/sci/ - Science & Math

Quick question, /sci/:

Would it ever bother any of you if it turned out that the Internet was actually AI?

I mean, I'd find it absurd. But honestly, it's a matter I'd have trouble arguing against.

>>4587698
>/grep/ - a search utility
...

Gentlemen, I'll be right back. I need to test something.

The evolutionary history of cell differentiation is confusing to me. It's not been explained to me very well.

It doesn't make much sense to me that just about all animals are both multicelluar and have stem cells (or some form of them). And yet the majority of Protozoans we come across are single-celled with no differentiation.

With plants and fungi, you have plenty of protists that are multicellular and have cell differentiation. But with animals, just about anything with more than one cell is labeled as an animal.

Can someone explain this to me why there's nothing wrong with this or explain where I got confused?

The evolutionary history of cell differentiation is one I'd like to see questioned more. Or at least explained to me more. I have a poor grasp of it.

Doesn't make much sense to me that just about all animals are both multicelluar and have stem cells (or some form of them). And yet the majority of Protozoans we come across are single-celled with no differentiation.

With plants and fungi, you have plenty of protists that are multicellular and have cell differentiation. But with animals, just about anything with more than one cell is labeled as an animal. Can someone explain this to me?

>>4349560
I implied that?

Odd. I think I'd remember doing something like that.

Gentlemen; I have a proposition to make. I think we should begin searching for alternative philosophical systems to logic, and begin looking for systems which are "illogical" to try and find what is more conventional. Hear me out for a moment, because even if it sounds crazy, I promise it will make at least a bit of sense.

Both an axe and a saw will cut down a tree, right? If you have an axe, can you chop down the tree? Of course. But does that necessarily mean that a saw wouldn't be better? Not really.

But here's the problem: How does one go from inventing the axe to inventing the saw? The two achieve the same objective, but the means each one does it is so radically different that they're almost completely unrelated.

Now let's say that it was the axe was considered so much more conventional than the saw (due to not needing other people) that it was made the standard for all lumber. Now let's say that machines are invented. With the invention of machines, it's completely unnecessary for a person to cut down the tree with just single handed brute force. So wouldn't it only be natural to attach a machine to an axe so that a person doesn't have to do all the work? But if that's the case, how does one conventionally attach an axe to a machine?

The answer, it turns out, is that the saw was actually better for the job. Only by reexploring the saw do we invent objects like the buzzsaw and the chainsaw, which turn out to be far more conventional.

Our current scientific theories are like the axe. They work, but they are clunky. What we are looking for is a chainsaw, but we might never find if if we're trying to constantly improve the axe.

con't