Thread: What are your favourite simple things that science just cannot explain?

Oh god....

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Absolutely. If I can't answer it, then it doesn't matter.

What color is my underwear?

doesn't matter...

Today's scientific models are not the most useful way to explore and measure things like morality. That said, through observation, you can for hypotheses like:

- Morality is wired emotionally (that is, if I tell you to rape your grandma, your reaction won't be one of "well logically, that's not moral" but rather, completely kinesthetic (that just feels... ugh)... you'd be _repulsed_ by the thought.

- simplistically, emotions are fired off by chemicals produced by the various "free drug factories" that exist within your body.

- What controls when those chemicals fire off and how, is how you're wired, which can come from both initial conditions, and how you developed (how you were raised, nurtured, what you were exposed to, etc.)

So it all comes from the wiring you've built up over time. Think about all the morality debates you read about, be it the death penalty, or gay marriage, and realize that ALL opinions are basically feelings. The anti-gay-marriage argument is based entirely on "ewww gross" and all the rhetoric around it is just justification to cushion and justify your raw feelings about it (where ever those feelings may have come from). And when we try to use logic to justify those feelings, that's when the popcorn-eating really begins.

But again, that "wiring-level" stuff is just not the most useful way to have a conversation about whether it's okay to murder criminals, etc.

Originally Posted by dajo

doesn't matter...

Brilliant!

Originally Posted by Replicon

Today's scientific models are not the most useful way to explore and measure things like morality. That said, through observation, you can for hypotheses like:

- Morality is wired emotionally (that is, if I tell you to rape your grandma, your reaction won't be one of "well logically, that's not moral" but rather, completely kinesthetic (that just feels... ugh)... you'd be _repulsed_ by the thought.

- simplistically, emotions are fired off by chemicals produced by the various "free drug factories" that exist within your body.

- What controls when those chemicals fire off and how, is how you're wired, which can come from both initial conditions, and how you developed (how you were raised, nurtured, what you were exposed to, etc.)

So it all comes from the wiring you've built up over time. Think about all the morality debates you read about, be it the death penalty, or gay marriage, and realize that ALL opinions are basically feelings. The anti-gay-marriage argument is based entirely on "ewww gross" and all the rhetoric around it is just justification to cushion and justify your raw feelings about it (where ever those feelings may have come from). And when we try to use logic to justify those feelings, that's when the popcorn-eating really begins.

But again, that "wiring-level" stuff is just not the most useful way to have a conversation about whether it's okay to murder criminals, etc.

You forgot the fact that evolution would cause us to dislike having sex with a family member because the offspring has a higher likelihood of being fucked up.
As well as the other evolutionary benefits which gave us "morals".

I touched on some of the evolutionary stuff in a previous thread, but I'm no evolutionary biologist, so I'm sure there's much, much more

Why do we max out and expire somewhere around the 120 year mark?

That's not really a mystery, it's just a result of statistical distributions. Somebody could live to 130, it's just so unlikely that it hasn't happened yet.

Interestingly life expectancy is increasing in a linear fashion. People always say 'it has to top out now' but it keeps going up and up; apparently there could be some selection pressure causing this, but I don't know much about it.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Why do we max out and expire somewhere around the 120 year mark?

Several causes have been determined to cause aging, but one of the most significant is the steady depletion of telomeres, which occurs during every single cell division. Telomeres are sort of like the plastic tips on shoelaces, but for your chromosomes. Once they're depleted to a certain level, your cells can no longer divide and repair themselves as efficiently. One effect of this is that skin cells not only stop dividing, but start producing compounds that break down collagen, resulting in wrinkles and other not so fun things. And then you have cholesterol building up in the arteries for a very long time and an increasing risk for cancer, just for starters. Add it all together, and with our current technology, humans have an expiration date that averages in the mid-70's to low 80's in most developed countries, and seldom exceeds more than 100 years.

Originally Posted by Xei

That's not really a mystery, it's just a result of statistical distributions. Somebody could live to 130, it's just so unlikely that it hasn't happened yet.

Interestingly life expectancy is increasing in a linear fashion. People always say 'it has to top out now' but it keeps going up and up; apparently there could be some selection pressure causing this, but I don't know much about it.

This makes sense but it doesn't really appear to be going up and up. I mean in the sense that centuries ago we could calculate an increase of the expectancy rate to go from 80 years to 120 years to 140 years and so fourth which would be an increase to me. When we look at supercentenarian's we don't get 130's, 140's and so fourth. People just seem to top out in the 110's with the exception of maybe a couple of 120's plus. I believe the oldest living person currently by Guinness books of world records is a Georgian (U.S.) woman 114. But we have no one in their 120's to date as far as I know. I understand the biological process of why we age but the topping out part is what I don't get.

Well, I explained that. There's no physical upper barrier, it's just a probabilistic thing. Roughly you get a bell curve.



That person's probably the American record. The oldest person ever was Jeanne Calment who was a woman from France, and lived to be 122.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I understand the biological process of why we age but the topping out part is what I don't get.

The biological process is what causes topping out. If telomeres get shorter with every replication, there must be a point were telomeres are depleted and cells can not longer divide. In a way, your maximal lifespan is determined by the lengths of telomeres at the moment of your birth, it must have some upper bound.

Personally, I find the theory of telomere lenght as the main reason for ageing and dying of old age unsatisfactory, but it's the best theory we have at this point.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, I explained that. There's no physical upper barrier, it's just a probabilistic thing. Roughly you get a bell curve.

I see what you're saying but in a sense the upper curve would be the barrier.

Originally Posted by Xei

That person's probably the American record. The oldest person ever was Jeanne Calment who was a woman from France, and lived to be 122.

That's correct. That Guinness record I mentioned is for the current living oldest person and not the oldest ever.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

The biological process is what causes topping out. If telomeres get shorter with every replication, there must be a point were telomeres are depleted and cells can not longer divide. In a way, your maximal lifespan is determined by the lengths of telomeres at the moment of your birth, it must have some upper bound.

Personally, I find the theory of telomere lenght as the main reason for ageing and dying of old age unsatisfactory, but it's the best theory we have at this point.

Yea I've read about the Hayflick Limit theory once before, but it doesn't really answer the question. Especially when you take into account the studies conducted on long lived seabirds back in 2003 where Scientists observed that the telomeres of Leach's Storm-petrel (''Oceanodroma leucorhoa'') seem to lengthen with chronological age. However, I agree it is the best theory we have at the moment. I guess I just want something more sound.

EDIT:

And I thought of something else. I like Professor Austad's explanation from the University of Texas who is one of the leading gerontologists. He states how we age is basically that we rust and we cook. Our cells, or the bits and pieces of organelle and metabolism contained within, are destroyed by oxygen as we burn fuel. It's a time factor basically. But what Science cannot explain is what exactly sets the speed of the clock? Damage happens for a reason and happens faster in a mouse than in a dog and faster in a dog than in a human. What exactly is responsible for these differences?

The ecological niche of humans is intelligence. This means we take a lot longer to develop than other animals, and correspondingly we have to live a lot longer to rear our own.

I like that idea but I don't think intelligence is the deciding factor, (if you're referencing that time factor scenario I gave up there). There are a number of animals currently living that would make Jeanne Calment's 122 years of life look as if she were a spring chicken.

Like the Galapagos Tortoise.

Also, Our brains shrink as we get older, I assume there's only so much shrinking it can do before it can't function anymore.
Also muscle wasting could attribute too because the muscle growth hormone slowly depletes also. So your heart would likely be affected by this.

There's probably heaps of things, not just one thing.

science is unwilling to explain how psychedelics work wonders for your mind

Life. Simple. Every being is given life. Life can easily be defined as just pure existence.

But the question of "Why is life is as it is?" cannot be explained by a theory, or the question of "How exactly does life work?" cannot be answered by a scientific law.

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

science is unwilling to explain how psychedelics work wonders for your mind

Are you kidding me. Do you know anything about the history of LSD?

Originally Posted by mikeac

Life can easily be defined as just pure existence.

Yeah.

Wait, what? What does that even mean...

The philosophical 'problem of life' basically dissolved decades ago... go study some basic biology; cell structure, protein synthesis, evolution, that kind of thing, and you'll find life no longer requires magic.

A rock does not completely exist.

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

science is unwilling to explain how psychedelics work wonders for your mind

I think you confuse "science" with "the dogma towards drugs". The latter being political, whereas science typically rates hallucinogenic drugs as not especially harmful. Indeed, several had uses in medicine in the past.

However, I agree it is the best theory we have at the moment. I guess I just want something more sound.

Don't we all. Not only is it an interesting mystery, but a detailed understanding of the mechanisms helps with treatments and prevention.