joigus Posted September 2 Share Posted September 2 10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 1 and 2 - so, “intention”, “aim” and “meaning” suddenly appear when an nth neurone is added? What? A phase change? This is a straw man, as I didn't claim that something "suddenly appears" at the nth step of induction. (See my words in Italics at the end of paragraph below, or re-read carefully what I said before.) 11 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 3- please name some of the different patterns, laws and correlations that seem to arise at, I guess, a certain threshold of complexity? Ergodicity, pressure, temperature, chemical equilibrium, planetary formation, ecosystems, degenerative syndromes, differential cell development, protein synthesis, chaperonin-regulated protein function, embyonic development, feedback mechanisms, viral population dynamics, animal behaviour, population equilibria... and all that. IOW, everything except the raw summary of the fundamental laws of Nature. None of these things can be seen in the raw equations of physics. They appear somewhere along the huge buildup of complexity from the elementary particle to swarms of billions and billions of them. But it's not like: "Now!, the adding of one particle has made it because..." It's gradual, rather. 24 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 4- i ask the question, but you and I have no answer for it. So, no grand teleological revelation to share. OK. I didn't claim to have answers for everything. Although it's not really so much that I have no answer for it. I never have answers for questions I do not understand. 27 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 5- let’s try another tactic. Radom as by chance, without purpose (no intention, aim, meaning), no pattern, no direction, it just happened without intervention from anything or anyone….. the general sense of the word. Here I have to put my foot down. Either we agree on what you mean by random, or we stop talking about this. Otherwise I might be talking about an elephant, and you be talking about a mouse --in a manner of speaking. Non-random is just a limit in a sequence of probability distributions of decreasing entropy. A probability distribution with entropy equal to the natural logarithm of the number of states is very random. A probability distribution of 10-100 entropy (just a small fraction of unity) is almost deterministic. Only at zero entropy we are at the non-random (deterministic) realm. So again, what do you mean by random? Living things have somehow "managed" to exploit regions of very, very low entropy (very non-random in that sense). 30 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 6- it was in relation to another point that you made, so lets park it as I agree that I am not expressing myself clearly on this one Ok. 31 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 7- so, the universe is fine tuned for mind in the sense of a part of the univers trying to make sense of the whole universe? If you wan to open that can of worms, it's ok. Only be aware it is a can of worms. Scenarios in which constants of physics may be changing in a much, much wider context could make a universe in which life, consciousness, etc can arise actually in an inevitable way. The possibilities are endless. Remember Haldane: Quote Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. IOW: What meta-conditions could make what we see as a formidable coincidence actually inevitable? This should give you pause. One man's coincidence is another (better informed) man's inevitability. 32 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 8-you recognize no mind using your mind? Where is the sense in this? If there is no mind (as a thing separate from matter) certainly there can be no mind using my mind. As Schopenhauer said, man can do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants. Can you choose what mind you will have tomorrow at 10:30? Nah. It doesn't make sense. Mind must arise from something physical. There is enough mathematical leeway for me to think that mind is something that arises physically. The simple-minded mechanistic view of the universe is long dead and gone. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: 9- the only thing that I am sure of at my current level of knowledge is that materialism does not satisfactorily explain all of reality, especially its subjective aspect. In fact, it wants nothing to do with it but still claims full understanding.. Patterns of behaviour in matter is a pretty weak expression to me of mind. Modern science does not claim full understanding. I'm assuming by "materialism" you mean that. "Pattens of behaviour in matter" is vague enough that it can include pretty much everything, so I cannot see how it could be weak. Not precise is OK, but not weak. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: 10- no one computes and earth goes where gravity takes it, but this is non living matter with no requirement to take some sort of decision…just follows the grove.very different from living matter needing to decide whether or not to take a path…… Let me put it this way: Life (and mind, as a consequence) finds its way by following its grove. Only it is a much more intricate grove than the one found by planets and asteroids. Impossible to see by just solving an equation from any simple statement of principles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 On 9/1/2024 at 7:11 PM, joigus said: Mindless robots can bring about the illusion of purpose. "Yes, we have a soul. But it's made of lots of tiny robots." Dennett... 8 hours ago, joigus said: Either we agree on what you mean by random, or we stop talking about this. I only had a quick glance into this thread: but I am missing the word 'evolution' here. Evolution of course needs some random processes. But it also needs selective pressure. And further I think Hofstadter's '... Ant Fugue' shows pretty precise what the intelligence of an ant state is. (pdf here). Just a snippet (It is a dialogue between Achilles, a tortoise, a crab and an Ant eater: the ant eater tells about his friendly relationship with an ant state (not with ants!)): Quote anteater: I am not being inconsistent, Achilles. You see, I have as much difficulty as anyone else in seeing things on such a grandiose time scale, so I find it much easier to change points of view. When I do so, forgetting about evolution and seeing things in the here and now, the vocabulary of teleology comes back: the meaning of the caste distribution and the purposefulness of signals. This not only happens when I think of ant colonies, but also when I think about my own brain and other brains. However, with some effort I can always remember the other point of view if necessary, and drain all these systems of meaning, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 (edited) 4 hours ago, Eise said: "Yes, we have a soul. But it's made of lots of tiny robots." Dennett... That was exactly the metaphor I was thinking of. 4 hours ago, Eise said: I only had a quick glance into this thread: but I am missing the word 'evolution' here. Evolution of course needs some random processes. But it also needs selective pressure. Oh, but it was on my mind all the time. Selective pressure is what makes the process drift away from Laplacian probability (which is what most people think of when they say "random"; Laplacian probability = all outcomes are equally likely). And "the process" is, of course, a very slow one of filtering structures that are better adapted to pass on their genes from the ones that are not so efficient. The snippet is from Gödel, Escher, Bach if I'm not mistaken, right? Yes, it does illustrate the illusion-of-design concept very nicely. Edited September 3 by joigus correction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 4 hours ago, Eise said: "Yes, we have a soul. But it's made of lots of tiny robots." Dennett... I only had a quick glance into this thread: but I am missing the word 'evolution' here. Evolution of course needs some random processes. But it also needs selective pressure. And further I think Hofstadter's '... Ant Fugue' shows pretty precise what the intelligence of an ant state is. (pdf here). Just a snippet (It is a dialogue between Achilles, a tortoise, a crab and an Ant eater: the ant eater tells about his friendly relationship with an ant state (not with ants!)): Read the ant fugue in almost its entirety; need to digest, but here are my initial thoughts. We like deconstructing and reconstructing things; it gives us the impression of knowledge, power and control. We will go to any length of discourse to deconstruct and reconstruct it in a way that suits our worldview. "put starkly, the notion that a thought can influence the path of an electron...." don't know about electrons, but a thought changes the physical brain; that is known The brain is no longer only about synapses and chemicals; It is much-much more complex than that and you would need a wind chime of ridiculous complexity to even scratch the surface of the level of complexity encountered in the brain; but try hard you will to make it "fit". The "I" exists and it is not a self-reinforcing-perpetuating loop. Liked a lot reading it as it reinforced the notion of how entrapped science and philosophy are in their stated mindset. In fact both are caught in self-perpetuating loops I thought that I was mostly wrong in my thinking about the world; after reading it, I might be more right than wrong! Take a step back; you might see what is really going on. The facts are good; the interpretation is skewered. What a bunch of messed-up puppies we all are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 2 hours ago, joigus said: Oh, but it was on my mind all the time. I can imagine that, it just did not drop from your mind on your keyboard... 2 hours ago, joigus said: The snippet is from Gödel, Escher, Bach if I'm not mistaken, right? Yep. It is a great analogy to neurons (ants) one one side, and the mind (ant state) at the other. And the book as a whole had a pretty 'intellectual' impact on me, many years ago. The dialogue can also be found in The mind's I by Hofstadter and Dennett. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Read the ant fugue in almost its entirety; need to digest, but here are my initial thoughts. We like deconstructing and reconstructing things; it gives us the impression of knowledge, power and control. We will go to any length of discourse to deconstruct and reconstruct it in a way that suits our worldview. "put starkly, the notion that a thought can influence the path of an electron...." don't know about electrons, but a thought changes the physical brain; that is known The brain is no longer only about synapses and chemicals; It is much-much more complex than that and you would need a wind chime of ridiculous complexity to even scratch the surface of the level of complexity encountered in the brain; but try hard you will to make it "fit". The "I" exists and it is not a self-reinforcing-perpetuating loop. Liked a lot reading it as it reinforced the notion of how entrapped science and philosophy are in their stated mindset. In fact both are caught in self-perpetuating loops If these are your initial thoughts on the dialogue, then you have some funny triggers in your mind. I do not recognise in anyway that your thoughts have anything to do with the dialogue. On 9/1/2024 at 11:44 AM, Sensei said: The mass murder of millions of ants.. I thought that too. To my relief, there lived no ants anymore. From the link of Joigus: Quote In 2012, scientists discovered a remarkable underground ant city that had once been home to millions of insects, as shown in the documentary "Ants: Nature's Secret Power." This intricate network of roadways, pathways, and gardens was unearthed in Brazil, where one of the largest ant colonies in the world is believed to have existed, according to the Daily Mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 3 hours ago, joigus said: The snippet is from Gödel, Escher, Bach if I'm not mistaken, right? Yes, it does illustrate the illusion-of-design concept very nicely. Illusion-of-design concept or delusion-of-non-design concept? Not considering for even an instant the latter is a serious lapse of objectivity that, I contend, is prevalent in science. Did most of us think about both before deciding which one was right? Did most of us try to falsify the former before discarding the latter? 35 minutes ago, Eise said: If these are your initial thoughts on the dialogue, then you have some funny triggers in your mind. I do not recognise in anyway that your thoughts have anything to do with the dialogue. Thoughts mostly taken from the reflections part of the discourse. Take a big step back and you might see the self-feeding perpetual loops. A figment of my imagination? Maybe! Maybe not! You only can find out for yourself. Self-perpetuating loops are fun, because you just have to advocate them without having to defend them. Just say perpetual loops often enough and problems go away. Are facts leading to interpretation or facts lead to interpretation? Is discourse leading to interpretation or discourse lead to interpretation? No person is without beliefs. While reading the ant fugue I had the same feeling as when I read the Blind Watchmaker I am either a miserable idiot with nothing constructive to do or on to something! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Illusion-of-design concept or delusion-of-non-design concept? Illusion of design, as I've argued --only forgetting to explicitly mention evolution, as @Eise reminded me of. Delusion of design is your banner. At this point this is just gainsaying, and I've made my case, so I think I can leave it to rest. Edited September 3 by joigus correction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 1 hour ago, joigus said: Illusion of design, as I've argued --only forgetting to explicitly mention evolution, as @Eise reminded me of. Delusion of design is your banner. At this point this is just gainsaying, and I've made my case, so I think I can leave it to rest. Delusion of non-design was my banner; not gainsaying; it's the other side of the coin, which is rarely explored; notwithstanding, will leave it to rest as you so desire. The discussion could have been revealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sensei Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 4 hours ago, Eise said: I thought that too. To my relief, there lived no ants anymore. From the link of Joigus: Did you see the video? I saw them walking there.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Delusion of non-design was my banner; not gainsaying; You just deny what I say, or express skepticism about it. I don't see many arguments, or counterexamples, or the like. That's just gainsaying. 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: The discussion could have been revealing. Doubtful, for the reasons I just pointed out. I did want to be more helpful as to the constants of Nature you were talking about, but I'm sorry I didn't understand. I do believe you were trying to make an argument there. Maybe if you care to rephrase... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 20 hours ago, joigus said: 22 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 3- please name some of the different patterns, laws and correlations that seem to arise at, I guess, a certain threshold of complexity? Ergodicity, pressure, temperature, chemical equilibrium, planetary formation, ecosystems, degenerative syndromes, differential cell development, protein synthesis, chaperonin-regulated protein function, embyonic development, feedback mechanisms, viral population dynamics, animal behaviour, population equilibria... and all that. IOW, everything except the raw summary of the fundamental laws of Nature. None of these things can be seen in the raw equations of physics. They appear somewhere along the huge buildup of complexity from the elementary particle to swarms of billions and billions of them. But it's not like: "Now!, the adding of one particle has made it because..." It's gradual, rather. Scaling effects. A single neuron has singular purpose. If you put enough neurons together you get a mind which gives a person multiple purposes. If you put enough persons together you get mob mentality, with a singular purpose again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 4 minutes ago, MigL said: Scaling effects. A single neuron has singular purpose. If you put enough neurons together you get a mind which gives a person multiple purposes. If you put enough persons together you get mob mentality, with a singular purpose again. The next step would be a mob of people with multiple-personality disorder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 3 Share Posted September 3 4 hours ago, MigL said: Scaling effects. A single neuron has singular purpose. If you put enough neurons together you get a mind which gives a person multiple purposes. If you put enough persons together you get mob mentality, with a singular purpose again. Agree with first two, not sure about third one 5 hours ago, joigus said: You just deny what I say, or express skepticism about it. I don't see many arguments, or counterexamples, or the like. That's just gainsaying. I do not deny what you say, but do express skepticism. I thought I was presenting arguments, but maybe not. I need to better frame my line of reasoning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 11 hours ago, Sensei said: Did you see the video? I saw them walking there.. Who says these ants belong to the megalopolis? Did you lookup if the ants you saw are of the same kind who built the ant hill? 5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: I thought I was presenting arguments, but maybe not. Definitively not. You just spew thoughts that come up in your mind reading the postings here, and reading the Ant dialogue. Were this thread in the Philosophy section, I would be even harsher. Ah, it is not the first time: Not wasting my time here anymore on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 3 hours ago, Eise said: Who says these ants belong to the megalopolis? Did you lookup if the ants you saw are of the same kind who built the ant hill? Definitively not. You just spew thoughts that come up in your mind reading the postings here, and reading the Ant dialogue. Were this thread in the Philosophy section, I would be even harsher. Ah, it is not the first time: Not wasting my time here anymore on you. Why is presenting a different point of view always qualified as spewing out thoughts? I read it carefully and found that facts and thoughts were woven in a way to attain an unstated goal, that all is an illusion. I had the same impression while reading the Blind Watchmaker; the reader being set up for the “obvious”. And I reiterate that mind was used to make the determination that all is an illusion. A conversation with someone that has a different perspective is richer than one with same views. Read it again with a view of scepticism and you might also wonder if it is not a bit too fabricated. It is your prerogative to ignore me. I am not “like minded”, a virtue or a fault? I do not agree that all is an illusion and all is for nothing, what’s wrong with that? Follow the logic where it goes or bring the logic to where I want it to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Follow the logic where it goes or bring the logic to where I want it to go But will the ants follow... 🙏 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 2 minutes ago, dimreepr said: But will the ants follow... 🙏 They follow the former, which makes them more objective than us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: They follow the former, which makes them more objective than us. Which of them told you that? I bet it was Nigel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 4 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Which of them told you that? I bet it was Nigel. Nigel, the little devil 😊👿 A bit more on ants - hope that it is not considered too long Ants, Individual and Colony, Superorganism, Leadership, and Fire Ants Like bees, ants are often considered to be mindless cogs in a machine—the hive, or colony—that somehow possesses its own intelligence. This kind of intelligent society of insects has been called a “superorganism;” the internet would probably also qualify for this. Mathematical scientists have looked for self-organizing principles whereby each ant passes on information to the next. These theories assume that ants function like a computer, through rapid interactions and distributed processing. Yet this does not explain the variety and intelligence of their response. Perhaps—once again—we are considering an animal to be a computer, rather than looking at the unique intelligence it demonstrates. From recent research it is certainly possible that individual ants possess intelligence as well as some remarkable group behavior. Adjusting Responses Recently, it was shown that ants are able to perceive threats of varying degrees and adjust their responses—e.g. how much energy to expend, or how aggressive to be—accordingly. Ants are noted to respond rapidly to new circumstances. For instance, if food is discovered, more ants will be sent to this location within minutes. If the nest is damaged, many workers will swarm to fix it immediately. This process involves more than just touching each other, more than a computer calculation: it requires the knowledge that the hive has to be repaired and the specific materials that are necessary. A very recent study has shown that individual ants can learn to use completely novel information in the form of magnetic and vibrational information using landmarks of navigation back to a nest. In other words, ants are able to evaluate a situation and respond appropriately. Individual Leadership To determine a new location for the hive, ants undergo a competition, which is similar to the bee’s waggle dance described in a previous post. Individuals ants each advertise a variety of potential sites with some ants choosing the same site. When a quorum is reached for a specific site, the vote is concluded; all the ants return to the nest to begin carrying worker ants, young ants, and the queen to the new site. Very recent research has shown that when separated from their hive, ants take advice from their more experienced individual brethren, scout ants who had memorized other good locations, about the rebuilding of a new home. It appears that ants are led by the smartest of the bunch, not by a mysterious “hive intelligence.” Ant Doctors Some ants that farm fungus for food have been shown to use multiple antibiotics to kill weeds, and inhibit microbes. This has been likened to doctors using multiple antibiotics for resistant infections in humans. Ants on Fire But, perhaps, one of the most remarkable tricks of the insect kingdom belongs to the fire ants. In experiments, when these ants are thrown into water, they quickly use their claws and jaws to grip the feet of other ants, forming a woven lattice of bodies that is completely water-resistant: a living raft. Despite the tightness of the fit, the ants position in the rafts allows each one to breath trapped air. These rafts, which can remain intact for long periods of time, allow the ants to safely traverse water or escape floods. The Individual in Society It has yet to be shown how these types of behaviors can be pre-programmed. Ants clearly act as individuals and exhibit leadership. But, groups of ants can do remarkable feats together such as the fire ant raft. The question of the intelligence of the hive versus the individual remains unanswered. If there is a type of intelligence in the aggregation of organisms, perhaps it is worth asking: What kind of superorganism are humans becoming, especially with the advancement of the Internet? -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eise Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Why is presenting a different point of view always qualified as spewing out thoughts? It has nothing to do with having a different point of view. It has to do with giving a well-argued point of view. This is a science discussion site. Only when people exchange good arguments, interesting discussions can arise. Science is about a reality that we share, so discussing about this reality, a consensus should theoretically be possible. Having said that, what happens here is more like (bad) philosophy. Philosophy is methodologically a bit more complicated case than science, because this shared reality is not a given. Philosophy's 'material' is how we actually think, and as it is clear that everybody thinks differently. Still, humans share a lot in how they think, and philosophy can help to flesh this thinking out, making it explicit. And then we can also see our differences better, and argue about them. So having not a shared reality, as in science, presses an even heavier load on formulating clear and argumentatively correct arguments. There is no final arbiter in philosophy. What you are doing is spawning ideas that pop up in your mind. See one of the lines in my disclaimer: "At its best, philosophy is intellectual reverse engineering, methodically dismantling bad habits of thought that sustain intellectual pandemics and replacing them with better thinking tools." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 28 minutes ago, Eise said: It has nothing to do with having a different point of view. It has to do with giving a well-argued point of view. This is a science discussion site. Only when people exchange good arguments, interesting discussions can arise. Science is about a reality that we share, so discussing about this reality, a consensus should theoretically be possible. Having said that, what happens here is more like (bad) philosophy. Philosophy is methodologically a bit more complicated case than science, because this shared reality is not a given. Philosophy's 'material' is how we actually think, and as it is clear that everybody thinks differently. Still, humans share a lot in how they think, and philosophy can help to flesh this thinking out, making it explicit. And then we can also see our differences better, and argue about them. So having not a shared reality, as in science, presses an even heavier load on formulating clear and argumentatively correct arguments. There is no final arbiter in philosophy. What you are doing is spawning ideas that pop up in your mind. See one of the lines in my disclaimer: "At its best, philosophy is intellectual reverse engineering, methodically dismantling bad habits of thought that sustain intellectual pandemics and replacing them with better thinking tools." Thank you; now I know more about the role of philosophy. My opposite stance from yours might have made you come up with this substantive text. It feels to me that, sometimes, I am bringing fresh water to the argumentative well, but maybe not. Is the ant thing that I just posted of value, or not? Is my statement that the conclusion is given before the arguments begin, not in need of at least some reflection? In that sense, I still remain somewhat sceptical that bad habits of thoughts are always being dismantled by philosophy. The text that you referenced gave me the impression that old habits die hard. I felt being lead to an intended outcome. The ideas that I spawn do not come from nowhere, but somewhere (e.g. another ideological stand point cultivated by countless hours of reading). Is that a good science foundation, most probably not, but it brings a different perspective, which is not a bad thing. I am either a rough-cut diamond or a piece of charcoal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Is the ant thing that I just posted of value, or not? It has value in the ant community... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: A bit more on ants - hope that it is not considered too long It would have been shorter like this. The "arguments" remind me a lot of those of intelligent design: "Something like this is so amazing that I can't see how this could be possible unless some kind of design is involved". "Ant doctors"... We should take these words with a pinch of salt, along with "God particle", "theory of everything" or "DNA proofreading". Those are just colourful terms, conveniently antropomorphized for the sake of mnemonics. Quote Matabele ants often receive wounds when trying to wrangle termites, which is the species only food source. In fact, it is not uncommon for many Matabele ants to be injured in battles with the very aggressive termites. Even for those who escape with only a wound, the battles can be fatal because of infection. The secret to how the ants get around this problem is the ants’ exoskeleton or cuticle. The cuticle is an important part of any insect and is composed of many compounds, such as hydrocarbons, that can communicate species type, fertility, age, and even what colony an ant belongs to. When an ant is attacked by a termite, it is the cuticle that tends to be damaged and removing a protective layer that prevents infection. But scientist have observed that when the cuticle becomes infected, the hydrocarbon structures of it change significantly, signaling to the other ants in its colony that there is a problem. From: https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/ant-doctors.php Scientific source where the "ant doctors" are explained: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43885-w Quote Chemical analyses showed that wound infection is associated with specific changes in the cuticular hydrocarbon profile, thereby likely allowing nestmates to diagnose the infection state of injured individuals and apply the appropriate antimicrobial treatment. This study demonstrates that M. analis ant societies use antimicrobial compounds produced in the metapleural glands to treat infected wounds and reduce nestmate mortality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 27 minutes ago, joigus said: DNA proofreading Well, DNA proofreading basically just refers to 3'-5' exonuclease activity, where enzymes (usually polymerases) can excise mismatches during errors in elongation. This basically just reduces overall error rates. I am sure folks might misuse the term, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Turpin Posted September 4 Share Posted September 4 23 minutes ago, joigus said: It would have been shorter like this. The "arguments" remind me a lot of those of intelligent design: "Something like this is so amazing that I can't see how this could be possible unless some kind of design is involved". "Ant doctors"... We should take these words with a pinch of salt, along with "God particle", "theory of everything" or "DNA proofreading". Those are just colourful terms, conveniently antropomorphized for the sake of mnemonics. From: https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/ant-doctors.php Scientific source where the "ant doctors" are explained: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43885-w 1- Not shorter, because I would have had to do a summary of the summary; lazy bugger I am😊 wanted also to post the full essence of the summary 2- not having these kinds of observations, and there is more and more of these uncovered each day, would make it much more easier to promote the autonoma model, but they are there and they must be considered 3- agree, colourful language 4- was aware of the paper; they are still making a diagnostic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts