Write4U's stream of consciousness

[exchemist]

Just to clarify Write4u, in case you Google QED and start pasting Feynman diagrams.

This QED is not a quantum acronym reference.
This is the Latin saying meaning "it has been demonstrated."

Quod erat demonstradum.

Good point.

But demonstrandum - it’s a gerund, I think.

 

[Pinball1970]

Good point.

But demonstrandum - it’s a gerund, I think.

Noted with thanks!

 

[Write4U]

I suggest you go back over previous conversations about where I offered information on STEM.

And what exactly did you specifically offer in regards to STEM other than a "check-it-out" ?

Check out what from this?

What Is STEM and Why Is It Important?

• STEM consists of the natural sciences, math, engineering, and technology-related fields.
• Most STEM jobs are in high demand but suffer from a lack of qualified candidates.
• STEM is necessary for growing the economy and staying globally competitive.

https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/what-is-stem/#

 

[Write4U]

Just to clarify Write4u, in case you Google QED and start pasting Feynman diagrams.
"Quod erat demonstradum".
This QED is not a quantum acronym reference. This is the Latin saying meaning "it has been demonstrated."

Wow! Latin no less. Impressive! I had hoped you could speak Dutch.

And what exactly has been demonstrated?

And why would I start pasting Feynman diagrams? You are projecting your prejudices by making presumptive errors.

And what is wrong with gerunds?
And we're back to semantics, never substance!

I am beginning to suspect that it is you who does not understand me. Why don't you ask me to clarify when the post seems unclear?

 

[Pinball1970]

Wow! Latin no less. Impressive! I had hoped you could speak Dutch.

And what exactly has been demonstrated?

And why would I start pasting Feynman diagrams? You are projecting your prejudices by making presumptive errors.

And what is wrong with gerunds?
And we're back to semantics, never substance!

I am beginning to suspect that it is you who does not understand me. Why don't you ask me to clarify when the post seems unclear?

Yeah I understand absolutely fine.

I will repeat.

"I suggest you go back over previous conversations about where I offered information on STEM."

 

[Write4U]

Evolutionary effects of radiation on both Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic cells.

Karyotype Aberrations in Action: The Evolution of Cancer Genomes and the Tumor Microenvironment
Nicolaas C. Baudoin1,2,* and Mathew Bloomfield2,*
Horst Zitzelsberger, Academic Editor

Abstract
Cancer is a disease of cellular evolution. For this cellular evolution to take place, a population of cells must contain functional heterogeneity and an assessment of this heterogeneity in the form of natural selection. Cancer cells from advanced malignancies are genomically and functionally very different compared to the healthy cells from which they evolved.

more ......

We conclude by discussing the importance of this interaction for tumor evolution and the possibility of leveraging our understanding of this interplay for cancer therapy.

more.....

Cancer has been widely described as a process of Darwinian evolution. In a manner analogous to speciation, cancer cells genomically and phenotypically diverge into distinct populations (often referred to as clones or stem-lines) that coexist in the same tumor [1]. This heterogeneity is further bolstered by sub-clonal variations within these clonal populations [2], much like the heterogeneity observed between individuals of a species in nature. Advances in single cell analysis have provided an unprecedented look into the clonal and sub-clonal architecture of cancer [3] and uncovered considerable intra-tumor heterogeneity (ITH) at multiple biological levels.

For example, tumors often show extensive cell-to-cell heterogeneity in epigenetic markers, gene mutations, and chromosome aberrations, as well as spatial heterogeneity in the conditions of the extracellular microenvironment [4,5,6]. Heterogeneity in one or more of these components can be associated with poor patient outcomes [4,5,6,7,8] and increased probability of disease recurrence

more ..... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8068843/

A major cause of cancer is due to radiation damage to the cell. So what makes one cell resistant and another cell vulnerable to genetic damage?

 

[Write4U]

And inevitably we return to microtubules'

Disruption of cytoplasmic microtubules by ultraviolet radiation
G B Zamansky1, B A Perrino, I N Chou

Abstract
Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation of cultured human skin fibroblasts causes the disassembly of their microtubules. Using indirect immunofluorescence microscopy, we have now investigated whether damage to the microtubule precursor pool may contribute to the disruption of microtubules.

Exposure to polychromatic UV radiation inhibits the reassembly of microtubules during cellular recovery from cold treatment. In addition, the ability of taxol to promote microtubule polymerization and bundling is inhibited in UV-irradiated cells.

However, UV irradiation of taxol-pretreated cells or in situ detergent-extracted microtubules fails to disrupt the microtubule network. These data suggest that damage to dimeric tubulin, or another soluble factor(s) required for polymerization, contributes to the disassembly of microtubules in UV-irradiated human skin fibroblasts.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1676000/#

And does that suggest neural network data transmission redundancy?

 

[Write4U]

Continuing the update:

Quantitative characterization of steady states for systems of microtubules: A stochastic agent-based modeling approach

• Sayandeepa Raha . DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2023.11.1694

  We have also identified a set of empirical (heuristic) equations that enable quantitative estimates of the time needed to reach each of the steady-states for various systems of MTs. Our quantitative characterization of the different steady-states should help experimentalists better design and interpret their experiments and provide a deeper understanding of steady-state polymers.

https://www.cell.com/biophysj/abstract/S0006-3495(23)02394-9

 

[James R]

Chaos theory explains the self-organization of regular patterns in chaotic environments.

It does nothing of the kind. As I pointed out before, "patterns" are not things that can "self-organise".

Have you ever asked why it is useful in describing the natural phenomena?

Yes. The answer is that it makes quantitative, testable predictions about those phenomena.

What makes it a physical object?

Physical objects are made of matter.

Is the ball's roundness a physical requirement?

To make it a physical object? Is a brick a physical object? Is it round?

What do you think?

What is causal to a tennis ball being a spherical object?

The manufacturing process.

Physics emerge from non-physical chaotic fields, as described in Chaos Theory.

Word salad nonsense. Why do you pretend to talk about things you clearly don't understand at all?

I disagree. Fields exist without human conceptualization. Take humans away and nothing changes.

You are wrong, as usual.

Fields are not even something that can be detected, directly. Their existence has to be inferred, and it can only be inferred with reference to some conceptual model or other.

As I understand it, a "quantum" is a single unique value that is mathematically related to other "quanta"

A quantum is simply a specified amount of something. It's not a mystery. We've told you the definition before. You can put a quantum of sugar into your coffee, for instance. US currency is quantised, in that the smallest available coin is the 1 cent coin. You can't have half a cent, or 2.7 cents (in physical currency).

I agree, but that is a false argument. My body knows a lot about itself at quantum field scale (note I referred to the human biome as a quantum field) and that process already exists at "fine grain" spacetime fabric, but my conscious brain can only process data at very selective gross sensory scales.

You used the word "knows" in a way that doesn't make sense, there. An electron doesn't "know" anything, for example.

Feast your eyes on a literary delight....

Where?

Naturally occurring mathematics.

There's no such thing.

Human maths are the symbolization of discovered natural mathematical processes that allow regular patterns to be formed, which are evident everywhere starting with the Table of Elements.

That's circular. "Maths are the symbolisation of maths" doesn't work. Try again.

And I like Tegmark's perspective that reality fundamentally consists of dense mathematical patterns expressed and measurable as gross physical objects and behaviors.

Do you not understand that I don't care at all about what you like or don't like, when it comes to this sort of thing? Your opinions and endorsements are virtually worthless on all of this stuff.

Tegmark believes that it exists and will be just another mathematical equation.

So, you agree that I am correct. There is no "universal equation" at this time, Tegmark's wishful thinking (or yours) notwithstanding.

Life on earth used the Fibonacci sequence long before man appeared on the scene.

What do you mean by "used"? There was no life that could reason about the Fibonacci sequence prior to man appearing on the scene.

No, I try to look a little deeper than man's extraordinary ability to understand the mathematical nature of things, rather than say "bacteria", that communicate via mathematical chemistry, aka. "quorum sensing".

"Mathematical chemistry" is not a form of communication that exists in bacteria. Stop making stuff up.

It is a mathematical function that controls pattern formation.

Mathematical functions can't control anything physical, because they are conceptual.

What is it that you don't understand about this?

You have tried repeatedly and failed to assert your way out of the problem. You can't provide a single example of a mathematical function ever doing anything to a physical system. And yet, you continue to make this silly assertion, over and over. Why? Don't you think it's time to give up on this nonsense?

I am only expressing my perspective on the Science I quote in support of the mathematical regularities that seem to pervade all of spacetime.

Yes. The problem is that, every time you express your perspective, you only manage to come out with error piled on error, at best, or just plain nonsensical word salad at worst.

Why don't you try to learn something about science, instead?

 

[James R]

The original plasma state of the universe was chaotically disordered.

No. It was a state of minimum entropy, not maximum entropy.

Chaos Theory spells it out clearly.

Wrong again.

It is also the foundation for evolutionary processes

And again.

And the emergent (evolving) consciousness of the mathematically deterministic processes that got us here.

And again. Mathematical processes have no consciousness.

In a mathematical universe, with sufficient resources, any dynamical activity will eventually lead to the evolution and emergence of self-organization of regular measurable patterns.

Who knows? Certainly you have given no reason to suppose that this is the case. Moreover, mathematical universes are hypothetical entities that don't make much sense.

On Earth we have not yet discovered all the varieties of mathematical patterns in nature.

Er... okay.

There may be a potential infinity of complexity.

And there may not be, as I'm sure you'll agree.

But from my limited perspective, it started with an inflating singularity, an exponentially growing abstract "value" (energy?) that subsequently became inhabited by deterministically self-ordering (fractal) patterns inside the spacetime geometry.

Multiple problems here:

• The "singularity" is a conjecture. One that is very probably wrong.
• Energy is not "stuff" that can "inflate". In fact, it's not stuff at all.
• Abstract values cannot become inhabited.
• Fractal patterns do not "self-order".
• In fact, no mathematical thing "self-orders".
• Spacetime geometry is a concept, not a physical thing. No physical universe can exist inside a spacetime geometry.

The earth itself is part of the potential expressions of evolutionary processes throughout the Universe and its (growing?) available "hospitable surface area" for life and emergent consciousness.

All you're saying here is that the earth exists and it has life on it. You can dispense with the pointless word fluff.

Consider that the 3lbs human brain alone contains more synaptic data exchange points, in close proximity, than the number of stars (solar systems) in this galaxy. Quote a nano-scale data transmission network.

Why should we consider this?

I like the expression, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".

Nobody cares about what you like, Write4U.

It is an "objective" conceptual mathematical model.

In what sense is it "objective"?

 

[James R]

No, you haven't explained why you believe my post are nonsense. You state only that they are nonsense.
I want you to explain why you are right and I spout nonsense.

Well, I certainly keep throwing in explanations, here and there. Yet you never respond or learn anything, despite your claim that you want to know why it's nonsense that you're spouting.

Why is that, Write4U?

Does the quoted science in support of my posts not indicate that my conclusions have some foundation in science?

None of the science you quote indicates that your conclusions have some foundation in science.

Why am I still waiting for an explanation (preferably with an example) where I am misrepresenting science.

Because, for some reason, you're blind to the many explanations that people have kindly provided, in an effort to help you.

 

[Write4U]

An interesting article explains the advantage of consciousness over and above the ability of an organism to react unconsciously to stimulus.

I think this is an important observation and deductive reasoning.

What is consciousness for?
Abstract

The answer to the title question is, in a word, volition. Our hypothesis is that the ultimate adaptive function of consciousness is to make volitional movement possible. All conscious processes exist to subserve that ultimate function.

Thus, we believe that all conscious organisms possess at least some volitional capability.

Consciousness makes volitional attention possible; volitional attention, in turn, makes volitional movement possible. There is, as far as we know, no valid theoretical argument or convincing empirical evidence that consciousness itself has any direct causal efficacy other than volition.

Consciousness, via volitional action, increases the likelihood that an organism will direct its attention, and ultimately its movements, to whatever is most important for its survival and reproduction.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X15300039#

Consciousness affords the organism an ability to voluntarily "choose" between actions, rather than respond in a purely involuntary reactive fashion.

The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness

Which animals have the capacity for conscious experience? While much uncertainty remains, some points of wide agreement have emerged.

First, there is strong scientific support for attributions of conscious experience to other mammals and to birds.

Second, the empirical evidence indicates at least a realistic possibility of conscious experience in all vertebrates (including reptiles, amphibians, and fishes) and many invertebrates (including, at minimum, cephalopod mollusks, decapod crustaceans, and insects).

Third, when there is a realistic possibility of conscious experience in an animal, it is irresponsible to ignore that possibility in decisions affecting that animal. We should consider welfare risks and use the evidence to inform our responses to these risks.

https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/nydeclaration/declaration

 

[Magical Realist]

Is there not such a thing as unconscious volition? For example, as I am typing these words and sentences I am conscious of and paying attention to what they are saying. I am at the semantic level consciously. But at the same time my hands are typing on my keyboard the lettered keys forming these words. Here at the spelling level I am unconscious of doing all this and yet I am still doing it! Presumably there is volition controlling the keystrokes of my fingers and their precise sequence, just as there is volition behind my saying something in my sentences. Only in this case it seems to be an unconscious volition of typing.

Another instance of unconscious volition is the muscle movements being made in our face and mouth and throat as we are speaking. Without the slightest awareness of these movements and sounds being formed and precisely coordinated with each other, I am only conscious of the statements and thoughts I am expressing thru those movements. There is volition there. Even intelligent volition. But it is unconscious.

The question then is would being conscious of our typing or of making sounds with our mouth and throat be as nearly as efficient as doing it unconsciously? I tend to think not. If we had to think about every key we need to press with our fingers and what keystroke comes next it would be so slow and full of errors we'd probably give up. If I had to consciously choose which muscles to contract in my face and throat to make the right sounds forming the words I am speaking, i'd probably be speaking very slow and sloppily. So conscious volition seems to be a hindrance when it comes to motor movements of our body. Such are performed much more quickly and accurately when performed habitually by unconscious volition. Why then the need for ANY conscious volition?

 

[Write4U]

Is there not such a thing as unconscious volition?

Is that not asking if a thermometer has volition?

AFAIK, homeostatsis is almost totally autonomous and independent of conscious monitoring.
The only connection to conscious perception is a warning that something is wrong and manifests itself as experiential warmth, coldness, pain, nausea, discomfort.
Those are the only productive physical experiences needed for keeping track of the body's electrochemical balance and knowing that something is wrong.
But your subconscious homeostatic (area) of the brain keeps good care of your body, asleep, or even under anesthesia!

I trust Stuart Hammeroff (practicing anesthesiologist) to know the mathematics of anesthesia, which, according to Hameroff has the same relative effect on all living organisms.

Anesthetics have the same effects on plants as they have on animals and humans

Summary: A new study has shown that plants react to anesthetics similarly to the way animals and humans do, suggesting plants are ideal objects for testing anesthetic actions in future.Dec 11, 2017

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171211090736.htm#

This is a remarkable "common denominator" in nature and lends itself to a wide range of application in the natural world.

 

[Magical Realist]

Is that not asking if a thermometer has volition?\

Only if we define volition as merely causing something to occur. If that were true then reflexes, like the jerk of your leg when the doctor taps your knee or a sneeze, would also be volition. For me volition is purposely driven and intelligently controlled action of any sort, either conscious or unconscious. So we say it is I who am still typing on my keyboard even if I am not aware of myself doing it. It isn't a series of involuntary reflexes of the muscles in our hands. There is a fine line and a matter of degrees separating consciousness and unconsciousness iow. We can switch from manual mode to automatic mode with many actions, even driving,

 

[Write4U]

If I had to consciously choose which muscles to contract in my face and throat to make the right sounds forming the words I am speaking, i'd probably be speaking very slow and sloppily. So conscious volition seems to be a hindrance when it comes to motor movements of our body. Such are performed much more quickly and accurately when performed habitually by unconscious volition. Why then the need for ANY conscious volition?

I believe you may be missing an intermediate level of "delegated and focused" consciousness.

The brain is capable of multitasking, but at cost of efficiency in other areas that require concentration on a particular activity.
"Selective attention"

That seems to be a volitional activity.

Selective Attention | Definition & Examples
Frequently Asked Questions

What are some real-life examples of selective attention?
Real-life examples of selective attention include: reading a book on a bus while blocking out background noise and talking to a friend in a crowd while disregarding the other conversations transpiring. Selective attention is used every day on both a subconscious and conscious level. Selective attention varies from person to person.

What are selective attention tasks?
Selective attention tasks are the mechanism by which selective attention is evaluated. One such task is dichotic listening, where one ear is listening to one set of numbers, and the other is listening to a different set of numbers.

What is selective attention in psychology?
In psychology, selective attention is the act of focusing on a particular object for a while, simultaneously ignoring distractions and irrelevant information. There are two theories of selective attention: Broadbent's Filter Model and Treisman's Attenuation Model.

How does selective attention affect performance?
Selective attention affects performance by affecting one's ability to focus. Different people have different levels of selective attention. Selective attention affects one's ability to survive and their ability to succeed in an academic setting.

What is selective attention? The selective attention definition is the act of focusing on a particular object for some time while simultaneously ignoring distractions and irrelevant information. Selective attention is also known as controlled attention, directed attention, or executive attention.

https://study.com/learn/lesson/selective-attention-theory-examples.html#

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes...we can volitionally block from our senses any enviromental stimuli. Sights and sounds and smells. It is still being perceived. but it is unconscious. Or at least partially so and happening unnoticeably in the background, There is unconscious perception just as there is unconscious volition, Our unconscious is as much a part of ourselves as our consciousness is.

Do you know how many times you shift positions while asleep every night? Many times. That entails both unconscious perception, of a certain discomfort, and unconscious volition, of the purposive action taken to alleviate it. We are not far away from being zombies it seems!

 

[Write4U]

Yes...we can volitionally block from our senses any enviromental stimuli. Sights and sounds and smells. It is still being perceived. but it is unconscious. Or at least partially so and happening faintly in the background, There is unconscious perception just as there is unconscious volition, Our unconscious is as much a part of ourselves as our consciousness is.

Do you know how many times you shift positions while asleep every night? Many times. That entails both unconscious perception, of a certain discomfort, and unconscious volition, of the purposive action taken to alleviate it. We are not far away from being zombies it seems!

Let's put it this way. We started as zombies and evolved into humans.
Are these creatures intelligently conscious? You bet!

I have a feeling that Cephalopoda (starting as a zombie slug) evolved into a high state of consciousness in a very dangerous deep-ocean environment. Just consider the size of a Colossal squid's eye and its light gathering abilities.

Colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni), Researchers believe the colossal squid has the largest eyes of any living creature, measuring over 27 centimetres in diameter - the size of a football.

Colossal squid eyes can grow to at least 27 centimetres in diameter © Natalie Jean/Shutterstock.com

5. Colossal squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni)
Researchers believe the colossal squid has the largest eyes of any living creature, measuring over 27 centimetres in diameter - the size of a football.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/amazing-eyes-vision-champions.html

Imagine the complex brain and neural system required to process at this level of a near-total dark environment.
Are these creatures intelligently conscious? You bet.

 

[Magical Realist]

All animals with sophisticated eyes and ears and tactile systems and brains must be experiencing qualia like color, sounds, pain, tastes, smells, fear, hunger, sickness, tiredness, sadness, joy, desire, etc. So absolutely they are conscious. Anyone who has owned a dog or cat knows this at heart. The higher animals are not zombies.

 

[Write4U]

All animals with sophisticated eyes and ears and tactile systems and brains must be experiencing qualia like color, sounds, pain, tastes, smells, fear, hunger, sickness, tiredness, sadness, joy, desire, etc. So absolutely they are conscious. Anyone who has owned a dog or cat knows this at heart. The higher animals are not zombies.

And many animals are underestimated n their survival skills.

There is a curious condition in cephalopods, that requires some study of their adaption to an alien dark world. They're color-blind!

Octopuses are famous for rapidly changing color to blend in with their surroundings. (Image credit: Shutterstock)

Octopuses might be nature's ultimate weirdos: They have squishy bodies that can squeeze through tiny cracks; eight sucker-covered arms that can be regrown; three hearts that pump blue blood (rich in copper) through their veins; and massive, donut-shaped brains that give them superior intelligence compared with other invertebrates. But octopuses' most awe-inspiring trait is arguably their ability to rapidly change color and blend into their surroundings, camouflaging themselves at will.

Camouflage is an important skill shared by almost all cephalopods — a group of marine invertebrates that also includes squid and cuttlefish — but octopuses have taken it to a whole other level. These animals have the highest resolution patterns of any cephalopod and display some of the quickest color transitions in the entire animal kingdom. (There are around 300 species of octopus in the order Octopoda. In this article, the term 'octopuses' is used to describe general trends throughout the group, but not every species is capable of changing color, and the camouflaging mechanics they use can vary.)

Octopuses' mastery of camouflage has mystified researchers since the beginning of science itself. Around 2,400 years ago, Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher who is often considered one of the founding fathers of modern science, jotted down detailed observations of octopus camouflage — the first known person to do so, Leila Deravi, a biochemist at Northeastern University in Massachusetts who studies octopus camouflage mechanics, told Live Science. But even though octopus camouflage "has been studied and observed for centuries, not a lot of developments have been made" until very recently, she said.

https://www.livescience.com/how-do-octopuses-change-color

So how do cephalopods process color perception under extreme low light?
It is a most remarkable ability enabled by light-sensitive neurons in their skin. The brain is only used to trigger skin contraction and relaxation to copy the wavelengths of the substrate by touch?

How do Octopuses Change Color?
Here’s everything you ever wanted to know about chromatophores.

Octopuses have many super powers. They’re brilliant. They’re cunning. They can squeeze through small spaces and escape into the wild. And they manage to do it all without a backbone.

If you’ve never seen an octopus change color, take a minute and watch it happen. Cephalopods, including octopuses, squid and cuttlefish, are part of an exclusive group of creatures in the animal kingdom who can change color based on their activity or surroundings. Other notable color-changers include seahorses, some amphibians and lizards (including the chameleon, naturally!)

Ok, so how do they do it? Cephalopods have specialized cells in their skin called chromatophores. Each chromatophore cell has a stretchy sac called the cytoelastic sacculus that is filled with pigment, which can be red, yellow, brown or black in color. When the muscles around the cell tighten, they pull the pigment sac wider, meaning more pigment is visible on the octopus’ skin. Conversely, when the muscles relax, the pigment sac shrinks back to size, and less pigment is visible.

https://oceanconservancy.org/blog/2019/10/07/octopuses-change-color/