Recent comments in /f/science

PsyOpBunnyHop t1_jadhp97 wrote

> JWST is the gift that keeps on giving

Sometimes I do this thing where I write down upcoming events and their expected dates on small pieces of scrap paper and tape them to the wall near my desk. Basically, significant upcoming events that interest me, but nothing so crucial that I need to put in an app to remind me. Often they are things that I tend to completely forget about for months at a time when there are no updates or whatever. They get removed as they occur.

I had one with JWST written in sharpie, which had been there for yeeears! I kept moving it back in the queue, as the launch kept getting rescheduled. At first, the paper had a year on it, but that part got cut off and I just taped a new year on a smaller paper every time. I was so freakin excited about it, but I had to not think about it or risk getting frustrated and disappointed by the delays or a lack of news. It was a long slow pain.

After the launch, I was somewhat happy to tear that one down, but also having to wait for more months as configs were done, then waiting for image captures, etc. It was such torture.

So happy it's up and running now. I'll probably never stop wanting more discoveries from it.

9

Maycrofy t1_jadhl7o wrote

I feel like this is still a very long time away. We might crack household quantum computing before organic machines. Organic machines IMO would have to many hurdles like manteinace, aging, infections and the like. From our profit driven economy they don't make sense.

1

yugosaki t1_jadgq8g wrote

It sounds like these studies are a complete mess and are likely heavily biased by the researchers own opinions.

Things like tattoos, piercings, being very open minded and unique, taking risks, etc are considered rebellious by the older generation, but increasingly the younger generations encourage these traits in their own children so in that context they are definitionally not rebellious.

Any study into rebellion is going to be difficult to gauge because what constitutes 'rebellion' in the context of family and upbringing is going to vary wildly between families and even individuals. Nearly every trait that could be described as 'rebellious' could also be regarded as a positive trait by some parents.

6

tornpentacle t1_jadf8w2 wrote

It demonstrates undue prejudice, that's for sure. Is that weird? No, unfortunately, but it's wrong.

The world was different at the time Born to Rebel was written, and even moreso when the author was being brought up. At that time, tattoos were practically anathema.

To dismiss the history of the world like that and how much it impacts today is a bit silly. That generation had their own living ancestors who were just as old-fashioned to them. And if you have grandkids, you'll experience the same prejudice as you are exhibiting toward older people now.

It's just kind of how it goes. There are even 17th- and 18th-century media that demonstrate just how long this has been going on. I'd wager it's as old as civilization itself.

1

SeaworthinessFirm653 t1_jadelan wrote

Consciousness is a function whose input is environmental stimulus and whose output is a cyclical thought, and/or a physical action (muscle contraction). The more environmental-semantic information this entity encodes in its memory, the more “conscious” it is, but consciousness is not binary.

Logic gates form if:then statements that, when assembled together, creates a system of behavior that acts in somewhat logical ways. Human biological neuron cells form these.

Consciousness inherently requires at least some memory, input, and processing. Every neuron in the human brain is technically computable because it’s just input and output of electrical signals.

A nerve cell is effectively just an analog neuron with a few extra properties. It’s not logical to assume that consciousness is just a bundle of nerve cells. It’s a very architecturally-dependent bundle of if/then clauses and memory that, when combined, simulates consciousness.

If a system can be described by if/then, then it is computable.

Also, if you cut a living brain in half, it ceases to become conscious. The reason for this is that the architecture becomes incoherent. When you are asleep (beasides REM/dreaming) you are also unconscious.

Regardless, all my points to say: consciousness is computable through architecture, not simply through nerve cells. Biological human nerve cells are neither necessary nor sufficient for consciousness.

−4

Moos_Mumsy t1_jadedv1 wrote

Studies in mice rarely, if ever, translate to human models. It's such an obscene waste of research dollars and time to continue these efforts to cure mice when we all know it's not going to create any benefit for humans.

−16