PsiPog.net

Science is EvolvingHomeArticlesQ&AArchiveMediaLinksSearch

View topic - Tree communication.

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » Tree communication.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Tree communication.
Author Message
Posted on Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:35 pm

UltimaRage

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 146

Our brains are nothing more than a collection of millions of cells that all communicate with eachother. A tree is nothing more than a collection of millions of cells that all communicate with eachother. I don't see the difference. You may say that the difference is that we can think, have consious capability, but it still remains to be seen whether a tree does or not. How would we know?

Science is still the limiting factor that does not allow us to discover who we really are. We only know about 1% of the workings of the things around us, based simply on observation. How can feeling not be considered a valuable research tool? Mainly because science refuses to admit what we, as humans, are truly capable of, simply because we do not have the technology to uncover those truths.

Science is not universal truth; it isn't law. Old theories are thrown away as new ones are made every day. Science is changing, and in the next couple of decades, the things discussed on this site will fall smuggly into the category of science.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:19 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

UltimaRage wrote:
Our brains are nothing more than a collection of millions of cells that all communicate with eachother. A tree is nothing more than a collection of millions of cells that all communicate with eachother. I don't see the difference. You may say that the difference is that we can think, have consious capability, but it still remains to be seen whether a tree does or not. How would we know?

We know because there are no nerve cells in trees. The leaves haven't the slightest idea what the roots are doing and vice-versa.


ultimarage wrote:
Science is not universal truth; it isn't law. Old theories are thrown away as new ones are made every day. Science is changing, and in the next couple of decades, the things discussed on this site will fall smuggly into the category of science.
Really? You know, people have been trying to communicate with trees for millenia. We have yet to succeed.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:08 pm

Fakiti

Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 336

UltimaRage wrote:

Science is not universal truth; it isn't law. Old theories are thrown away as new ones are made every day. Science is changing, and in the next couple of decades, the things discussed on this site will fall smuggly into the category of science.
I agree with all of that. The thing I hate about this site is that someone may levitate a ping pong ball (i'm getting close Very Happy ) and then they come and tell us about that. Then everyone on here is like, "no way, dude, it takes years to learn that that's impossible, do you know how much energy it would take??? You're insane!!! ever heard of gravity, the formula for the energy it would take is right here: 987594 *953728975899 / 6667 * the square root of................blah blah blah.... Science says you're wrong!!!!!!! Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad Evil or Very Mad ". And then the person says, "oh, it must have been a trick of the light or something, I guess that WOULD be impossible... oh well..." And then another person who could have been great is lost. Confused It's like some people on here don't realize that science is all about finding out new things about everything. Like psionics. Today's science might say some of it is impossible, but we know nothing about it yet compared to what we will know. Someday science will change, as it does constantly, and then psionics will be accepted as normal and perfectly possible and scientific. So don't jump on people for asking about teleporting or changing the weather. Just because there's a chaos theory that says someone can't make wind doesn't mean they can't without making a hurricane in africa or whatever. It's a theory, for heaven sakes!!! Theories are meant to be proven false.... And someday, psionics will be a science.

/rant

Oh, and no one on here is stupid enough to shout a formula as messed up as the one I posted on here, I was exagerating to an extreme. No one get upset, plz.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:12 pm

DemonHunter

Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 100

JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
We know because there are no nerve cells in trees. The leaves haven't the slightest idea what the roots are doing and vice-versa.


Hi

To your quote: Maybe trees have no need of these nerve cells, because the instance that controls their growth and everything isn't inside themselves... It could be controlled by something greater...Nature...

You claim to know things about a different life form that isn't yours.
I think one can't be so sure about that at all. It's so very difficult doing that with similar life forms to yours. I speak of Humans. You can make observations, in that point i fully agree with you. You can see what other
people do, you can hear what they say, you can maybe understand what they want to tell you verbally or with body language.

But you can never know how a person FEELS, because you aren't the other person. You can get an idea of the person's feelings by talking to it or seeing how it behaves. With a different life form like a tree it is the same, but so much more difficult. I don't say that tree communication is possible, because i just don't know, but you are no tree, so i guess if you stay with your opinion that trees can't communicate because they have no nerve cells you should find another reason for your claim or make your mind up.

We can make up MILLIONS of claims or theories about other life forms or just objects, bu we can NEVER be sure of these claims, because we aren't the object or the other life form we are investigating.

What i consider is that we could communicate to nature itself, if tree communication would be possible.

If you tell me now that all the talking about FEELINGS is bullshit, because scientifically they are just chemical reactions in the brain or somewhere else i recommend you either to Make up your Mind or to try to die as fast as you can. This is no offense at all. Try to THINK about it.
Back to top
Posted on Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:49 pm

paraplayer

Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 147

DemonHunter wrote:

If you tell me now that all the talking about FEELINGS is bullshit, because scientifically they are just chemical reactions in the brain or somewhere else i recommend you either to Make up your Mind or to try to die as fast as you can. This is no offense at all. Try to THINK about it.


Just saying something is no offence doesn't make it any less insulting Razz


I'm a little confused about that last paragraph actually. Can you re-state it?
Back to top
Posted on Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:56 am

DemonHunter

Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 100

paraplayer wrote:


Just saying something is no offence doesn't make it any less insulting Razz


I'm a little confused about that last paragraph actually. Can you re-state it?


It's not my intention to insult anyone. Maybe the formulation is a bit harsh, therefore i apologize. But after all this is a forum in the internet, i ask myself what sense it would make to insult other people.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Sep 21, 2006 12:01 am

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

DemonHunter wrote:
If you tell me now that all the talking about FEELINGS is bullshit, because scientifically they are just chemical reactions in the brain or somewhere else i recommend you either to Make up your Mind or to try to die as fast as you can. This is no offense at all. Try to THINK about it.
Yes, feelings are merely chemical reactions, but that doesn't mean that you have to view them any differently from a practical, day-to-day basis. I don't view my feelings any differently than most other people. When you want to get down and dirty with the technical details, however, that's all it is. It's possible to live life to the fullest AND acknowledge these things at the same time.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Sep 21, 2006 1:00 am

UltimaRage

Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 146

Incorrect. The chemical reactions are just relays that are simply used to enable one to feel the feelings. True feelings are much deeper than that. I don't understand. Think about your feelings for just a moment. A feeling is not just a chemical reaction.

How do I know? Chemical reactions don't hurt, but feelings do. Feelings have a particular texture to them that can't be captured in a chemical description. But someone in a white coat wants to tell you that you are not having a feeling, you're having a chemical reaction.

If science hasn't proven it, it doesn't exist in your world. Science is severely limited by our current technological standards. If this were untrue, then all of the phenomenon on this site would be described by science.

We do not know what 95% of our own DNA even does. For this, it is considered 'junk' DNA. These chemical reactions are just reactions made from the mind. Also, scientists don't even know what the mind is, nor have they even been able to find it in the brain. No trace, same as with the sub-consious, but one could argue that the consious and sub-consious both makeup the ever-so-ellusive mind.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:21 am

Smith

Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 46

Well,I think is possible because....take this case :-
The unverse....it does bot have a brain or a vocal chord....does it ?NO Very Happy
srry.But,still it reacts in many ways...doesn't it ?even though it may be sounds unfamiliar to us,doen't make sounds ?may be thats the LANGUAGE OF THE UNIVERSE.Same is the case in trees.Only that tree is small,universe is big...So,what'd u think ? Very Happy
I am waiting.... Wink
Back to top
Posted on Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:39 am

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

UltimaRage wrote:
Incorrect. The chemical reactions are just relays that are simply used to enable one to feel the feelings. True feelings are much deeper than that. I don't understand. Think about your feelings for just a moment. A feeling is not just a chemical reaction.

How do I know? Chemical reactions don't hurt, but feelings do. Feelings have a particular texture to them that can't be captured in a chemical description. But someone in a white coat wants to tell you that you are not having a feeling, you're having a chemical reaction.
Then how do you explain chemical imbalances in the brain, such as bipolar disorder, depression, schizophrenia, or drug withdrawl?

ultimarage wrote:
If science hasn't proven it, it doesn't exist in your world. Science is severely limited by our current technological standards. If this were untrue, then all of the phenomenon on this site would be described by science.
That's faulty reasoning, since a very large percentage of the psychic knowledge on this site was derived from uncredible sources in the first place.

ultimarage wrote:
We do not know what 95% of our own DNA even does. For this, it is considered 'junk' DNA.

Actually, there are several credible hypotheses on the function of junk DNA, which many prefer to call noncoding DNA.
wikipedia wrote:
There are many hypotheses, none conclusively established, for how junk DNA arose and why it persists in the genome:

These chromosomal regions could be composed of the now-defunct remains of ancient genes, known as pseudogenes, which were once functional copies of genes but have since lost their protein-coding ability (and, presumably, their biological function). After non-functionalization, pseudogenes are free to acquire genetic noise in the form of random mutations.

8% of the junk DNA has been shown to be formed by retrotransposons of Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs)[2], although as much as 25% is recognisably formed of retrotransposons[3].

Junk DNA may act as a protective buffer against genetic damage and harmful mutations. For example, a high proportion of nonfunctional sequence makes it unlikely that a functional element will be destroyed in a chromosomal crossover event, possibly making a species more tolerant to this important mechanism of genetic recombination.

Junk DNA might provide a reservoir of sequences from which potentially advantageous new genes can emerge. In this way, it may be an important genetic basis for evolution[4].

Some junk DNA could simply be spacer material that allows enzyme complexes to form around functional elements more easily. In this way, the junk DNA could serve an important function even though the actual sequence information it contains is irrelevant.

Some portions of junk DNA could serve presently unknown regulatory functions, controlling the expression of certain genes, the development of an organism from embryo to adult[5], and/or development of certain organs/organelles[6].

Junk DNA may serve other, unknown purposes. For example, some non-coding RNAs have been discovered in what had been considered junk.
Junk DNA may have no function. For example, recent experiments removed 1% of the mouse genome and were unable to detect any effect on the phenotype[7]. This result suggests that the DNA is, in fact, non-functional. However, it remains a possibility that there is some function that the experiments performed on the mice were merely insufficient to detect.

It's possible that a large percentage of the DNA does nothing, since the human body isn't exactly a perfectly efficient machine.
ultimarage wrote:
reactions are just reactions made from the mind. Also, scientists don't even know what the mind is, nor have they even been able to find it in the brain. No trace, same as with the sub-consious, but one could argue that the consious and sub-consious both makeup the ever-so-ellusive mind.


Wikipedia:
Hormones, incoming sensory information, and cognitive processing performed by the brain determine the brain state. Stimulus from any source can trigger a general arousal process that focuses cortical operations to processing of the new information. This focusing of cognition is known as attention. Cognitive priorities are constantly shifted by a variety of factors such as hunger, fatigue, belief, unfamiliar information, or threat. The simplest dichotomy related to the processing of threats is the fight-or-flight response mediated by the amygdala and other limbic structures.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:25 am

MindFreak

Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 11

asking how anything works is actually common knowledge these days if you payed attention in school. everythings made of matter its densidty tells you whether or not you can go through it or whether its gonna break when you hit it with somthing like i dunno a hammer also.

human matter if you would like to call it that is made up of a bunch of different cells that have been programmed by our dna in some way im not a total genius and im not gonna look it up and place an article to explain it either.but after the dna has programmed the body it is stored within each cell of the body and each cell knows what to do because of whats encoded into the dna. you think that anything else really matters in the human body?

the dna is the key to what the entire body does. maybe what we do with psionics strengthens our dna through the brain in some way and allows us to mutate our genetics. im not sure why people think its not possible but if you think about it the human brain is the best computer on the planet and if you can program a computer to understand a way to create energy like the latest laser technology american has now that can shoot missiles out of the sky.

why cant we as human beings, use our computer that has control over a million cells in our bodies, make us do things that normal everyday human thinking wouldnt understand?

you can program your brain to remember things or even how to remember to do your job.

its a really bad way of thinking to be totally closed off to other think just because a 50-200 year old document says that this is the way it is the earliest i can think of is sir issac newtons law of gravity. considering the age of the planet we have a spec of knowledge of what our bodies are capable of and a spec of knowledge of how we actually came about.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Sep 21, 2006 7:47 am

DemonHunter

Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 100

What the fuck! Do you only believe what other people say JOHNNYBEGOOD??? Though they are scientists, it doesn't mean they speak the truth. In their description of truth can be a mistake right? They're still only human and can make mistakes. They're not perfect.

What you quoted about Junk DNA is interesting, but it is still a theory.
If i look at nature and if i look at human capabilities, i don't think that 95 % or our DNA should be useless or not accessable by ourselves. Maybe the only reason why there is the so called Junk DNA, is that we don't use it... Maybe we could use all of it and become capable of doing stuff we never considered possible.

What MindFreak says in his post makes sense to me too. If we consider the things we found out through science the absolute truth, we become dumber and dumber. Just look at history and see how theories are blown away and therefore new theories are created which are or will be blown away in the future too.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:36 pm

JOHNNYBEGOOD

Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 354

DemonHunter wrote:
What the fuck! Do you only believe what other people say JOHNNYBEGOOD??? Though they are scientists, it doesn't mean they speak the truth. In their description of truth can be a mistake right? They're still only human and can make mistakes. They're not perfect.
Hmm...should I believe you, instead? These are not crazed individuals who live on mountains, biochemists and other scientists are generally decent, reasonable people who have gone through college and I think it's safe to assume they have some idea of what they're talking about.

Quote:
What you quoted about Junk DNA is interesting, but it is still a theory.
If i look at nature and if i look at human capabilities, i don't think that 95 % or our DNA should be useless or not accessable by ourselves. Maybe the only reason why there is the so called Junk DNA, is that we don't use it... Maybe we could use all of it and become capable of doing stuff we never considered possible.
That would certainly be interesting, but if junk DNA is truly a buffer for mutation like suggested before, then enabling it could lead to a corruption of the human genome.


Quote:
What MindFreak says in his post makes sense to me too. If we consider the things we found out through science the absolute truth, we become dumber and dumber. Just look at history and see how theories are blown away and therefore new theories are created which are or will be blown away in the future too.
Yes, but that doesn't mean we can't operate under the assumption that what we've found out so far is most likely true.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:45 pm

DemonHunter

Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 100

JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Hmm...should I believe you, instead? These are not crazed individuals who live on mountains, biochemists and other scientists are generally decent, reasonable people who have gone through college and I think it's safe to assume they have some idea of what they're talking about.


No you should not believe me. Don't do it! Very Happy What i want to say is that you can only be sure of things if you found them out for yourself. It's thinking on your own. Otherwise it's just your brain fed up with information that comes out from another brain and is modified by the factors of your way of thinking. What i mean is that only your own experience can bring you knowing. I don't say that you should distrust everybody, but i say that you need to consider that they may be deluded and also that you may be deluded in your conclusions or way of thinking. My opinion on many scientists is that they are too focussed on stuff. They get too much into it and don't see the overall picture. I'm not saying they're dumb, but to me the way of thinking from many scientists seems to be, though very complex, in a way too one-dimensional.

JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
That would certainly be interesting, but if junk DNA is truly a buffer for mutation like suggested before, then enabling it could lead to a corruption of the human genome.


Provided the idea that it would be possible to enable this DNA, i think it is absurd to think that it would lead to a corruption of human genome. It's like having a built-in trigger for self-destruction.
Back to top
Posted on Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:11 pm

freakinrican626

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Posts: 514

Quote:
How do I know? Chemical reactions don't hurt, but feelings do. Feelings have a particular texture to them that can't be captured in a chemical description. But someone in a white coat wants to tell you that you are not having a feeling, you're having a chemical reaction.



Chemical reactions cause you to feel hurt. That's why they say chemical reactions are the source of emotions; they're the ones that create them. It doesn't matter whether or not chemical reactions hurt. That doesn't change the fact that they cause you to feel hurt.
Back to top

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

PsiPog.net Forum Index » Skepticism » Tree communication.