|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive!
#5606196 - 05/08/06 07:04 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Log in to view attachment
I have been wanting to make this post for a few years now, but today I finally recorded video to prove it. 
This could easily fit into either the mushroom hunting forum or the philosophy forum, but I'm posting it here because this is where the smart folks hang. 
A few years ago I found a cluster of orange cup fungi (I was unable to ID them) growing on the bank of a small stream in Clear Creek Metro Park, south of Columbus Ohio. When I touched them, they sent out a small puff of white spores. It seemed that they had sensed a disturbance and reacted by forcibly ejecting spores. The following year I observed a similar phenomenon with a small brown cup fungi (unable to ID).
It really got me thinking. 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.).
I have been in an ongoing debate with my first philosophy Professor, Dr. David DeLeonardis, concerning the distinction between kinds of souls. I have always held that the distinction between vegetative and sensitive souls, and between sensitive and rational souls, is a difference in degree rather than in kind. I have argued that all souls exist on a continuum of awareness, with "vegetative" life forms on the low end of awareness, and with "rational animals" (humans), on the high end of the continuum. Every living thing is aware to a certain degree, and some life forms are more aware than others.
Aristotle never mentions fungi, but I think it is safe to assume that he would have classified them as vegetative along with plants.
Rather than going too deeply into the details of the argument, let me post some pictures.

I first recorded the phenomenon of spore dispersal related to physical sensation last spring with these Scarlet Cups (Sarcoscypha austriaca). I noticed that when the wind blew hard, the mushrooms would release their spores. This makes good evolutionary sense, because spores released into the wind will travel further than spores released into still air. One might argue this is not true sensitivity, but rather a hair trigger reaction to pressure on a given cell. This cannot be the case, however, because the reaction is delayed and occurs simultaneously throughout the entire cluster of mushrooms.
This spring I noticed the phenomenon in unidentified brown cup fungi. The spore discharge when I blew on them was so pronounced that I heard a loud Fssszzz as my head was engulfed in a cloud of white spores. I jumped back and almost fell down. It seems the spore discharge may also serve as a defense against predation.
Doc D. argued that sensitivity could be proven if an organism could initiate motion to avoid predation. While the spore discharge in the attached video is not as powerful as in the brown cup fungi above, it may be enough to scare off a mouse or other small critter looking for a meal. Note the lag between the stimulus (me blowing on them [Disciotis venosa]), and the reaction (spore discharge).
Edited by shroomydan (05/08/06 07:08 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: shroomydan]
#5606658 - 05/08/06 09:17 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
That is too cool bro. Now I'm gonna have to start getting down on my knees and blowing mushrooms, just to check for the phenomena. Mrs rabbit called the brown one 'Jews ear' and says it's edible. Not sure what the Latin name is though. 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
|
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]
#5607267 - 05/09/06 12:54 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
|
Zen Peddler


Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 6,379
Loc: orbit
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#5607464 - 05/09/06 03:01 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Cool post mate -
--------------------
|
shobimono
Why?
Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 561
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Zen Peddler]
#5607589 - 05/09/06 04:44 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
This is how those cup mushrooms dispearse their spores.
The inside surface of the cup is lined with capped cylinders containing spores under pressure. When air, ie from your breath or the wind, blows across the top of these cylinders, the lids dry out and shrink, this allows the pressure to release, shooting out the spores.
It's pretty cool to try. You don't need to blow like you are trying to blow all the candles out on a birthday cake, just a quick puff should suffice.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shobimono]
#5607607 - 05/09/06 05:06 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Your explanation does not account for the phenomenon shobimono. The spores puff out when the mushroom is disturbed by touching as well as by blowing. Touching would not cause the cylinder lids to dry out.
Do you have a link to support your theory?
|
shobimono
Why?
Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 561
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#5607695 - 05/09/06 06:51 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I would guess that touching the cup physically dislodges that caps that cover the cylinders.
I don't think gently stroking the underside of the cup is going to make them disperse spores (unless you breath on the cup while you do it 
Giving them a poke might cause some spores dispersal, but again I would think that the caps on the cylinders are being physically dislodged, and that dispersal would be in the area that was poked.
I mean the whole surface doesn't disperse spores because you gently touch one edge of the cup.
|
shobimono
Why?
Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 561
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shobimono]
#5607704 - 05/09/06 07:03 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Cup fungi are Ascomycetes. Ascomycota: Sexual spores (ascospores) form in a sac called an ascus (usually in eights), and are often discharged forcibly. The group is often called "ascomycetes" informally.
from http://herbarium.usu.edu/fungi/FunFacts/Dispersal.htm
"Some cup fungi use a bursting cell to "shoot" spores through the boundary layer. In cup fungi, the spores are contained within a special cell called the ascus. Fungi whose spores are contained in an ascus are known as Ascomycetes.
When the spores are mature the ascus absorbs water. Insoluble materials in the cell are converted to soluble materials, causing internal pressure to build. When the pressure is high enough, the spores and the cytoplasm are explosively discharged. Spore release is explosive because of a weak point at the tip of the ascus that ruptures suddenly. The weak point can be a small circular "lid" (operculum) or an elastic ring. Humidity changes cause some cup fungi to discharge large numbers of asci (plural of ascus) all at once, "puffing out" a visible spore cloud.
More air turbulence is created by discharging all the spores at once than when a single ascus explodes. The spores have a better chance of escaping the boundary layer and being dispersed farther if the air is turbulent. The range of spore dispersal depends on size of the projectile. Larger spores, or clumps of spores, are shot farther. Podospora fimicola discharges all 8 of its spores as a single projectile as far as 20 inches (50 cm). "
|
Tamadragon
Stranger


Registered: 02/29/04
Posts: 382
Loc: CAN
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shobimono] 1
#5610350 - 05/09/06 08:34 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
----
Edited by Tamadragon (05/12/06 03:48 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: Tamadragon]
#5610376 - 05/09/06 08:39 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Mushrooms are NOT just like plants.
This is cool even if it isn't ground breaking science news, and he explained in the second sentence why it's placed here. 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
|
Tamadragon
Stranger


Registered: 02/29/04
Posts: 382
Loc: CAN
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: RogerRabbit]
#5610403 - 05/09/06 08:46 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
---------
-------------------- ~Tama Peace I get real lonely
Edited by Tamadragon (05/12/06 03:48 PM)
|
beyondsisxth
Title?


Registered: 04/08/05
Posts: 232
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Tamadragon]
#5611266 - 05/10/06 12:49 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Do you have any links that explain that physiology beneath plant and fungal awareness and consciousness? I've taken several college biology classes, and none have ever insinuated that plants and fungi are conscious entities with complexity surpassing simple physiological response. I wouldn't even argue that sponges have any sort of awareness, and they're actually classified as animals. These life forms simply don't have the biological capacity for information processing on that level.
-------------------- 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.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Tamadragon]
#5611622 - 05/10/06 05:36 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I don't really care if you think this should be moved. You might notice the little green tag beside my name. You might also notice there is not a little green tag beside your name.
If you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, then please don't post in this thread.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: beyondsisxth]
#5611668 - 05/10/06 06:23 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I've taken several college biology classes, and none have ever insinuated that plants and fungi are conscious entities with complexity surpassing simple physiological response.
This is the same story I got in my biology classes. The standard biological theory is that plants and fungi are not aware at all, and that any observed activity is simply due to mechanical or chemical reactions.
I am not a biologist however; my primary field of study is philosophy, and when I see lower life forms reacting to their environments, I see purpose.
When a vine sends out one of those little curly things and grabs onto a branch, it seems to do so because it wants to climb to the top of the tree where it can get more light. Is the vine sensitive? Does it know the branch is there?
When a Venus Fly-Trap chomps a bug, it seems to do so because it wants to consume the nutrients in the bug. Is the Venus fly-trap sensitive? Is it aware of the bug?
These are questions of purpose, and are therefore beyond the scope of empirical science. They deal with final causality (why something happens), rather than efficient causality (how something happens). Modern science only recognizes efficient causality, because it is the only kind which can be measured. All bio-mechanical arguments against plants and fungi being aware could also be (and have been) used to argue that animals and even people are not truly aware. Some say motion and thought are merely the result of biochemical processes, and that in reality, all life forms are just complex machines. But the folks who argue thus fail to see purpose.
Purpose aside, let us return to a scientific analysis of the cup fungi:
Spore release is explosive because of a weak point at the tip of the ascus that ruptures suddenly. The weak point can be a small circular "lid" (operculum) or an elastic ring. Humidity changes cause some cup fungi to discharge large numbers of asci (plural of ascus) all at once, "puffing out" a visible spore cloud.
While blowing could cause a change in humidity, triggering the release of spores, touching would not. Maybe next time I find these I will record spore discharge from touching.
I don't know whether the mushrooms in the video have operculi or elastic rings closing off the spore tubes, but elastic rings seems to fit better with what I have observed. It seems to me that the mushroom senses the disturbance, and then after a short delay, all the tubes open at the same time. I have also noted that a mushroom only needs a few minutes to recharge before releasing another puff of spores.
My hypothesis is this: By some unknown process the mushroom feels the disturbance and through some electrochemical mechanism signals all the elastic rings to open at the same time. This would account for both the time lag between disturbance and spore release, and the fact that all tubes discharge simultaneously. I imagine this hypothesis could be tested by connecting electrical sensing equipment to the mushrooms and watching for signals during stimulus and spore release. I wonder if anyone has ever done this?
There may be another mechanism of action, but other hypotheses would need to account for the delay and simultaneous discharge.
|
Tamadragon
Stranger


Registered: 02/29/04
Posts: 382
Loc: CAN
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#5611709 - 05/10/06 07:13 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- ~Tama Peace I get real lonely
Edited by Tamadragon (05/10/06 07:18 AM)
|
Tamadragon
Stranger


Registered: 02/29/04
Posts: 382
Loc: CAN
Last seen: 15 years, 3 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Tamadragon]
#5611714 - 05/10/06 07:16 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
edit
-------------------- ~Tama Peace I get real lonely
Edited by Tamadragon (05/10/06 07:17 AM)
|
beyondsisxth
Title?


Registered: 04/08/05
Posts: 232
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#5611726 - 05/10/06 07:27 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shroomydan said:
This is the same story I got in my biology classes. The standard biological theory is that plants and fungi are not aware at all, and that any observed activity is simply due to mechanical or chemical reactions.
I am not a biologist however; my primary field of study is philosophy, and when I see lower life forms reacting to their environments, I see purpose.
When a vine sends out one of those little curly things and grabs onto a branch, it seems to do so because it wants to climb to the top of the tree where it can get more light. Is the vine sensitive? Does it know the branch is there?
These are all responses coded by these species' genomes. While there is a purpose, to pass on genetic information, its due in no part to any "desire" these organisms have. The vine doesn't reach for light and the mushroom doesn't disperse spores because they want to and it makes them happy, their biology dictates that they must lest they suffer the consequences of not passing on their genetics.
Clarification Edit: Also, I think I'm further confusing the matter. I'm not ascribing any sort of motive on the genomes part either. I'm saying that the genomes expression has certain consequences which produces these affects, which in the right conditions will lead to the survival of the organism.
Quote:
When a Venus Fly-Trap chomps a bug, it seems to do so because it wants to consume the nutrients in the bug. Is the Venus fly-trap sensitive? Is it aware of the bug?
No, the plant is not aware. Its a simple signal-transduction pathway that isn't at all dependant on whether a fly triggers it. Like many predatory plant species, if you touch the right hairs or trigger the right spot the fly trap will snap or the leaves will close.
Quote:
All bio-mechanical arguments against plants and fungi being aware could also be (and have been) used to argue that animals and even people are not truly aware. Some say motion and thought are merely the result of biochemical processes, and that in reality, all life forms are just complex machines. But the folks who argue thus fail to see purpose.
For one, 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.
Second, I'd say that the bio-mechanical arguments against the awareness of plants and fungi cannot be used to argue that people in particular and most advanced animals are not aware. The arguments are pinned on the prescence of certain neural tissues present in people and animals which are simply non-existant in plants, fungi and lower animal life forms (like sponges).
Quote:
While blowing could cause a change in humidity, triggering the release of spores, touching would not. Maybe next time I find these I will record spore discharge from touching.
If air currents and changes in humidity are enough to disturb and trigger the release of spores, why is it implausible that actual physical disturbance couldn't achieve the same?
Quote:
My hypothesis is this: By some unknown process the mushroom feels the disturbance and through some electrochemical mechanism signals all the elastic rings to open at the same time. This would account for both the time lag between disturbance and spore release, and the fact that all tubes discharge simultaneously. I imagine this hypothesis could be tested by connecting electrical sensing equipment to the mushrooms and watching for signals during stimulus and spore release. I wonder if anyone has ever done this?
There may be another mechanism of action, but other hypotheses would need to account for the delay and simultaneous discharge.
What tissue are you proposing is conducting these electrochemical signals? Are you proposing that the organism has some sort of nerve center that controls and processes these signals? Would the nerve center be part of the mycelial mat or the fruit body? How is the organism affected by the connection with other mycelial mats? I only ask because I was under the impression that fungal bodies consisted of all hyphae, and if there were some sort of complex system of transmitting and receiving signals throughout the organism, that there would be specialized tissue to facilitate the function.
-------------------- 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 (05/10/06 07:35 AM)
|
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]
#5611821 - 05/10/06 08:18 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
oh, so narrow minded. Just because humans have neural pathways, nerve centers, a brain, etc., that can help trigger physical reactions, doesn't mean plants and/or fungi must have the same systems in order to be aware. The space shuttle has far different and more complex systems than my little two seat airplane, but that doesn't mean they don't both fly.
Several years ago, I 'trained' mycelium to crawl through a maze. I proved mycelium has a memory because I could transfer a small piece of mycelium from a completed maze to an identical second maze and the mycelium would take the shortest path to the rye grain at the end. 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]
#5611972 - 05/10/06 09:21 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RogerRabbit said: oh, so narrow minded. Just because humans have neural pathways, nerve centers, a brain, etc., that can help trigger physical reactions, doesn't mean plants and/or fungi must have the same systems in order to be aware.
I'd say I'm being pretty civil with my questions, no need for the name calling just because I don't agree with you. You may say I'm narrow minded, but I'd say you're making some rather extraordinary claims, and those require extraordinary evidence. Since for plants and fungi, this system can't be electrochemical, how is it done? Purely hormonal? Cytoplasmic channeling? Is this awareness or simply a stimulus-response reaction?
Quote:
The space shuttle has far different and more complex systems than my little two seat airplane, but that doesn't mean they don't both fly.
"The Red Herring: This strangely-titled fallacy, named after a strong-smelling fish (the scent of which throws hounds off the scent of a trail), occurs when one draws attention away from the main issue in a given case by focusing on a side issue or on something irrelevant."
Thats very well and clever, but tell me, what do two analagous flying devices with homologous wing structures have to do with your argument that plants and fungi have neural systems capable of self-awareness with absolutely no homology to our own systems of the same purposes? If they do exist and they are different then our own, tell me how they work? Is it chemical or magic?
Quote:
Several years ago, I 'trained' mycelium to crawl through a maze. I proved mycelium has a memory because I could transfer a small piece of mycelium from a completed maze to an identical second maze and the mycelium would take the shortest path to the rye grain at the end. RR
What was your methodology? How does this prove that the mycelium isn't just detecting the shortest path to food rather than remembering it? You're automatically assuming that your one hypothesis is the truth, when I don't see that being the only possible explanation.
-------------------- 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.
|
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]
#5612035 - 05/10/06 09:46 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Oh, I didn't mean the narrow minded as a personal attack. I see how you took it that way though, I poorly worded my thoughts. Sorry.
No, I don't think fungi have neural systems. Those seem to be reserved for the animal kingdom. However, I don't feel that science and mysticism need necessarily always be separated from each other. Science is just now studying fungi on a serious level. However, they've been doing that with humans for eons and still we don't know what constitutes 'consciousness', thus mysticism and religion still have a part in our lives, and it's my guess they always will.
The airplane analogy was to compare complex systems with simple ones.(humans/fungi). Imagine a million years from now, archeologists digging up the space shuttle and analyzing it. They would determine that complex electrical pathways controlled by computers manipulated the aircraft, thus mechanical flight required those complex systems. However, what if later they dug up my airplane with no computer, no wiring except to the spark plugs, no blood system(hydraulics), etc., and determined it couldn't possibly fly because it didn't have those complex systems. I'm afraid that is where we head when we declare that fungi, or even plants for that matter can not be 'aware' because they lack animal neurological systems. Perhaps they have different, as yet undiscovered systems? 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]
#5612224 - 05/10/06 11:10 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I want to know more about the maze, can you elaborate on your experiments RR ?
-------------------- HELP!!!!!!!!!
|
mycogirl
goddamn



Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 1,135
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: RogerRabbit]
#5612349 - 05/10/06 11:50 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RogerRabbit said: Several years ago, I 'trained' mycelium to crawl through a maze. I proved mycelium has a memory because I could transfer a small piece of mycelium from a completed maze to an identical second maze and the mycelium would take the shortest path to the rye grain at the end. RR
This is indeed very interesting. Can you prove the mycelium had some type of cellular memory though, and not that only the mycelium best fit to change direction survived. This seems like it could be selection, not training. (But these are what make good experiments, right?)
I'm not sure how you could even tell the two phenomena apart.
--------------------
|
texas34
Lurker

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 23
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: EquilibriuM]
#5612417 - 05/10/06 12:06 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Just a quick post for now. I'll look for some references later tonight. Anyway, mycelia has been shown to detect chemicals released from dead or alive plant tissues and grow towards it. It is likely that your fungus was following a diffusion gradient to the point source of the attractant (grain). If a wall blocked its way, the fungus would grow around it and reorient its grow towards the source again once it was past the wall. A good experiment would be to use a maze with a different design to see if the fungus still picked the shortest route or if it got "lost". Later, T34
|
Birthbytongue
Apprentice

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 206
Last seen: 3 months, 13 days
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#5612626 - 05/10/06 12:53 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shroomydan said: I have always held that the distinction between vegetative and sensitive souls, and between sensitive and rational souls, is a difference in degree rather than in kind. I have argued that all souls exist on a continuum of awareness, with "vegetative" life forms on the low end of awareness, and with "rational animals" (humans), on the high end of the continuum. Every living thing is aware to a certain degree, and some life forms are more aware than others.
great post!! At least when you sift through the intellectual egotism and smarmy tones. Which, i'll have to admit, is pretty fun too. Almost like science soap opera. i should hang out in advanced more often. But shroomydan, i like your philosophical take. Using philosophy to answer what will most likely remain the unanswerable. Science purists will abhor that train of thought, but i find it neat and refreshing. Roger, Beyondsisxth, T34, shobimono, and others thanks for you intellectual input cuz it helps make ignorami like myself just a little bit smarter.
-------------------- -------------------------------------- Proliferation of knowledge is our ONLY weapon!!!!!! WAKE UP the SLEEPING!
|
EquilibriuM
dream stalker

Registered: 07/17/05
Posts: 2,323
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Birthbytongue]
#5612658 - 05/10/06 01:09 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I have found that life forms "on the low end of awareness" are seemingly much more aware in other realms. Its all about your perspective...
-------------------- HELP!!!!!!!!!
|
Hypercube
80 SRM



Registered: 12/18/05
Posts: 814
Last seen: 11 years, 22 days
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: EquilibriuM]
#5618878 - 05/11/06 08:27 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
As another philosopher to jump into the mix, lemme first say that I think science is the wrong mask to wear when looking at these phenomena.
If we're attempting to argue from analogy, say, that the reaction observed by a mushroom is like the reaction observed by beings that can rationalize, then we can argue that the hyphal network is like a neural network too. And what makes better sense than to assume that one grouping of interwoven homogenous cells in a fungal body could give rise to phenomena similar to such groupings in a mammalian brain? Sure, they don't use the same CNS configuration and synapse hardware we do, but why couldn't a fungus be aware? Initially, it seems foolish to assume that beings that span large tracts of the earth and live for millennia are simple stimulus/response machines.
Yet I ask whether we are any different. To a disinterested and wise observer, a human looks like any other machine that follows 4 lines of code instead of 2 in terms of providing a response to an action. The 'being' that does the 'being' in our heads has physical basis outside of our presently rule-defined understanding of physicality - obviously - because who in the world can "prove" what consciousness IS in physical terms?!
I just feel like we should play it safe and assume that fungi are conscious.
--------------------
|
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: Hypercube]
#5618929 - 05/11/06 08:38 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I agree. Sentience can exist on many levels besides the human one we're most familiar with. Watch this video http://www.mushroomvideos.com/files/10901895.wmv as the reishi mycelium surrounds and cuts off the moisture to a contaminant and tell me it isn't 'aware'. 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: Hypercube]
#5619052 - 05/11/06 09:10 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Hypercube said: If we're attempting to argue from analogy, say, that the reaction observed by a mushroom is like the reaction observed by beings that can rationalize, then we can argue that the hyphal network is like a neural network too. And what makes better sense than to assume that one grouping of interwoven homogenous cells in a fungal body could give rise to phenomena similar to such groupings in a mammalian brain?
No, you can't make that argument. The way hyphal cells are arranged and the way our neurons are arranged are totally different. Hyphal cells are only connected to whats immediately surrounding them, while neurons have axon and dendrites that allow connections of far greater complexity, and its the very complexity that allows our minds to take on their modular structure which gives rise to this whole "Consciousness" thing. There is a network in the cells of fungi completed with cell to cell cytoplasmic channels, and thats how the hormonal system works and communicates. But this arrangement just simply isn't complex enough to allow for this level of self-awareness and precognition that everyone here wants to ascribe to it.
Quote:
Sure, they don't use the same CNS configuration and synapse hardware we do, but why couldn't a fungus be aware? Initially, it seems foolish to assume that beings that span large tracts of the earth and live for millennia are simple stimulus/response machines.
That CNS configuration and synapse hardware is what makes this all possible. There's a steady decline in cognitive abilities the farther back along the evolutionary line you go as you traverse animals with smaller and smaller configurations of neurons. In that regard I'd certainly argue that jellyfish are more aware than plants and fungi, but even then they still wouldn't be aware at any level above coded instincts/behaviors.
Additionally, its silly to make the assumption that simply because an life-form has lived for large time spans and invaded many ecosystems and niches that it is somehow sentient. Bacteria has been around as long as anything and it exists almost everywhere, but would you ascribe sentience to it?
Quote:
Yet I ask whether we are any different. To a disinterested and wise observer, a human looks like any other machine that follows 4 lines of code instead of 2 in terms of providing a response to an action. The 'being' that does the 'being' in our heads has physical basis outside of our presently rule-defined understanding of physicality - obviously - because who in the world can "prove" what consciousness IS in physical terms?!
In many respects humans do simply follow four lines of code, luckily one of those lines coded for a complex brain which has given us excellent scenario rationalizing skills and information processing. And there are a great many scientists right now trying to prove what consciousness is and what brings our "awareness" about who have published a lot of interesting info they've found. Assuming its impossible doesn't mean we'll never figure it out completely, and we're already making some impressive headway.
-------------------- 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.
|
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]
#5619121 - 05/11/06 09:30 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I dont follow the above video, to me it looks like the contam is releasing an inhibiter, and the myc is just growing where it can.
"Awareness" is a bit of a flismy term. I'd put it in the realms of IQ testing - its biased towards whoever makes up the term/test. You are looking to draw a comparison between two unlike entities. They are either in the box, or not in this that respect.
I dont really think its important. Its not really science, its philosophy. I look at it like this - trigger and effect. The wind/humidity/whatever is triggering a reaction, so there must be some sort of reaction going on within. Doesn't look like a nerve impulse, so odds are it's chemicially induced.
Some questions : if you blow on only one half and shelter the other, do both halves release spores? I think you mean it does, so that correlates well with a chemical release - along with the lull. So, question is what can travel around that quickly through the network. Would the chemical have to go through any membranes?
Is there a mexican wave effect? - (you would need a big mushroom to test that one fully.  If it is a simultaneous ejection no matter how far away from the initial disturbance the release is - things are much more complicated.
|
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]
#5619306 - 05/11/06 10:31 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
beyondsisxth said:
No, you can't make that argument. Hyphal cells are only connected to whats immediately surrounding them, while neurons have axon and dendrites that allow connections of far greater complexity,
Incorrect. Mycelial cells are connected not only to adjacent cells, but to the entire network via the clamp connections that connect each cell to the cell next to it. Smaller strands connect to larger strands, then to even larger pathways(ala spinal column?) It becomes one complete coherent organism. That's why full colonization of the substrate is one of the biggest pinning triggers of all. If the cells at one end of the substrate didn't know what was happening at the other end of the substrate, how do they all pin at once?
It's important to remember that we shouldn't attempt to define sentience by our human experience of ego consciousness. Since science can't define human consciousness, it certainly can't pretend to define what is and is not consciousness in other creatures. 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
|
texas34
Lurker

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 23
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: RogerRabbit]
#5621293 - 05/12/06 01:28 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Hi all. First some overdue info on chemotropism. Then some comments on the newer posts. So mycelia has been found to sense chemicals and grow towards them. Most fungi are detecting volatile compounds and not a nutrient source. Only the oomycetes have been shown to detect nutrients (amino acids) directly. By the way, the oomycetes are not true fungi. They are related to a group of algae called the ochrophytes. In a paper from way back in 1981, a couple researchers discovered that mycelia growing from sclerotia of Sclerotium rolfsii(now called Athelia rolfsii, which is a basidiomycete) displayed "directional growth . . . toward the source of volatiles" which was "observed on all substrates." The paper is titled: Mycelia Growth and Infection Without a Food Base by Eruptively Germinating Sclerotia of Sclerotium rolfsii from Vol. 71,No. 10 of the journal Phytopathology. In addition, Jim Deacon author of Fungal Biology states (in the book), "The hyphae of many fungi show tropic responses to non-nutrient factors of potential ecological relevance." You can check out the book Here or at any other major bookstore I'm sure. Anyway, I'm not saying this is definitely what was going on, but I think it is likely.
Overall, I am tending to agree with the science people on this topic; however, everyone seems to be a little confused on terms. I have to agree that all forms of life on Earth are sentient, which simply means responsive to stimuli. A rock is not sentient, but bacteria, fungi, plant, and animals are sentient. It is whether or not all these lifeforms are conscious that the disagreement is centered around. I have to agree that it is the presence of a neural network that allows a higher state of sentience.
In regards to the comment by beyondsisxth that,
Quote:
The way hyphal cells are arranged and the way our neurons are arranged are totally different. Hyphal cells are only connected to whats immediately surrounding them, while neurons have axon and dendrites that allow connections of far greater complexity
I have to say that he is on the money. A single neuron (one cell) can run the full length of the spinal cord, bypassing millions of "regular" cell in the process. An electrochemical impulse runs the full length of the neuron in milliseconds. This is much faster than could be accomplished by passing info through all those "regular" cells. Fungal cells can only pass a signal on to it's immediate neighbors regardless of any side branching and what not. Now the side connection can speed up the process, but the signal still goes from cell to cell through the dolipore.
Also, Roger's suggestion that "Mycelial cells are connected not only to adjacent cells, but to the entire network via the clamp connections that connect each cell to the cell next to it" is just plain wrong. First, clamps only occur between adjacent cells, so how could they connect all the cells? Second, the purpose of the clamp connections is to transfer the nuclei from a newly formed dikaryon back into the two separate monokaryons' hyphal networks, creating one dikaryotic mycelium. After this occurs, the clamp forms septa at both of its ends, so nothing passes through it anymore. A signal has to pass through the dolipore between each adjacent cell, which by the way is covered by a membrane on each side.
Anyway, I have to go. T34
|
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: texas34]
#5621386 - 05/12/06 02:04 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, your last paragraph is just plain wrong. Clamps connect across the cell wall to each successive cell. There's not one clamp connection and then the whole mess suddenly becomes dikaryotic. Also, nothing forms across the clamp after genetic information is exchanged to close it off "so nothing passes through it anymore". That would make it a bit hard for the fruitbodies to receive moisture from the substrate wouldn't it? A good microscope will let you watch material travel down the length of the mycelium, passing through clamp connections, not the cell walls, from cell to cell as they flow continuously. In fact I have a movie of this very phenomona. It's also been shown that if you introduce heavy metals at one end of the network, they will make their way to every single cell in the network.
With mycelium, the entire network is connected. Period. That is a mycological fact. There may not be a direct connection from your computer to mine, but both are connected to a modem(adjacent cell) and that is connected to the cell next to it(cable or phone line/fiber etc.), then to the network, therfore material can flow from your computer to mine and back. The internet makes an excellent analogy to perfect fungi. In fact, it's one of Stamets favorite analogies to make in his books and seminars. 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
|
texas34
Lurker

Registered: 12/03/05
Posts: 23
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: RogerRabbit]
#5621487 - 05/12/06 02:31 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
OK, I guess I was being too general and not clear enough. Of course clamps form between every cell. I certainly was not suggesting otherwise. The process of spreading the dikaryon occurs one cell at a time through clamps until the entire mycelium is dikaryotic. Check This out and tell me that a septum isn't laid down at the clamp connection, blocking it off. Fruitbodies receive their moisture through the dolipore septa between every cell not through clamps.
I also wasn't suggesting that mycelia isn't interconnected only that a signal still has to go cell by cell. The branching allows the process to go faster because one cell can pass the signal onto more than one or two other cells. Not every cell will be interconnected this way. It not point A straight to point B, and every cell would end up getting the signal. T34
|
shirley knott
not my real name

Registered: 11/11/02
Posts: 9,105
Loc: London
Last seen: 7 years, 28 days
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: texas34]
#5621731 - 05/12/06 04:01 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i believe mycelium has intelligence as a deer has intelligence. it finds the best environment by using the tricks evolution taught it, sensory mechanisms and metabolic processes that work until they can no longer continue, built in with an unexplained quest to self-propogate
-------------------- buh
|
Holydiver
Stranger



Registered: 03/19/01
Posts: 5,156
Loc: The midnight sea
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#5627946 - 05/14/06 10:33 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Shroomydan showed this phenomenon to me in person over the weekend. It was amazing to witness, to say the least.
-------------------- To find a place to live between the negatives and positives.
|
beatnicknick
The Innovator


Registered: 05/25/05
Posts: 1,074
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Holydiver]
#5830657 - 07/07/06 06:14 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Interesting post. I wonder what catergorie venus fly traps fall under? They have to be vegatative, they can't move or think and I'm sure have very little to no awareness. But then, they are sensitive to those flies. Of course that's only triggered by little hairs, they dont actually see or hear the flies with actual sense and catch them, as a "sensitive soul" would. So that settles that. But, here's something else to think about with venus fly traps. Are they considered carnivores, even though they also make there own food with the sun and dirt, which would put them in another catergorie (not herbivore or omnivore, i forget the name) even though they eat flies as well?
Why can't I stay on topic? I must have raging ADD.
-------------------- I don't think for myself. I think as though I'm explaining my thoughts to someone else. I'm concerned only for those listening.
|
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: beatnicknick]
#5830711 - 07/07/06 07:03 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Venus fly traps snap closed the same way plants grow towards light or grow vertical. Everything is just a trigger - (mechanical actcion/light/gravity) and when the trigger is set off a chemical reaction takes place that fires up a protein that results in the end action.
Quote:
When the trigger hairs are stimulated, an action potential (mostly involving calcium ions )- is generated, which propagates across the lobes and stimulates cells in the lobes and in the midrib between them. Exactly what this stimulation does is still debated: cells in the outer layers of the lobes and midrib may rapidly secrete protons into their cell walls, loosening them and allowing them to swell rapidly by osmosis and acid growth; alternatively, cells in the inner layers of the lobes and midrib may rapidly secrete other ions, allowing water to follow by osmosis, and the cells to collapse. Both, either or neither of these mechanisms may play a role.
RR I am sceptical about the maze thing - are you able to post more on it? - my geuss for its' action would be that the chemicals leeching from the food create a gradient in the media that create a path for the mycelia to follow.
There is an interesting phenomenon in some cyanobacteria(the type that forms that green hairy slime stuff arthrospira maybe) - if you place a light at one end of the holding tank the entire mass will "crawl" to that end of the tank. Pretty impressive stuff for a bacteria. 
I think the debate is over the definition of sensitivity - every organism is "sensitive" to something.
Mycelia cannot show "memory", many animals with neurons still cant do that.
|
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: beatnicknick]
#5830928 - 07/07/06 09:43 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
beatnicknick said: they are sensitive to those flies. Of course that's only triggered by little hairs, they dont actually see or hear the flies with actual sense and catch them, as a "sensitive soul" would. So that settles that.
Really now? I could as easily say that humans hear by 'little bones in the ear' so therefore they aren't sensitive.
Quote:
Feelers said:
RR I am sceptical about the maze thing - are you able to post more on it? - my geuss for its' action would be that the chemicals leeching from the food create a gradient in the media that create a path for the mycelia to follow.
--------------------------------- Mycelia cannot show "memory", many animals with neurons still cant do that.
If it were the chemicals from the food, why didn't the mycelium follow them on the first pass? Why did it take until the third pass for the mycelium to jump over the walls of the maze in order to take the shortcut?
I believe mycelium does have memory. I'll trust my own experiments over speculation. I believe what I can see. 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
|
Jim


Registered: 04/07/04
Posts: 20,922
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#5831439 - 07/07/06 12:36 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Dan, that is the coolest video I have seen! With just a breath of air you caused that...
It looks very similar to the cups I find around here...
-------------------- Use the Fucking Reply To Feature You Lazy Pieces of Shit! afoaf said: Jim, if you were in my city, I would let you fuck my wife.
|
SickShroomer
Retired Shroom Master


Registered: 05/25/06
Posts: 361
Loc: Midwest
Last seen: 3 years, 13 days
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Jim]
#5832205 - 07/07/06 03:20 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
This is cool... ;]
-------------------- Going to miss the PNW gatherings. I'm not here trying to make anyone feel stupid or to make myself feel good by putting ppl down. I am just here to help fellow shroomerites in there grows. I do this to keep my own knowledge fresh, and to help everyone succeed!
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Jim]
#5832455 - 07/07/06 04:24 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Jim said: Dan, that is the coolest video I have seen! With just a breath of air you caused that...
It looks very similar to the cups I find around here...
Give it a try next time you find one. It seems to work best with the brittle cups, but some rubbery ones also display this behavior.
|
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: SickShroomer]
#5832474 - 07/07/06 04:31 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I don't see either a way for the myc to have a memory or an evolutionary need for one. How would the data be stored - presumably the idea would be that the arrangement of the myceial network would look somehow as it is in a brain?
By saying the myc has a memory you are suggesting it has both a longterm and working memory -also with the cognitive function required to know when it should apply this information. Even a jellyfish would not be able to accomplish such a task.
When in nature would being able to replicate a specific growth pattern that was used in the past be useful in another situation? "Clones" of the same situation only happen in labs, a memory would be of no practical use in vivo.
Are you able to post a link to this maze experiment?? - I'm interested in seeing it.
|
tallgreen
chillin like avillain

Registered: 05/21/06
Posts: 293
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Feelers]
#5832577 - 07/07/06 05:05 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I have heard of various spiritual yogis talking about genetic memory, and how information is stored at the deepest level of our being. This idea resonates with my experience. I do not believe that consciousness is something only accomplished in complex neuro networks like ones of animals. I think there is a lot more to the activity of life than our science today can explain. I don't think we'll be able to come to a conclusion on this subject with mere debate, the basis of knowledge is just not available. What we can do is see results of experiments. Those do not need to be explained for them to be convincing.
So, more info of that maze experiment would be great to see. I personally have seen dramatic results when I sing to my plants, like bursts of growth during increased periods of attention. Recently I have been praying and meditating near my mycology nook, and I don't have a control group to show a difference, but I am having great results with my endeavors.
-------------------- Nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy. All you need is love. - The Beatles
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: tallgreen]
#5832884 - 07/07/06 06:25 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
> Are you able to post a link to this maze experiment??
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/usergallery.php/pid/467915/
> I don't see either a way for the myc to have a memory or an evolutionary need for one.
Me either. I'm also less than impressed by the maze. There's more than just that one pic, I don't have the link, but I don't see anything justifying the claim of memory. There are many possible explanations, all of which make more sense and are less far-fetched than that the myc has memory.
Also, if such an amazing claim were true why hasn't it been followed up on? I can guarantee that this would generate an intense amount of scientific interest if it could be conclusively demonstrated.
> I have heard of various spiritual yogis talking about genetic memory, and how information is stored at the deepest level of our being.
And I've heard about flying carpets, magic lanterns, unicorns, pigs with wings, etc..
-FF
|
Tomcat23
Shoomery Noob


Registered: 01/25/06
Posts: 151
Loc: Central Florida, Gulf Coa...
Last seen: 15 years, 5 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: fastfred]
#5834013 - 07/08/06 12:54 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
So instead of flicking them I should blow on them? Got it!
-------------------- Mescaline man, im in need!!!
|
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: Tomcat23]
#5834387 - 07/08/06 05:57 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- 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
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: RogerRabbit]
#5834655 - 07/08/06 10:38 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
From: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s189608.htm
"In the first part of the experiment, pieces of slime mould Physarum polycephalum were placed throughout the 3x3cm maze. To grow, the slime mould throws out tube-like structures called pseudopodia, and it soon filled the entire maze."
"The maze had four routes through, to get from one exit to the other. Food was placed at both exits, and after eight hours, the slime mould had shrunk back so that its 'body' filled only the parts of the maze that were the shortest route from one piece of food to the other."
"The researchers suggest that as the parts of the plasmodium come into contact with food, they start to contract more frequently. This sends out waves to other parts of its body which tell give feedback signals as to whether to grow further or contract. Ultimately, to maximise foraging efficiency, the plasmodium contracts into one thick tube, running through the maze." ------------------------------------------
I don't see how this shows any memory or even intelligence. It sounds to me like the slime simply covered the maze then shrank from the areas that were not useful to it, leaving the shortest path from one food source to another.
-FF
|
YESSUP
In The Thick Of It


Registered: 06/26/05
Posts: 2,774
Loc: SE Tex
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#5836343 - 07/08/06 06:03 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Oh my.... I should have puffed on this cluster yestarday.. Sweet thread Dan!!!
-------------------- Gut Feeling leads to anxiety, Anxiety leads to fear, Fear leads to anger,And anger leads to regret.
|
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: YESSUP]
#5864412 - 07/16/06 05:25 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Log in to view attachment
|
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: Feelers]
#5864416 - 07/16/06 05:29 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Log in to view attachment
Damn I cant upload the file properly. There's not very much more in it- its pretty much exactly the same as the link posted.
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Feelers]
#5865202 - 07/16/06 11:49 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Try shortening the filename. That's what has caused problems for me...
-FF
|
beyondsisxth
Title?


Registered: 04/08/05
Posts: 232
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: fastfred]
#5867203 - 07/16/06 08:38 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I'm just gonna add this cause I'm getting tired of seeing this pseudoscientific attributing of certain characteristics to plants and fungi. I'm going to trust conventional scientific knowledge on this one. And saying "Well its outside the scope of science" is a nice way of giving up and creating a meaningless explanation with no predictive power and no basis in reality.
From Botany: An Introduction to Plant Biology. Third Edition. By James Mauseth
Quote:
8. Plants do not have purpose or decision-making capacity. It is easy for us to speak and write as if plants were capable of thinking and planning. We might say, "Plants produce roots in order to absorb water." But this suggests that the plants are capable of analyzing what they need and deciding what they are going to do. Assuming that plants have human characters such as thought and decision-making capacity is called anthropomorphism, and it should be avoided. Similarly, assuming that processes or structures have a purpose is called teleology, and it too is inaccurate. Consider an alternative way of phrasing the sentence: "Plant roots absorb water," leaving out the phrase "in order to." The reality of the situation is that some of the information in the plant's genes causes the plant to produce roots, which have a structure and metabolism that result in water absorption. Plants have roots because they inherited root genes from their ancestors, not in order to absorb water. Absorbing water is a beneficial result that aids in the survival of the plant, but it is not the result of a decision (anthropomorphism) or purpose (teleology).
This applies to fungi too.
-------------------- 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.
|
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]
#5867311 - 07/16/06 09:05 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
beyondsisxth said: This applies to fungi too.
lol. Says who? You?
Whomever wrote that freshman biology book couldn't even phrase one paragraph without grammatical errors. Now we're supposed to accept his/her narrow-minded and twisted view as final word?
That text addresses whether or not plants are sentient due to the ability to form roots. Well, mushrooms form mycelium but nobody is saying they're sentient because of that. However, running a maze is not a simple task. You can choose to believe what you wish, but don't condescend others who would attempt to move the science forward. 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]
#5867395 - 07/16/06 09:21 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I'll trust his PhD and experience over your... oh thats right, pseudoscientific bullshit.
Got anything besides ad homs and strawmen?
Also, theres nothing complex about finding food and moving towards it, maze or not.
Edited by beyondsisxth (07/16/06 09:22 PM)
|
beyondsisxth
Title?


Registered: 04/08/05
Posts: 232
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: beyondsisxth]
#5867424 - 07/16/06 09:26 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Also, that statement applies to fungi as well because you're committing the exact same fallacy it describes by attributing purpose to a biological mechanism. You're enstilling it with meaning on your own, the conclusion of the experiment never did that, you did.
Edit: Looks like I was wrong, both you AND the study are committing this fallacy.
-------------------- 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 (07/16/06 10:32 PM)
|
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: beyondsisxth]
#5867580 - 07/16/06 10:03 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Log in to view attachment
Ok I'll try again... hurrah I think it worked. 
To me it looks like a concentration gradient flows down away from the food, meaning that growth is enhanced in the shortest route to the food.
Notice he is very careful with his wording
Quote:
Here we show that this simple organism has the ability to find the minimum-length solution between two points in a labyrinth.
Quote:
This remarkable process of cellular computation implies that cellular materials can show a primitive intelligence
Its a very small article, one with little follow up and the conclusion it comes to is that it "implies" intellegence. The references 8 and 9 in that list could be interesting.
|
beyondsisxth
Title?


Registered: 04/08/05
Posts: 232
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: beyondsisxth]
#5867616 - 07/16/06 10:13 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
"Intelligence" is an extremely vague concept that almost nobody agrees on, they fail to define it instead offering up a citation to shift their problem to someone else. That study also commits the teleology fallacy by attributing intelligence to food finding in the first place.
-------------------- 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.
|
Omnicracker
Crusted Trolltivator

Registered: 09/18/05
Posts: 1,421
Loc: Wal-Merica
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: beyondsisxth]
#5867872 - 07/16/06 11:46 PM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
the plants, they can read your mind and then some. you ever hooked a lie detector to a philodenron?
Edited by Omnicracker (07/16/06 11:46 PM)
|
hippie_cune
Nowhere Man
Registered: 06/13/06
Posts: 166
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Omnicracker]
#5868134 - 07/17/06 01:58 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Omnicracker said: the plants, they can read your mind and then some. you ever hooked a lie detector to a philodenron?
i think its philodendron...
but no i havent.. what happens?
|
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: hippie_cune]
#5868161 - 07/17/06 02:38 AM (17 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
they fail to define it instead offering up a citation to shift their problem to someone else
Yeah, those references are to "Artificial Neural Networks", and I think that they definately skipped the "intellegence thing" as you said by attributing it to an obscure reference.
|
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)
|
fastfred
Old Hand



Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,899
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: MushmanTheManic]
#5927730 - 08/03/06 03:19 AM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I'm sure that Aristotle was well familiar with the plant life all around him and I'm sure he studied it well.
Chemical reactions that control growth are not the same as awareness. Aristotle's point was that there are levels of awareness from the simple bending of a stem due the chemical reaction caused by light, to an animal perceiving something and reacting to it, all the way to a humans perceptions leading to abstract thought.
What people in this thread are guilty of is anthropomorphism.
Anthropomorphism:
Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.
The attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to nonhuman organisms or inanimate objects.
The attributing of human characteristics and purposes to inanimate objects, animals, plants, or other natural phenomena. To describe a rushing river as “angry” is to anthropomorphize it.
"It is a common tendency for people to think of inanimate objects as having human-like characteristics. Few, if any people, believe this to have real significance. Common examples of this tendency include naming one's car or begging a machine to work."
"Anthropomorphism is common in other technical fields as well. For example, a chemist might casually explain an ionic bond between sodium and chlorine by asserting that the sodium atom "wants" to merge with the chlorine atom. Desire is, of course, an emotion that atoms are incapable of."
"Using anthropomorphized caricatures or projecting human qualities on conceptual entities or inanimate objects in reasoning is also known as committing a pathetic fallacy (not a pejorative term)."
-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]
#5928548 - 08/03/06 01:05 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
I think Carl Jung called it 'participation mystique'.
I also have to admit I've named my cars and other toys. It seems that religion and science have been locked into a war for the past 2,000 years, but I wish that wasn't so. At some point, it would be nice to see the two come together.
The problem as I see it is 'modern' religion is static and unchanging, but our science constantly changes as our understandings of the physical universe change. Wouldn't it be nice if our religion or mysticism could also change as we grow in our understanding of science? This is one of the reasons I left the so-called 'new age' movement in the 1980's. They wanted us to memorize chants to different goddesses and gods, and sit in a specific position to meditate, burn the exact inscense for each type of meditiation, etc. It finally seemed there were more rules than the old church I had already left had.
Sorry to continue the off topic drift. 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
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: MushmanTheManic]
#5935632 - 08/05/06 10:38 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
MushmanTheManic:
If you can't see the difference between the stimulus driven release of spores from cup fungi (Ascomycota ) and the passive release of spores from dead puffballs, then you are not paying very close attention. A simple explanation that ignores evidence is not accurate.
--------
I wonder if perhaps I have been misunderstood. By awareness I am not implying any kind of Anthropomorphism. Most would concede that a dog is aware of it's environment, while at the same time acknowledging that the dog's awareness is qualitatively different from a human's. It seems to me that a live mushroom, which releases its spores in a puff a few seconds after the wind blows, and gains evolutionary advantage because of this behavior, might be aware that the wind is blowing, though not in the same way that a man is aware the wind is blowing. No Anthropomorphism, just a simple explanation of an observed phenomenon. The mushroom feels the wind and releases its spores.
Furthermore, accusations that my theory is counter to Darwinian evolution are unfounded. Purpose is implicit in Darwin's writings. All organisms act to survive and reproduce; this is their purpose. Those better suited to survival and reproduction shape successive generations of the species, adapting a population to better survive and reproduce in it's changing enviroment.
A mushroom that waits to release spores until the wind is blowing better accomplishes its purpose to reproduce than a mushroom that randomly ejects spores. Obviously, the observed behavior is the product of evolution.
Even mechanical materialists (philosophical term) who deny all purpose will, if they are educated, agree that man and other higher animals evolved from lower organisms, and likely from inanimate chemicals. The first self replicating protein that found itself surrounded by a bubble of lipids (primitive cell membrane) was more than likely not capable of rational thought, yet this first proto-cell, over a number of eons, evolved into beings capable of building machines which allow them to argue across continents about the sensitivity of a mushroom. Somewhere along the line, a purely mechanical process gained awareness.
I think the video gives evidence of awareness in cup fungi. Others disagree and that is OK, but one must be careful not to be fooled by a Straw Man Fallacy.
|
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: shroomydan]
#5935681 - 08/05/06 10:55 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Well said.  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
|
rubixcubies
porch monkey ferlyfe


Registered: 08/05/06
Posts: 1,218
Loc: ottawa on
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: RogerRabbit]
#5960032 - 08/13/06 05:55 PM (17 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
i don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet its a really long thread and i haven't read it all the way through yet but i think that if u have fruit bodies and then you change the conditions they are growing in into undesirable conditions they will drop spores and mature quicker as a survival mechanism to carry on the species
-------------------- i'm a very evolved ape you know.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#7271892 - 08/07/07 08:33 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Regarding electrical communication between hyphae in a mycelium.
From The Mycota
Quote:
Fungal hyphae, like other eukaryotic cells and organisms, drive electrical currents through themselves: electric charges flow into one region and out of another. This may be news to more than a few mycologists, but it is hardly a novel discovery... One function of this electrical field or pattern is to act as a directive force in laying down new structures... transcellular electric currents are widespread, possibly ubiquitous, among eukaryotes...particular ionic components of the current, notably calcium ions and protons may serve as a localized signal to trigger cytoplasmic action such as contraction, exocytosis, or micro filament asembly...
Harold, F. M. "Ionic and Electrical Dimensions of Hyphal Growth." The Mycota Vol 1: Growth Differentiation and Sexuality. Ed. K. Esser and P. A. Lemke. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1994.
This seems relevant to the topic at hand. I have not read the entire chapter yet, but from what I gather protons and ions pass from one cell to another in a mycelium, producing a single electrical field that directs the growth and functioning of fungal organism. This has been scientifically observed.
I have yet to find a study of this electrical field in cup fungi as they discharge spores, but my hypothesis seems a lot more plausible all of a sudden. 
Interestingly, the description of this electric field seems to match Aristotle's description of the vegetative soul - an animating principle that directs growth, nutrition, and reproduction.
Edited by shroomydan (08/17/07 08:34 PM)
|
em_bre_O
shroomery'sEmbryoticAsshole


Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 2,312
Loc: In the stages of develope...
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shobimono]
#7272676 - 08/07/07 11:51 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shobimono said: This is how those cup mushrooms dispearse their spores.
The inside surface of the cup is lined with capped cylinders containing spores under pressure. When air, ie from your breath or the wind, blows across the top of these cylinders, the lids dry out and shrink, this allows the pressure to release, shooting out the spores.
It's pretty cool to try. You don't need to blow like you are trying to blow all the candles out on a birthday cake, just a quick puff should suffice.
Paul Stamets was talking about this when i went to 1 of his seminars
|
ralphroks
humaniform


Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 553
Loc: Up north passed Alaska
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: em_bre_O]
#7277086 - 08/09/07 05:43 AM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
There was a study I saw where they trained a worm; cut it in half and both sides retained the memory. Then they trained worms and ground them up and the worms they fed them too retained memory, supposedly it has to do with RNA and how mammals inherit instinct: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=826389
Also a guy chopped a chickens head off and kept the chicken alive for years afterwards by jamming wbs down its throat. I used to cut chickens heads off and the head is alive until it runs out of oxygen. If you dont hit it low in the neck, in the central nervous system the body jumps up and runs around.
-------------------- "Please read and learn and relay knowledge not misinformation! Thank you"-hyphae
|
aspore
myconaut



Registered: 07/10/07
Posts: 663
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: ralphroks]
#7278917 - 08/09/07 06:36 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps this 'vegetative soul' that might exists in the mushrooms is only a more complex series of evolved mechanics than emotions. Perhaps humans are so evolved, that every person is like it's own different spceies, with a fixed repitoir of 'emotions' which are only a trillion different 'mechanical' funcions, that we have inherited, and that are created early in life, based on our enviroment and interactions.
So it's not like we have a soul, just a huge ass supply of reactions to our surroundings, every persons different from the next. This creates our personality. Like a mushroom that drops spores as soon as it can, or only when the wind hits it. That's like a person waiting to have a marriage before having kids, or some third world country woman just shootin em out. It's like the enviroment of the married person would be more stable and providing, meaning that sub-cociously perhaps they know that it's not an issue to struggle to create offspring, whereas the third world country woman somehow subcociously keeps having kids cause her lifestyle tells her body that it needs to struggle to survive, and reproduce often.
This is just a ramble, but I'm tired...
!asp☺re!!!
--------------------
c l i c k m e
Edited by aspore (08/09/07 06:38 PM)
|
Primal Glitch
literally just vibing



Registered: 05/06/07
Posts: 4,854
Loc: 🌎
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: aspore]
#7300994 - 08/16/07 12:49 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said: "What people in this thread are guilty of is anthropomorphism"
--------------------
make the changa you wish to see in the world gnome sayin'?
|
georgeM
Human



Registered: 07/05/05
Posts: 1,748
Loc: Osage Cuestas
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Primal Glitch]
#7304437 - 08/17/07 10:39 AM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
tripleclick said:
Quote:
fastfred said: "What people in this thread are guilty of is anthropomorphism"
Oh but come on, additionally there is a subtle peppering of anthropocentrism as well.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: Primal Glitch]
#7305992 - 08/17/07 08:28 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
tripleclick said:
Quote:
fastfred said: "What people in this thread are guilty of is anthropomorphism"
Here is what Ernst Mayr has to say on the matter of anthropomorphism:
Quote:
How did human consciousness evolve?
This is a question psychologists love to ask. The answer is actually quite simple: From animal consciousness! There is no justification in the widespread assumption that consciousness is a unique human property. Students of animal behavior have brought together a great deal of evidence showing how widespread consciousness is among animals. Every dog owner has had occasion to observe the "guilt feeling" a dog displays when, in the absence of its master, he has done something for which he expects to be punished. How far "down" in the animal kingdom one can trace such signs of consciousness is arguable. It may well be involved in the avoidance reaction of some invertebrates and even protozoans. However it is quite certain that human consciousness did not arise full-fledged with the human species, but is only the most highly evolved endpoint of a long evolutionary history.
What Evolution Is. Appendix B question 24.
The greatest evolutionary biologist of the twentieth century speaks of consciousness in protozoans! Perhaps mushrooms are also conscious.
|
PsilocybeQbensis
Stranger

Registered: 04/29/07
Posts: 65
Last seen: 16 years, 4 months
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: shroomydan]
#7311683 - 08/19/07 06:45 PM (16 years, 5 months ago) |
|
|
this is such a fascinating thread...
Edited by PsilocybeQbensis (08/19/07 06:56 PM)
|
linkamathingy
Aspiring Mycologist

Registered: 10/27/10
Posts: 1,235
|
|
Bruce Lipton, The New Biology Where Mind and Matter Meet
Watch that video and awareness as organized consciousness will make sense.
People spend a lot of time arguing the same truths
-------------------- SCIENCE!!! If NIST didn't even investigate whether explosives were used, how can we trust their investigation? It's a rule whenever explosions are heard. Though I Laugh EyegasmArt.com anonymous: without name Anonymous: a group with a name don't be fooled, have a revolution on your own terms.
|
debianlinux
Myconerd - DBK




Registered: 12/09/02
Posts: 8,334
Loc: Over There
Last seen: 7 months, 1 day
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: linkamathingy]
#13399951 - 10/28/10 10:04 AM (13 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You got here because of my sig, didn't you?
|
linkamathingy
Aspiring Mycologist


Registered: 10/27/10
Posts: 1,235
|
Re: Proof that Mushrooms are Sensitive! [Re: debianlinux]
#13476428 - 11/12/10 11:41 PM (13 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
why yes i did come to think of it. i had to click the sig link again to figure it out though.
-------------------- SCIENCE!!! If NIST didn't even investigate whether explosives were used, how can we trust their investigation? It's a rule whenever explosions are heard. Though I Laugh EyegasmArt.com anonymous: without name Anonymous: a group with a name don't be fooled, have a revolution on your own terms.
|
|