|
e: nm i need to work this out a bit more
nomadologique fucked around with this message at 15:43 on Mar 3, 2016 |
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
imo phylogeny is an infinitely better topic for discussion than this meaningless philosophical drivel
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
The impossible figure isn't there, but the sticks are. If you destroy the sticks, the illusion of the impossible figure is dispelled as well. Death may have no meaning in a meaningless universe, but we don't operate in a meaningless universe. "River" is a word that describes the parameters of the banks and water and erosion so that we can interact with it in a meaningful way. Maybe that "meaning" is based on an illusion or lie, but as you said, in a practical sense (which is the only sense in which the word can be applied) the river is real. In a practical sense, your "consciousness" is destroyed by the teleporter. If you want to deny the significance of practical application to reality then yeah, you're correct, but that approach is, by its very nature, meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
did you know that bears and canines are both common members of another clade called Caniformia? or that fungi are more closely related to animals than they are to plants?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
whenever someone refers to mushrooms as a vegetable I instinctively think "'sponge' would be a more accurate description of that than 'vegetable'"
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
No dude, it's teleported by the teleporter. If it were destroyed, then the teleporter would be named a destroyer, because names always completely encapsulate and define a thing and give it meaning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:whenever someone refers to mushrooms as a vegetable I instinctively think "'sponge' would be a more accurate description of that than 'vegetable'" Yeah okay go start your own thread if you wanna talk boring biology stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
monkey posted:No dude, it's teleported by the teleporter. If it were destroyed, then the teleporter would be named a destroyer, because names always completely encapsulate and define a thing and give it meaning. Now who's guilty of magical thinking 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Applewhite posted:Now who's guilty of magical thinking You didn't get that I was paraphrasing your views on the word "river"
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
monkey posted:You didn't get that I was paraphrasing your views on the word "river" Which "you" are you talking about? I'm a completely different person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Applewhite posted:In a practical sense, your "consciousness" is destroyed by the teleporter. Your consciousness is also destroyed when you pass out or just fall asleep. The dude who wakes up tomorrow simply shares all your memories and personality. But the chain of your consciousness is broken, and a new one begun. Sure, you might "think" you're the same mind who was alive and walking around in this body yesterday, but all you have are the memories of that. The brain might be the same, the pattern might be indistinguishable, but it's a new pattern all the same. The person who made those memories is, in all practical sense, dead and erased, and you just inherited the memories. Just as another consciousness will inherit the memories of today when you fall asleep.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
IronClaymore posted:Your consciousness is also destroyed when you pass out or just fall asleep. The dude who wakes up tomorrow simply shares all your memories and personality. But the chain of your consciousness is broken, and a new one begun. I'd have to learn more about brain activity when someone is sleeping before I accept that statement as fact. From what I recall, the brain is actually active even during periods of deep sleep and that our "consciousness" still functions, but is just disconnected from our perception of time and other external stimuli so we appear to be "unconscious" but in that case I would describe "unconsciousness" as an illusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
http://i.imgur.com/ZKdHRxZ.webm have you guys seen this? its dna replicating or something cool. we are all accidental machines
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Consciousness can be turned off and back on without any hitches, but since we're apparently equating the entire brain being on or off with a consistent consciousness that can still be called the same person I doubt this will be convincing. They weren't trying to 'kill' her and make a copy, they were just trying to stop her epilepsy. Oops!
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
32MB OF ESRAM posted:http://i.imgur.com/ZKdHRxZ.webm do we actually understand how this thing works, like structurally? or do we just know what it looks like from scanning it with electron microscopes? that is a hell of a nano machine
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
32MB OF ESRAM posted:http://i.imgur.com/ZKdHRxZ.webm i'll never undertsand how poo poo like this works with how chaotic thermodynamic effects are at that scale  atp synthase is cool
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
SHAOLIN FUCKFIEND posted:i'll never undertsand how poo poo like this works with how chaotic thermodynamic effects are at that scale
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
32MB OF ESRAM posted:It blows me mind how mechanical it all looks. I wonder if it's just poorly animated medical CG stuff, or if all the motions are meticulously nitpicked by scientists until they're accurate. not a cell biologist but the understanding that has been relayed to me by people who are is that they are simplified models
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:do we actually understand how this thing works, like structurally? Well, that looks like a simulation, so yes. TacticalUrbanHomo posted:No, they don't. Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys are the descendants of distinct lineages of Parvorder Catarrhini. That means that all members of Catarrhini must be monkeys, following from the law of monophyletic variation. Otherwise the word "monkey" would be rendered completely meaningless. And all land vertebrates are fish.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Applewhite posted:By the same token, you could argue that you're not afraid of walking into the blades of a harvester combine because the you that dies will be future you. Just because you fear the death of something doesn't mean you have a conscious 'connection' to it. Parents do it all the time. We have evolved to care about our offspring, both biological and causal. There's an obvious benefit to both types of fear from the survival of the species and your own personal genetic material. But we cannot use our lizard brain's kneejerk reactions to solve more complex moral issues. For example, we might buy shoes from a local friendly shop owner who you had a good conversation with and feel good with the mutual benefit that you caused, and that you are being a good social animal. Even when you know those shoes were made in a Bangladash sweat shop by horribly abused children; your lizard brain is not capable of internalising the morality globalisation because lizards didn't globalise and even if they did there wouldn't be a strong enough causal link to require a negative response to be evolved. You might get the same vague sense of guilt and paranoia you always feel when you think about your place in modern society, but that's basically it. But aside from that, the end result of my combine harvester walk: 0 chaosbreathers, totally destroyed. End result of my transportation: 1 or even 2 chaosbreathers, exactly the same. End result of sitting in chair typing this for next second: 1 chaosbreather, slightly less healthy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
SHAOLIN FUCKFIEND posted:i'll never undertsand how poo poo like this works with how chaotic thermodynamic effects are at that scale well, sometimes it doesn't work, and then you get the anti-miracle, cancer
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:And all land vertebrates are fish. That would be true if fish was a taxonomic term, which it isn't. It's a paraphyletic term, in other words a term used colloquially to describe animals superficially, just like bats used to commonly be described as birds. If we rename OWM and NWM to something else, then "monkey" will be a paraphyletic term as well which would be fine. All land vertebrates are, however, chordates, even though they largely lack pharyngeal slits, just as whales are still tetrapods even though they no longer have four functional limbs, just as humans are still primates even though we no longer have the jaws of primates, and just like apes are still monkeys even though we no longer have tails of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
ANIME IS BLOOD posted:well, sometimes it doesn't work, and then you get the anti-miracle, cancer Nah ATP synthase is having a party in Cancer - the cells embrace their true nature as self-reproducing nanomachines. The keyframes of that animation are probably assembled frpm very careful xray-crystallography of all those protein subunits in all their different states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
still gonna haunt the internet cloud tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
Applewhite posted:In a practical sense, your "consciousness" is destroyed by the teleporter. i haven't ever disagreed w the basic position that uploading your consciousness doesn't "solve the problem of death." click on the ? and you'll see that all my initial posts in this thread are about that: being left to hang around after uploading, knowing that you will still die but your copy will diverge and continue. someone who compared this situation to having children really isn't doing it justice, because children don't have all your memories and tics and sense of self. but your copy does, at least initially; so there is a sense in which it is very much "you," waking up in another place, another body, staring back at its own original and thinking "thanks ya poor schmuck." what i am arguing against is the self-identity of consciousness. the river is a bad example basically because a river is outside of our consciousness. the justification for our cutting it out and freezing it in time is much stronger than when we do the same thing to ourselves. yes, we can cut out a portion of our own consciousness, freeze it like the river; but this requires that we pretend to view our consciousness from the outside. (on a side note, this is the situation of substantial pre-existence: there is some part of consciousness which is eternal, and forever "outside" the part that changes.) the reality is that our consciousness "updates" every moment; and since the future is always absolutely new, and our consciousness is composed of time itself, our consciousness is always absolutely new. even while we pretend to be outside it looking in, talking about it, isolating it as a practical system, it goes on in the background and all around this process of isolation; the isolation-process, which only "touches" the river, exists entirely within our ever-renewing consciousness as only one of its processes. you claim that it's meaningless to talk about a consciousness without self-identity, but i don't think that's true. maybe if you restrict meaning to linguistic meaning, it's difficult or impossible to talk about it; but i think you can understand what i'm getting at, even indirectly. there is meaning to the reality of consciousness without self-identity. it is the very being of your consciousness. it is what you experience every moment. (the appearance of) self-identity is only a feature, among many, of consciousness. i have been blackout drunk, come to, and had no recollection of a period of time. according to others, i was acting consciously, or rather i was exhibiting all the tell-tale signs of consciousness. i have to assume that i was, in fact, conscious at the time; but i cannot identify with any of what happened. it wasn't "me," in the sense that we use the word. it was my body, and it was even my consciousness, but it wasn't "me," because i wasn't there. this could point to the origin of the appearance of self-identity: memory. you have already brought this up numerous times. what creates the appearance of self-identity is memory. it is also memory that helps us understand that consciousness is absolutely new every moment. because our consciousness consists of all our memories, experiences, feelings, thoughts -- up until now. when you add a new moment's worth of memories, experiences, feelings thoughts, the consciousness you make is unlike the consciousness you had before. and memories are remade, because they are a feature of the present consciousness, not a persistence of the past consciousness. the past consciousness gives way before the new one coming into being. without memory of my blackout activities, i can't connect that into the continuity of my self-identity. it just doesn't exist. it never happened. it's not part of me. but it did happen, if i am to believe my friends. and if i am to believe them, i wasn't lying on the ground unconscious; i was rather conscious, drunk, and forming no memories. my consciousness continued right along, but without the feature of self-identity. for all we know, a similar process may occur with memory disorders like Alzheimer's. one's identity begins to fragment and disintegrate as memory vanishes. i don't know. i imagine there is research and plenty of anecdotes about it. probably quite strange, horrible, and scary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:No, they don't. Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys are the descendants of distinct lineages of Parvorder Catarrhini. That means that all members of Catarrhini must be monkeys, following from the law of monophyletic variation. Otherwise the word "monkey" would be rendered completely meaningless. By this reasoning, New World Monkeys are Old World Monkeys. That's pretty dumb. Q: Is a Spider Monkey a New World Monkey or an Old World Monkey? A: No. see?!?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
nomadologique posted:i haven't ever disagreed w the basic position that uploading your consciousness doesn't "solve the problem of death." click on the ? and you'll see that all my initial posts in this thread are about that: being left to hang around after uploading, knowing that you will still die but your copy will diverge and continue. So are you saying that when we make a copy of ourselves our consciousness will change in no way we can predict and it still be us, but with a new understanding? We will still be us but we would create something else from ourselves that we have no idea how it would act or even understand it in any manner. I can only assume the singularity would be the end of mankind and a new beginning for something else. A common analogy for the singularity we would become like flys to whatever is next. What do you think about Ray Kurzweil statement that we will be able to bring the dead back to life through dna alone? Tenzarin fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:By this reasoning, New World Monkeys are Old World Monkeys. That's pretty dumb. No? No, MPV doesn't imply that at all. NWM's and OWM's are completely different parvorders. Apes are part of parvorder Catarrhini. So are Old World Monkeys. New World Monkeys are part of parvorder Platyrrhini. So all Catarrhin primates have a common ancestor that was not a Old World Monkey, but that common ancestor diverged into numerous groups, one of which was the Old World Monkeys. All Platyrrhine primates have a common ancestor that was not a New World Monkey, but that population diverged into several groups, one of which was the New World Monkeys (which are the only group still living). Now either the law of monophyletic variation is bollocks (which would be confusing since it's a cornerstone of evolutionary theory), OR the word "monkey" doesn't actually mean anything, OR the common ancestor of Catarrhine primates and Platyrrhine primates MUST have also been a monkey, or else it could not have diverged into two groups that would both later give rise to independent groups of monkeys. There is no fourth option, it has to be one of these three. If we go with the last one, then it directly follows that all groups of Catarrhini and all groups of Platyrrhini are all monkeys of some kind or another. As for spider monkeys, they're definitely New World Monkeys. I'm not sure what you mean by "no" as if to imply they are something else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:No? No, MPV doesn't imply that at all. NWM's and OWM's are completely different parvorders. What if those groups are only ones left because of their survival traits and there was alot more that didn't make it? There's also a chance they exist but are unfound. We made an airplane that was lost and no one can find it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:What if those groups are only ones left because of their survival traits and there was alot more that didn't make it? There's also a chance they exist but are unfound. We made an airplane that was lost and no one can find it. That's not a "what if". That is definitely the case. It doesn't change the fact that they are all monkeys. Monophyletic variation means that population AA gives rise to populations AB and AC. Now AB might give rise to new variations like AD or maybe BB, but it won't give rise to AC because identical variations won't occur twice independently. If it does, then that means C was present in AA all along. So if Catarrhini has given rise to a group that we call monkeys, and Platyrrhini has also given rise to a group we call monkeys, then that means that we have either identified those groups incorrectly with a nonsense word, or it means that the common ancestor of Platyrrhini and Catarrhini was also a monkey. And if that common ancestor was a monkey, that means all of its descendants are monkeys, too. The third option is that the law of monophyletic variation is wrong. That's demonstrably not the case, or at least if it is the case then this example is not the exception that disproves it as a law of population genetics. It's simply that when we identified and named these groups of animals, our understanding of their characteristics was still very superficial and we made a mistake. Now we're left with this word "monkey" that really doesn't mean anything. The terms "New World Monkey" and "Old World Monkey" would seem to imply that they are different variations of the same thing (a monkey), but if that's the case then everything between them must also be a monkey. That includes us. TacticalUrbanHomo fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:That's not a "what if". That is definitely the case. It doesn't change the fact that they are all monkeys. The answer is of course the word "monkey" is not meaningless when it comes to laymans' identification of the animal, but for any technical or scientific purpose the word must be refined to reflect the distinction. See also: Panda "bears."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:did you know that bears and canines are both common members of another clade called Caniformia? or that fungi are more closely related to animals than they are to plants? What's a clade?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
Applewhite posted:The answer is of course the word "monkey" is not meaningless when it comes to laymans' identification of the animal, but for any technical or scientific purpose the word must be refined to reflect the distinction. See also: Panda "bears." they are bears... The Dennis System posted:What's a clade? an indistinct unit of classification (indistinct in that it can range from a fraction of a genus to an entire superdomain) that includes a particular defined population of organisms and all of that population's descendants. TacticalUrbanHomo fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 11:28
|
|
|
I tried to read The Extended Phenotype, but it was full of technical jargon that was never explained and I couldn't understand a word of it. I assumed that the book was written for the layman, like The Selfish Gene, but I don't think it was. Or maybe I'm just too dumb to understand it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 11:45
|
|
|
The Dennis System posted:I tried to read The Extended Phenotype, but it was full of technical jargon that was never explained and I couldn't understand a word of it. I assumed that the book was written for the layman, like The Selfish Gene, but I don't think it was. Or maybe I'm just too dumb to understand it. I should probably get around to reading those. I haven't taken a biology course since high school but I've recently become interested in the subject just after casually listening to some lectures at uni and now I just talk to biology students a whole lot and read research abstracts (and whatever meat I am able to actually understand) in my spare time just because I've suddenly realised how interesting the subject is. I've definitely learned like exponentially more in the past year than I ever did in high school that's for drat sure. I think after I finish my current degree I'm going to do a bachelor's in biology during my spare time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 11:58
|
|
|
TacticalUrbanHomo posted:they are bears... Oh whoops. The last time I updated my scientific understanding of pandas, they were thought to be members of the raccoon family. I guess that got cleared up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
i figure i should close this out for the antipope fans yes it was the eschaton yes they came through the book and the screen and the sky
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Koala "bears" on the other hand...
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
Tenzarin posted:So are you saying that when we make a copy of ourselves our consciousness will change in no way we can predict and it still be us, but with a new understanding? supposing you could make a direct copy of your consciousness in a computer, i imagine it would be just like you at the moment of copying, and immediately begin to diverge. no, we couldn't predict that divergence. that divergence would be based on the new situation of the copy, ie, with a robot body or whatever. i imagine if the consciousness did not have a body it would become unrecognizable to us almost instantly. in fact i can't see how you could copy over a consciousness in the first place, and in the second, without a body for it to refer to, i don't know what it would become; so much of our consciousness is predicated on our body, which is part of it (probably the vast part of it). our thoughts are very "loud" but i doubt they make up the bulk of our consciousness. i don't think copying our consciousnesses is at all a realistic future. i think we'll invent intelligent AI and that'll be that. it will start to evolve by itself and leave us behind. we will never become computers, we will just launch computers into the universe as a kind of continuation of our life-impulse. in this way they will be our "children." i think the idea of bringing someone back from DNA is ridiculous. memories are not, to our knowledge, written into our DNA during our lifetimes. it is our actual experience that makes us up, not our DNA. you could, presumably, clone someone's body from their DNA, more or less; but there are so many stages of development that follow after the recombination of DNA that i think, realistically, we would imagine the baby that was born would already be significantly different from the "original" person because of the pre-natal developmental processes; add to that infancy, adolescence, puberty, and post-pubescent development and you end up with a totally different person.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 15:09
|
|