icosahedron

my parents were understandably pissed because i had deleted at least a few hundred gigabytes of photos and videos from the last decade. iirc i was banned from touching the computer for at least a year, which was funny because i was literally the only one who used it

growing up my family had a mac desktop that i had access to while really young. eventually realized mac is a little terrible, so i tried bootcamp to get some proper use out of the computer. i successfully installed windows, but somehow fucked up and formatted the mac partition. all for windows to also suck

lithium only has one valence electron. it really wants to get rid of that valence electron. halogens such as the pictured fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine have seven valence electrons. they really want to obtain one more valence electron to form a stable outer shell. thus, the lithium donates its electron, forming an ionic compound

aaaa ko li utala e mi la mi utala e ko

ko li utala e mi!!!! mi wile moli e ko ale!

if ios, then Arctic for sure. it's the only one that feels as smooth as apollo did, has some excellent customizability, and is just as feature rich as the more popular clients

the comments on there are not encouraging at all

juvenoia

mtM

fan art of blue archive, a gacha game

i'd agree that we don't really understand consciousness. i'd argue it's more an issue of defining consciousness and what that encompasses than knowing its biological background. if we knew what to look for, we'd find it. also anesthesia isn't really a problem at all. in fact, we know exactly how general anesthesia works

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908224/

and Penroses's Orch OR theory was never meant to explain anesthesia. it's a more general theory concerning the overall existence of consciousness in the first place. however, anesthesia does relate to the theory, in that it could play a role in proving it (i think? not a primary source but it's where i found that info)

besides that, Orch OR isn't exactly a great model in the first place, or at least from a neurological standpoint. even among theories of consciousness, Orch OR is particularly controversial and not widely accepted. i'm no expert and i could be misunderstanding, so please correct me if i'm missing something that would indicate Orch OR is considered even remotely plausible compared to other consciousness theories. this paper certainly had some things to say about it in the context of the validity of theories of consciousness (see V.1 class I).

other theories seem more promising. global workspace theory seems particularly well supported by neurology. its criticisms mainly focus on how GWT fails to truly explain the nature of consciousness. but is that an issue any theory can resolve? again, the problem lies in the definition of consciousness.

then we have integrated information theory. it's a more mathematical model that aims to quantify the human experience. but you know what? it's also controversial and highly debated, to the point that it's been called pseudoscientific because it implies a degree of panpsychism. it's clearly not a perfect theory.

point is, you're right. we don't really get consciousness. we have some wild guesses out there, and penrose's theory is certainly one of them. genius as penrose is, Orch OR isn't empirically testable. we don't know, and maybe can't know - which is precisely why neuroscience searches elsewhere