NationStates

Xerographica wrote:

Galloism wrote:Most, actually, do not have sufficient cognitive function to "want" or "not want" anything - including wanting to reproduce.

How much cognitive function is required in order to want something?

Galloism wrote:

Xerographica wrote:How much cognitive function is required in order to want something?

THAT is an interesting question, and one biologists and philosophers both try to tease out.

Humans clearly have enough. Dolphins almost certainly have enough.

Amoebas certainly do not. Trees clearly do not. A praying mantis almost certainly does not.

A lot in the middle of debatable. Dogs probably have enough. A spider probably doesn't.

But, then a more interesting philosophical debate might be - "what does it mean to want something?"

Until you answer that, we'll come up with many varying answers on what does/doesn't have the capacity to want something.

Galloism wrote:

Xerographica wrote:How much cognitive function is required in order to want something?

THAT is an interesting question, and one biologists and philosophers both try to tease out.

Humans clearly have enough. Dolphins almost certainly have enough.

Amoebas certainly do not. Trees clearly do not. A praying mantis almost certainly does not.

A lot in the middle of debatable. Dogs probably have enough. A spider probably doesn't.

But, then a more interesting philosophical debate might be - "what does it mean to want something?"

Until you answer that, we'll come up with many varying answers on what does/doesn't have the capacity to want something.

The Holy Therns wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Nature wants us to colonize space.

I can't even tell if this is a joke or just another ridiculous statement.

There are four species of vanilla orchid native to Florida, all of them endangered by habitat destruction and illegal collection.

"A single major hurricane event could literally wipe out a significant portion of the existing population, if not all of it," Chambers said. - Associated Press

By combining the best genes from native and non-native varieties, Chambers and colleague Elias Bassil will attempt to create new and superior varieties of vanilla. - Associated Press

"It is labor intensive," Cellier said. "Every single flower has to be hand pollinated. That is, until Alan and the other researchers can figure out how to get self-pollination to work." - Associated Press

Moyroud has been working with native plants for a long time. Over the years, his definition of native has changed.

"Plants don't observe political boundaries," Moyroud said.

Moyroud notes that much of Florida is part of a wider region that shares flora with the Bahamas, Cuba, Yucatan Peninsula and the Greater Antilles. Anything that thrives in another part of the region will probably thrive in Florida.

"We have seasonal summer rains, we have hurricanes, we have droughts and we have limestone soil," Moyroud said. "Vanilla fits in beautifully."

At Plantio la Orquidea, Rafael Romero recently started growing a specimen of Vanilla barbellata, one of the native species.

Romero, a biologist, is hopeful for the restoration of native orchids like the vanilla species, but he has some skepticism.

"We can reproduce them. That's not the problem," Romero said. "It's the habitat. The natural habitat is destroyed, so there is nowhere to put them back."

Romero and wife Tina Romero grow orchids of all kinds from seed. The plants eventually make it out into suburbia.

In Coral Gables, Fairchild Botanical Garden has an entire program dedicated to growing and reintroducing native Florida orchids called the Fairchild Million Orchid Project. - Associated Press

In Miami, the Fairchild Million Orchid Project is introducing a new generation of children to the wonders of Florida's orchids. School grounds are one of the primary sites for orchid reintroduction. - Associated Press

Xerographica wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
Trees don't want things. They don't have brains.

Do organisms want to reproduce?

Xerographica wrote:

Galloism wrote:Most, actually, do not have sufficient cognitive function to "want" or "not want" anything - including wanting to reproduce.

How much cognitive function is required in order to want something?

Salandriagado wrote:

Xerographica wrote:How much cognitive function is required in order to want something?

A brain is necessary, but not sufficient. A human brain is sufficient but not necessary. The line is somewhere in between those two.

Xerographica wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
A brain is necessary, but not sufficient. A human brain is sufficient but not necessary. The line is somewhere in between those two.

A bigger brain allows humans to process more information about their wants. But even though trees don't have big brains, they also process information about their wants. A tree doesn't always bloom and bear fruit. Reproducing is energetically costly, so the tree endeavors to do so when the circumstances are optimal, which depends on processing quite a bit of information... temperature, moisture, light, genetic compatibility and so on.

Amount of information processed is a continuum... and there's no objective place on this continuum to delineate wanting from not wanting. All organisms are hard-wired to want to reproduce. If there any exceptions, they don't exert any influence on the gene pool.

Galloism wrote:

Xerographica wrote:A bigger brain allows humans to process more information about their wants. But even though trees don't have big brains, they also process information about their wants. A tree doesn't always bloom and bear fruit. Reproducing is energetically costly, so the tree endeavors to do so when the circumstances are optimal, which depends on processing quite a bit of information... temperature, moisture, light, genetic compatibility and so on.

Amount of information processed is a continuum... and there's no objective place on this continuum to delineate wanting from not wanting. All organisms are hard-wired to want to reproduce. If there any exceptions, they don't exert any influence on the gene pool.

Where is this tree brain located?

Galloism wrote:

Xerographica wrote:A bigger brain allows humans to process more information about their wants. But even though trees don't have big brains, they also process information about their wants. A tree doesn't always bloom and bear fruit. Reproducing is energetically costly, so the tree endeavors to do so when the circumstances are optimal, which depends on processing quite a bit of information... temperature, moisture, light, genetic compatibility and so on.

Amount of information processed is a continuum... and there's no objective place on this continuum to delineate wanting from not wanting. All organisms are hard-wired to want to reproduce. If there any exceptions, they don't exert any influence on the gene pool.

Where is this tree brain located?

Xerographica wrote:

Galloism wrote:Where is this tree brain located?

There's a debate whether a spider's web is part of its brain (extended cognition). Think about a big tree with its immense web of roots and countless leaves... they all gather information which the tree needs to process. Where, exactly, does the tree process all this information? I'm not exactly sure, but it's a fact that it does process it all... and it uses it to decide when is the best time to try and reproduce.

All our wants are based on information that we have gathered and processed. This is true whether we're talking about humans or trees.

Xerographica wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
A brain is necessary, but not sufficient. A human brain is sufficient but not necessary. The line is somewhere in between those two.

A bigger brain allows humans to process more information about their wants. But even though trees don't have big brains, they also process information about their wants. A tree doesn't always bloom and bear fruit. Reproducing is energetically costly, so the tree endeavors to do so when the circumstances are optimal, which depends on processing quite a bit of information... temperature, moisture, light, genetic compatibility and so on.

Amount of information processed is a continuum... and there's no objective place on this continuum to delineate wanting from not wanting. All organisms are hard-wired to want to reproduce. If there any exceptions, they don't exert any influence on the gene pool.

Salandriagado wrote:

Xerographica wrote:A bigger brain allows humans to process more information about their wants. But even though trees don't have big brains, they also process information about their wants. A tree doesn't always bloom and bear fruit. Reproducing is energetically costly, so the tree endeavors to do so when the circumstances are optimal, which depends on processing quite a bit of information... temperature, moisture, light, genetic compatibility and so on.

Amount of information processed is a continuum... and there's no objective place on this continuum to delineate wanting from not wanting. All organisms are hard-wired to want to reproduce. If there any exceptions, they don't exert any influence on the gene pool.

You are misunderstanding this. Trees don't have small brains. They don't have brains at all.

Salandriagado wrote:

Xerographica wrote:A bigger brain allows humans to process more information about their wants. But even though trees don't have big brains, they also process information about their wants. A tree doesn't always bloom and bear fruit. Reproducing is energetically costly, so the tree endeavors to do so when the circumstances are optimal, which depends on processing quite a bit of information... temperature, moisture, light, genetic compatibility and so on.

Amount of information processed is a continuum... and there's no objective place on this continuum to delineate wanting from not wanting. All organisms are hard-wired to want to reproduce. If there any exceptions, they don't exert any influence on the gene pool.

You are misunderstanding this. Trees don't have small brains. They don't have brains at all.

Xerographica wrote:

Salandriagado wrote:
You are misunderstanding this. Trees don't have small brains. They don't have brains at all.

Plants and fungi play the 'underground market'. Market participants make choices... which means having preferences and wants.

Albrenia wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Plants and fungi play the 'underground market'. Market participants make choices... which means having preferences and wants.

No more than a tree 'decides' to grow towards the sun's rays. They're impressive things, those fungi, no doubt, but that doesn't prove a mind, much less active desires.

Xerographica wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
No more than a tree 'decides' to grow towards the sun's rays. They're impressive things, those fungi, no doubt, but that doesn't prove a mind, much less active desires.

You engage in a cost/benefit analysis before deciding to engage me in discussion. Plants and fungi also engage in cost/benefit analysis before deciding to trade with each other. Every organism wants the most bang for its buck.

Galloism wrote:

Xerographica wrote:You engage in a cost/benefit analysis before deciding to engage me in discussion. Plants and fungi also engage in cost/benefit analysis before deciding to trade with each other. Every organism wants the most bang for its buck.

Let's prove plants and fungi have the capability to engage in a cost/benefit analysis.

Hell, any analysis at all.

Xerographica wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
No more than a tree 'decides' to grow towards the sun's rays. They're impressive things, those fungi, no doubt, but that doesn't prove a mind, much less active desires.

You engage in a cost/benefit analysis before deciding to engage me in discussion. Plants and fungi also engage in cost/benefit analysis before deciding to trade with each other. Every organism wants the most bang for its buck.

Galloism wrote:

Xerographica wrote:You engage in a cost/benefit analysis before deciding to engage me in discussion. Plants and fungi also engage in cost/benefit analysis before deciding to trade with each other. Every organism wants the most bang for its buck.

Let's prove plants and fungi have the capability to engage in a cost/benefit analysis.

Hell, any analysis at all.

'This is one of the first recorded examples of a 'biological market' operating in which both partners reward fair trading rather than one partner having the advantage and exploiting the other,' said Professor Stuart West of Oxford University's Department of Zoology, an author of the paper. 'We've shown that both plants and fungi can be choosy, 'playing the market' and looking for a better trading partner if they aren't getting a good deal.

Publica wrote:

Xerographica wrote:You engage in a cost/benefit analysis before deciding to engage me in discussion. Plants and fungi also engage in cost/benefit analysis before deciding to trade with each other. Every organism wants the most bang for its buck.

that's like saying a computer will engage in a cost-benfit analysis if you program it to follow certain criteria. Like not trade with computers that are programmed not to share. There's no analysis for the fungi, it's simply how they are 'programmed' to act by evolution.

We were wanderers from the beginning. We knew every stand of tree for a hundred miles. When the fruits or nuts were ripe, we were there. We followed the herds in their annual migrations. We rejoiced in fresh meat. through stealth, feint, ambush, and main-force assault, a few of us cooperating accomplished what many of us, each hunting alone, could not. We depended on one another. Making it on our own was as ludicrous to imagine as was settling down.

Working together, we protected our children from the lions and the hyenas. We taught them the skills they would need. And the tools. Then, as now, technology was the key to our survival.

When the drought was prolonged, or when an unsettling chill lingered in the summer air, our group moved on—sometimes to unknown lands. We sought a better place. And when we couldn't get on with the others in our little nomadic band, we left to find a more friendly bunch somewhere else. We could always begin again.

For 99.9 percent of the time since our species came to be, we were hunters and foragers, wanderers on the savannahs and the steppes. There were no border guards then, no customs officials. The frontier was everywhere. We were bounded only by the Earth and the ocean and the sky—plus occasional grumpy neighbors.

When the climate was congenial, though, when the food was plentiful, we were willing to stay put. Unadventurous. Overweight. Careless. In the last ten thousand years—an instant in our long history—we've abandoned the nomadic life. We've domesticated the plants and animals. Why chase the food when you can make it come to you?

For all its material advantages, the sedentary life has left us edgy, unfulfilled. Even after 400 generations in villages and cities, we haven't forgotten. The open road still softly calls, like a nearly forgotten song of childhood. We invest far-off places with a certain romance. This appeal, I suspect, has been meticulously crafted by natural selection as an essential element in our survival. Long summers, mild winters, rich harvests, plentiful game—none of them lasts forever. It is beyond our powers to predict the future. Catastrophic events have a way of sneaking up on us, of catching us unaware. Your own life, or your band's, or even your species' might be owed to a restless few—drawn, by a craving they can hardly articulate or understand, to undiscovered lands and new worlds.

Herman Melville, in Moby Dick, spoke for wanderers in all epochs and meridians: "I am tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote. I love to sail forbidden seas..."

Maybe it's a little early—maybe the time is not quite yet—but those other worlds, promising untold opportunities, beckon. Silently, they orbit the sun, waiting. - Carl Sagan

The purpose of SpaceX, the reason for creating SpaceX, was to accelerate the advent of humanity, becoming a spacefaring civilization, to help advance rocket technology to a point where we could potentially become a multiplanet species and a true spacefaring civilization. - Elon Musk