Leaderboard

I agree. The political right and maga-class has been getting beyond ridiculous in ostracizing people who refuse to tow the party line and repeat the lies, casting out anyone deemed to be "others." It demands a level of purity nobody can ever maintain, and it's pretty sad that their views can't hold up to even remedial scrutiny.

I said next. Aren't they doing that already? 😄

This will be a listing of users that have been banned or suspended for rules violations (other than spambots that have been immediately deleted) Automatic suspensions for exceeding the 25-point limit of infractions are three days. Other suspensions and bans are from explicit moderator action. "Sabbatical" refers to a user-requested suspension/ban (update 4/24/09) ———————————————————— Zephir has been suspended for 1 week for repeated highjacking via off-topic posts of alternative theories in the physics section (including violations of rule 2.5, use of scientific threads to advertise a personal theory)

I think the quotes from Dawkins are missing the mark and certain folks are weaponizing that kind of arguments. There is an issue in universities, but it is not what OP describes and it is more related to a deeper change in society. First, there is a fundamental misunderstanding how discussions should be done and specifically how it should be conducted in universities. Universities are (were) a space for critical discussions, which should involve aspects of critical thinking and expertise. I.e. it was never supposed to be a platform where e.g. conspiracy theories of microchips in vaccines should be discussed at the same level as the benefits of immunization. The former would suck the entire oxygen from anything meaningful and there would be no learning or development of thoughts, which would be the purpose of universities. Rather, discussions should be vetted and led by folks with actual expertise. There is a difference if e.g. economists with different viewpoints and arguments relating to fiscal policies explain their thoughts vs. talking heads who argue that somehow any fiscal policy is a dictatorship (as a mild example). Where the university leadership is failing is basically that they are becoming more corporate and try to appease everyone, especially students (which they increasingly treat as customers rather than, well, students). What that means is that discussions have become more superficial, folks who are popular are getting more space than folks who actually know things (Peterson is one of the persons who managed to grift on that, for example). It is obvious why students are drawn to these superficial but emotional spectacles and why they pick and choose sides just as everyone nowadays in the population. They are still untrained when it comes to critical analysis (and I am afraid, the quality is dropping), they are more outspoken as they have been trained by social media algorithms that every thought has equal weight, no matter how ludicrous. As such, discussions on any topic are now more about picking sides rather than a critical analysis of the situation and, even more importantly, proposing solutions. University leadership tries (badly) to be corporate neutral on these issues in order not to get on the bad side of folks and thereby gives the power to the louder voices. This is especially disappointing as they do have in theory access to the best experts but they lack the courage to show actual leadership, which involves taking some modicum of risk. One could argue that then the faculty themselves should do something, but in the current environment they are overworked (as students are more and more demanding, which is encouraged by leadership) and only those with the loudest voices (often in social media) get all the attention. But those are not necessarily the subject experts. So yes, universities are failing in their purpose, but it is not because of free speech issues, but rather because Universities are transforming into a service industry in which critical thinking and analysis is not at the forefront anymore. All the discussions about cancel culture are therefore in my mind missing the mark entirely. Edit: perhaps even worse than missing the mark, it contributes to the erosion of intellectualism and is yet another tool in dismantling trust in expertise.

! Moderator Note Links removed.

Well, let's see. A Einstein's GR predicted light would be bent in the curved space-time of a gravitational field. Sir A Eddington proved him right by observing the Solar eclipse in May 1919. If you live in North America, you can prove it yourself, next Monday; and you'll no longer be able to say, about light bending in a gravitational field, that Obviously, some things can be 🙂 .

Are your shirts made of polyester or a polyester blend? Polyester tends to preserve body odor and is difficult to removed body odor. It was one of the problems we worried about when making polyester. The problem was never really solved that I recall.

Stems from the new attitude permeating the Western world; that whatever you 'feel' cannot be wrong, and to even mention it can be offensive and you need 'protection' from other's opinions. Meanwhile science teaches us that what is right does not need protection, as it can be proven. But I don't know why this is in Astronomy and Cosmology ...

Could just be the material the shirts are made from. Workout shirts, for example, are made to 'wick' odorous sweat to the outer surface and evaporate.

Indeed. From a quick skim it seems that the type of calories matter, as not all are similarly bioavailable (e.g. 100 kcal in cellulose provides no energy to humans as we cannot process it). The difference in energy conversion has been mentioned, but there is also evidence of genetic difference in various aspects in transport and storage of nutrients (especially fat deposition has been studied). The way we are able to take up various nutrients and process them also changes throughout life, due to changes in our hormonal status (which in turn can change depending what we eat and are otherwise exposed to). Also activity has an impact, but not necessarily only the simplistic sense that more calories are burned (it often is not that much) but the way it changes how our body uses directs nutrient flow (and also effectiveness). In short, the biology is complicated and the physics of it (i.e. the calorie count) really only represents boundary conditions. I.e. the maximum theoretically a body can utilize from a given food source. How effective and in what form it processed is dependent on an immense number of factors. it is often not helpful to see catabolism and anabolism as competing activities. They are mostly cycles as well as reversible. For example, sugars can be catabolized to pyruvate and then acetyl-coA, the latter being the building blocks for fatty acids. We all have to synthesize proteins all the time and create the building block from catabolic pathways. The balance of these activities are therefore regulated on the molecular, rather than on the macro level. Specifically in this example, intense activity requires significant maintenance of muscle mass, which requires a metabolism that sustains anabolic reactions for significant amount of structural (muscle) protein synthesis.

Why does Titan have such a dense atmosphere? Google says: Abundant Nitrogen: Titan’s lower atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (about 94.2%), which contributes significantly to its density 1. Nitrogen molecules are relatively heavy and tend to remain close to the moon’s surface due to its gravity. Methane and Hydrogen: Alongside nitrogen, Titan’s atmosphere contains methane (approximately 5.65%) and a trace amount of hydrogen (about 0.099%) 1. The extreme cold temperatures on Titan allow gaseous methane to exist in the atmosphere while liquid methane pools on the surface 1. Retaining Atmosphere: Titan’s gravity is strong enough to retain its atmosphere more effectively compared to other moons in our solar system 2. Unlike our Moon, which lacks a substantial atmosphere, Titan’s colder conditions help slow down gas molecules, making it easier for the moon to hold onto its gases 3. Heat Liberation: Over time, heat from infalling objects and the decay of radioactive elements within Titan’s rocks liberated much of the trapped gas, creating the dense nitrogen-rich atmosphere we observe today 4.

Chinese and Russian controlled GenAI TikTok videos beamed directly into our brains via Neuralink chips. Hive mind driven by evil queens.

According to the second law of thermodynamics, assuming it holds for the universe as a whole...No. As per Ginsberg...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginsberg's_theorem You can't win...you can't break even...you can't get out of the game... You can however, lose efficiently...but not that efficiently.

I would have to assume that by the time we do seek to build a base on Titan we will be harvesting materials for our ships and bases from objects already in space as asteroids or comets so hauling materials out of a gravity well will slowly become irrelevant as obtaining materials in space become dominant. But the idea of having bots come in and build before we get there is a good idea for sure.

With memory, there's this generally accepted idea that the brain produces two types: Short-term working memory and long-term memory. Relative to the dreaming brain, the accepted idea is that dreaming is one way in which our brain consolidates short-term memories into long-term memory. To support this idea, copious research has revealed enhanced acuity in brain function only after it has received sufficient dreaming-level (REM) sleep--however, as I have so often discovered, the researchers conclusions are flawed, which brings us back to the neuronal nature of memory. In brief, the conclusions sleep/memory researchers have reached suggest that memory is like food stock in a refrigerator (short-term memory) that dreaming consolidates or move into freezer storage (long-term memory). This conclusion is flawed because it doesn't account for the effects of our brain's glymphatic system. Briefly, brain activity creates cell waste and the glymphatic process is how the brain cleans itself. Researchers of sleep and dreaming have not accounted for the effects of that process in their research. Sleep/memory researchers gauge the acuity effects of waking and testing sleep study participant amid the various stages of sleep. Their sleep interruption study approach impedes the brain's ability to clean itself, which occurs more efficiently during sleep. These interruptions impede the brain ability to remove obstructions between cell communication--allow our brain to complete its sleep cycles enhances the connectivity between its neurons, which enhances functional acuity. In my view, which appears to be alligned with your neuroscience citations, memory isn't analogous to moving food stock from refrigerator to freezer; memory is a well worn path between destinations that gets lost or forgotten if not traveled often and cleared of debris. How I determine whether an organism's behavior suggest it has a mind is by asking myself if that organism is behaving in way that is independent of its instinctive nature. If an organism is engaging in a behavior that does not align with what we know of its instinctive behaviors, then we may infer from the behaviors we observe that the organism has engaged a choice not to follow its instinct, which to me suggest a thought process. Indeed, behaviors that suggest a thought process infers evidence of a mind and, by my definition, a mind is quantified by a brain's capacity to merge dichotomous sensory data with its memory stores in a process that produces behaviors independent of instinct.

Knowing what consciousness is and how it works depends on one's definition of consciousness. Excluding various faiths and philosophies, the science suggest to me that consciousness is merely a basic awareness suggested by an organism's observed behavioral responses to stimuli and nothing more than that. In my view, every living organism potentially has some level of consciousness, which is simply some level of sensory awareness of its environment. In my view, consciousness and mind are not synonymous--consciousness is a precursor to or prerequisite for mind. Although some ascribe consciousness with some salient or spirital quality, for me it is merely a term that identifies an organism as having a sensory system. Having a sensory system, for me, does not suggest that an organism has a mind; however, having a sensory system is essential for building the response systems essential to the construct of mind--mind is a product of our brain's response systems. For example, during dream sleep, your identity of self relative to your life and sleep environment is lost to that dreaming state. It is only when you awake from the dream state that you become fully aware of who you are relative to physical reality. This happens because our brain does not have full access to the body's sensory system amid the dream state. We regain our full sense of self when we arouse from dream sleep as our brain reconnects to the body's sensory because that connection stimulates those neural pathways our brain uses to navigate our physical/material reality--it is our connection to our body the reminds us of who we are relative to our reality when we awake. Mind and consciousness are not the same because, in my view, having mind is reserved for organisms whose behaviors suggest a thought process. Before ascribing mind to an organism that organism's should demonstrate it's ability to engage behaviors contrary to its instinctive behaviors. For example, if you heard a sudden loud bang from behind, your instinct might be to distance yourself from that noise. If instead the noise came from a person in front of you who popped a balloon, you might not react from fear because you could visually assess the balloon pop threat level--your ability to engage thoughtful behaviors contrary to your fears suggests you have a mind.

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion site. Advertising other sites isn't allowed here. You're welcome to stay and discuss your interests here, but keep in mind it's not a pulpit or your blog, it's a science discussion site. Nobody is here to be preached at, but we love talking about interesting topics. We discuss science here.

Take your time and give it a really good think, before you do.

Trusted evidence is the antipode of that, it's when I nudge a mate and say "did you see that..." and the mate says "yep, wish I hadn't"... 😉

Your being confused by the language of science, we do not know, doesn't = we don't understand anything about it. What we don't understand is the fundamentals of why it work's, but that's not an invitation to just speculate; it's an invitation to put in the hard work and gather all the information needed to contradict the 'we (I don't include myself)' who do understand, beyond the basics you can find on the tinternet. I can see that you are determined to believe what you post, which is fine; fill your boot's, just remember Nietzches word's and come back to us with some trusted evidence.

If I now understand correctly, this discussion for you is broader than our separate views on the various theories about how mind originates. For you, if I understand, our discussion is also about how the evidence either supports or invalidates those theories. Although I believe there's sufficient evidence supporting a consensus for mind emergence, you believe differring interpretations of the evidence belie that consensus. Again, if I understand correctly, you perceive my perspective as aligned with mind-from-brain with body merely its vessel and sensory array. As you've offerred, your perspective is aligned with mind-from-brain and body with body as an "active participant" in memory, emotion, and cognition. In support of your position, you've offerred various citations suggesting that memory, emotion, and cognition may reside elsewhere in the body. If true, let's begin with memory. This idea of memory transference from cells, bio-matrices, or organs to the brain suggest the transference of these aspects learned experiences from the body external and subordinant to the brain. I don't readily accept evidence of any claim by the title of a paper or by the conclusions of its author. It has been my experience that all papers are in someway biased by the predisposition, objectives, and/or poor science of their authors. So when I explore claims of memory transference from aspects of the body subordinant to the brain, I'm the devil's advocate--I look for flaws and ask myself if these are sufficient to invalidate a claim. Admittedly, I have a predisposed bias to citations and rarely review them in their entirety. But I've prevoiusly read several papers on memory transference with organ transplants and have found them all insufficient for baseline evaluations of transplant recipients. I found their author's investigations should have included a thorough psychological assessment of their subject's history and suggestibility, which would explain their behaviors subsequent to the transplant. Regarding the notion of cell memory transference or "Do cells think", I agree that there is a type of memory transference between cells, but not between cellular matrices and the brain. The memory transference I speak of is described by what happens between cells to adapt to pathogens. To answer whether cells think, one must ask whether cells engage behaviors contrary to their instinctive nature--whether cell behaviors suggest a brain-equivalent thought process. Your perspective on brain-body interplay also offerred emotion and cognition as a body contribution to the mind our brain constructs. Emotion is an efferent response and exclusive domian of brain function. The emotional influence of our brain's subsystems does not describe a package (emotion) delivered to the brain, but instead describe our brain's reaction to that package--which is precisely the same with cognition. More recently, you've offerred citations suggesting the potential influence of wave forces external to the brain. It's true, wave forces such as those generated by strong magnetic fields have been shown to have a direct affect on brain function. This, perhaps, would be the only evidence of support for a wave field external to the brain that has an affect on the mind the brain creates--but this is about resphaping, adjusting or, possibly, ameliorate what's already there in the brain rather than implanting something external to the brain.

An interesting tidbit here is that Sunlight on Earth is much more intense that we need to see but that the human eye is a very poor judge of light intensity. An interesting experiment is to look at a 40 watt fluorescent light bulb inside and outside in the sun. Indoors the 40 watt bulb will be almost too bright to directly look at comfortably but outdoors the 40 watt bulb will all but vanish in the sunlight. Plants need significantly less than full sunlight to grow as well, it depends on the species of plants but Earthy plants (underwater plankton) can grow and reproduce at 1% of Earth's surface light intensity. From my own hobby of growing coral I've been made aware of how important light intensity is and how bad the human eye is at judging light intensity. many under water ecological niches are defined by light intensity.

Gian, the intensity of sunlight on the Surface of Titan is about 0.1% of what we see on the surface of the Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon) As for why... You ask a question that has crossed my mind many times, I have read that the reason why Jupiter's giant moons do not have atmospheres has to do with Jupiter being being very hot in it's youth and this prevented the Galilean moons from having atmospheres. I am not really sure if this is accurate or not.

Notwithstanding, the results point toward memory being preserved in the body. I understand what you are implying; only the study authors could answer your question. I doubt that going through the “rough-terrain” would be sufficient to grow tougher skin, but it remains a possibility. Did not understand the link that you wish to make between waves generated in the brain and the “domino effect”! I beg to differ. As I have already stated, the brain has the principal role while body actively participates in memory, emotion, cognition. For emotions and the gut microbiota, that relationship is more tightly linked than anticipated. “The brain can impact the gut and the gut can impact the brain”. Its influence is also much more considerable than anticipated. The brain may very well create the emotion, but the microbiota regulates it. “The gut microbiota can modulate anxiety-and depressive-like behaviors”. “Gut microbiota regulates mouse behaviors through glucocorticoid receptor pathway genes in the hippocampus”. “….the microbiota is necessary for normal stress responsivity, anxiety-like behaviors, sociability and cognition”. Also, the “microbiota maintains central nervous system homeostasis by regulating immune function and blood brain barrier integrity”. It also “influences neurotransmitter, synaptic, and neurotrophic signalling systems and neurogenesis". I reiterate, the gut microbiota plays a prominent role in emotion. So much so that at times one wonder’s whom is doing what to whom. And that is the microbiota alone; imagine then what role the whole body plays on memory, emotion and cognition. It's the author's perogative to say that cells have the "capacity to think". As for the immune system, I would say that it is at least a very complex system in of it's itself and is very good at what it does. As for virus, you would be surprised at what they can do!

Ok, well then we don't understand much about it. True, we don't understand the fundamental of why it works; speculation is part of science too; trying to pull new evidence into the picture and then see where it goes. Trusted evidence is most of the time in the eye of the beholder; or what is in line with your beliefs is good evidence and what is not in line with your beliefs is not good evidence. I will continue posting my friend and see if something intrigue's you in believing that it might not be as we think it is.