Trees with “Crown Shyness” Mysteriously Avoid Touching Each Other

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.

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.

Then test your suggestion.

Meanwhile you're not doing anything to prove it's a chemical. But again, you don't really understand what you're saying when you say something is an "immaterial" or "material" explanation.

Looking back not even clear what Steve001's original post is referring to in terms of "metaphysical" explanations or that his insult to immaterialists is warranted?

Perhaps he can explain why his post isn't his usual desperation to shame people into thinking his blind materialist faith is the intellectual path?

Looking back not even clear what Steve001's original post is referring to in terms of "metaphysical" explanations or that his insult to immaterialists is warranted?

Perhaps he can explain why his post isn't his usual desperation to shame people into thinking his blind materialist faith is the intellectual path?

I'm guessing that Steve001 considers "immaterialist" to be some kind of plant awareness of their surrounding without a direct and detectable physical cause. In other words, the materialist would look for a chemical in the air or some kind of sensitivity to light (or lack of light) to explain the observed phenomenon.

However, the more we consider the chemical options, the less likely they seem to be able to explain the gap. Light sensitivity doesn't do it either because we are talking about a canopy where the gap is maintained so there is no overlapping. Also, how would a tree with light sensitivity know that it is another tree blocking its light and not its own leaves (as already pointed out, that would also need explaining in the chemical hypothesis).

So why not consider some kind of field effect? Is it because that strays into Sheldrake territory and we can't have that immaterialist nonsense can we? Yet we started with Steve001 saying that he was pointing out bias. Isn't the refusal to consider possible explanations because they don't meet some ideological assumptions the very essence of bias?

That's the point I was trying to make with my some biases are more robust than others comment,slash question.

Meanwhile you're not doing anything to prove it's a chemical. But again, you don't really understand what you're saying when you say something is an "immaterial" or "material" explanation.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing is how idelogical belief bias leads many to prefer a certain view of reality to explain. Now, you will likely say I have a bias and you would be correct, but mine isn't based upon belief. It's knowledge based.

I'm guessing that Steve001 considers "immaterialist" to be some kind of plant awareness of their surrounding without a direct and detectable physical cause. In other words, the materialist would look for a chemical in the air or some kind of sensitivity to light (or lack of light) to explain the observed phenomenon.

However, the more we consider the chemical options, the less likely they seem to be able to explain the gap. Light sensitivity doesn't do it either because we are talking about a canopy where the gap is maintained so there is no overlapping. Also, how would a tree with light sensitivity know that it is another tree blocking its light and not its own leaves (as already pointed out, that would also need explaining in the chemical hypothesis).

So why not consider some kind of field effect? Is it because that strays into Sheldrake territory and we can't have that immaterialist nonsense can we? Yet we started with Steve001 saying that he was pointing out bias. Isn't the refusal to consider possible explanations because they don't meet some ideological assumptions the very essence of bias?

Plant biologists know plants communicate via chemicals. That's why one looks in that direction. How would you know chemicals are less likely?  You don't know.

Plant biologists know plants communicate via chemicals. That's why one looks in that direction. How would you know chemicals are less likely?  You don't know.

Have you been reading this thread at all? You've just circled back to your first assertion.

You know, Steve, in conversations with you there comes a point where there is no point: no point in continuing. I think we are there.

[Laird]

Have you been reading this thread at all? You've just circled back to your first assertion.

You know, Steve, in conversations with you there comes a point where there is no point: no point in continuing. I think we are there.

Yes, exactly. Steve001 asks "How would you know chemcials are less likely?" when I explained exactly that to him in two posts: #24 and #29.