Backroads of Science. Whadyaknow?
There's lots of interesting (to me, anyway) stuff around, and a good sceptic will wonder 'how do they know this shit?' And then you get to some really interesting stuff.
So imagine a cave inhabited by Neanderthals and/or H.Sapiens over thousands of years and layer of soil build up. And part of the soil content is little flakes from the roof of the caved each year there is some limestone deposit as water evaporates and also some soot deposits from the home fires of the inhabitants. And because the weather varies the deposits vary in size, so all these flakes are like chips of wood with varied layers. And when you collect enough of them, you can use them the same way tree rings are used to date wooden artefacts. How neat is that!
And that's how we know that Neanderthals and H. Sapiens were around at the same time to within a year. Plus, there's an explanation of how we know that non-African humans today have some small % of Neanderthal genes, and more interesting titbits.
So imagine a cave inhabited by Neanderthals and/or H.Sapiens over thousands of years and layer of soil build up. And part of the soil content is little flakes from the roof of the caved each year there is some limestone deposit as water evaporates and also some soot deposits from the home fires of the inhabitants. And because the weather varies the deposits vary in size, so all these flakes are like chips of wood with varied layers. And when you collect enough of them, you can use them the same way tree rings are used to date wooden artefacts. How neat is that!
And that's how we know that Neanderthals and H. Sapiens were around at the same time to within a year. Plus, there's an explanation of how we know that non-African humans today have some small % of Neanderthal genes, and more interesting titbits.
Comments (82)
More research must be done, but if the idea survives the test of criticism it seems to support punctuated equilibrium.
So, I'm wrong again, eh? :sad:
Yeah, yeah, pass the sauce.
[I]Drunken Doughnut[/i]
Danny Doughnut is my name
Denying minds is my game
Wrote myself a book or two
They don't make sense, but who are you?
I've talked at TED and Oxford too
Taught those stiffs a thing or two
I'm not here and neither are you
The mind is false, the illusion true
All was well 'til experiments proved
My theories wrong, my followers fools
But I've made enough to keep me in booze
Heads I win, tails you lose!
Being wrong, and realizing it, is like removing a splinter which also gives me a new perspective.
At one point I thought it a pain but I've come to see how being wrong is the better joy than being right.
I never am wrong, so I wouldn't know. Always I realise I was wrong when I have just changed my mind. :cool:
's true, that.
Unfortunately, that new finding has blown things out of proportion in science media. We already know that quantum mechanical processes occur in biological systems and it's nice that there's some evidence for that happening in us, but people falling into the conclusion that consciousness is definitely a quantum mechanical process missed that this is not proven yet. And seen as how neural networks simulate similar behaviors, it may just be that these quantum mechanical processes are necessary for neurons to function properly, but a single neuron function does not equal consciousness as far as we know today. We still seem to need the sum of all parts to produce consciousness.
Reminds me about the recent news of Princeton team copying a fruit fly brain. And how science influencers and media started talking about it in the form of some cyberpunk uploading of our mind into a computer. But the problem is that just a copy isn't enough, we need to understand how the chemicals that flow through the brain affect the brain, but we don't know yet what the "cocktail effect" of many different chemical compounds do with out brain so how do we simulate it enough to effectively give the full experience of a fruit fly? And if microtubules are part of the neuron function, and that quantum mechanical process isn't accounted for, the neurons might not act between each other in the way needed for accurate simulation.
I generally agree with this. My previous comments here have, of course, been somewhat lacking in seriousness.
For what it's worth, keep in mind. A 20,000 year old rock carving will carbon date the same whether it's been preserved for 20,000 years or freshly chiseled 20 minutes ago. If a few factors are managed properly, no man nor his instruments of science would tell the difference.
How refreshing to think about what is normally not.
Yes, but it looks as though you have misunderstood the science being reported. It's not carbon dating.
The sooty carbon layers from fire smoke deposits mark the annual layers of limestone deposit that build up in layers on the roof of the cave. This produces a barcode of thicker and thinner layers that can be matched over many years just the same way that tree rings can be matched so that a library can be built up from these flakes producing a continuous record of the years of habitation, and particular flakes can be associated with identifiable remains or artefacts of neanderthal or h.sapiens occupation and that enables them to say with confidence that they are occupying the cave if not at the same time, then at most one year apart. Carbon dating cannot get anything like that close, of course.
Quoting Christoffer
I missed where people were falling into that conclusion. "Is Human Consciousness Quantum After All?" is the subtitle. And at the end of the video, the guy says. This is super exciting because maybe Penrose and Hameroff were right ...", having noted at the beginning that no one had taken their ideas seriously for years.
And of course it is only a very partial explanation at best, of something that every living cell has, that is possibly a precursor of what we might recognise as consciousness.
But it relates to any number of [s]waffles[/s] threads over in the hard-nosed philosophy section. It goes right against my instincts on the abstract, but it does it well.
The social aspect of this collaborative dance troop in training is remarkable (as it reminds me of us). Does kinship explain the cooperation of the junior males? Can more genetically distant birds join a troop? How much variation in the style of dance between populations is there? If we could award a species for the most interesting/complex courtship ritual, who are the contenders?
EDIT: Typing it out helped me remember: https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/319/the-spell-of-the-sensuous-by-david-abram/
...though part of my interest here is also in how it seems plausible that sound would effect things in a strictly physical analysis, and if you replicate effects you'll observe consequences, and the whole project can superficially be read as obvious woo.
I stopped 1/2-way through the video you linked because the studies they cited all had the same problem, and that's more or less what I saw when I looked into this. (tho tell me if I ought continue)
But the idea is super interesting and could be rigorously tested without much of a theory. Lots of good data could be produced on the question that controlled and tested for so, so many things. It's just seen as too magical.
For me I like the idea of finding ways of making the songs make sense in the noise, to utilize your metaphor.
[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_leukocyte_antigen
I was privileged enough to learn about that for work, at one point.
I found the idea of a protein complex as the basis for self/other fascinating, and still do.
I didn't know about the organism you linked about though. Very exciting stuff.
Me too. A case where psychology recapitulates biology.
To your wiki link. Alas my organic chemistry encompasses the idea that amino acids have an an acidic end and an amine base end, and so can form chains of peptide and poly-peptide. And the rest is a sea of links to a language I do not speak. But I vaguely get that self-recognition is necessary for the immune system, and the implications for transplants and cancers; but the gap in my understanding between basic chemistry and medical principle is too wide to even try a fill at this late stage. I wave my hands and nod wisely, hoping not to have missed something philosophically important.
Note: I have no reason to believe that Philip Prince is any relation to Prince Philip.
At least, in one version of cancer. I'm not sure how far the metaphors can be pushed here -- "needs further research" :D
Also the idea that the self-other can be reduced to hinging on the functioning of a protein network seems reductionist, but there could be some interesting implications for the mind-body problem depending upon what we learn and how we'd want to interpret what we learn.
But really I just thought it was friggen' cool. :D
Metaphysically -- if self/other is a complex of physical proteins performing a function then it seems we'd at least overcome the hurdle of nominalism which uses reductionism: Here is a physical explanation of self/other which relies upon an assemblage rather than a cogito -- so the "I think" cannot be a pure, self-seeing clarity unless it is somehow not associated, at all, with the body which makes it up.
The person who believes the self to be a soul will want more, but the physicalist will see that even in the practical realm of immunology self/other is not some singular divide
The functioning seems to me to be more like a makers mark, or a password, or a signature - in other words it is exactly a biological name/label and arbitrary at that if I read wiki aright.
And now I'm thinking "tribal markings" as the social equivalent.
Anyways, the world is indivisible so biology, psychology, sociology, have to create divisions with labels and talk, otherwise everything is mush. 'I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together.'
"Tribal markings", insofar that we understand them in a wider cultural context as fulfilling a multitude of functions, I think is pretty close.
The other thing I find interesting is how the immune system may be linked to mating patterns -- which makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective.
I think rather than a makers mark, password, or signature I'd prefer to think of these various protein complexes in analogue to the markings -- which also can mark all sorts of functions within a community. Mostly because the former suggests a singular hand, an "I" marking something, when in fact there is a wider system in which self/other makes sense (to annihilate or not-annihilate the cell)
Further, there's a deeper link to other life evident in the biochemistry. It gives another physical basis for making the argument that humans are connected to the world about them, rather than a thinking thing directing their body from above.
At least these are the sorts of thoughts I have going on -- I could be missing your point entirely too.
Quoting unenlightened
True. Or infinitely divisible and so incomprehensible, which amounts to the same. Everything is mush and so we create divisions in the mush to bring order to the world.
Hmm. I'm struggling to understand this. Tribal markings arise in the wider system of tribes; cell markings arise in the wider system of multi cellular organisms; makers marks arise in the larger system of the marketplace.
Going back to an earlier thread, marking is the act of making a distinction.
True.
It could just be a professional hazard of the cobbler seeing the world as a big shoe. The system of signs can be seen as an assemblage, too.
An attempt to make a distinction though: A maker's mark and a tribal marking, so it seems to me at least, indicates an actor with intent. This is our company's mark. This is your position in the tribe. Act accordingly! (indicating a "you" to whom the command is addressed -- a sort of responsibility)
Intent is much less obvious at the level of the multicellular organism, though -- the self made of millions of cells interacting in various capacities continues even as the cells that once were a healthy part of the organism become other from the organism from degradation or infection. There isn't an intent so much as a mechanism composing parts connected to parts and the distinctions are each of them a miniature sorites paradox resolved by what's of interest.
When the two organisms became 1 it made me think: here there's no intent, and it's really only the functions and capacities within an environment which is marking the difference between self/other (as the two others become one self due to environmental pressures).
Quoting unenlightened
There's something about life that feels different from the relays -- the whole "entering into itself" thing at the end that feels a bit mysterious feels analogous to the question of differentiating species, or even differentiating life from not-life. They are clearly differentiable when they are, and not when they are not (the virus providing a good mid-point between the two -- certainly life, but almost mechanical in its piggybacking on life). But rather than the logical system of marks it's a slapdash and messy process that looks designed at times, but clearly isn't. It's us who find the patterns in life because we like to see the patterns -- we want to know how this whole messy thing began.
But unlike the system of logic there's an entire environment which surrounds and even composes the multicellular organism, and the self -- though we hold it responsible -- is this assemblage of parts feeding into a great multiplicity of functions far beyond intent.
If mating patterns -- that natural chemistry people want -- is the result of compatible immune systems then the self will intend what the functions demand. Or, intent is a post hoc explanation of the assemblage.
EDIT: Though, as always, after I write something and give myself some time to rethink I see little bumps in the thinking I dislike: the tribal markings were supposed to function the same and here I started to think how intent would make them different, and now I'm thinking "intent" need not come in at all in any assemblage. Heh -- the curse of wondering is exactly this back-and-forth...
This back-and-forth can contribute to 'triangulating' and closing in on a more accurate understanding.
The blessing of wondering. :razz:
True.
I keep being reminded of The Lathe of Heaven.
I'm hoping to post something a bit more substantial on this later if I can get a better sense of it, I think this is the heartland of most of my enquiries ...
Space-Time: The Biggest Problem in Physics (聴 Quanta Magazine 路 Sep 25, 2024 路 19m:41s)
Innovative ...
聥Nature Communications聸 Snail-inspired robotic swarms (聴 Robotics & AI Lab - CUHK Shenzhen 路 Apr 29, 2024 路 8m:28s)
聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴聴
So IFF space time is a holographic projection from its boundary, which boundary seems undetectable from within, one might consider consciousness also to be "outside". The observer - thou and I - are outside, but observing from each their own pov within the holographic representation. This makes the universe an educational toy for nascent infinite minds. Or something? Thou and I are like Mario and Luigi, and our triumphs and disasters are just part of a game we are playing to learn together how to live.
[quote=Incredible String Band]Jesus and Hitler and Richard the Lion Heart
Three kings and Moses and Queen Cleopatra
The Cobbler, the maiden
The mender and the maker
The sickener and the twitcher
And the glad undertaker
The shepherd of willows
The harper and the archer
All sat down in one boat together
Troubled voyage in calm weather
Maya Maya
All this world is but a play
Be thou the joyful player[/quote]
https://genius.com/The-incredible-string-band-maya-lyrics
It's not quite the Holy Grail, but it is a really neat gearbox.
Try and ignore the bizarre subtitling.
https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alz.14410
I never expected Bose-Einstein condensates to be useful.
Hook me up. I want one implanted in my brain.
I wonder if that's how those monarch butterflies find that spot in Mexico.
Microtubules. Of course.
That's put out there by Roger Penrose, and he does seem to have a pretty good understanding of the problems of metaphysics.
Yeah. It's interesting that there is great scepticism of quantum effects in biology, and yet getting them into our phones is a realistic goal.
Generally speaking, people live under the illusion that they have control over their phones, and the paranoia that if they install it into their brains it will have control over them. We are conditioned with an internal /external boundary which supports a "self", but it's also in some ways self-contradicting.
We assume some control over our interactions with the external, and control over the critical aspect, which is what we allow into the internal, from the external (no vaccines please). However, to subsist we must allow the external to penetrate, and the effects of toxicity make us realize that we really have no control over the internal. And that is where "self" becomes "self-contradicting". Once the toxin is internal, it has gained control. That realization may manifest as irrational fear toward the external, paranoia. So the "self" is supported by control over the external, but it's contradicted by lack of control over the internal, and the contradiction is enhanced by the need to allow the external into the internal to enable subsistence. This could produce an unhealthy fear of "the wrong choice", which is lack of self-confidence.
I believe this lack of self-confidence underlies the fear and skepticism toward applying quantum principles to biology, a move which could make GM look like child's play. We see the tip of a huge iceberg of ethical dilemma, and avoid it like the plague.
The majority says stay away, all you scientists ought to just go back to working on nuclear fusion, find the free energy which would make life a breeze, or something else useful like giving my phone more abilities. But there's always a few who want the fountain of youth, and how could you stop them from proceeding?
I had never heard of this organism before reading this article, but I found the possibility of an unknown branch of life intriguing.
Not this guy; he brings a whole ocean of excitement to the subject.
A new cancer vaccine just wiped out tumors in mice
[sup]聴 University of Florida 路 Aug 19, 2025[/sup]
She聮s fantastic.