Leaderboard

I completely agree. I answered the question assuming the poster was not asking about factoring out the observers motion. That is the danger of asking a yes or no question about a nuanced situation.

There does seem to be an innate aspect to such fears, and considerable variation between people. I never had much fear of reptiles or arachnids, always had the impression they were pretty shy and not bent on harming people. They seem like allies to our species, for the most part, snuffing pests. I have to wonder to what degree the "creepiness" is culturally learned. A fear of spiders didn't even occur to me until I learned about the poisonous ones and (Zapatos, you may wish to stop reading at this point)(j/k) I had heard about them biting people while they slept. If you're talking about a species that climbs in bed with you and administers poison, then, yes, fear is reasonable (not sure that could be termed a phobia, really). The genetics Nobel laureate Kary Mullis had a nightmarish encounter with poisonous spiders which he recounts in "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field. " Had me checking our sheets for months after reading that. Point being, I had to hear scary stories to really develop any spider anxieties. In terms of the most visceral insect fear, it would probably be ones that defensively swarm and attack humans (generally who've been unaware that they're close to a nest), like the Africanized killer bee or the Asian giant hornets which have been known to sting people to the point of kidney failure and death. Makes arachnids pale into insignificance by comparison.

It's also a self-propagating cycle. In changing and unpredictable conditions, under a variety of threats, or in transit from place to unfamiliar place, intelligence is very useful to survival. Useful enough to pay its own way in metabolic and defense costs. You may have to come up with novel solutions to brand new problems around every corner. You also need a greater degree of co-operation among the members of the group. More social interaction requires more sophisticated communication - which, in turn, allows for more effective survival tactics - but language takes up a huge amount of brain-space. In turn, the linguistic function develops branches into other kinds of communication, observation, memory sharing and knowledge pooling, which strengthens the social bonds. Being able to store more memory and teach and learn new solutions and skills also enhances survival capability and extends individual life - but requires more brain capacity, connectivity and plasticity. So the big-brained children are conceived and the ones that grow up are extremely valuable to the group, so it becomes even more important for the group to be socially connected, which takes even more brain capacity, which can take in even more learning and solve even more complex problems.... etc. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627315007795 and the next thing you, you're organizing a whole encampment of pyramid-building craftsmen and workmen and camels and caterers. Of course, each of those capabilities and social connections has its own price. Imagination may have given us an evolutionary advantage and much pleasure, but it's also given us some very heavy - and perhaps fatal - handicaps.

I would like to introduce another perspective to the very interesting physiological arguments that have been displayed (as @TheVat said, the topic is vast.) It is the question of evolutionary pressures. That's the way I would tackle this question: What (in evolutionary terms) gave rise to big brains with highly complex relational cortex with its cognitive features? Big brains are very expensive organs: They're gluttons for energy, and are under very strict detoxification demands due to extremely high oxidation levels. https://askananthropologist.asu.edu/brain-expensive (Leslie Aiello) https://www.scielo.br/j/bjg/a/FxXZ7LPBDmZxjKKVbPym4Vb/?lang=en Our ancestors must have had to pay dearly also (in exchange for a brain capable of sophisticated thought) with a high degree of neoteny (delayed development) in human infants as compared to other mammals and, in fact, to other primates. Human infants are notoriously vulnerable and dependent from their family until very late in development. For developing brains (big enough to implement complex thinking) to pay off in evolutionary terms, there must be a very powerful reason. A very interesting idea is one authored by Rick Potts, from Smithsonian, that the Pleistocene, with its wildly-varying climate, has been a major trigger of this evolutionary pressure. If there's prey or harvest; year in, year out, exactly where you expect it; you can afford to be dumb. If the world becomes unpredictable, having a big brain pays off.

Keep in mind that lurkers read these threads also. They may well outnumber the participants, and even the non-participating members. The post was an opportunity to educate some of them.

The search for evidence of life by Perseverance falls into two categories: From sedimentological studies identify environments that could have been habitable. For these instances: Use the onboard analytical equipment to search for biosignatures. Look for possible fossils - I have not yet tracked down the specs on the Perseverance camera system, but supecte detection would be imited to macrofossils. Cache promising samples for eventual return to Earth for comprehensive laboratory analysis Edit: Full camera specs in this paper. The relevant camera for this discussion is the Cachecam: "The Cachecam, a new camera type, will acquire images of Martian material inside the sampletubes during caching operations at a spatial scale of 12.5 microns/pixel."

Thanks, Swanson. Burp. Now the profile page shows the editable avatar pic, with the editing button on the bottom left as String had described. And thanks again, String. I logged on this session with a Windows desktop, and everything worked as described. All the trouble I was having was on a somewhat aged Chrome tablet, so I now wonder if the glitch was with me. Next lesson (which I hope to master through self-guided study): cropping that stupid monkey so it comes out right and you can all enjoy his terrific hairdo.

There is not such a thing as no-cloning theory. The non-cloning theorem is the simple fact that if quantum evolution is linear, there is no way that you can produce, as a result of an interaction, an outgoing state for a second system that consists in the second quantum system cloning (xeroxing, carbon-copying, reading, reproducing) the first system's quantum state. This is not a requisite of quantum teleportation (biggest misnomer in physic's history), but a requisite of your setup. More schematically than the Wikipedia article: \[\left|a\right\rangle \left|\psi\right\rangle \rightarrow\left|a\right\rangle \left|a\right\rangle\] \[\left|b\right\rangle \left|\psi\right\rangle \rightarrow\left|b\right\rangle \left|b\right\rangle\] But, on account of linearity of quantum evolution: \[\left(\left|a\right\rangle +\left|b\right\rangle \right)\left|\psi\right\rangle \rightarrow\left|a\right\rangle \left|a\right\rangle +\left|b\right\rangle \left|b\right\rangle\] But: \[\left(\left|a\right\rangle +\left|b\right\rangle \right)\left|\psi\right\rangle \rightarrow\left(\left|a\right\rangle +\left|b\right\rangle \right)\left(\left|a\right\rangle +\left|b\right\rangle \right)\] which does not coincide with the first expression. So cloning quantum states is impossible if quantum evolution is linear. Maybe you can relax the hypotheses. The most natural one is assuming that the state to be copied is a strict mixture (a statistical 'scrambling' of several wave functions). But a similar result holds: The no-broadcasting theorem. Again, it's not a consequence of EPR correlations, but a consequence of the general principles of quantum mechanics. You cannot broadcast in any way a quantum state.

Just a quick thank you to the mod who moved my political cartoon, which I had posted in the general Jokes thread before my site explorations had discovered a political humor thread. Kindness and assistance to this newbie much appreciated. (this post can be deleted, once read by the relevant party, if it minimizes clutter) Cheers.

If I answer your question you'll use the basis for my gender identity to claim that I don't believe any other basis is valid. So I won't answer. Is there any other point to your question than to trap me? I have zero faith in your ability to be intellectually honest so I won't even give you that ammunition.

I did. If a person's gender is dependent upon their belief then the basis for my own gender identity may not be the same as theirs, so your attempt to suss out a "simple and scientific" basis for my own identity is a waste of time as it would not necessarily concede a rejection of a more complicated basis for anyone else's identity if the basis truly is arbitrary. See how confusing things become when we let people define words however they'd like?

Where have i made anti trans statements? You need to stop pulling assumptions out your ass, they stink. Yes it does. My link doesn't support your accusations and assumptions. as for the down votes...yawn, you sad bastard.

Sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_people_in_sports#Trans_men at the bottom. Now who's extracting assertions from their colon. I have made no assertions, just given opinions. You need to get of your high horse and stop assuming people who are interested in this have an anti trans agenda.

I said insurmountable and systematic. My example shows a systematic difference which is typical in athletics. Your examples are in fact the ones which are specific, anecdotal, and not observed at the highest levels of performance. Reality can be boring. While your fantasies may be more interesting, nature cannot be fooled.

Perhaps you’re wrong. Perhaps you’re correct. These claims can be verified. Do you know how to count? Then count. Return when done. It’s a simple count based on what’s actually happening in actual reality. You haven’t done that, though. You’ve not cited someone else who’s done that, either. You’re literally extracting assertions from your colon, arriving at conclusions based on those deposits, and expecting all of us to accept them as valid. In a word, No. In another word, Stop.

You promised to answer my question. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If you don't want us to assume you and another have an anti-trans agenda then stop saying things that sound like you do have an agenda.

Stop assuming I'm talking about you. You're dodging my question and answering one I didn't ask so you can pontificate. Don't waste my time. If you just want to preach then say so.