icosahedron

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

yeah those people would not survive in ma pona pi toki pona. tons of variant orthography there

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

gen z here, can confirm. most of my peers just do not care about learning how things actually work

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

if ios, then Arctic for sure. it's the only one that feels as smooth as apollo did, has some excellent customizability, and is just as feature rich as the more popular clients

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

the comments on there are not encouraging at all

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 68 points 3 months ago (5 children)

wow have we procrastinated real climate action long enough yet?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

no great options but Orion by kagi is much better than base safari since you can at least get extensions like ublock

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

view more: next ›