Next #SoCIA18 talk looks exciting: "Body Snatchers: What whole body hijacking reveals about our definitions of life," by Lucas Mix.
(Note that this is a 2-track conference, so I am missing at least 50% of talks.)
"What is life?" He thinks it's a process, not an object. Four useful/overlapping subcategories: Darwin (evolve by natural selection), Woese (uses SSU rRNA), Aristotle (perpetuate with nutrition), Haldane (self-regulation).
He's got a nonfic book (out or coming out?): "Life Concept from Aristotle to Darwin: On Vegetable Souls"
These 4 categories are non-exclusive, non-exhaustive, but interesting. Genes and viri are Darwin but not Haldane or Woese. Stars and planets are Haldane but not any other. Venn diagram time!
He's iffy on the concept of Haldane Life, might need a better understanding of what we (should) mean by "regulation."
Symbiosis is useful cases of life that piggybacks on other life. Mutualism, commensalism, parasitism. Here we'll look at "parasitoids" - parasites that end up killing their host.
Oooh, a fun distinction: "Food" is valuable for nutrition, whether it's alive or not alive. Whereas a "nutritional tool" is valuable only while it's alive.
Parasites (including -oids) make it so that host metabolism only benefits the parasite.
Ex: Emerald Cockroach Wasp. They sting cockroach brain, and steer it to the nest for the young to eat... slowly over 7-8 days, because they want to keep the cockroach alive so it stays fresh.
Glyoptapanteles Zombie Guardian. Larvae emerge from caterpillar... and then the caterpillar stays there over the larvae, watching over them until it dies.
And then the classic Zombie Ant Fungus (Ophiocordyceps). Google it. Similar critter Dicrocoelium (Zombie Ant Fluke) grows in abdomen, one in brain - sends ant up grass so it gets eaten by cows.
And more examples of classic behavior-changing parasitoids. Wherein metabolism of host now only serves reproductive interests of parasite, not host. To what extent is one or the other of them participating in Darwin Life?
Do we privilege genes as the agents? "Extended phenotype" idea. Has some problems over how it defines what has goals/desires. But it makes the whole regulator-organism seem like a tool/prosthesis to the genes.
Proposal: the units of life depend on the observer. "Individuals" are model/context dependent, but all earth life (Woese + Viruses) is one integrated example of metabolic/evolutionry life.
This talk needs another 40 minutes! That's all we're getting, alas!
A quote from the speaker in Q&A: "Organism as a natural category is a hangover from the middle ages."
unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Handedness comes in two groups, "right handed" and "not right handed." Most people use their right hands for almost all precision movement, but the other group is a broad spectrum from weakly-right to strongly-left. baen.com/handedness
The way we describe and define handedness creates the effect @CStuartHardwick rightly notices. Culture defines how we talk about it - but the behavior is mostly genetic. The % of righties has remained constant across continents and milennia.
Hand dominance is a more squirrelly thing than most people realize. For example, righties are better at *some* things with their left hand... and *some* of these asymmetries flip in lefties. Take a few minutes on #LeftHandersDay to learn more!
But you should read and learn from the #BlackSpecFic report anyways! The missing data is due to idiosyncrasies of the @EAPodcasts model, and has no impact on any other magazine's numbers.
Long story short, we treat reprints very differently from other magazines. For @escapepodcast specifically, they were ~45% of our 2017 stories, and our editorial process has one unified pipeline for originals + reprints together.
Regretting organizing my two Worldcon panels this year. It means I'm not free to throw up my hands in frustration and give up on programming. The last 24hrs have been the last worst icing on a bad cake that's long been baking.
I mean, my panels will be awesome. But if you're skipping programming because you don't trust the con, you've made a sensible choice.
There are always more people who want to be on programming than can fit. There's no way to make everyone happy. I get that. But this weekend's screwups come in the context of a long chain of trust-erosion.
So glad this one came out! "After Midnight at the Zap Stop" by @ouranosaurus is an awesome story - full of late-night grease, and the luckless & the worthy. But also because it's a #neuroscience teaching opportunity. Might even be a #NeuroThursday!
One offhand line explains a technology as "stimulating a particular set of mirror neurons." Which works as a story element just fine. It sounds plausible and authoritative! But as a neuroscientist, I have strong opinions about #mirrorneurons. I don't think they're real.
To be clear, mine is a controversial opinion. Many neuroscientists would disagree. But it's a hill I'm willing to fight on, especially given how often "mirror neurons" crop up in popular science.
This phenomenon - when you look away from a moving thing, and you briefly see illusory motion in the other direction - is the "Motion Aftereffect," and it comes from some very basic brain maneuvers. Who wants to join me on going full #NeuroThursday here? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_af…
Most neurons in the brain (and elsewhere) do this thing called "adaptation," where they accept whatever's going on as the new normal. For example, if you sit down with your laptop on your lap, you'll soon stop noticing the weight.
This can arise from the crudest single-cell level: some ion channels in the cell membrane have negative feedback loops that self-dampen.