It’s not personal to Musk. He’s another in a long line I’ve criticized my whole life. Bill Gates got my criticism once upon a time; he was the superboy. But any influencer with the same kind of following will get this same criticism from me. It’s not about politics or money. It’s about social influence and what that does to people’s critical thinking skills.

 It’s not personal to
[read full article]
 

I snipped it from a longer text showing a dozen or so examples of Africans arriving in the South America long before Columbus. It has the name of the polish professor that found the skeletons shown. You have Google or Bing or whatever’s your thing. If interested you’d search. If you want to debate as if the only universe is you and I and whatever words we pick, then you’re interested in debate, not research.

 I snipped it from
[read full article]
 

To do a comparison around the same time frame: the charge of conspiracy in the Nurenberg trials, “”Crimes against Peace” was a piece of legislature that was to pin point those people who were responsible for the intentional planning of inhumane actions.” They’d receive 10 to 20 years to a hanging. Carolyn Bryant Donham, interviewed a few years ago, “felt tender sorrow” for Emmett Till’s MOTHER, Mamie when she saw her at her son’s casket, but there doesn’t seem to be any indication of any kind of remorse surrounding Emmitt Till according to the interviewer. With the Nazi’s who escaped trial, the search never ended and when they’re uncovered, they serve trial even today. There’s no statute of limitations. Should there be in this case? Getting the gift of living a full long live invisible to the crime and then being rewarded for achieving long life by a peaceful end? I don’t know. But I don’t see any reason for a reward here. If the family wants punishment and it’s justified by law, then I’m entirely ok with her going to trial and sentencing.

To do a comparison
[read full article]
 

I _do_ JUMP to Conclusions, particularly a 77 page paper. I’ll give the name of it at the end: Conclusions All of the theories we have considered contain some useful features that need to be included in a definitive theory of life (Fig. 49), but all lack some that are important. In particular, none of them incorporate any mechanism of regulation, or any other mechanism to prevent a self-organizing system from growing until it forms a tar (Section 3.1.8). In extreme cases a real living organism may starve to death, or die for some other reason, but, apart from a cancer, which is not a self-organized system, it never forms a tar or otherwise disorganized state. We have not provided all the answers in this review, but we hope that we have pointed to the direction that future research needs to take in the hope of arriving at a definitive theory of life. There are various courses that future research may take: 1. Each individual researcher may a choose a preferred theory from the current ones and try to extend it. That is essentially what has happened until now, and we do not believe that it is the best way forward. 2. One may try to incorporate all the points in Fig. 49 into a single theory, after first identifying and eliminating any logical inconsistencies. The main points that we see are the following: (a) Construction of a membrane needs to be described explicitly, not just left for future development. (b) Thermodynamic requirements need to be satisfied explicitly. For a system at the origin of life it may be sufficient to suppose a supply of energy-rich nutrients, but a more long-term system certainly needs to harness gradients across boundaries. (c) It is not enough to have a cycle labelled “information cycle”: there must be a clear mechanism for collecting, storing and using the information. (d) Any living system must be closed to efficient causation: the catalysts (apart from metal ions) must be produced by the organism in such a way that infinite regress is avoided. (e) There must be regulation of the metabolism, so that organisms cannot grow indefinitely, and metabolites are produced only as needed. 3. One should identify if there are other essential characteristics not mentioned in Fig. 49 that need to be incorporated. We are not aware of essential characteristics apart from metabolic regulation that are missing from all of the current theories. 4. The really adventurous could start with a completely clean plate and develop a new theory that is not derived from any of the existing ones. Contrasting theories of life: Historical context, current theories. In search of an ideal theory Athel Cornish-Bowden María Luz Cárdenas 2019

I _do_ JUMP to
[read full article]
 

RELATIONAL BIOLOGY! A field I’d never heard of but I’ve been tripping over for years. I just knew when I saw “theoretical biology”, I’d like it. But I think it’s _this_ that I liked – a very abstract view of life’s systems in relation to other systems (mechanical, social, etc) Apparently started by Robert Rosen – but wait – I can skip and generalize! “Comparison with other theories of life (M,R) systems constitute just one of several current theories of life, including the chemoton of Tibor Gánti, the hypercycle of Manfred Eigen and Peter Schuster, autopoiesis (or self-building) of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, and the autocatalytic sets of Stuart Kauffman, similar to an earlier proposal by Freeman Dyson. All of these (including (M,R) systems) found their original inspiration in Erwin Schrödinger’s book What is Life? but at first they appear to have little in common with one another, largely because the authors did not communicate with one another, and none of them made any reference in their principal publications to any of the other theories. Nonetheless, there are more similarities than may be obvious at first sight, for example between Gánti and Rosen. Until recently there have been almost no attempts to compare the different theories and discuss them together.”

RELATIONAL BIOLOGY!
A field
[read full article]