"Talking with trees" in July's Touchstone

[Bart]

Hennie,

You are absolutly right, scientists can make silly assumptions. Apparantly Newton believed in the philosopher stone.

[Lizzy]

It's quite a common name on Google, but if it's this man, he is educated
http://ianbeatty.com/

[Bart]

LOL

[Explorer]

You all seem very convinced that the author of the piece isn't a man of science, an stronomer for instance; how come?

And Mr Ian Beattie, if you are reading these lines, can you please enlighten me on this question?

Because he makes false claims that nobody with a science degree would ever do, and which anybody with highschool level physics and wikipedia can prove.

Let me give you one clear example.
He says: "Uranus and Neptune has experienced polar shifts while the former has had a large scale growth of magnetosphere intensity".

This suggests that he knows how the magnetosphere of Uranus has developed over time, that it has shifted and grown. To measure change, you need at least two measurements. To discover trends in changes you need a lot of measurements, that is statistics.
But there has only been one measurement at Uranus, ever, because only one probe has ever been to Uranus, Voyager 2 in 1986. Before that nothing was known about the magnetosphere (as the first line of this article says):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Magnetic_field

You can't measure planetary magnetic fields from a distance, because they are very weak, and our own (earth) magnetic field gets in the way. And once you clear the earth magnetic field you are in the solar wind, the suns magnetic field. To measure the magnetosphere of planets you have to go there with space probes, see this article:
http://www.windows2universe.org/physica ... l&edu=elem

This only one false claim spelled out, I could do the same for others.

[Explorer]

It's quite a common name on Google, but if it's this man, he is educated
http://ianbeatty.com/

hahaha, absolutely no way that this is the same guy.
In the article he doesn't even mention astronomy, but 'astrology'. Any idea what that would do to your carreer in astronomy?
The article is certainly not written by an astronomer, impossible, astronomers have an intimate knowledge of physics and know how things relate. They would never say these things about the galactic core and Milky Way, because they know what they are.

[Kima]

Thanks Nico for all the info! I've never said anything before because I don't want to discourage the people who put it out but I am generally unhappy with the lack of editorial work on Touchstone, and that includes bad grammar and numerous spelling mistakes as well as poor content.

[Al Hakim]

Because he makes false claims that nobody with a science degree would ever do, and which anybody with highschool level physics and wikipedia can prove.

Hello to everybody,

I usually feel alarmed when a discussion moves around any "scientific evidence". We should keep in mind that for more than 1000 years scientists had "proven" that the Earth is a flat disc. In the last years mathematicians had shown that giant waves cannot occur and were proved wrong when simple height measurements at oil rigs in the North Sea reveiled the opposite. So, why should it be impossible for men to communicate in a certain way with trees? After reading that article in touchstone I simply tried it out myself and noticed that I could feel something when touching a tree. Perhaps it was sort of a delusion, caused by proprio-sensations in my finger-tips, or slight movements of my palms against the tree bark, but even meditation could be regarded a a kind of self deception. You visualize things that do not exist in the apparent world for others but - nonetheless -in that very minute they do exist for you. I suggest giving "Talking to trees" a try even without a scientific base behind.

Al Hakim

[Bart]

That's the whole idea behind being a sceptical druid. If it was was called just sceptical it would have been posted in Skepter.

You said all the right clues on the bodily side and even ended with the right sentence: talking to trees. If you start hearing voices I would suggest to stop the meditation.

[Explorer]

Hello to everybody,

I usually feel alarmed when a discussion moves around any "scientific evidence". We should keep in mind that for more than 1000 years scientists had "proven" that the Earth is a flat disc. In the last years mathematicians had shown that giant waves cannot occur and were proved wrong when simple height measurements at oil rigs in the North Sea reveiled the opposite. So, why should it be impossible for men to communicate in a certain way with trees? After reading that article in touchstone I simply tried it out myself and noticed that I could feel something when touching a tree. Perhaps it was sort of a delusion, caused by proprio-sensations in my finger-tips, or slight movements of my palms against the tree bark, but even meditation could be regarded a a kind of self deception. You visualize things that do not exist in the apparent world for others but - nonetheless -in that very minute they do exist for you. I suggest giving "Talking to trees" a try even without a scientific base behind.

Al Hakim

The point is not that things that are impossible without scientific evidence to back it up, nor that personal experiences are invalid because of the lack of evidence.

The point is that the man comes up with 'scientific evidence' that is clearly wrong. He takes other people's investigations and twists them around into something that it is not. By doing that he disrespects the scientific investigation that has been painstakingly done by people who honestly seek the truth. He spreads ignorance and falsehood, instead of seeking truth. He lies, and the less educated will become even less educated by that. And I do take offence of that. Both as a druid who seeks truth, and as somebody who works in the scientific community.

If he had simply said that this was his personal experience, like you do here, then that would be okay. But that is not what he did.

[Al Hakim]

That's the whole idea behind being a sceptical druid. If it was was called just sceptical it would have been posted in Skepter.

You said all the right clues on the bodily side and even ended with the right sentence: talking to trees. If you start hearing voices I would suggest to stop the meditation.

Hi Bart,

I will keep you informed if I hear voices...

Al Hakim

[Explorer]

You said all the right clues on the bodily side and even ended with the right sentence: talking to trees. If you start hearing voices I would suggest to stop the meditation.

*grin*... exactly.

You know, I talk to trees also. And to animals, and to places. It is a way of focussing my mind for me. The chatter in my head then lessens, the focus shifts from the chaotic details of everyday life to whatever may attract my attention in the forest. So, when I talk to trees, I start to hear stuff. Birds, the wind, the deer bugling. And when I hear all that, I am more aware of nature all around me, and feel more a part of the whole. If done right, it can even lead to natural spiritual experiences.
But if they suddenly would start talking back, then I know I picked the wrong mushroom.

[Al Hakim]

Hi Nico,

you made a good point. Unfortunately, the "history of science" revealed many pieces of research as fraud in order to gain personal benefits like money, reputation, or titles. That is human nature. On the other hand true researchers should be humble enough to recognise that they cannot solve or explain every phenomen yet. In medicine, for instance, there were cases of, let's say, hurting legs in which the ill person was convinced that he feels a pain in his ankle joint because of the bad wheather and other circumstances. In fact, the conclusion was wrong, as was the description of the physiological background. But some years laters researchers discovered some strange defective enzyme, and its malfunction causes a foot-pain...
I just wanted to point out that even statements of non-experts can bear a little truth. Refering to the tree talk I could imagine that it will be possible to properly read the plants' electronical or chemical information and answer to it: Communication. The druidic path teaches -to my opinion - that a sensitive person may anticipate results despite any scientific background and evidence.

Al Hakim

[Lily]

Let me just put it this way:

if an anatomist finds a sensory organ that could detect chemical or electrical signals from trees - I would readily accept that we can actually talk to trees.
Such an organ or neuronal pathway has not been found so far.

Therefore I don't accept such an idea, currently, and am of the opinion that we think we talk to them, or feel their energies, but it's actually in our brains only. Figment of our imagination.

Al Hakim,
please

[Bart]

At this point, I would like to say: Trees communicate.

Before everybody starts, hear me out.

Trees communicate in totally different ways than tree whisperers think. Trees communicate through chemicals. These are not specific, more in the line of: I am being eaten, safe yourself. And the surrounding trees may respond by poisining their leafs.

Trees also respond to their surrounding: beside chopping down, they grow a certain way because of the wind and their roots grow a certain way because of water or chemicals in the ground.

This is beautifull and makes you love nature. But hugging and talking are things you do yourself. The way Nico describes and the answers from your unconscious, is probably you talking back. Lots of best ideas are done on the toilet, when the brain is (not) focussed on other things

I love nature, even without oaks answering back.

[Al Hakim]

Well, it is known that plants have an internal sytem of communication via chemicals. It is also known that they can repel predators by producing poisonous chemicals on demand. Well, that kind of communciation takes a while but it exists. In men we have got the hormons instead. Denying electrical reactions just means that it it not tested sufficiently enough. I know about some experiments in which the researchers exposed leaves to heat and they were able to measure electrical potentials. Such results made me believe that sooner or later we can communicate with trees, too.
Al Hakim

[Explorer]

Well, it is known that plants have an internal sytem of communication via chemicals. It is also known that they can repel predators by producing poisonous chemicals on demand. Well, that kind of communciation takes a while but it exists. In men we have got the hormons instead. Denying electrical reactions just means that it it not tested sufficiently enough. I know about some experiments in which the researchers exposed leaves to heat and they were able to measure electrical potentials. Such results made me believe that sooner or later we can communicate with trees, too.
Al Hakim

[Bart]

Well, it is known that plants have an internal sytem of communication via chemicals. It is also known that they can repel predators by producing poisonous chemicals on demand. Well, that kind of communciation takes a while but it exists. In men we have got the hormons instead. Denying electrical reactions just means that it it not tested sufficiently enough. I know about some experiments in which the researchers exposed leaves to heat and they were able to measure electrical potentials. Such results made me believe that sooner or later we can communicate with trees, too.
Al Hakim

Cells create a potential over their cell membrane in order to function. Ions are being pumped in and out of the cell because of homeostase, not because of communication.

Communication without fast neurons is as fast as talking to trees using hormones. The myelated sheets make it possible. I propose an experiment: burn your finger badly: the retraction is myaleted sheets going through your spinal cord, the immidiatly following pain awareness are myelated neurons going op to your brain, the throbbing pain which will enter your awareness very late and doesn't go away for days: that unmyelated neurons. And in that case we are still talking of organs who are designed to carry tghe signal. The ions around a cell are just that, otherwise you would have to explain to your left hand why your right is you favourite: the too have ionic difference.

[Al Hakim]

The ion balance around a cell membrane does not only follow homeostatic principles but to finally restore a dysbalance an active transport is necessary. This indeed is no communication. But whether or not that tiny electrical impuls that was caused by ion motions is passed on to the next cell results in information, like the on-off-code of a computer. - I am sorry but I did not fully understand your example of the burned finger. To remove the finger from the heat ist a fast reflex switched over in the spinal chord. The recognition of a pain means to involve the brain which takes longer time, of course. But as for the plant realm I know that not much is known in terms of physiology and pathophysiology. But it seems true that plants do react on influences from outside, and this pretty fast. That makes me optimistic that once we know about the biochemical pathways and we learn about kind of an intelligence and will be able to develop methods of communication. Before that stage, however, we can only experiment with dubious - unscientific - means.

[Arcanum]

I think it should be said that scientific method does not prove anything - only disproves:o)

[Explorer]

I think it should be said that scientific method does not prove anything - only disproves:o)

Ofcourse you can prove things. You can prove that somebody is wrong, or lying (like in the case of the tree article).