 0
I won't be surprised if single cell organisms, even prokaryotes can detect and react to sound - just a matter of more research to find out how.
> I won't be surprised if single cell organisms, even prokaryotes can detect and react to sound
It would have to be pretty insanely high in the ultrasound. A 30 kHz (above the top of usual audible sound range) wave is around 10 mm (10000 µm) in wavelength; a typical prokaryote is of order 1 µm. While there are some uses for MHz-scale ultrasound, the attenuation starts getting pretty insane -- there's just not much energy at the scale of gigahertz sound to detect.
It would have to be pretty insanely high in the ultrasound. A 30 kHz (above the top of usual audible sound range) wave is around 10 mm (10000 µm) in wavelength; a typical prokaryote is of order 1 µm. While there are some uses for MHz-scale ultrasound, the attenuation starts getting pretty insane -- there's just not much energy at the scale of gigahertz sound to detect.
Why would you assume that the order of magnitude of the animal is similar to the wavelength? Elephants can communicate with as low as 1hz. The wavelength of that is over 300m.
If the amplitude is high enough, human too can comfortably “feel” infrasonic.
If the amplitude is high enough, human too can comfortably “feel” infrasonic.
Imagine an elevator that moves up and down its shaft with a sinusoidal elevation over time. Riding in that elevator, one could detect frequencies with quite long wavelengths compared to the size of a person.
A less abstract example is a boat at sea.
A less abstract example is a boat at sea.
Interesting, but a longer wave will still have some impact, that can be detected by a smaller organism - or not?
In my studies, we place EEG electrode on them, they produce different amount of electrical signals in different conditions too.
Piezoelectric sensors can hear! /s
this is old news. we were doing experiments with plants and music back in the 1960s. but nobody liked our results because we found that modern styles are toxic, and ancient vedic sacred chants are the most nourishing sound vibrations.
next up: plants suffer and try to avoid suffering, vegans die out due to inability to reduce suffering or move the goal post to something selfishly convenient just like everyone else.
just a matter of time.
just a matter of time.
It should be a red flag when you're hoping for huge shake-up discoveries in the future to justify your behavior today.
I believe plants are valid organisms that avoid negative stimuli and that this undermines 'suffer' based consumption arguments
There are other plant consumption / meat avoidance preferences I am completely fine with
There are other plant consumption / meat avoidance preferences I am completely fine with
Flawed argument because animals still eat 10x the amount of plants vegans do. So if plant suffering was a legitimate concern, one would still be vegan, which is a lifestyle to reduce harm to animals.
there are plenty of reasons to be avoid eating meat that have nothing to do with reducing harm to animals.
and animals consuming plants has nothing to do with any of your observations. If this was a standardized test prompt, your first sentence would be erroneous information.
and animals consuming plants has nothing to do with any of your observations. If this was a standardized test prompt, your first sentence would be erroneous information.
Surely this study has been funded by the meat industry.
I guess this answers the question If a Tree Falls in the Forest and There's No One Around to Hear It, Does It Make a Sound? yes the trees do hear it.
[deleted]
pseudoscience, unability to apply the most basic self-criticism [1], and low quality papermills churning turd-ticles in action.
[1] Stop reading at "Plants living near a busy road have their grow stunt because noise", that is just the dumbest explanation available in the bag. Do they noticed that those areas are typically contaminated with heavy metals?
[1] Stop reading at "Plants living near a busy road have their grow stunt because noise", that is just the dumbest explanation available in the bag. Do they noticed that those areas are typically contaminated with heavy metals?
That’s not what the article said. Verbatim quote (emphasis mine):
“…marigolds and sage plants exposed to the noise of traffic from a busy motorway suffered stunted growth”
There’s a link in the article with more details on the experimental design:
“The plants were grown from seed and allowed to mature for two months in the same space before they were divided into two groups. One group was exposed to 73 decibels of traffic noise recorded from a busy motorway in Tehran for 16 hours a day. The other group was left to grow in silence. After 15 days had passed, samples were taken from the youngest fully expanded leaves on every plant in the experiment and studied.”
The plants were exposed to sound in a lab, with a control group. They were not actually next to a motorway.
“…marigolds and sage plants exposed to the noise of traffic from a busy motorway suffered stunted growth”
There’s a link in the article with more details on the experimental design:
“The plants were grown from seed and allowed to mature for two months in the same space before they were divided into two groups. One group was exposed to 73 decibels of traffic noise recorded from a busy motorway in Tehran for 16 hours a day. The other group was left to grow in silence. After 15 days had passed, samples were taken from the youngest fully expanded leaves on every plant in the experiment and studied.”
The plants were exposed to sound in a lab, with a control group. They were not actually next to a motorway.
Evolving that system still does not have sense from neither a biological point of view, nor from a common sense. This came from the (incorrect) assumption than nature is quiet.
Exactly the opposite to what we can empirically observe: The tallest, fast growing plants live in extremely loudly places called rainforests. Only the ocean is louder
73Db is a joke. Many of the animals here are incredibly loud. Common coqui frogs sing all night long at 90 Db, 20,000 frogs in each hectare. The place is filled with cicadas, Howling Monkeys, and Wild Red fowl roosters competing to be the most annoying thing. Cotinga birds and friends sing at 110-125 Db!. non stop, by day... Do we think that plants care about that? They couldn't grow faster.
Exactly the opposite to what we can empirically observe: The tallest, fast growing plants live in extremely loudly places called rainforests. Only the ocean is louder
73Db is a joke. Many of the animals here are incredibly loud. Common coqui frogs sing all night long at 90 Db, 20,000 frogs in each hectare. The place is filled with cicadas, Howling Monkeys, and Wild Red fowl roosters competing to be the most annoying thing. Cotinga birds and friends sing at 110-125 Db!. non stop, by day... Do we think that plants care about that? They couldn't grow faster.
How do you explain the difference in growth rate under controlled conditions, then?
> How do you explain the difference in growth rate under controlled conditions, then?
There is not a lack of candidates:
Riding the academy game (plants must be sentient now, just because this is where the money is now), pure luck (moving more of the better genetics to one group just by random), cherry picking (The experiment results were publishable the 49th time, pffew), or giving your greyhound a helping hand without even noticing it. Choose one, there are much more other coming.
This single study is irrelevant because is negated by a million of empirical observations in the real life. We need to just stop for a minute and apply some old good common sense.
To start Tagetes and Salvia are two extremely popular plants cultured in every f*k roundabout of each big city in this planet.
Because they grow perfectly well in this (really noisy) conditions. How I know this? Because I like culturing plants, so I know what to expect. And this knowledge does not came from academy. Is achieved killing a few tons of plants by mistake like I did, and trying again. This is what this teams seem to be lacking. They are blind to the big picture. They just believe what they want to believe.
Moreover, Tagetes and Salvia are unrelated, representatives of two different families with two very different defense strategies. Why they would need to evolve the same sound sensors twice?.
There are tens thousands of counterexamples in the real world, against this single result (But then you don't have a career, of course).
There is not a lack of candidates:
Riding the academy game (plants must be sentient now, just because this is where the money is now), pure luck (moving more of the better genetics to one group just by random), cherry picking (The experiment results were publishable the 49th time, pffew), or giving your greyhound a helping hand without even noticing it. Choose one, there are much more other coming.
This single study is irrelevant because is negated by a million of empirical observations in the real life. We need to just stop for a minute and apply some old good common sense.
To start Tagetes and Salvia are two extremely popular plants cultured in every f*k roundabout of each big city in this planet.
Because they grow perfectly well in this (really noisy) conditions. How I know this? Because I like culturing plants, so I know what to expect. And this knowledge does not came from academy. Is achieved killing a few tons of plants by mistake like I did, and trying again. This is what this teams seem to be lacking. They are blind to the big picture. They just believe what they want to believe.
Moreover, Tagetes and Salvia are unrelated, representatives of two different families with two very different defense strategies. Why they would need to evolve the same sound sensors twice?.
There are tens thousands of counterexamples in the real world, against this single result (But then you don't have a career, of course).
> Riding the academy game (plants must be sentient now, just because this is where the money is now), pure luck (moving more of the better genetics to one group just by random), cherry picking (The experiment results were publishable the 49th time) or giving your greyhound a helping hand (and faking the results). Choose one, there are much more other coming.
In other words, "they are liars," "they did not account for genetics and there just happened to be mutations that killed samples in one group," "they are liars," or "they are liars." To your credit, point 2 could have very well happened and I can't seem to find an actual citation in the article to determine that it didn't, but I dislike your reasons to doubt them on all other points. You could hardly trust anything at all following that logic.
Not to say that I doubt your experience. They certainly didn't test every plant in existence under every possible condition. I am certain that their results don't apply to everything.
In other words, "they are liars," "they did not account for genetics and there just happened to be mutations that killed samples in one group," "they are liars," or "they are liars." To your credit, point 2 could have very well happened and I can't seem to find an actual citation in the article to determine that it didn't, but I dislike your reasons to doubt them on all other points. You could hardly trust anything at all following that logic.
Not to say that I doubt your experience. They certainly didn't test every plant in existence under every possible condition. I am certain that their results don't apply to everything.
In other words,
1) "what is not funded in science doesn't exist",
2) "sometimes you obtain the desired result by luck or rogue factors that are unrelated with your desired explanation" Speakers have big magnetos, for example. Other team could repeat exactly the same experiment and conclude that "magnetic forces stunt grow".
3) "sometimes only the 'correct' results can be published, so people repeat the experiment until being convinced of their results"
and 4) "yes some scientists are liars"
I will add a 5) you may favor desirable events and ignore undesirable ones without even realizing it (provide better care to one group, water for a few seconds more each day or have two different people caring for different groups)...
... Because unplanned events and lab accidents happen. I assume that having big speaker boxes near plants may trow a temporary shadow on them each day. If it happens in your lunch hour you could never realize it. And this things happen in science. All the time.
I would suggest to put a couple of turned off speakers of the same size near the quiet group and repeat the experiment.
1) "what is not funded in science doesn't exist",
2) "sometimes you obtain the desired result by luck or rogue factors that are unrelated with your desired explanation" Speakers have big magnetos, for example. Other team could repeat exactly the same experiment and conclude that "magnetic forces stunt grow".
3) "sometimes only the 'correct' results can be published, so people repeat the experiment until being convinced of their results"
and 4) "yes some scientists are liars"
I will add a 5) you may favor desirable events and ignore undesirable ones without even realizing it (provide better care to one group, water for a few seconds more each day or have two different people caring for different groups)...
... Because unplanned events and lab accidents happen. I assume that having big speaker boxes near plants may trow a temporary shadow on them each day. If it happens in your lunch hour you could never realize it. And this things happen in science. All the time.
I would suggest to put a couple of turned off speakers of the same size near the quiet group and repeat the experiment.
> pseudoscience, unability to apply the most basic self-criticism [1], and low quality papermills churning turd-ticles in action.
This eloquently and entirely refutes all the claims, excellent work.
This eloquently and entirely refutes all the claims, excellent work.
[deleted]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boquila