Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34

Author Topic: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)  (Read 21940 times)

Madman198237

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #480 on: September 16, 2019, 09:17:47 am »

Its not even blurry it's semantics. The actual relevance is the same as determining the right pronounciation for potato 🥔

"Potato" is of course properly pronounced as follows: "PO-TAY-TOE? Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew?"
Logged
We shall make the highest quality of quality quantities of soldiers with quantities of quality.

Trekkin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #481 on: September 16, 2019, 02:07:26 pm »

Ah. I understand now. thank you. The papers still give interesting info about virus polyphyly and possibly independent acquisition of capsid proteins.

If you would like to learn about more things that have been used as examples of the definition of life being fuzzy, you could look at prions. They're like viruses without genetic material.

EDIT: Oh, or the origin of organelles.
Logged

Naturegirl1999

  • Bay Watcher
  • Thank you TamerVirus for the avatar switcher
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #482 on: September 16, 2019, 02:29:41 pm »

oh, yes, chloroplasts and mitochondria used to be bacteria, and I'm not sure we know exactly how to nucleus formed
Edit:
A paper about the origin of the nucleus
« Last Edit: September 16, 2019, 02:40:12 pm by Naturegirl1999 »
Logged

Trekkin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #483 on: September 16, 2019, 02:39:15 pm »

oh, yes, chloroplasts and mitochondria used to be bacteria, and I'm not sure we know exactly how to nucleus formed

Well, of the three primary theories, archaeal endosymbiosis has whole-genome analysis' indication of an archaeal origin of nuclear proteins in its favor.
Logged

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #484 on: September 16, 2019, 02:50:23 pm »

Quite right.  There's also the high degree of conservation/similarity  of genes for mitochondria found in very divergent lineages to consider as well. (Even when those genes have migrated to the host's nuclear genome.) Not to mention that some species are able to "steal" organelles from other organisms, such as several marine plankton species that can incorporate algal chloroplasts after ingesting said algae.

If unusual nuclei are your thing, look into dinoflagellates.

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/protista/dinoflagmm.html

During cell division, their chromosomes remain compact, among many other unique features-- such as an apparent lack of histones.  At one point, this was considered to be an ancient feature, but more recent work has suggested that this is the result of very advanced divergent evolution in nuclear function.


Logged

Naturegirl1999

  • Bay Watcher
  • Thank you TamerVirus for the avatar switcher
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #485 on: September 16, 2019, 02:52:45 pm »

Quite right.  There's also the high degree of conservation/similarity  of genes for mitochondria found in very divergent lineages to consider as well. (Even when those genes have migrated to the host's nuclear genome.) Not to mention that some species are able to "steal" organelles from other organisms, such as several marine plankton species that can incorporate algal chloroplasts after ingesting said algae.

If unusual nuclei are your thing, look into dinoflagellates.

https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/protista/dinoflagmm.html

During cell division, their chromosomes remain compact, among many other unique features-- such as an apparent lack of histones.  At one point, this was considered to be an ancient feature, but more recent work has suggested that this is the result of very advanced divergent evolution in nuclear function.



oh, yes, chloroplasts and mitochondria used to be bacteria, and I'm not sure we know exactly how to nucleus formed

Well, of the three primary theories, archaeal endosymbiosis has whole-genome analysis' indication of an archaeal origin of nuclear proteins in its favor.
Thank you both

Edit: Here is a video I found about how ribosomes evolved from Georgia Tech, NASA, and Center for Ribosomal Origins and Evolution
The paper the video uses for the information
« Last Edit: September 24, 2019, 09:41:08 pm by Naturegirl1999 »
Logged

Naturegirl1999

  • Bay Watcher
  • Thank you TamerVirus for the avatar switcher
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #487 on: September 28, 2019, 08:24:45 pm »

Quote from: www.rebekkahniles.com › 2012/03 › word-box-sapience-vs-sentience
"Sapience," noun of sapient, is the ability to think, and to reason. It may not seem like much a difference, but the ability to reason is tied more closely to sapience than to sentience. Most animals are sentient, (yes, you can correctly say your dog is sentient!) but only humans are sapient.

How would one know if other animals could reason? What does thinking with reasoning look like on an fMRI vs non reasoning thinking?

Telgin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Professional Programmer
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #488 on: September 28, 2019, 08:50:41 pm »

I doubt anyone can provide a rigorous definition of sapience, but it's vaguely just going to be the thing that separates us from animals, whatever you wish that to be.  And yeah, even that's poorly defined since things like many apes straddle the line or are even on our side of the line.

I haven't read the article so I don't know what the article is even arguing, but I do at least approve of people educating on the difference between the words sentience and sapience.  It bugs me irrationally when people get them mixed up.
Logged
Success requires no explanation.  Failure allows none.

Qassius

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #489 on: September 28, 2019, 08:54:40 pm »

Quote from: www.rebekkahniles.com › 2012/03 › word-box-sapience-vs-sentience
"Sapience," noun of sapient, is the ability to think, and to reason. It may not seem like much a difference, but the ability to reason is tied more closely to sapience than to sentience. Most animals are sentient, (yes, you can correctly say your dog is sentient!) but only humans are sapient.

How would one know if other animals could reason? What does thinking with reasoning look like on an fMRI vs non reasoning thinking?
We can look at brain activity, but we can't know if there is cognition occurring. EEGs and what have you could give us a detailed look at activity, but we can never know what exactly is going on. This is where the definition of reason comes into play, does brain activity in the frontal lobe or an analog truly display value judgments being made? Can reason occur without such structures as we understand them in humans?

We might say a dog has some rudimentary sense of ethics (and therefore reason/sapience?), but when do we distinguish a dog feeling bad after knowing it did something its owner didn't like and reasoning that they did an immoral act? Then one must wonder whether such a distinction is even important.
Logged

Naturegirl1999

  • Bay Watcher
  • Thank you TamerVirus for the avatar switcher
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #490 on: September 28, 2019, 09:07:32 pm »

So we can't know, and we tend to assume we are "better" in some way because we like to think we are different? Sounds like humans to me, there was a point where we thought we were unlike animals and were seperate fromthem. What if we think we are better because we developed agriculture? Ants and termites do agriculture too? I wonder if they think similarly about other arthropods? Though a colony of ants/termites is more like a multibodily entity, like how humans are multicellular organisms, the queens and drones act as the "gametes" of the "body" while the workers are like somatic cells. Selection happening on the colonial level rather than the individual level, called "colony selection"

This gets me thinking, are humans entering something similar with cultural selection? I don't think we are there yet because most individuals have the ability to reproduce. Eusociality is interesting to learn about

I found a paper talking about how eusociality may have evolved more than once in wasps

Reelya

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #491 on: September 29, 2019, 12:20:19 am »

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ethical-dog/

Quote
EVERY DOG OWNER knows a pooch can learn the house rules—and when she breaks one, her subsequent groveling is usually ingratiating enough to ensure quick forgiveness. But few people have stopped to ask why dogs have such a keen sense of right and wrong. Chimpanzees and other nonhuman primates regularly make the news when researchers, logically looking to our closest relatives for traits similar to our own, uncover evidence of their instinct for fairness. But our work has suggested that wild canine societies may be even better analogues for early hominid groups—and when we study dogs, wolves and coyotes, we discover behaviors that hint at the roots of human morality.

Morality, as we define it in our book Wild Justice, is a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate social interactions. These behaviors, including altruism, tolerance, forgiveness, reciprocity and fairness, are readily evident in the egalitarian way wolves and coyotes play with one another. Canids (animals in the dog family) follow a strict code of conduct when they play, which teaches pups the rules of social engagement that allow their societies to succeed. Play also builds trusting relationships among pack members, which enables divisions of labor, dominance hierarchies and cooperation in hunting, raising young, and defending food and territory. Because this social organization closely resembles that of early humans (as anthropologists and other experts believe it existed), studying canid play may offer a glimpse of the moral code that allowed our ancestral societies to grow and flourish.

If a dog is groveling to be forgiven for doing something, this shows a high level of emotional reasoning. They're aware they did something wrong, but it's wrong to say "but they only want to avoid punishment" as if that's the bar for reasoning.

What's going on here is

(1) the dog knows they did something wrong, which shows they're aware of the past, and they seem to be aware of the distinction: once you pooped on the floor, you can't un-poop

(2) they're aware of consequences - which proves they're aware of the future, too, which means they can imagine themselves in the future, and things happening to them, such as being smacked, and they wish for that not to happen.

(3) they know that you are the punisher, so they know that you know that they did something wrong. But ... importantly they know that you're not always the punisher. Even when you have that rolled up newspaper in your hands they're thinking about possible futures.

(4) the groveling behavior indicates that they're aware that their behavior can affect your behavior, so that proves that they understand social consequences and that they can affect the future, by affecting your emotional state, which means you won't actually whack them with the newspaper.

So they're aware of possible futures and they're reasoning on the best way to select the future they want, and they've decided that manipulating you emotionally is the best way to action that. Sounds pretty intelligent to me.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 12:28:08 am by Reelya »
Logged

Naturegirl1999

  • Bay Watcher
  • Thank you TamerVirus for the avatar switcher
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #492 on: September 29, 2019, 02:56:11 am »

Yes. I think some humans have the habit of assuming only humans are intelligent. I always find this odd. Lots of animals have brains. Nematodes aren’t born knowing which bacteria are good or bad, they learn by experience

dragdeler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Disdains the law
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #493 on: September 29, 2019, 05:27:14 am »

We might say a dog has some rudimentary sense of ethics (and therefore reason/sapience?), but when do we distinguish a dog feeling bad after knowing it did something its owner didn't like and reasoning that they did an immoral act? Then one must wonder whether such a distinction is even important.


Ultimatively, there is no morality, only positive and negative reinforcement. To me it is without a question that mammals and most birds have sapience, actually it's a much better word than conscience consciousness, which is by definition allready contentious in a human setting. I wouldn't say reason though, I think by that we strictly imply dialectic. But there are even cultures (which is the continuation of evolution by other means) besides the human ones; the thing is they're difficult to spot because they all take place entirely non-verbally and as such are obviously prehistoric. Who knows who would have invented scripture second if it wasn't for apes.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 05:38:13 am by dragdeler »
Logged

Naturegirl1999

  • Bay Watcher
  • Thank you TamerVirus for the avatar switcher
    • View Profile
Re: Science Thread (and !!SCIENCE!! Thread!)
« Reply #494 on: September 29, 2019, 12:09:09 pm »

We might say a dog has some rudimentary sense of ethics (and therefore reason/sapience?), but when do we distinguish a dog feeling bad after knowing it did something its owner didn't like and reasoning that they did an immoral act? Then one must wonder whether such a distinction is even important.


Ultimatively, there is no morality, only positive and negative reinforcement. To me it is without a question that mammals and most birds have sapience, actually it's a much better word than conscience consciousness, which is by definition allready contentious in a human setting. I wouldn't say reason though, I think by that we strictly imply dialectic. But there are even cultures (which is the continuation of evolution by other means) besides the human ones; the thing is they're difficult to spot because they all take place entirely non-verbally and as such are obviously prehistoric. Who knows who would have invented scripture second if it wasn't for apes.
Yes. But what do you mean by dialectic reasoning? It’s possible to think without saying what is being thought, it’s possible to reason without saying the path for the reasoning. I don’t know what dialectic reasoning is, I thought it might have had something to do with dialog. About scripture, that is symbols, right? I wonder if it would be possible for humans to teach other animals that symbols can mean things, and maybe they could produce symbols as representations of objects AKA writing? Just thoughts
« Last Edit: September 29, 2019, 12:11:30 pm by Naturegirl1999 »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34