Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where Human Sleep Went Wrong

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 139 posts

Re: Where Human Sleep Went Wrong

#71

Post by giov4 »

ViktorRay wrote: post #62
duskdozer wrote: post #46

>18 degrees Celsius is considered optimal for sleep depth I'm instantly skeptical of anyone making universal statements like this, because they're certainly not true for everyone, and having looked into these and similar (f/x "ideal room/office temperature"), are based on many entangled assumptions. Most of the time I expect it's just people making after-the-fact justification for doing (or imposing) what they most p…

When statements like this are made usually it’s because studies would have been done comparing sleep depth at different temperatures and there would have been a statistically significant increase in sleep depth at 18 degrees Celsius in the tested group compared to groups sleeping at other temperatures. I have no idea if that was actually done here but that’s usually how these statements are justified. Of course we ar…

yeah probably lot of study measurements and data confirming that, I'm not skeptical about it, to me it feels like something scientifically measured proven since quite some time already. of course genetics and outliers still need to be considered.

also do you know that the body temperature decreases during sleep? based on that I simply deduce and assume the more the difference between body and room temperature the more side effects arises for sleep, of course simplifying without ignoring all the rest.

Re: Where Human Sleep Went Wrong

#72

Post by yeoyeo42 »

teekert wrote: post #38
yuretz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see why it isn't a local or global maxima solving function, but it surely can be modelled by one, right?

I'm a biologist so forgive me the poor wording, but there are "infinitely high" peaks/walls in the evolutionary landscape, as in: "the human urinary system has some evolutionary constraints and anatomical features that are not optimally designed from an engineering perspective, but they are generally functional and reflect our evolutionary history rather than deliberate design." So in that sense, a global maxima (min…

no offense, but it just sounds like you don't understand local maxima in high dimensional spaces.

a suboptimal trait evolving that still provided an overall population benefit (via survival or reproduction) with further improvement close to impossible without a multitude of large changes is literally just a local maximum in that high dimensional space that maps traits to whatever success metric you're measuring.

the infinite wall you describe is not a wall in that space. actually I originally wrote its more like a wall in the derivative space but its not quite right either, those just point straight down from the maximum.

Re: Where Human Sleep Went Wrong

#73

Post by randusername »

Flashtoo wrote: post #3

> Some emerging research suggests Earth’s magnetism matters, as well. Being barefoot on the ground versus 30 stories high in a downtown skyscraper puts you in a completely different magnetic environment. Really? My instinctive reaction to this statement is that it's quackery. Would be very interested to see headlines appear about this if it's true.

This is called "grounding" or "earthing" and Wikipedia doesn't pull punches in dismissing it [0]. You can buy grounding wires for your mattress or copper rivets for your shoes.

From my tissue engineering class in undergrad my 2 cents is this is maybe 95% supplements quackery and 5% genuine mystery. You can find papers that claim EM fields have cellular interactions [1]. I don't think serious scientists will touch conventional earthing, though.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_medicine#Earthing

[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38068954/

Re: Where Human Sleep Went Wrong

#74

Post by teekert »

yeoyeo42 wrote: post #72
teekert wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a biologist so forgive me the poor wording, but there are "infinitely high" peaks/walls in the evolutionary landscape, as in: "the human urinary system has some evolutionary constraints and anatomical features that are not optimally designed from an engineering perspective, but they are generally functional and reflect our evolutionary history rather than deliberate design." So in that sense, a global maxima (min…

no offense, but it just sounds like you don't understand local maxima in high dimensional spaces. a suboptimal trait evolving that still provided an overall population benefit (via survival or reproduction) with further improvement close to impossible without a multitude of large changes is literally just a local maximum in that high dimensional space that maps traits to whatever success metric you're measuring. the…

Perhaps not no, please enlighten me, where is my lack of insight?

Edit, thanx for the addition. Perhaps my issues with looking at it as "local maxima in high dimensional spaces" (even though we think of minima usually, as in a marble will find the minimum in a landscape with gravity pointing down, sorry I'm a biologist) is that with every mutation and every change in environment the landscape changes (so basically with time), is it still a useful way to think about it like that, at that point? So it not a "landscape in a high dimensional space", but rather a "high dimensional dynamic surface", like a sea?

Re: Where Human Sleep Went Wrong

#75

Post by PetitPrince »

albert_e wrote: post #49
teekert wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a biologist so forgive me the poor wording, but there are "infinitely high" peaks/walls in the evolutionary landscape, as in: "the human urinary system has some evolutionary constraints and anatomical features that are not optimally designed from an engineering perspective, but they are generally functional and reflect our evolutionary history rather than deliberate design." So in that sense, a global maxima (min…

Interesting I did not know human urinary tract was suboptimal. Are there examples of "discontinuous" evolution where a chance mutation stumbled upon a much better way to do something that allowed a species to jump the gap? I imagine it would be very rare because chance mutations in a single individual that confer extraordinary survival / mating advantage to offset entire population would be rare like being a superman…

Antibiotic resistance happens all the time (at least in our artificial world) and it's a life or death situation for the bacteria.

But you were probably asking for multicellular eukaryote organism; you may be interested in the concept of saltation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology) . Behind the concept of the thing itself it's interesting to think about the mechanism behind it. Regular evolution is gradual (point mutation leads to a maybe slightly different protein, which has only a relatively small scale effect but you gain or lose function over many generation), but for a saltatory evolution you most probably need radical changes in the DNA, like duplication (of a single gene, multiple gene or whole chromosome), horizontal exchanges, etc.

It's possible in plant but in animal more often than not it's not beneficial at all to have such event. Famously if you have an extra chromosome nr. 21 you get Down syndrome.

Re: Where Human Sleep Went Wrong

#76

Post by giov4 »

Flashtoo wrote: post #3

> Some emerging research suggests Earth’s magnetism matters, as well. Being barefoot on the ground versus 30 stories high in a downtown skyscraper puts you in a completely different magnetic environment. Really? My instinctive reaction to this statement is that it's quackery. Would be very interested to see headlines appear about this if it's true.

I would not jump to such conclusions, I would assume is not fully known and needs to be further understood.

on the other side, do you know we have polarized and non-polarized cells? do you know they can be affected by electromagnetism?

this two things already establish the existence of a relationship and effects between them. If we then consider that cells mechanism work based on differential of electrical or chemical potentials, and that they continuously use that for their functions, reactions or environmental compensations well...

I just think they are related and we need to understand better.

Re: Where Human Sleep Went Wrong

#77

Post by PetitPrince »

codethief wrote: post #69
i_love_limes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great question! It maybe can be, but what is the maxima that is being solved for exactly? There are usually tradeoffs, the most common and prevalent is our body's immune response. If it's under-active, we might die from an infection. If it's over-active, we get diabetes, lupus, chron's, and (probably) lots of mental health disorders. So, it's a bit context dependent, and definitely dependent on other mutations that h…

> It maybe can be, but what is the maxima that is being solved for exactly? Survival rate/reproduction rate/rate of genes being spread?

I think you're correct, but only if you add "for a given environment". It's good to develop the ability to store super efficiently fat when you're a Pacific Islander and food is scarce, but this advantageous trait becomes a liability with modern and plentiful (junk) food.

see thrify gene hypothesis; I know it's not a good explanatory theory but it's a good illustration of my point

Re: Where Human Sleep Went Wrong

#78

Post by giov4 »

YLYvYkHeB2NRNT wrote: post #42

A nap is the same as sleep, but we don't do this. Any correlation to our southern american friends and their siestas?

I tried to imitate japanese people in the public transport when i was there, meaning I managed to kinda sleep/nap with eyes closed for 10-15minutes between rides and it was astonishing.

while I understand might be a more known thing, it was surprising to try it and feel very rested after that. I'm still surprised and I wonder why not the whole world does it.

of course without the music at the stops would not be possible :P

Re: Where Human Sleep Went Wrong

#79

Post by tempfile »

yuretz wrote: post #30
i_love_limes wrote: post #27

I think people in HN (and in general) have to remember the central axes of evolution before digesting this kind of article. I've already seen comments like it's "odd that no species has ended up evolving a continuous maintenance system" and "sleep has a higher opportunity cost in humans" in this comments section. This is a common, but poor framing of evolution. Remember: the only real rule with evolution is "did this…

I can see why it isn't a local or global maxima solving function, but it surely can be modelled by one, right?

It can't be a global one because it is inherently local. Evolution is a process which determines the next time step (generation) from only the previous generation. It has no memory at all nor "knowledge" of other reproducing pairs.

Re: Where Human Sleep Went Wrong

#80

Post by IAmBroom »

ViktorRay wrote: post #62
duskdozer wrote: post #46

>18 degrees Celsius is considered optimal for sleep depth I'm instantly skeptical of anyone making universal statements like this, because they're certainly not true for everyone, and having looked into these and similar (f/x "ideal room/office temperature"), are based on many entangled assumptions. Most of the time I expect it's just people making after-the-fact justification for doing (or imposing) what they most p…

When statements like this are made usually it’s because studies would have been done comparing sleep depth at different temperatures and there would have been a statistically significant increase in sleep depth at 18 degrees Celsius in the tested group compared to groups sleeping at other temperatures. I have no idea if that was actually done here but that’s usually how these statements are justified. Of course we ar…

And every time I hear about an optimum, I think of the Bathtub Curve.

As I imagine the curve, I use a real bathtub. Where is the water deepest? At the drain, which is typically just under the faucet. Where is the optimal place to sit? Well, pretty much anywhere except there, because "deepest" (an optimum) isn't enough to accurately gauge "best place". But even if you can swing the faucet out of the way... where is the optimal place? Anywhere on the bottom, a broad, slow curve, as opposed to the steep walls or rim.

So, if 18 degrees C is the optimum, what's the standard deviation? I bet it's not 0.1 degrees. Could be 2 degrees - and that would mean concentrating on 18 degrees is a distraction, not a goal.

This is something evolutionary discussions don't address well, either. If a gene line (species) has a pressure to change, it can "settle" for any place on the bathtub floor (when the solution is shaped like that). This is another example of evolution not seeking an optimum; merely avoiding a pessimum (a word I just googled, and like!).

In fact, it doesn't even matter if it's a bathtub curve. Maybe it's a slope, like the amount of capsaicin a pepper plant carries to fight off fungus. More better - but it costs something to make, so just make enough to ensure survival. More fungus? Increase capsaicin production. There's no floor to this bathtub; it's a linear slant all the way down to maximum possible capsaicin content (which, amazingly, is about 10% by weight of the fruit cells!!!).

Post reply on HN