Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog – Page 25

The divide between their lineage and ours narrowed even further in 2010, when researchers published the first Neandertal genome sequence. Comparison of that ancient DNA with modern human DNA showed that the two species had interbred and that people today still carry the genetic fingerprint of that intermixing. Since then, numerous studies have explored the ways in which Neandertal DNA affects our modern physiology, revolutionizing our understanding not only of our extinct cousins but of ourselves as a hybrid species.

This area of research, clinical paleogenomics, is still in its infancy, and there are many complexities to unravel as we explore this new frontier. We therefore must take the findings from these studies with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, the research conducted to date raises the fascinating possibility that Neandertal DNA has wide-­reach­ing effects on our species—not only on general health but on brain development, including our propensity for conditions such as autism. In other words, DNA from our extinct relatives may, to some extent, shape the cognition of people today.

Read more | >

This old talk by Daniel Dennett touches on a lot of topics we’ve discussed recently. Dennett explains why it’s wrong to regard phenomenal consciousness (the “what it’s likeness” or “raw experience” version) as separate from access consciousness (the cognitive access of information for decision making, memory, report, etc).

Note that Dennett doesn’t deny the existence of phenomenal consciousness here, just the idea that it’s something separate and apart from access. He even passes up opportunities to dismiss qualia, although he does provide a reduction of them.

This video is about 66 minutes long. Unfortunately the video and sound quality aren’t great, and the camera operation is annoying, but the talk is worth powering through.

Read more | >

Attention schema theory has some plausibility.

Lately I’ve been reading up on global workspace theory (GWT). In a survey published last year, among general consciousness enthusiasts, integrated information theory (IIT) was the most popular theory, followed closely by GWT. However, among active consciousness researchers, GWT was seen as the most promising by far (although no theory garnered a majority). Since seeing those results, I’ve been curious about why.

One reason might be that GWT has been around a long time, having first been proposed by Bernard Baars in 1988, with periodic updates all recently republished in his new book. It’s received a lot of development and has spawned numerous variants. Daniel Dennett’s multiple drafts model is one. But perhaps the one with the most current support is Stanislas Dehaene’s global neuronal workspace, which I read and wrote about earlier this year.

All of the variants posit that for an item to make it into consciousness, it has to enter a global workspace in the brain. This is most commonly described using a theater metaphor.

Continue reading “Global workspace theory: consciousness as brain wide information sharing” | >

Well, I find this a bit disappointing. I was hoping that the contest between global workspace theory (GWT) and integrated information theory (IIT) would be announced sometime this year. Apparently, I’m going to have to wait awhile:

Pitts describes the intention of this competition as “to kill one or both theories,” but adds that while he is unsure that either will be definitively disproved, both theories have a good chance of being critically challenged. It’s expected to take three years for the experiments to be conducted and the data to be analyzed before a verdict is reached.

Three years. And of course there remains no guarantee the results will be decisive. Sigh.

Read more | >

In the scientific realism vs instrumentalism debate, realism is the position that the elements of a scientific theory represent reality. So when general relativity talks about space warping, space really is warping. Instrumentalism, or anti-realism, is the stance that scientific theories are just prediction mechanisms, with no guarantee that they represent reality. Under instrumentalism, general relativity accurately predicts our observations as though space were warping, but whether it actually does or not can’t be determined.

Scientists, by and large, tend to be realists. It’s hard to find motivation to do the often boring and sometimes dangerous work involved in gathering scientific data, to dedicate years of your life to it, unless you see yourself in pursuit of truth. But as I noted in our last discussion on this, scientists tend to be realist about some theories and instrumentalist about others (although which is which depends on the scientist).

The argument in favor of instrumentalism is theory change. Many historical theories have been successful at making predictions, but eventually end up being replaced by a better theory, often with a radically different view of reality. The example I usually cite is Ptolemy’s model of the universe. For centuries it more or less accurately predicted naked eye astronomical observations, but we now know its model of a stationary Earth, with everything else in the universe revolving around it, is wrong. It eventually gave way to a Newtonian view of the universe, which in turn later had to give way to an Einsteinian view.

Read more | >

Researchers at Northwestern have found a way to keep quantum networks functioning despite the inherent instability of quantum links.

By strategically adding links, they demonstrated that networks can be maintained with far fewer new connections than expected, offering a more efficient model for quantum communications.

Quantum Networks and Entangled Photons.

Read more | >

A study has introduced a novel bioprocess that transforms CO2 and electricity into single-cell protein (SCP), a sustainable food source rich in essential amino acids.

<div class=””> <div class=””><br />Amino acids are a set of organic compounds used to build proteins. There are about 500 naturally occurring known amino acids, though only 20 appear in the genetic code. Proteins consist of one or more chains of amino acids called polypeptides. The sequence of the amino acid chain causes the polypeptide to fold into a shape that is biologically active. The amino acid sequences of proteins are encoded in the genes. Nine proteinogenic amino acids are called “essential” for humans because they cannot be produced from other compounds by the human body and so must be taken in as food.<br /></div> </div>

Read more | >

Explore the latest breakthroughs in science! Learn how Metal–Organic Frameworks (MOFs) are changing chemical processes and how naked singularities could unlock the secrets of the universe. Discover how these advancements reshape technology and our understanding of physics. Watch now!
Paper link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s4146…

Chapters:
00:00 Introduction.
00:39 Advancements in Molecular Diffusion within Metal–Organic Frameworks (MOFs)
03:32 The Enigmatic Nature of Naked Singularities in Cosmology.
07:14 The Intersection of Molecular Diffusion and Cosmological Singularities.
09:20 Outro.
09:29 Enjoy.

MUSIC TITLE : Starlight Harmonies.
MUSIC LINK : https://pixabay.com/music/pulses-star…

Visit our website for up-to-the-minute updates:

Continue reading “MIND-BLOWING! Scientists Bridge the Gap Between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity” | >