Would be nice to read the whole article
Electrochemical potential enables dormant spores to integrate enviro signals
11–20 of 50 posts
Re: Electrochemical potential enables dormant spores to integrate enviro signals
#12a strong contender for best headline of the year
To be fair, I took it from the author and did some modifications. I think it was very clear how he described it. https://twitter.com/kaitochondria/status/1578083629334294529...
Re: Electrochemical potential enables dormant spores to integrate enviro signals
#13Re: Electrochemical potential enables dormant spores to integrate enviro signals
#14'integrating' is a complex way of saying 'stuff leaks across a boundary slowly, and eventually when enough has leaked it triggers the spore to wake up'
Stuff leaks across the boundary in a stimulus dependent manner though. So it's basically setting dStuff / dt = Stimulus. Monitoring stuff-levels then allows it to monitor area under stimulus curve. Quite fascinating if you ask me.
Re: Electrochemical potential enables dormant spores to integrate enviro signals
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-undead-dormant-bacteria-life.h...
Seems like that is another different article about the paywalled one
Check at the bottom: "More information: Kaito Kikuchi et al, Electrochemical potential enables dormant spores to integrate environmental signals, Science (2022)"
Re: Electrochemical potential enables dormant spores to integrate enviro signals
#16Please change the headline to "Electrochemical potential enables dormant spores to integrate environmental signals" per Hacker News guidelines.
From the guidelines:
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
Re: Electrochemical potential enables dormant spores to integrate enviro signals
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://phys.org/news/2022-10-undead-dormant-bacteria-life.h...
Seems like that is another different article about the paywalled one
Re: Electrochemical potential enables dormant spores to integrate enviro signals
#18'integrating' is a complex way of saying 'stuff leaks across a boundary slowly, and eventually when enough has leaked it triggers the spore to wake up'
Yeah, this feels dangerously close to claiming a woman's body is counting the months/days before they deliver a baby. And, to be fair, I think the actual research was more about modeling how it works. Not claiming that they count, per se. That is, just because you can model something mathematically, does not mean that the thing being modeled is the same as doing the math. Falling is not the same as calculating an equ…
> That is, just because you can model something mathematically, does not mean that the thing being modeled is the same as doing the math. Falling is not the same as calculating an equation, as it were.
This feels like a false dichotomy. The two calculations demonstrate essentially the same function, but one is performed using physical dynamics (the accumulation of something on one side of a boundary) implemented in an analog computer (overcoming an activation potential) and the other using an abstracted representation (program) implemented in a digital computer (transformations via mathematical analysis).
Re: Electrochemical potential enables dormant spores to integrate enviro signals
#19a strong contender for best headline of the year
To be fair, I took it from the author and did some modifications. I think it was very clear how he described it. https://twitter.com/kaitochondria/status/1578083629334294529...
Thanks for the Twitter thread. That's a more digestible introduction to the paper.
Re: Electrochemical potential enables dormant spores to integrate enviro signals
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this feels dangerously close to claiming a woman's body is counting the months/days before they deliver a baby. And, to be fair, I think the actual research was more about modeling how it works. Not claiming that they count, per se. That is, just because you can model something mathematically, does not mean that the thing being modeled is the same as doing the math. Falling is not the same as calculating an equ…
> That is, just because you can model something mathematically, does not mean that the thing being modeled is the same as doing the math. Falling is not the same as calculating an equation, as it were. This feels like a false dichotomy. The two calculations demonstrate essentially the same function, but one is performed using physical dynamics (the accumulation of something on one side of a boundary) implemented in a…
I wanted to say "but one isn't a calculation, per se. It is a physical process that can be modeled as a calculation."
That said, I don't think I get the point you are driving to. Saying I have 1 apple and you give me another, is very akin to 1 + 1 = 2. Yet, calculating 1 + 1 = 2 in a computer is not "the same" as getting another apple in person. (And that is ignoring all of the data that is thrown away by "1 apple." How many grams/atoms/etc.?)
I grant there is a fun view of reality being a simulation. But even then, there is a difference between simulating something, with all that implies in regards to data you have thrown out, and the thing you are simulating within that simulation. They may be equivalent in some consideration, but I find it a huge stretch to claim they are the same.