CharonY

In case you are referring to the central dogma of molecular biology, in its original and slightly more accurate form it mostly refers to the information flow from nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) to proteins. Basically it just states that you can derive the protein sequence from the nucleic acid sequence but not the reverse. The issue is that it RNA processing breaks the "dogma" a bit. The alternate version, which is more commonly taught in school refers to DNA->RNA->Protein information flow (usually replication is not part of it but at least in principle could be). But that is also not accurate as there are processes such as reverse transcription that break that rule and if one considers the process itself rather than just the information in form of sequence, the involvement of proteins (and RNA) in synthesis, regulation and so on, it is fair bit more complicated. I am not a big fan (anymore) of calling the process a dogma or paradigm as it is a bit pompous and overinflates what we knew at that time point. Of course that was in the 50s, but there is a reason why we tend not to name things like that in bio that often anymore. It is hard to hold on to specific paradigms when biology tends to do very unexpected things, if you look closely enough. There is a reason why the more I worked in the field, the less I am inclined to assume a certain state of normalcy in biological systems. They are all just different kinds of weird.

There is a lot of signaling going on, but not all (or even most) originates in the brain. Roughly speaking, any metabolite has some potential to influence directly or indirectly gene expression (and thereby protein production). Generally, the signal gets circulated via blood to the various tissues in which the responses are generated. Signals also end up in the brain where it can trigger responses to release signals that goes into the blood and so on. I.e. there is a constant back and forth and not really a hierarchical, central control (in most cases).

I should add that this is not how the current line of though is on that subject. What I hear more frequently is that consciousness (to put a more specific term than mind to it), arises from distributed activities, which are predominantly neural in nature. This is not limited to the brain, but that is where signal across the body accumulates. There are multiple hypotheses regarding how the integration of these signals might arise in consciousness. A problem goes back to the definition of consciousness and how we can empirically measure them to test predictions. Competing theories focus on slightly different aspects, but there is now increasing calls to either unify them and/or test exactly where their predictions diverge. But in order for that to work they need to be measurable outcomes (e.g. brain activities and predictions on which areas should be active upon a given stimulus and for how long given the context). Thus, the strength of all these hypotheses, as opposed to a vague distinction, is that we can actually predict what should happen, design an experiment where the conditions should be valid and then test if it happens. If we claim that there is an unmeasurable metaphysical component, it is akin to stating that we can only keep speculating but never figure it out. Here is a nice perspective paper that provides suggestions how to systematically evaluate competing theories on that matter: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj3259

To be fair, research funding is typically limited, though different areas work with vastly varying funding envelopes. Fusion research does get a fair bit, because a) it is expensive and b) the practical reward is immense. It is more akin to an applied research/engineering approach than many other initiatives. It is not ideal, but you would be surprised how much academic researchers need to pivot to keep their labs open. Research involving large and highly specific infrastructure would have more challenges in that regard, though.

It does not really matter whether you looked at the matter for a long or short time. What is lacking is a true synthesis that a) highlights short-comings (which is the easy part) but also b) find evidence how a different viewpoint, in practice provides a better understanding of the matter. A big issue is that the links you provided are a bit disjointed and at times contradictory. A secondary issue is that often the language is vague, e.g. mixing up philosophic criticism on materialism with specific research questions. Most importantly though, most offer a criticism of current thinking at best, but provide basically not information on how things would improve by taking another approach. Most importantly, while imperfect, the assumption of the brain has the center for cognitive processes is well supported. It is consistent with common and a wide range of observation (e.g. related to intoxication, things affecting memory, brain activity measurements, lesions, and so on). Science is never perfect, nor does it claim to be so. But in all the links there was virtually only one (shaky) report on one near-death experience that might contradict it. So we have huge body of evidence on the one side, and basically one narrative (with virtually no consistent replication) on the other. Thus looking at all the evidence holistically the preponderance of evidence clearly points to the relevance of the brain. So far, none of the various linke really provided even a bit of the explanatory power that modern neurobiology has provided. Questioning or criticizing limits of knowledge is the easy part. Building up useful knowledge is where the real challenge is.

Yep. While there is an argument to be made in which areas of research to invest, it is dangerous to only focus on low hanging fruits. Perhaps even more problematic is that fundamental research is often not considered very fundable as the goals can be a bit fuzzy. On the other hand, these types of research also have the largest potential to explore completely new areas of science.

I probably should add that the side discussion and research I shared regarding the incel-culture (which was a response to a comment by another member) was targeted to discuss the broader movement, and not a specific characterization of anyone specific. Individuals who adhere to various tenets of this ideology may have arrived there from very different areas. However, overall research into that matter does suggest that on outsized role of internet influencers on the mostly young men. I will also add that folks in that corner might benefit from authentic interactions with real folks (and therapists, if possible) as there have been suggestions that quite a few might have some unaddressed issues that they often are not aware of. And those influencers not only prey on those issues but are making bank on misery, fear and rage.

Look, he certainly had interesting hypotheses, but I will add that some of his arguments are questionable from a scientific standpoint. There is a strong "supernatural" undertone including invoking "Black Magic" in some of his earlier works.

Strange, the first mention of reddit was your post. The article I linked only referred to reddit (which was banned), 4chan and an unnamed forum they did the survey on. You do seem to be well informed on the broader internet ecosystem surrounding the incel community (suggesting that it is not quite as obscure as I thought it is?). That being said the article is specific to one forum- but there are more articles out there looking at different aspects, if you are interested.

Not sure why you (as the only one) keep referring to reddit. Unless you are assuming that there is only one or two relevant internet fora. And not, say wikis and other resources that reinforce that ideology?

These are different discussions, unless you mean that sexually rejected folks all fall under the same category (and throughout history). And this is not so. Obviously there are folks who are, for a wide range of reasons unable to find a sexual partner (and again, the person who coined the phrase is a woman). But incel is not (anymore) a term that refers to folks who are unable to find sexual partners. It is a mostly internet-based movement and folks referring to themselves as incels are more often than not are part of the sub-culture (as opposed to either being part of the original 2000's movement or using the term literally). And the subtext in their argument is not precisely subtle.

What does that have to do with anything?

All the while failing to recognize that the six-pack is neither part of the issue or the solution. And for the reason mentioned above. While trying to claim that their issues is comparable to that of homeless or other marginalized groups is despicable, there is at least some overlap in the broadest sense. Both groups frequently have mental issues and there are aspects which prevents them from seeking or implementing help. There is some push to be more compassionate and figure out ways where they learn to identify their issues and work on ways to address them. I am fairly certain that significant one-on-one work can improve issues. Otoh, an online forum is probably the worst place trying to address that. Usually, that space is used to validate themselves, which obviously won't address the issue at large.

The (current) incel culture seems to be an internet phenomenon and in its current form is highly aligned with misogyny. Because of the recency of this movement, most publicants are quite new, but I believe some have drawn connections to other misogynist movements. Interestingly, the term itself was originally coined by a woman but as all things internet, things eventually moved to a very different place (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45284455). A common theme with this research seems to be that the extreme (and sometimes violent) outcrops of this movement are associated with internet-based reinforcement of grievances, coupled with a strong rejections to address underlying psychological issues (see e.g. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27026635). It is obvious that these are self-reinforcing vicious cycles. Misogyny is a bit of a connecting tissue where all the related grievances are connected and cemented. As we also see here, affected men arrive with certain misogynist preconceptions into these communities. There are more detailed investigations into how these tendencies are expressed and one way to look at that is in how incels express masculinity. From what I understand, some common concepts include hegemonic masculinity, in which society is seen as hierarchic with (certain) men on top whereas women and other forms of masculinity are assumed to be naturally subordinate (to whatever ideal they have in mind). A related concept is that of hybrid masculinity in which masculinity is constructed from different bits and pieces and create hegemonies that are less traditional. In the context of incel, this is interesting as the hegemonic tendencies are usually front and center. But interestingly, they also see themselves as victim of... something. The something can differ between individuals and sub-groups, but ultimately, hegemonic masculinity is then perpetuated by proclaiming a type of hybrid masculinity. Common examples include that they are victim of feminism (despite being the stronger men) but they can also adopt subjugated position related to e.g. (perceived or real) mental issues, looks, socioeconomic status and so on. The discrepancy between where they think they should be in society (due to the hegemonic perspective) and where they are, allows (or forces) them to adopt this incongruent stance in order to be both, perpetuator and victim at the same time. A potential reason of not wanting to improve their situation is possible that any improvement would clash with their deeply ingrained worldview. After all, if the world is crazy, lack of success is not their fault. Yet if they get partial success by improving things, it might suggest that they have been wrong after all. And that is a tough pill to swallow.

Non sequitur. Contamination of food has little to do with overall calories or calorie intake. The only argument I can see is describing sugar as a contaminant. Even then, I would choose sugar over lead (as the former is easier to control at a given caloric intake).

Excellent point. Heavy metal poisoning is also a big one.

It is difficult to rank infrastructure, but most indices put the US higher than, say, Japan. And this is not necessarily a high endorsement, but just demonstrates that infrastructure is a grand challenge for everyone. Much of Japan's infrastructure (as elsewhere in the world) were built during big expansions, which would be around the 60s and 70s. Perhaps weirdly, Germany tends to rank up very high but even there are many challenges. Some parts of Asia show very well simply because they are new and this is probably the crux of the matter. Building infrastructure is one thing, but continuously maintaining and modernizing it is yet an entirely different challenge.

There are also other factors and especially around the 19th century, industrialization and urbanization placed a high toll on public health. I do not recall the paper off the top of my head, but not only smoking, but air quality in general was horrible (might be as bad as smoking, if one ran the numbers), before legislation was introduced to improve it. On separately, there is a large body of literature out there that links harmful exposures to effects such as high oxidative stress and tissue damage, which will also affect outward appearances (e.g. skin).

Eh, I think we are talking about different scopes here. Lipid contents of cell membranes are quite minuscule. When we talk about dietary fats, we really mean large-ish fat deposits relative to the residual mass. A complete dissolution on the cellular level would likely take more time than the residence time in your gut. Remember, food is moved through your gut and gets showered by e.g. bile salts and enzymes, but you only extract a portion out of it before it moves further and ultimately excrete it.

Another aspect of pattern recognition is body language, and with the help of spatial cues and known behavioural pattern there are a lot of things that spouses can tell what is going on. But just paying attention can make you look like a mind reader, too.

I am not sure how well that works, though. If you consider all media streams suspect (assuming that the government controls everything), how would people gain information in the first place? There is a fundamental challenge regarding trust in information. A tightly vetted system has the challenge that one would need to trust those that are doing the vetting doing a good job and do so for a good purpose. This might not be the case and can (and sometimes should) lead to an erosion of trust. On the other hand, a free-for-all will allow misinformation to have the same impact as facts, or even outmatch facts. The ramification for that can be dire, especially in emergencies where facts really matter (as, say, during a major pandemic...).

This is utter nonsense and in no way comparable. Folks with chronic pain do get reminded of their predicament by the very nature of well, being in pain. But most of the time they cope with it in order to function. Not everyone is successful of course and it depends on how debilitating the pain is. Also chronic pain sufferers don't sit around and wait for a cure, usually because there is none. They learn to deal wit it. You saying that not getting what you want and to your standards to boot is akin to saying that non-billionaires suffer because not being insufferably rich is going to be constantly at the back of their mind. Nope, the term you are looking for is "learn". We change our preconceptions regularly by learning new things. Or should be, in any case. Dwelling and elevating the past over new experiences is a choice, though. I can state for a fact that this not the case and you should not assume your limited worldview to be universally transferable. There are all types of women, of course. But from personal experience I can tell you that for example having a great and compatible sense of humour is often way more important. Again, this points to your attitude way more than your looks. Wayyyyy more. It may surprise you, but meeting someone who judges them from them get go is not very endearing. As highlighted throughout your posts, you feel judged by certain folks and complain about it. Now turn that around and try to view your behavior and attitude from their perspective.

That does not really sound like regular interactions to me. While I am far more comfortable in direct, clear interactions, I am sufficiently aware that humans don't work like that. A lot, if not most of communication is contextual and one has to learn to provide context. I see a lot of retroactive rationalisation and some attempts to disguise it as science, though most is just justification not to do things. Most people who are in long-term relationship did not meet with the intent of dating. They became friends because of common interest and at some point fell in love. If you go in with your weird system on how you things should be, folks will pick up on the context and I can tell you, it is difficult to become friend with someone who doesn't seem to see you as the person you are. What seems to happen is that your preconceptions crash with reality. If you were scientifically minded, you would try to address the preconceptions, rather than to reconstruct reality.

I am not sure regarding the claim that folks do not understand it. I think it is very much well-established that authoritarian regimes use all available tools to shape public perception in order to fortify their power. I think the only thing that has changed over the years is the available technology to do so. In my mind, the part that we still do not fully understand is how the modern information landscape (even in non-authoritarian regimes) shapes our brain. After all, even in non-authoritarian countries, misinformation has led to the creation of perceptions that are utterly disconnected from reality. In a fully controlled environment the potential for manipulation is enormous. But again, I do not think that folks are oblivious to that issue. It is more that there are not good solutions.

I think OP's premise never made much sense. It is fairly obvious (I think) that at least structurally, the pro-life movement cares little for children. There have been zero commitment in their cause to improve children's life and the entire focus has been on the use of women's bodies. The hypocrisy is quite apparent when conservative pro-life movement cut prenatal funding (not to mention support for children after birth), but apparently are happy to fund fake pregnancy help centers, which do not provide medical are. All that being said, even if an artificial womb existed- it would be expensive. As such, the very same pro-lifers are very unlikely to support it.