i.e., the former requires intent, whereas the latter simply evolutionary pressure (since the trees with the response would fare better, thus reproduce more successfully).
If a single tree under duress is using its resources and energy to signal to other trees that have no way of directly helping the tree in question, what evolutionary advantage is being provided to the tree releasing the pheromones?
Not sure I am able to expand on this but it seems that the trees may have an awareness of your last line: "since the trees with the response would fare better, thus reproduce more successfully", and that awareness may be a form of consciousness different than our own.
<https://asknature.org/strategy/leaves-signal-presence-of-pre...
> If a single tree under duress is using its resources and energy to signal to other trees that have no way of directly helping the tree in question, what evolutionary advantage is being provided to the tree releasing the pheromones?
Its genetic legacy is being enhanced, if the trees it's protecting are related, which likely they are (very elegant phrasing though! upvoted just for that)
> thus reproduce more successfully", and that awareness may be a form of consciousness different than our own
Hmm. Be careful here. I need to sit down and read and understand this so please recognise I'm dumping this on you, but
"Michie’s design, called MENACE, was a large pile of matchboxes that contained a number of beads and learned to play tic-tac-toe."
...
"MENACE could never win against the perfect algorithm, but ended up drawing every time after about 90 games, making it equally as perfect"
<https://opendatascience.com/menace-donald-michie-tic-tac-toe...
I dunno. Where do you draw the line? HTH anyway.
the response requires no consciousness, only a mechanical operation
> what evolutionary advantage is being provided to the tree releasing the pheromones?
natural selection works in perpetuity; "this" tree benefited from the action/reaction it has, thanks to its parents having the same reaction/action. The reified response then promulgates because it helps the bearers survive, and becomes self-reinforcing.
Edit: just saw a small snippet on plants down the page but if anything, i think kin selection in and of itself is supporting of consciousness. I have a hard time imaging non-conscious subjects exhibiting kin selection.
Why would you think that? Evolution operates on a population via shaping the distribution of traits via selection. The selection is being done by the environment, not the population, and requires no conscious entity.
It's evolutionarily plausible and explains a massive range of traits and behaviors up through full altruism. See eg. "gay uncle" hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation...
I would describe kin selection as a phenomena that is caused by natural selection because natural selection is a phenomena describing propagation of genes and not propagation of individuals. This is a subtle point and often not taught unless taking specific relevant coursework (I learned about it in an animal behavior class).
I am likely using slightly incorrect phrasing and evolutionary science experts may phrase things differently, though I am confident in the essence of this argument.
This is simply a false statement. Kin selection isn't distinct from natural selection. Kin selection is the idea that a trait could be harmful to an organism but if it confers sufficient benefit to close relatives (who are likely to have the same gene), the trait can be favored. It is one of the core ideas of "the selfish gene" view -- that from an organisms vantage point such a trait should go extinct, but viewed from the gene's vantage point, it is a desirable trait.