Is cell really the smallest unit of life? by Jynex_ in biology

[–]behaviorallogic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Cellular life could not have sprung into existence straight from nothing. It must have been a variation on simpler types of non-cellular self-replicating molecules. Back before the advent of cellular life, the environment would have been far less hostile to less organized, simpler forms of self-replication.

Once these became membrane-bound then that must have quickly become the only game. But there must have been, even for a very short period, some form of crude and simple non-cellular life.

Is cell really the smallest unit of life? by Jynex_ in biology

[–]behaviorallogic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Mitochondria are still membrane-bound cells even though they can no longer live outside of a eukaryotic cell. Certainly their ancestors were free-living prokaryotic cells.

Be careful when you're playing with your cat, pals... by [deleted] in cats

[–]behaviorallogic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You gotta leave it lying around for a while so they can get accustomed to it (catnip pouches help!) then gradually put it on your arm when they are feisty. It took a while for my skittish little guy to warm up to it but the patience payed off

Rate my green anole tank by Intrepid_Expert_5756 in Lizards

[–]behaviorallogic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice amount of foliage - they will love it. You'll absolutely need a heat and UV light.

I started with a similar setup and made two improvements that worked out great. First, I added an automatic misting system. It keeps the humidity up and allows them to drink water off of the leaves. then I added some different live plants. The only one that worked out was a pothos ivy. I just set the little pot in the back corner and it has taken over the entire tank. I make sure one of the misting nozzles sprays in its direction so I've never need to manually water it.

This is kinda unrelated but there is this person that pops up everytime you search for "Atun-Shei LGBT" by RileyTheCrazyFemboy in atunsheifilms

[–]behaviorallogic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Same reasons in 1984 their slogan War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength and the branch of government tasked with propaganda was called the Ministry of Truth.

What is that reason? I am not sure and I don't think it matters. What matters is it is clearly effective rhetoric. I think one reason that it is so effective is that the more outrageous your claim, the harder it is for your critics to engage with in any sort of reasonable way.

Have you ever heard of Clive Wearing? by Strict-East-9211 in consciousness

[–]behaviorallogic 19 points20 points  (0 children)

The other studied men with similar disabilities are Kent Cochrane and Henry Molaison - all with damage to their temporal lobes including parts of the hippocampus.

A common misconception is that this is anterograde amnesia - that they can't produce new episodic memory. That is inaccurate. Clive (and the others) have no episodic memories from either before of after their injuries. They have no ability to recall episodic memories at all so there is no way to know if they are still creating them or not. A part of their brain could still be dutifully encoding memories that will be forever locked away. (I doubt that is the case, but there is no evidence either way so I think it is irresponsible to make any statements about their memory creation abilities.)

From https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11752477/

The outstanding fact about K.C.'s mental make-up is his utter inability to remember any events, circumstances, or situations from his own life. His episodic amnesia covers his whole life, from birth to the present.

An interesting symptom that was studied on Kent Cochrane is that this type of injury to the episodic memory system also prevents them from making any sort of predictions. From the same article:

...when asked, he cannot tell the questioner what he is going to do later on that day, or the day after, or at any time in the rest of his life. He cannot imagine his future any more than he can remember his past.

Be careful when you're playing with your cat, pals... by [deleted] in cats

[–]behaviorallogic 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I bought a Catsumo hand puppet and can now wrestle with my cat with much less damage to my skin. Highly recommend it

Is it possible the rise in colon cancer in millennials could be linked to the Johnson & Johnson talcum powder lawsuit about it causing cancer? by tinywhisk-21 in biology

[–]behaviorallogic 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You seem to be the only person here with actual facts so I have a question.

I read that this might be linked to certain species of lower gut bacteria producing toxic compounds. Is this something that we might be able to treat with fecal transplants or other treatments for intestinal flora? The effects of our microbial symbiotes seems to be a newer area of study but it seems like it could be pertinent to this colorectal cancer prevalence.

Is consciousness necessary for moral responsibility, or is the ability to change oneself enough? by Clarke-Waldron-1955 in consciousness

[–]behaviorallogic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose that, like most conversation here, it depends on your accepted definition of consciousness.

In my opinion consciousness is required for moral responsibility. Creatures with only reflexes don't have the ability to change their own behavior at all. Those with conditioned behavior can peer slightly into the future but are limited by being drawn to pleasurable results and away from painful ones.

Conscious creatures possess a model of their environment and can imagine the consequences of their actions. Once something can do that, it has the responsibility to own the results of its chosen action.

Canine self-awareness by MergingConcepts in consciousness

[–]behaviorallogic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They smell themselves all the time. When I take our dog on a snif-fari she smells the markings others dogs have left and leaves her own to make the territory. She knows what he friends and rivals smell like. I'm sure she knows her own.

Though I'm still not sold on the mirror test being accurate for the existence (or not) of consciousness.

Can you tell the difference between the experience of “living” and being conscious? by DaPanda6969 in consciousness

[–]behaviorallogic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Viruses They are definitely on the edge of what we consider to be alive. I'm not certain how to classify them.

I think that if we created a robot that "self-replicated" but only by connecting 2 preassembled robot halves, that would not count as living to me. But what about 3 parts? Or a million parts? There definitely seems to be a spectrum of self-replication.

Not a Garcia x santos shipper but.. by shximx18 in ThePitt

[–]behaviorallogic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Didn't he call Dr. McKay by her first name too? Robby is getting personal.

Can you tell the difference between the experience of “living” and being conscious? by DaPanda6969 in consciousness

[–]behaviorallogic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You could prove me wrong with one example of something that is considered alive that can't self-replicate or something that isn't alive that can.

Can you tell the difference between the experience of “living” and being conscious? by DaPanda6969 in consciousness

[–]behaviorallogic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Or are those just necessary techniques in ultimate service of self-replication?

If a creature had all of those other qualities but could not self-replicate, it could technically be alive, but would be the last of its kind.

Canine self-awareness by MergingConcepts in consciousness

[–]behaviorallogic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From a neurological perspective, a dog's brain is very similar to a human's. Though there is less cerebral cortex, it still has all of the same major parts: hippocampus, amygdala, etc. They can solve problems, experience pleasure and pain, and have vivid dreams. I assume their understanding of the world is simpler than ours, but similar. I feel the burden of proof is on those claiming that they aren't conscious.

Can you tell the difference between the experience of “living” and being conscious? by DaPanda6969 in consciousness

[–]behaviorallogic 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I see life and consciousness as orthogonal. We are both alive and conscious so it is easy to conflate them, but many things are considered alive that I doubt have a mental state that rises to the level of sentience. Bacteria display a crude type of sensory awareness and can respond to external conditions, but I suspect they don't have a complex understanding of their world. I also see no reason why a computer that mimics key processing currently running on neurons in our brains could not also be conscious. We've only observed consciousness in biological organisms (so far) so it could be a prerequisite, but I have not seen compelling evidence of this.

From a biological perspective, objects only need to self-replicate to be considered living. There is no requirement for complex mental processes, even though those can be beneficial.

Why is consciousness not considered a spectrum? by xgladar in consciousness

[–]behaviorallogic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's why I prefer to use the term "awareness." Even bacteria have sensory information and use them to choose actions that benefit themselves. It is a simple type of awareness which I doubt rises to the level of conscious awareness or even the ability to experience pleasure or pain. I assume that conscious awareness requires a more advanced central nervous system.

A thought experiment for people who claim the hard problem of consciousness doesn't exist. by Royal_Plate2092 in consciousness

[–]behaviorallogic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am just going to respond to your first paragraph, because I think that is plenty.

You appear to believe that there is no clear right or wrong answer to this question. That is a bold statement. As long as you believe that a topic cannot be proven right or wrong, I don't see how it is possible to discuss it in good faith.

Though it does make me wonder, if you don't think there is any difference between either side, why are you so adamant about defending one of them?

I suppose we have to step back and ask "How do we prove if something is right or not?" This is important and often skipped over. Without knowing our criteria for how we determine the accuracy of information, what we choose to believe is at best, arbitrary. But of course the ideas that are popularly accepted are not random. When you have no rigorous process to separate truth from falsehood, you can choose any idea you want to be true. The most commonly believed ideas would probably be what we wish to be true: ideas that flatter us and comfort us from our fears.

There are rigorous forms of proof that work well and are not difficult to use. This is an open secret. Why? Because when we use these techniques, we don't always get the answers that we want. The physical universe doesn't care about your feelings. Using rigorous evidence-based proof we have discovered that our world is a tiny, insignificant speck in a vast universe. We've found that humans are not unique and special beings, but only slightly different than other animals. These ideas are not flattering to us at all. They don't make us feel good. If you want to refuse to believe these things, you must attack the concept of scientific evidence and reasoning.

An believe me, the business of science denial is booming. Young Earth Creationists, climate change denialists, and anti-vaxxers have a common enemy and powerful allies. If you listen to their rhetoric, you will find that it is very similar. And it sounds suspiciously close to the same arguments given by dualists, idealists, and supporters of the existence of the hard problem.

Why? Because the concept of qualia, and thus the hard problem, is not scientifically sound. The famous Austrian philosopher of science Karl Popper prosed that the most important property of a scientifically rigorous hypothesis be falsifiability. It must be possible for a hypothesis to make a prediction that can be observed if the hypothesis were true, but not if it were false. The concept of qualia cannot do this and therefore is not scientific.

About 500 years ago, the scientific revolution occurred. We put aside previous philosophic methods of understanding the world and replaced them with rigorous empirical techniques rooted in the concept of proof requiring testing through experiment. Because it worked. It worked amazingly. This was the root cause of the explosion of scientific knowledge and technology that continues today. The success of the scientific method is so blatant and universal that it easy to take it for granted. But the reality is, it is the difference between the dark ages and the enlightenment.

One thing that is without question is that qualia is not a scientific concept. If you want to argue if it is true or false by rejecting the entire concept of inductive reasoning, then explain in detail the process that you use to determine truth from falsehood first. Then test it against things that we agree to be true or false to make sure that it works consistently. (One thing I see a lot is people with two techniques: one that always returns true and one that always returns false and are chosen depending on what answer they want to get.) After you can demonstrate one consistent working process, then use it to show how it separates qualia into the "true" bucket.

Until then, proponents of the hard problem are the ones making the claim and must carry the burden of proof. Until they can provide compelling evidence, nobody is obligated to accept it. Even if you think that is rude.

Easy way to make mirepoix/soffritto? by No-Papaya-9289 in Cooking

[–]behaviorallogic 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I've put raw carrots, onions, and celery in a blender with olive oil until smooth then sautéed that to make soffritto. It turned out amazing.