icosahedron
i'd agree that we don't really understand consciousness. i'd argue it's more an issue of defining consciousness and what that encompasses than knowing its biological background. if we knew what to look for, we'd find it. also anesthesia isn't really a problem at all. in fact, we know exactly how general anesthesia works
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908224/
and Penroses's Orch OR theory was never meant to explain anesthesia. it's a more general theory concerning the overall existence of consciousness in the first place. however, anesthesia does relate to the theory, in that it could play a role in proving it (i think? not a primary source but it's where i found that info)
besides that, Orch OR isn't exactly a great model in the first place, or at least from a neurological standpoint. even among theories of consciousness, Orch OR is particularly controversial and not widely accepted. i'm no expert and i could be misunderstanding, so please correct me if i'm missing something that would indicate Orch OR is considered even remotely plausible compared to other consciousness theories. this paper certainly had some things to say about it in the context of the validity of theories of consciousness (see V.1 class I).
other theories seem more promising. global workspace theory seems particularly well supported by neurology. its criticisms mainly focus on how GWT fails to truly explain the nature of consciousness. but is that an issue any theory can resolve? again, the problem lies in the definition of consciousness.
then we have integrated information theory. it's a more mathematical model that aims to quantify the human experience. but you know what? it's also controversial and highly debated, to the point that it's been called pseudoscientific because it implies a degree of panpsychism. it's clearly not a perfect theory.
point is, you're right. we don't really get consciousness. we have some wild guesses out there, and penrose's theory is certainly one of them. genius as penrose is, Orch OR isn't empirically testable. we don't know, and maybe can't know - which is precisely why neuroscience searches elsewhere
wow have we procrastinated real climate action long enough yet?
iirc some hardened firefox configs, including arkenfox, recommend using ublock ONLY. other privacy extensions like noscript aren't worth using because ublock replicates all of their features plus more
no great options but Orion by kagi is much better than base safari since you can at least get extensions like ublock
decomposers turn organic material from corpses into simpler nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. for example, proteins are broken down into amino acids, which then decompose into ammonium and nitrates. these nutrients are absorbed into soil and consumed by plants
tldr: plants eat corpses after decomposers turn them into nutrients
if it was torturous then nobody would bother learning instruments
the only impulsive part of this acquisition is how willing you seem to be to give up. just try it again. and then if you're not satisfied by how it's going, that's an excellent excuse to do it again. and the cycle repeats until one day, you are satisfied by how it's going
mahler's instrumentation is consistently massive but usually has normal instruments. i think only the sixth is particularly strange with the hammer, and the next weirdest symphony might be the seventh with its mandolin, guitar, cowbells, etc. his fourth could also be considered weird since it's scored for an unusually small orchestra, especially for a mahler symphony. pretty sure he never used a bag of sticks, but yeah mahler can still be crazy. only really rivaled by strauss imo. strauss's Alpine Symphony is probably the most insane thing i've ever seen performed, for me beating mahler 2 and 3 (though i still like them more overall)
which, judging by this post, is also a bad pr move
juvenoia