Psience Quest

Airborne chemicals in windy areas are most likely to effect the wrong trees. I would think

(2017-08-21, 12:41 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't the article research? Here's a hypothesis. Perhaps the particular trees exude a chemical from their leaves and other trees have chemical receptors that are able to pick up those chemicals. When a tree senses a certain concentration they stop growing in that direction.

How does this explain the precise gap? Can trees sense from how far away a chemical has travelled?

(2017-08-21, 12:41 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ] Here's a hypothesis. Perhaps the particular trees exude a chemical from their leaves and other trees have chemical receptors that are able to pick up those chemicals. When a tree senses a certain concentration they stop growing in that direction.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

However, I have to agree with the above objections too.

(2017-08-21, 12:15 AM)Oleo Wrote: [ -> ]So some biases  are more ....i don't know robust perhaps?
Than other biases???

What do you mean?

(2017-08-21, 12:41 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't the article research? Here's a hypothesis. Perhaps the particular trees exude a chemical from their leaves and other trees have chemical receptors that are able to pick up those chemicals. When a tree senses a certain concentration they stop growing in that direction.

I would think that too, but the problem I see is that all leaves are supposed to exude that chemical, so the phenomenon should be seen also among the leaves of a single tree, but that doesn't seem to happen. does it?

(2017-08-21, 01:24 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]How does this explain the precise gap? Can trees sense from how far away a chemical has travelled?

Remember this is all hypothetical. Trees can't detect distance, but like I said before, they can sense the concentration of chemicals in the air. When the concentration reaches a threshold the tree stops growing in that direction.
Do you have a hypothesis?

(2017-08-21, 11:56 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Trees can't detect distance

Well, right there, you've eliminated the possibility that your theory can explain the observation of a consistent distance for the gap between crowns.

(2017-08-21, 11:56 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]but like I said before, they can sense the concentration of chemicals in the air. When the concentration reaches a threshold the tree stops growing in that direction.

This hypothesis can't explain the consistent distance between crowns. If it's all about concentrations, then a tree couldn't tell the difference between a low concentration that has travelled a short distance (and thus not been reduced much in concentration) versus a high concentration that has travelled a longer distance (and thus been reduced in concentration). It would have no way of maintaining the consistent gaps that we see.

Your theory then is bankrupt. Do you acknowledge this?

(2017-08-21, 11:56 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Do you have a hypothesis?

Yes. I think (at least some) plants, including the trees in question, have some awareness of objects in their nearby vicinity - how this sense works, I don't know.

(2017-08-21, 12:05 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Well, right there, you've eliminated the possibility that your theory can explain the observation of a consistent distance for the gap between crowns.


This hypothesis can't explain the consistent distance between crowns. If it's all about concentrations, then a tree couldn't tell the difference between a low concentration that has travelled a short distance (and thus not been reduced much in concentration) versus a high concentration that has travelled a longer distance (and thus been reduced in concentration). It would have no way of maintaining the consistent gaps that we see.

Your theory then is bankrupt. Do you acknowledge this?


Yes. I think (at least some) plants, including the trees in question, have some awareness of objects in their nearby vicinity - how this sense works, I don't know.

I said it was only a hypothesis. How would you know it's bankrupt? You can only know that if you know how trees maintain that remarkable boundary by doing research. Have you done research? I know you have not. Plants certainly do have awareness of their surroundings, but that offers nothing when you have no idea how? That leaves you not even at square 1.

My suggestion was a field effect, so it's only immaterial in the sense that "field" like "energy", "force", and other stop gap words materialists/physicalists use to pretend that they have explanations are part of the explanation.

But we've seen over and over again skeptics exist who don't really understand what "materialism" and "immaterialism" mean.

(2017-08-21, 05:48 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]My suggestion was a field effect, so it's only immaterial in the sense that "field" like "energy", "force", and other stop gap words materialists/physicalists use to pretend that they have explanations are part of the explanation.

But we've seen over and over again skeptics exist who don't really understand what "materialism" and "immaterialism" mean.

Then test your suggestion.