Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Saturday, June 24, 2023

Neuroscience bit: Getting closer to understanding the mind?

We're still trying to figure it out, but
maybe we're finally closing in on 
some serious understanding


Explanation in non-science language
A fascinating article in Sci Tech Daily discusses a proposed mechanism to explain how the brain-mind works. They call their proposed mechanism cytoelectric coupling. Translated into American, what they mean by that is that neurons in close proximity to each other in the brain, or in neural pathways, (and spinal cord and maybe some other brain cells too?), are linked by small electric fields. The coupling of cells gives rise to coordinated weak electrical field pulses in the brain. The weak field pulses apparently have little to do with neurons talking to each other via chemicals released into synapses, which is a different form of communication between neurons. What is happening is that structures in and near neurons change as nearby weak electrical fields pass through. The electrical fields manifest as waves of electricity that constantly pulse through at least parts of the brain where neurons are linked in neural pathways.

The big deal here is that although neuroscientists have been aware of weak electrical fields potentially affecting cells close to each other, there has never been proof that the fields cause specific changes in nearby neurons and those changes are a manifestation of the working of the conscious or sentient human mind. 

Before this paper, it was unknown if the weak electrical fields existed simply because small pulses of electricity travel through neurons to synapses where most or all the interneuron communicating was believed to happen. The bulk of what constitutes the working of the mind was believed to be in the chemicals traversing synapses between linked neurons. Until now, there was no basis to believe there was a cause and effect relationship between intracellular structure changes and the weak electric field pulses. 

Thus there are two different forms of communication between neurons, one at synapses and the other between precisely positioned neurons and their weak electrical fields. Presumably, both together are responsible for how the human mind thinks and perceives inputs from sensory organs and neurons.


Science language explanation
STD writes:
“Cytoelectric Coupling”: A Groundbreaking 
Hypothesis on How Our Brains Function

Brain waves act as carriers of information. A recently proposed “Cytoelectric Coupling” hypothesis suggests that these wavering electric fields contribute to the optimization of the brain network’s efficiency and robustness. They do this by influencing the physical configuration of the brain’s molecular framework. [translation: changing the structures in and around neurons]

In order to carry out its multifaceted functions, which include thought, the brain operates on various levels. Information like objectives or visuals is depicted through synchronized electrical activity among neuronal networks. Simultaneously, a combination of proteins and other biochemicals within and surrounding each neuron physically execute the mechanics required for participation in these networks.

“The information the brain is processing has a role in fine-tuning the network down to the molecular level,” said Earl K. Miller, Picower Professor in The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory at MIT, who co-authored the paper in Progress in Neurobiology with Associate Professor Dimitris Pinotsis of MIT and City —University of London, and Professor Gene Fridman of Johns Hopkins.[1]

“The brain adapts to a changing world,” Pinotsis said. “Its proteins and molecules change too. They can have electric charges and need to catch up with neurons that process, store, and transmit information using electric signals. Interacting with the neurons’ electric fields seems necessary.”

A major focus of Miller’s lab is studying how higher-level cognitive functions such as working memory can rapidly, flexibly, and yet reliably emerge from the activity of millions of individual neurons. Neurons are capable of dynamically forming circuits by creating and removing connections, called synapses, as well as strengthening or weakening those junctions. But, that merely forms a “roadmap” around which information could flow, Miller said.

The specific neural circuits that collectively represent one thought or another, Miller has found, are coordinated by rhythmic activity, more colloquially known as “brain waves” of different frequencies.

Fast “gamma” rhythms help transmit images from our vision (e.g. a muffin), while slower “beta” waves might carry our deeper thoughts about that image, (e.g. “too many calories”). Properly timed, bursts of these waves can carry predictions, enable writing in, holding onto, and reading out information in working memory, Miller’s lab has shown.

If the brain carries information in electric fields and those electric fields are capable of configuring neurons and other elements in the brain that form a network, then the brain is likely to use this capability. The brain can use fields to ensure the network does what it is supposed to do, the authors suggest.

“Cytoelectric Coupling connects information at the meso‐ and macroscopic level down to the microscopic level of proteins that are the molecular basis of memory,” the authors wrote in the paper.

The article lays out the logic inspiring Cytoelectic Coupling. “We’re offering a hypothesis that anybody can test,” Miller said.

Q: Is this very cool brain-mind stuff or what?


Footnote: 
We propose and present converging evidence for the Cytoelectric Coupling Hypothesis: Electric fields generated by neurons are causal down to the level of the cytoskeleton. This could be achieved via electrodiffusion and mechanotransduction and exchanges between electrical, potential and chemical energy. Ephaptic coupling organizes neural activity, forming neural ensembles at the macroscale level. This information propagates to the neuron level, affecting spiking, and down to molecular level to stabilize the cytoskeleton, “tuning” it to process information more efficiently.
Translation into non-science: 
Electric fields generated by neurons are causal down to the level of the cytoskeleton = electric fields cause specific changes in structures in neurons and that is part of what constitutes thinking and the human mind

Ephaptic coupling = the spreading of impulses along and across adjacent axons such that action potential propagating along one axon fires up an adjacent axon, i.e., a lot of stuff goes on outside of synapses; the electrical fields, if strong enough and/or positioned precisely, are able to influence the electrical excitability of neighboring neurons near-instantaneously (near speed of light)

Neural ensembles = neural pathways; a population of nervous system cells (or cultured neurons) involved in a particular neural computation



Ephaptic coupling between neurons  
in an olfactory bulb (smell sensor)



Acknowledgement: Thanks to Larry Motuz for bringing the STD paper to my attention.

Should Biden Pardon Trump?

THE DAILY DEBATE

Should Biden Pardon Trump?

Author of the article

A Pardon For Trump Would Be A Betrayal Of Biden's Base

President Biden: Pardon Trump. It's What's Best For The Nation




https://www.newsweek.com/

Nevertheless, there is a strong argument for President Biden to pardon Trump. Centrists are understandably frustrated and dismayed by the divisive political atmosphere in the country, and some have proposed a pardon for the federal documents case as a way of putting the nation on the path toward healing. Biden ran in 2020 as a uniter, and some claim that this would solidify his claim to that title. They also argue that a pardon would blunt the preposterous "weaponization of the federal government" claim. Others believe President Biden could bring the country together and win over independents by showing Donald Trump mercy.

All of those arguments are logical. But they are wrong. If Biden pardoned Trump, it would backfire against the President and Democrats, confuse independents, lower morale in the Department of Justice, and not win over a single MAGA Republican.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-pardon-betrayal-bidens-base-opinion-1808746

Former President Donald Trump is facing the historic circumstance of campaigning for a presidential election while under a Justice Department indictment. It has many on the Right calling foul, seeing it as evidence of a politicized justice system that's trying to win the presidential election for President Joe Biden by imprisoning his opponent.

Whether or not you agree with this sentiment, many of your fellow Americans do. And there's an easy way to diffuse this allegation: President Biden could immediately and preemptively pardon former President Trump. He should absolutely do this, as soon as possible.

Recent polling suggests that a significant chunk of Americans concur. A Harvard-Harris survey found that 53 percent of Americans would support a presidential pardon for Trump. Even more unexpected is that nearly a third of Democratic voters favored a pardon as well.

By pardoning Donald Trump, President Biden would demonstrate a commitment to moving forward and fostering national healing. Avoiding a highly divisive trial would allow the country to shift its focus away from the controversies surrounding the former president and toward addressing pressing issues.

https://www.newsweek.com/president-biden-pardon-trump-its-whats-best-nation-opinion-1808745

          What Snowy has to say about this:

Sure, Pardon Trump, IF he agrees not to run for President. Otherwise, no!       

WHAT SAY YOU??                                                                               











Friday, June 23, 2023

Neuroscience bit: Conservative vs. liberal brains and minds

Motivated reasoning, in which people work hard to justify their opinions or decisions, even in the face of conflicting evidence, has been a popular topic in political neuroscience because there is a lot of it going around. [Understatement alert!]
On the whole, the research shows, conservatives desire security, predictability and authority more than liberals do, and liberals are more comfortable with novelty, nuance and complexity. .... While these findings are remarkably consistent, they are probabilities, not certainties—meaning there is plenty of individual variability. The political landscape includes lefties who own guns, right-wingers who drive Priuses and everything in between.  
Understanding the influence of partisanship on identity, even down to the level of neurons, “helps to explain why people place party loyalty over policy, and even over truth,” argued psychologists Jay Van Bavel and Andrea Pereira, both then at New York University, in Trends in Cognitive Sciences in 2018. In short, we derive our identities from both our individual characteristics, such as being a parent, and our group memberships, such as being a New Yorker or an American. These affiliations serve multiple social goals: they feed our need to belong and desire for closure and predictability, and they endorse our moral values. And our brain represents them much as it does other forms of social identity.
Among other things, partisan identity clouds memory. In a 2013 study, liberals were more likely to misremember George W. Bush remaining on vacation in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and conservatives were more likely to falsely recall seeing Barack Obama shaking hands with the president of Iran. Partisan identity also shapes our perceptions. When they were shown a video of a political protest in a 2012 study, liberals and conservatives were more or less likely to favor calling police depending on their interpretation of the protest’s goal.

“The biology and neuroscience of politics might be useful in terms of what is effective at getting through to people,” Van Bavel says. “Maybe the way to interact with someone who disagrees with me politically is not to try to persuade them on the deep issue, because I might never get there. It’s more to try to understand where they’re coming from and shatter their stereotypes.”
I figured out years ago that trying to persuade and change minds is futile at best. At worst, it's counterproductive and unpleasant. Although I do not hope to shatter anyone's stereotypes, I do try to reach a point of mutual understanding for why disagreement exists. That's about the best one can hope for with political disagreements.

The most important fight of the decade!!

 Forget Democrats vs Republicans.

Forget Liberals vs Conservatives.

Forget Christians vs Atheists.

Forget pro-lifers vs pro-choice. 


THIS IS THE BIG FIGHT:


Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg agree to hold cage fight




Two of the world's most high-profile technology billionaires - Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg - have agreed to fight each other in a cage match.

Mr Musk posted a message on his social media platform Twitter that he was "up for a cage fight" with Mr Zuckerberg.

Mr Zuckerberg, the boss of Facebook and Instagram parent company Meta, then posted a screenshot of Mr Musk's tweet with the caption "send me location".



Mr Musk then replied to Mr Zuckerberg's response with: "Vegas Octagon."

The Octagon is the competition mat and fenced-in area used for Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) bouts. The UFC is based in Las Vegas, Nevada.


The exchanges have gone viral with social media users debating who would win the bout, while others have posted memes including mocked up posters advertising the fight.


https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65981876



I hope it's televised, don't you??  😏



  • Published

Thursday, June 22, 2023

News bits: Schiff shafts Durham with truth; House Republicans attack enemies; Etc.

From the Republicans tried but failed to smear files: GOP propaganda and rhetoric is loaded with lies, smears and slanders aimed mostly at Democrats, liberals, and RINO Republicans. It turns out that most of the time when the matter is pressed, the evidence shows the propaganda and rhetoric to be actual lies, smears and/or slanders. The Daily Beast writes about a really big Republican lie that ran into a buzzsaw of inconvenient truth with no place to hide from it, despite trying to hide and deflect from it:  
Adam Schiff Gets John Durham to Admit Russia Helped Trump

When Republicans brought Special Counsel John Durham to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, they thought it’d be an opportunity to score points on Democrats—particularly Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who spent years hyping up Donald Trump’s connections to Russia.

What they got instead was a viral moment when Schiff got Durham—the man tasked with concluding whether the FBI’s investigation of Russia’s connections to the 2016 Trump campaign was appropriate—took Durham to task.

Schiff, a former impeachment manager against Trump, questioned Durham about whether President Trump flaunted information that was released by Russian hackers during the 2016 election. Durham repeatedly insisted he had no knowledge of the matter [what a whopper of a lie]. But in the midst of the exchange, Durham clearly stated he doesn’t doubt the validity of evidence showing Russia was trying to help Trump—something many Republicans have vehemently denied.

“I don’t think there’s any question that Russians intruded into—hacked into the systems, they released information,” Durham said.

“And that was helpful to the Trump campaign, right?” Schiff asked.

After trying to deflect the question, Durham agreed the Russians had been helpful to the Trump campaign.

“And Trump made use of that, as I said, didn’t he, by touting those stolen documents on the campaign trail over a hundred times,” Schiff said.

Durham said he didn’t “really read the newspapers, or listen to the news.”

“So I don’t know that,” he said. 
“Were you totally oblivious to Donald Trump’s use of the stolen emails on the campaign trail more than a hundred times?” Schiff asked. “Did that escape your attention?” 
Durham responded that he wasn’t aware of that.
There is no basis in existing evidence to accord Durham any credibility. He doesn't read newspapers? What does read or listen to, Evie Magazine? Breitbart? Faux News? Nothing? Durham, like the rest of the radical right Republican elites, is a shameless liar. They all tell lots of whopper lies and slanders and get away with it.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

The NYT writes about House Republicans openly attacking enemies: 
House Censures Adam Schiff Over His Role Investigating Trump

The G.O.P.-led House formally censured Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, on Wednesday over his role investigating former President Donald J. Trump, the first in what could be a series of votes seeking to punish those whom Republicans have deemed the party’s enemies.

The censure passed by a party-line vote of 213 to 209 with six Republicans voting “present.” The measure had the backing of Speaker Kevin McCarthy after its lead sponsor, Representative Anna Paulina Luna, Republican of Florida, altered its language to remove a multimillion-dollar fine some Republicans viewed as unconstitutional.

“Adam Schiff launched an all-out political campaign built on baseless distortions against a sitting U.S. president,” Ms. Luna said. The censure accused him of engaging in “falsehoods, misrepresentations and abuses of sensitive information” as he sought to unearth connections between Mr. Trump and Russia.
As usual, the Republicans use lies and slanders to attack enemies. That's all they've got, so that's what they use.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

About the morality of democracy vs authoritarianism: Few or no dictators like to be called dictators. They prefer other labels, often some form of democrat. A day or two ago, president Biden called China's powerful dictator Xi Jinping a dictator. CNN reported on the dictator's instant backlash:
When President Joe Biden referred to his Chinese counterpart as a dictator late Tuesday in California, the response from Beijing was swift and angry.

“The remarks seriously contradict basic facts, seriously violate diplomatic etiquette, and seriously infringe on China’s political dignity,” the spokesperson for the foreign ministry said.
I take that as more evidence that living under democracy is inherently more desirable to most people than the idea of living under authoritarians like dictators, theocrat or plutocrats. Authoritarians know this, so they deny, downplay or deflect from the fact that they are authoritarian. What was most important was that Xi's political dignity was infringed, not necessarily China's.

Setting aside the wisdom or stupidity of Biden's remark, plenty of evidence indicates that the human urge to live under democracy is widespread and universal or almost so. I take that as convincing evidence that at least in modern times, democracy is inherently more moral than various forms of dictatorship. It may not mean that democracies are always better in one or more ways than a comparable dictatorship, but that is a different issue. 

Belief in the superior morality of democracy over authoritarianism or dictatorship is a core moral belief that underpins my own political ideology, pragmatic rationalism. 

Qs: What is an argument(s) that supports some form(s) of authoritarianism as being more moral than some form of democracy? Or, is authoritarianism vs. democracy simply not a matter of ethics or morality?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Narendra Modi Is Not Who America Thinks He Is

On Thursday the White House will roll out the red carpet for Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India to “affirm the deep and close partnership between the United States and India” and “strengthen our two countries’ shared commitment to a free, open, prosperous, and secure Indo-Pacific.” A state dinner and Mr. Modi’s address to a joint session of Congress will crown months of fawning assessments of India by everyone from Bill Gates to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo.

Here is what Americans need to know about Mr. Modi’s India. Armed with a sharp-edged doctrine of Hindu nationalism, Mr. Modi has presided over the nation’s broadest assault on democracy, civil society and minority rights in at least 40 years. He has delivered prosperity and national pride to some, and authoritarianism and repression of many others that should disturb us all.

Since Mr. Modi took power in 2014, India’s once-proud claim to being a free democratic society has collapsed on many fronts. Of the 180 nations surveyed in the 2023 World Press Freedom Index, India sits at 161, a scant three places above Russia. Its position on the Academic Freedom Index has nose-dived since Mr. Modi took office, putting it on a course that sharply resembles those of other electoral autocracies. The Freedom in the World index has tracked a steady erosion of Indian citizens’ political rights and civil liberties. On the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, India has tumbled squarely into the ranks of “flawed democracies.”

A working paper from the Indian government dismisses such metrics as “perception-based.” Sadly, it is no “perception” that the government systematically harasses its critics by raiding the offices of think tanks, NGOs and media organizations, restricting freedom of entry and exit, and pressing nuisance lawsuits — most conspicuously against the opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, who was recently ejected from Parliament after his conviction on a ludicrous charge of having defamed everybody named “Modi.” It is no “perception” that Muslim history has been torn from national textbooks, cities with Islamic eponyms renamed and India’s only Muslim-majority state, Jammu and Kashmir, stripped of its autonomy.  
As for India’s readiness to partner on efforts to combat climate change — one of the Biden administration’s highest hopes — the Indian government has cracked down on climate activists and just removed evolution and the periodic table from the curriculum for under-16-year-olds in its ongoing assault on science.  
Healthier ways to engage with India begin with understanding that Mr. Modi’s version of India is no less skewed than Donald Trump’s of the United States, even if Mr. Modi has been more successful at getting the media and global elite to buy into it.
Why does it too often look like democracy is weaker than authoritarianism? And why do various rising dictatorship look increasingly like the one now unfolding in the US? The tactics authoritarians use worldwide keep looking more like what the GOP is doing to America, Putin is doing to Russia, and what Viktor Orban has done to Hungary.

The US believes it needs good relations with India to help it fight a new Cold War with China. But India has become mostly authoritarian. Modi is going to do what he sees as in his and India's interest, whether or not it is in the US interest. Sure, the US can and should be on at least somewhat friendly terms with dictatorships. But to praise dictators like Modi as presiding over "free and open" countries undermines democracy. India is no longer free or open. It seems that democracy can no longer defend itself very well against the rising global tide of authoritarianism.

How the radical right does science: AI finds ugly women are liberals and mentally deranged

An article in Evie Magazine discusses research indicating that hot chicks tend to be right wingers and grumpy ones tend to be lefties. This is another fine reason for not putting your face on the interwebs. Evie writes:
Attractive Women Were More Likely To Be "Right-Wing" 
While "Left-Wing" Women Showed More Contempt

Physiognomy, the practice of deciphering a person's personality based on appearance, dates back to 500 B.C. The question is, is it pseudo-science, or does it actually hold credibility? One study published by Scientific Reports may support the theory that physiognomy may actually be legit after all.

The research took place in Denmark and utilized machine learning techniques on thousands of faces to predict their political ideology. The study, led by Stig Hebbelstrup (full name: Stig Hebbelstrup Rye Rasmussen) and his research team, explored if computational neural networks (CNN) can accurately determine a politician's political stance based on a single photograph of their face. Sounds dystopian, right? Surprisingly, the predictions were successful 61% of the time.

In the end, they were left with 4,647 images, with 1,442 of them being female. The sample was divided by both genders, and the algorithm was applied to them separately. They found that masculinity and attractiveness weren't linked to ideology in men, but happy faces (both men and women) were likely to be representatives of right-wing parties. Meanwhile, politicians who had a neutral expression or showed contempt were more likely to represent left-wing ideologies. How interesting, but we're not surprised.

Three years ago, we reported on a study that revealed over half of white, liberal women under 30 have a mental health disorder. These findings were backed by more recent data that showed that liberal women are statistically the unhappiest and most mentally ill demographic in America.
As we all know, most U.S. media leans to the left. So could the harmful narratives and advice be the reason for liberal women's unhappiness?
This is a breakthrough in dating science and politics! If you want a fun relationship, leave the ugly mentally deranged ladies alone and date the hot rabid radical right freaks. If you want crackpot radical right authoritarianism, vote for the hot chicks. MAGA!!

Given the importance of such insightful analysis, I reacted like anyone else would. What do the fact checkers say? Here's what Media Bias / Fact Check says about Evie Magazine:



There we have it. We can reasonably question whether Evie is a source, and if so, a source of what. By golly, it's a source of false claims, propaganda, pseudoscience and whatnot.


It's Kumbaya and AR-15 time in America. Stay away from the grumpy chicks. Vote for hot chicks and gird your loins for Armageddon.

Q: Who are the people who subscribe to Evie Magazine, assuming anyone actually does?


Acknowledgement: Thanks to Imperator Machinarum (in American, Emperor of the Machines) for bringing this important research to my attention