|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
Dety
Old No.7

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 1,685
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#5878113 - 07/19/06 02:48 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Very cool thanks for the video shroomydan.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: beyondsisxth]
#5881223 - 07/20/06 12:08 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
beyondsisxth,
Quote:
just because you believe there is some purpose present doesn't make it so, and believing thus in contrary to scientific evidence makes your argument incompatible with science. So its a nice thought, but not useful for mycology, which is the branch of science dealing with the study of fungi.
Just because you believe there is no purpose does not make it so. You are merely begging the question . One who argues against purpose is like a color blind person trying to convince us that there is no purple.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, which you have stated, and you can believe that hypotheses counter to your opinion are "pseudo scientific bullshit", but that does not make you right. Your attitude reveals that you only countenance one type of causality, when there are in fact two: efficient causality and final causality. Efficient causality answers the question how, and final causality answers the question why. You will not learn about final causality in a biology class, as it is the subject matter of philosophy.
When a mushroom waits to release it's spores until the wind is blowing, there are two questions: How does it do? and why does it do it? The why seems evident to me. The mushrooms waits until the wind is blowing because the wind helps disperse its spores, giving the mushroom a greater chance of reproducing.
You don't need to be a PhD in biology to understand the purpose of the mushroom's behavior. Those who fail to see final causality suffer from a condition akin to color-blindness.
Answering the question of how requires the scientific method. I have already proposed a hypothesis that there may be an electro-chemical mechanism triggering the simultaneous release of spores from all sacs a few seconds after stimulus. There need not be a neural network to account for this. I'm thinking something much simpler. Mushrooms are mostly water and are quite capable of transferring electrical signals from cell to cell, no complex wiring is required.
This is a hypothesis which needs to be tested, not dismissed out of hand because of some silly scientific dogmatism. Dogmas have a place in theology, but in science they fall every time they are established. If you don't believe me, then a quick review of physics from Aristotle, to Copernicus, to Newton, to Einstein... should convince you that what is held to be scientific fact is routinely disproved and replaced with new models. Just look at all the different models of the atom that have held prominence in the last 200 years.
You may wish to dismiss inquiry aimed at better understanding our little fungal friends, but I wish for the discussion to continue. Your objection has been noted.
|
toole
white-thumb (Onewhackmycophiliac)



Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 500
Loc: spore #1203 - bas 2.34 - ...
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#5881250 - 07/20/06 12:19 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Despite ignorant arguments;
Very nice work shroomydan, I enjoyed the video thoroughly, can't wait to see where it goes.
"The mushrooms waits until the wind is blowing because the wind helps disperse its spores, giving the mushroom a greater chance of reproducing. "
That I thought was incredibly interesting.
-------------------- -the adventures of suse and prescott.9- ..and the neverending triscut of doom !
|
beyondsisxth
Title?


Registered: 04/08/05
Posts: 232
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#5881400 - 07/20/06 01:20 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, which you have stated, and you can believe that hypotheses counter to your opinion are "pseudo scientific bullshit", but that does not make you right.
I'll apologize for the acerbity of that statement. Rogerrabbits lackadaisical response put my spine up a bit.
Quote:
Your attitude reveals that you only countenance one type of causality, when there are in fact two: efficient causality and final causality. Efficient causality answers the question how, and final causality answers the question why.
Science does not answer the questions of why, claiming it does is wrong, and as soon as you try to explain the "whys?" you have left the tent of science.
Quote:
You will not learn about final causality in a biology class, as it is the subject matter of philosophy.
Ding, ding ding! I wonder why.
Philosophy and science are not compatible and you can't use conclusions from one to support the other. Its pseudoscience because science is based on experimentation. How the hell do you design an experiment to determine purpose? How does empirical data tell you what something wants to do or is destined to do? How would a hypothesis based on purpose manage to avoid Occam's Razor when there are many, many more plausible theories in place to explain the behavior? A hypothesis based on philosophy has no predictive power and as such is useless to science.
If this thread is about mycophilosophy rather than mycology (which is a scientific field), then fine, I'll drop this. But even then its still not science, and you do science a diservice by claiming so.
Quote:
When a mushroom waits to release it's spores until the wind is blowing, there are two questions: How does it do? and why does it do it? The why seems evident to me. The mushrooms waits until the wind is blowing because the wind helps disperse its spores, giving the mushroom a greater chance of reproducing.
Exactly! There isn't anything purposeful about it! This behavior is advantageous to survival, those mushrooms that had the capability to drop spores because of wind disturbance survive to pass on their genes which encode their offspring to repeat the same behaviors.
If you have an alternative explanation the onus is upon you to not only disprove the current paradigm of evolutionary theory, but to propose one that explains more phenomena and predicts more outcomes.
Quote:
You don't need to be a PhD in biology to understand the purpose of the mushroom's behavior. Those who fail to see final causality suffer from a condition akin to color-blindness.
Causality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) as you are using it is a tenet of philosophy, and is such a different way of interpreting the world than science. The two forms of knowledge are not compatible, for the same reasons that religion and science are not compatible.
Quote:
Answering the question of how requires the scientific method. I have already proposed a hypothesis that there may be an electro-chemical mechanism triggering the simultaneous release of spores from all sacs a few seconds after stimulus. There need not be a neural network to account for this. I'm thinking something much simpler. Mushrooms are mostly water and are quite capable of transferring electrical signals from cell to cell, no complex wiring is required.
This is a start, a testable hypothesis. Now you need to prove that there is discrete electrical conductivity in mycelium. I'm pretty sure there isn't but if you find a study or publish one yourself that stands up to the rigors of peer review, I'll happily suscribe to your news letter.
Quote:
This is a hypothesis which needs to be tested, not dismissed out of hand because of some silly scientific dogmatism. Dogmas have a place in theology, but in science they fall every time they are established. If you don't believe me, then a quick review of physics from Aristotle, to Copernicus, to Newton, to Einstein... should convince you that what is held to be scientific fact is routinely disproved and replaced with new models. Just look at all the different models of the atom that have held prominence in the last 200 years.
Again, how do you test purpose? How do you determine what something wants to do? I don't dismiss your theory out of dogma, thats not how science works. If you want your views to be held superior to the paradigms already in place you have to show why evolutionary theory is wrong, and why your theory of Fungal Teleology is right.
You gloss over the shift in scientific paradigms from Aristotle to Einstein while ignoring contexts. Einstein's theory of relativity didn't gain prevalance just because it seemed so damn plausible. First, the preceding paradigm of Aether Theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories) was disproven, paving the way for Einstein's new explanation which handled the phenomena and experimental data better. Your theory doesn't explain why evolutionary theory is wrong, and so is untenable.
Quote:
You may wish to dismiss inquiry aimed at better understanding our little fungal friends, but I wish for the discussion to continue. Your objection has been noted.
I don't want to dismiss inquiry aimed at better understanding, but you have a lot of work to do and a nobel prize to win if you think your theory is truly correct. EDIT: In terms of science at least.
Edited by beyondsisxth (07/20/06 01:41 PM)
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure


Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 11 months, 3 days
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: beyondsisxth]
#5881491 - 07/20/06 01:49 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I'm sure glad you weren't one of the Wright brothers. We'd all still be riding bicycles.
They had an idea, a theory, a ridiculous concept that all the experts in physics said was a stupid idea that would never work. However, they with no advanced education or credentials in science or physics proceeded to prove the experts wrong. How? Because their stupid idea that they were not even scientifically qualified to explain got off the ground and flew.
Nobody has a desire to spend millions of dollars on a lab to prove to you exactly what electrical, chemical, psychic or whatever triggers those spores to release. I'm content to observe the phenomenology of what happens and allow my mind to wander. I also have no scientific idea how or why the mycelium can navigate a maze, but I refuse to simply dismiss the phenomenon because I'm not qualified to explain why. I simply observe and wonder, sometimes out loud, which is exactly what shroomydan is doing. That's the process that ideas, sometimes stupid, ridiculous ideas that will never fly come about. Those who don't like that are free to bury their heads in their books and continue to do their writing on stone tablets and ride donkeys to the collective farm. The rest of us will continue to dream and imagine what, how, and why, and most importantly, what if?. RR
-------------------- Download Let's Grow Mushrooms semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat "I've never had a failed experiment. I've only discovered 10,000 methods which do not work." Thomas Edison
|
beyondsisxth
Title?


Registered: 04/08/05
Posts: 232
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: RogerRabbit]
#5881532 - 07/20/06 02:05 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RogerRabbit said: I'm sure glad you weren't one of the Wright brothers. We'd all still be riding bicycles.
That was an engineering hurdle, not a scientific one. Thats a strawman argument.
Quote:
They had an idea, a theory, a ridiculous concept that all the experts in physics said was a stupid idea that would never work. However, they with no advanced education or credentials in science or physics proceeded to prove the experts wrong. How? Because their stupid idea that they were not even scientifically qualified to explain got off the ground and flew.
Again, engineering hurdle. Nobody thought heavier than air flight was impossible. The mere existence of birds showed thinkers it was possible, and Leonardo DaVinci worked all his life on this problem. The Wright brothers breakthrough is not attributed to some new understanding of science, but merely that they figured out that a fixed wing with a camber is the most energy efficient way to achieve flight. All others before for the most part tried powered wings or many wings. The mere fact that people tried for so long shows you that they didn't believe it impossible, just technologically straining. Again, another strawman.
Quote:
Nobody has a desire to spend millions of dollars on a lab to prove to you exactly what electrical, chemical, psychic or whatever triggers those spores to release. I'm content to observe the phenomenology of what happens and allow my mind to wander. I also have no scientific idea how or why the mycelium can navigate a maze, but I refuse to simply dismiss the phenomenon because I'm not qualified to explain why. I simply observe and wonder, sometimes out loud, which is exactly what shroomydan is doing. That's the process that ideas, sometimes stupid, ridiculous ideas that will never fly come about. Those who don't like that are free to bury their heads in their books and continue to do their writing on stone tablets and ride donkeys to the collective farm. The rest of us will continue to dream and imagine what, how, and why, and most importantly, what if?. RR
Fine, I'll drop this, but if you're going to continue to ignore science, please refrain from employing it in your phenomenological explanations.
Enjoy the rest of your discussion.
-------------------- The sun was pulling cheap shots doing commercial body tricks, Behind the back, Under the leg, I think he even did a headspin, On a crossfader that sounded whack, But looked excellent, All of the sudden it gets dim, The crater face steps in, Puts mexican drumbreaks on the Technics, He's like "Let's begin", He conducted an orchestra so dope the sun started sweatin' him, I guess he'd expected to win on pure artistic merit, Composing complex plays with nothin but soundbytes, Burned out the lights, Made MCs too self conscious quit the master mics, For a thousand nights, It continued without a single slip up, Except once the record skipped, But it kinda sounded cool.
|
toole
white-thumb (Onewhackmycophiliac)



Registered: 05/01/06
Posts: 500
Loc: spore #1203 - bas 2.34 - ...
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: beyondsisxth]
#5881919 - 07/20/06 04:29 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Theres no science to flight?
No science to a theory.
No science to an invention?
Stop arguing and go read some Michael Crichton
-------------------- -the adventures of suse and prescott.9- ..and the neverending triscut of doom !
|
beyondsisxth
Title?


Registered: 04/08/05
Posts: 232
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: toole]
#5881943 - 07/20/06 04:41 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Thats not what I said, at all. The Wright Brother's didn't pioneer any type of new physics or discover any new gas laws, they applied pre-existant knowledge discovered by scientists like Newton and Bernouli to a new application. Thats called engineering. Engineering feats are no less spectacular and they do involve science, but its not the same process as generating a new theory, which was the point you missed.
-------------------- The sun was pulling cheap shots doing commercial body tricks, Behind the back, Under the leg, I think he even did a headspin, On a crossfader that sounded whack, But looked excellent, All of the sudden it gets dim, The crater face steps in, Puts mexican drumbreaks on the Technics, He's like "Let's begin", He conducted an orchestra so dope the sun started sweatin' him, I guess he'd expected to win on pure artistic merit, Composing complex plays with nothin but soundbytes, Burned out the lights, Made MCs too self conscious quit the master mics, For a thousand nights, It continued without a single slip up, Except once the record skipped, But it kinda sounded cool.
Edited by beyondsisxth (07/20/06 04:53 PM)
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure


Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 11 months, 3 days
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: beyondsisxth]
#5882127 - 07/20/06 05:53 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
He didn't miss anything, you did. The Wright brothers were not engineers, they were bicycle mechanics who dared to dream and experiment and weren't intimidated by know it alls who tried to persuade them to give it up because they weren't scientists. Don't forget that. They also didn't simply apply existing physics to a fixed wing. In fact, gliders utilizing the venturi effect discovered by Bernoulli had flown long before the 1903 wright flyer. To say they simply solved an engineering problem is absurd when leading scientists of the day flat out stated that sustained heavier than air mechanical flight is physically impossible, just like you say that sentience in mushrooms is impossible even though nobody is accusing you of being a leading scientist. They solved a science problem and the whole world recognizes that. Engineering development to refine the invention came later.
Now, back to mushrooms. Anybody have any idea how the mushroom knows the wind is blowing? RR
-------------------- Download Let's Grow Mushrooms semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat "I've never had a failed experiment. I've only discovered 10,000 methods which do not work." Thomas Edison
|
EquilibriuM
dream stalker

Registered: 07/17/05
Posts: 2,323
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: RogerRabbit]
#5882419 - 07/20/06 07:33 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
They can feel it?
-------------------- HELP!!!!!!!!!
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: EquilibriuM]
#5886494 - 07/22/06 02:21 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Has anyone tried to EEG mushroom mycelia to determine if electrical signals are being transmitted?
I would bet against it, but anything's possible I suppose.
Also, has anyone tried repeating the maze experiments? One instance of debatable maze solving doesn't really warrant this much interest and debate IMO.
-FF
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure


Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 11 months, 3 days
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: fastfred]
#5894465 - 07/24/06 02:04 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Here's a sensitive mushroom for you. The flower is growing right through the reishi(Ganoderma oregonese) and neither one was attacking the other. They were living in peace. When the mushroom reached the flower, it simply grew around it and kept going. It didn't even push the little flower out of the way. I found this interesting enough to clone this mushroom. It's now growing out in my lab and is already on grain. I'll transfer to alder sawdust and douglas fir chips in a few days and see how well it grows in captivity. In the wild, this species grows conks up to 16" in diameter and flushes several times during the growing season. It's reputed to have all the same medicinal properties of G lucidum, but ten times the size. RR
-------------------- Download Let's Grow Mushrooms semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat "I've never had a failed experiment. I've only discovered 10,000 methods which do not work." Thomas Edison
|
Pinback
Stranger


Registered: 07/20/02
Posts: 836
Loc: Europe
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: RogerRabbit]
#5894939 - 07/24/06 05:02 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I sometimes see that with other polypores growing close to the ground. It is really not uncommon.
I read on a Swedish mushroom forum that you can engulf objects into polypores by fixing them to the growing edge with some steel wire. A nice picture can be found here (Fomitopsis pinicola).
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure


Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 11 months, 3 days
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Pinback]
#5895676 - 07/24/06 08:37 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Bubble burster. I thought it was because the mushroom had the emotional sensitivity to avoid causing undue mental anguish upon the poor flower by allowing it free passage and protection from the wind and other elements, while hybridizing plant and fungi 
Seriously though, cool picture. I was thinking of something I could stick in the way of one of those to get it to envelop. Perhaps one of my daughter's old barbie dolls?
Sorry for the off topic drift. RR
|
Anno
Experimenter



Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 20 days, 16 hours
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: RogerRabbit]
#5896484 - 07/24/06 11:57 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
>The Wright brothers were not engineers, they were bicycle mechanics
They were repairing, designing and building bycicles. They were doing the work of engineers, they were self-taught engineers.
>weren't intimidated by know it alls who tried to persuade them to give it up because they weren't scientists.
They weren't the only ones experimenting in this field, in fact, there were dozends of poeple worldwide working to develop a motorized glider.
>To say they simply solved an engineering problem is absurd when leading >scientists of the day flat out stated that sustained heavier than air >mechanical flight is physically impossible
No leading scientist in the beginning field of aeronautics would say that, particulary since years before the brothers Wright there were steam engine povered unmanned gliders build and flown by others.
You should read the following documents to refine your view about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers http://www.nasm.si.edu/wrightbrothers/fly/index.cfm http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/WrBr/taleplane.html
|
RogerRabbit
Bans for Pleasure


Registered: 03/26/03
Posts: 42,214
Loc: Seattle
Last seen: 11 months, 3 days
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Anno]
#5897115 - 07/25/06 04:21 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Yea, I've been a pilot for nearly 40 years, and an engineer for 30. I'm well aquainted with the process of aeronautical development. However, there were no leading scientists in that field, only eccentric experimenters. The Wright brothers invented the airplane, and we still use their development to this day. Orville Wright designed a wind tunnel, but not just to test the wing. It took another major breakthrough to acheive powered flight. What was it they developed? Look it up.
Also, history records that their motorized glider was the first powered mechanical flight in 1901. In 1903, they made history on the beach in South Carolina.
History also records the ridicule they received by just about everybody but Alexander Graham Bell.
My point wasn't a history lesson, but a wake up call that things are not always what they appear. So-called higher life forms may use neural networks to process 'feel', but that doesn't mean that all life forms must have the same systems or be unaware. I just want to encourage an open mind to observe and wonder about whatever presents itself. RR
-------------------- Download Let's Grow Mushrooms semper in excretia sumus solim profundum variat "I've never had a failed experiment. I've only discovered 10,000 methods which do not work." Thomas Edison
|
Feelers
Anti-Myth-Rhythm-Rock-Shocker


Registered: 06/18/02
Posts: 1,806
Loc: Land of Oz
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: RogerRabbit]
#5897182 - 07/25/06 05:38 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Well I'm science all the way- and it looks to me as if shroomydans mushrooms ARE using a mechanical trigger to release spores into the wind. I can see it makes good evolutionary sense and could be explained by a chemical release or something similar even perhaps electrical impulses . I dont think anyone disagrees with this?
So was this a simultaenous spore release or a "wave" release- thats the first thing that should be answered to try and solve this dilly of a pickle!!!
I think the discussion turned into philosophy rather than science at one point.
On the maze front I am much, much more sceptical. This is far beyond the above scenario. I think the two situations aren't really related at all.
|
Anno
Experimenter



Registered: 06/17/99
Posts: 24,166
Loc: my room
Last seen: 20 days, 16 hours
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: RogerRabbit]
#5904553 - 07/27/06 07:35 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
> history records that their motorized glider was the first powered mechanical flight in 1901.
Wrong. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Langley .
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Anno]
#5927585 - 08/03/06 12:57 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
This post is directed to no one in particular, but is rather an overview of what I've observed here. I find the things discussed here awfully interesting, and visit this forum often, but I don't have much to contribute compared to you great mycomasters.
First, I'm rather surprised that, to some of you, the fact that a "puffball" mushroom (Basidiomycota) explodes when you touch seems like new information. Maybe I spent too much time in the forest as a child, but I thought this was common knowledge.
Secondly, the amount of ad hominems directed against the people who seem to have the most knowledge about this subject and, consequentially, the best explanation, is appalling. I can only speculate, and I will spare you from it here, as to why some people have decided to behave so rudely to those who offer an explanation that isn't monumentally fanciful.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#5927619 - 08/03/06 01:15 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Aristotle said that there are three kinds of souls (animating principles): vegetative, sensitive, and rational. He said that plants have vegetative souls, which direct their growth. Animals have sensitive souls which direct their growth and motion, allowing them to react to their environment. And only humans have rational souls, directing growth and motion, and allowing them to think abstractly, IE grasp universal forms (mathematics etc.). (Emphasis added)
Plants do react to their environment. If you sat down and watched a leaf of a tree all day, you would notice that throughout the the day, the leaf rotates so the top of it faces the sun. Plants are also able to react to their environments by growing around objects, openning and closing their stomata, etc. All these processes are purely mechanical and well understood. By Aristotle's definition, plants would be "sensitive" since they're capable of growth, movement, and reacting to their environment.
Since I cannot currently think of a single organism that doesn't grow, move, and react to its environment, the same could probably be said about fungi.
Every living thing is aware to a certain degree, and some life forms are more aware than others.
Now that is a whole nother can of worms!
Edited by MushmanTheManic (08/03/06 01:15 AM)
|
|