GPR39 as a Therapeutic Target in Vascular Cognitive Impairment Dementia – The University of Arizona Health Sciences |

Please join Dr. Nabil Alkayed, Professor of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, Neurology, Neurological Surgery, Cardiovascular Medicine and Physiology & Pharmacology at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) for a presentation over breakfast.

Dr. Alkayeds presentation will review human and experimental evidence for the role of eicosanoid signaling in aging-related cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID), specifically focusing on the role of P450 eicosanoids and the newly discovered G protein-coupled receptor 39 (GPR39). Evidence supporting the role of GPR39 in VCID in humans and animal models sets the stage for therapeutic development and other clinical applications.

Excerpt from:
GPR39 as a Therapeutic Target in Vascular Cognitive Impairment Dementia - The University of Arizona Health Sciences |

FAIR Institute Introduces FAIR-CAM to Help Cybersecurity Teams Assess Effectiveness of Risk Management Controls to Make More Cost-Effective Business…

An extension of the FAIR model, FAIR Controls Analytics Model (FAIR-CAM), allows analysts to map controls to risk more easily and reliably

RESTON, Va., Oct. 20, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The FAIR Institute, a non-profit professional organization dedicated to advancing the discipline of measuring and managing information risk, has launched its FAIR Control Analytics Model (FAIR-CAM), making cyber risk quantification even more useful as a decision support tool. It provides the means to map and account for risk management controls when performing a FAIR analysis, enabling analysts to more accurately measure the risk-reduction value of controls in terms that are accessible to the business.

While most control assessment practices simply express control conditions as ordinal scores (1 through 5, or red, yellow, green), these values are abstract and subjective, as they arent actual units of measurement, like percentages, time, units of money, etc. As a result, control measurements tend to be less reliable, making it difficult for cybersecurity teams to translate control improvements into risk reduction. The FAIR-CAM model addresses this critical knowledge gap.

The FAIR (Factor Analysis of Information Risk) cyber risk model has already emerged as the premier Value at Risk model for cybersecurity and operational risk. To add to this recognized industry standard, the FAIR-CAM controls model will provide these crucial units of measurement for each control function, which means cybersecurity teams can empirically measure the efficacy of controls. And because the FAIR-CAM model overlays its control functions on top of the FAIR model, analysts will be able to determine how much less risk will exist as controls improve (or vice versa).

Whereas FAIR quantifies the frequency and magnitude (in dollar terms) of cyber loss events, the FAIR-CAM model quantifies the effectiveness of controls for reducing that frequency and magnitude. Combining the two enables risk and security organizations to measure the risk reduction value of controls and controls systems more easily and reliably.

Story continues

Existing control frameworks or risk scores are lists of individual controls or control objectives. However, none of these frameworks formally define the many ways in which controls directly or indirectly affect risk, explained Jack Jones, president, FAIR Institute. A useful analogy is the difference between the anatomy of a human body, and its physiology. Anatomy is a list of the parts (bones, muscles, nerves, organs, etc.), while physiology is a description of how those parts function both individually and as a system.

"Existing frameworks provide a useful anatomy for cybersecurity controls, and the FAIR-CAM model describes control physiology. It provides the missing link between todays control frameworks and risk measurement. This enables reliable measurement of control efficacy and value, so that organizations make better use of their limited resources to manage cybersecurity and risk.

The FAIR-CAM controls model maps to all the popular controls frameworks, such as NIST, ISO, and CIS, and will help security teams get more value from frameworks. Rather than conducting simple gap analysis, teams can make well-informed choices among the controls recommended by the frameworks, based on quantifiable risk reduction.

The FAIR-CAM controls model goes a long way in connecting the dots within the cyber risk equation. In particular, it will help organizations like Highmark Health take a more practical approach to operationalize cyber risk management by mapping controls to risks. This will enable us to more confidently evaluate controls to determine which ones to grow, sustain or sunset, said Omar Khawaja, CISO, Highmark Health.

About the FAIR InstituteThe FAIR Institute is an expert, non-profit organization led by information risk officers, CISOs and business executives, created to develop and share standard risk management practices based on FAIR. Factor Analysis of Information Risk (FAIR) is the only international standard analytics model for information security and operational risk. FAIR helps organizations quantify and manage risk from the business perspective and enables cost-effective decision-making. To learn more and get involved visit: http://www.fairinstitute.org.

FAIR Institute education partners include Arizona State University, Carnegie Mellon University, Center for Applied Cyber Education, Ferris State University, George Mason University, Harvard University, Macquarie University, Pepperdine, San Jose State University, University of Massachusetts Amherst, University of Tampa, University of Toronto, Virginia Tech, and Washington University in St. Louis.

Media Contact:

Cathy Morley FosterEskenzi PRcathy@eskenzipr.com925.708.7893

Read the original:
FAIR Institute Introduces FAIR-CAM to Help Cybersecurity Teams Assess Effectiveness of Risk Management Controls to Make More Cost-Effective Business...

Does Taking a Hot Bath Really Have the Same Health Benefits as Exercising? – Livestrong

Hot baths offer some of the same benefits as exercise, but they should not replace your workouts.

Image Credit: PRImageFactory/iStock/GettyImages

A rise in body temperature, sweat and heart rate these physical responses are the most common signs of a strenuous aerobic workout. But these same physiological reactions are also strikingly similar to the ones you experience soaking in a hot bath.

That's what the authors of a December 2020 review published in the Journal of Applied Physiology concluded. They also discovered that regular hot baths could offer many of the same health benefits as moderate-intensity exercise.

In fact, one small study in the review found that two months of cycling (three times a week for 30 minutes) compared to the same number of time-matched warm baths produced comparable improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness and vascular health in young sedentary male adults.

But does that really mean you can skip your spin class for some time in the tub and still reap the same benefits? Here, John Higgins, MD, a sports cardiologist with McGovern Medical School at UTHealth in Houston, assesses the benefits of a hot bath and their limits versus exercise.

When compared to moderate-intensity exercise, regular hot baths have many of the same health pluses.

1. They Improve Blood Flow and Blood Pressure

It's well documented that exercise has protective effects on vascular health. But research also points to similar advantages of hot baths.

For example, a June 2016 study in The Journal of Physiology found that eight weeks of regular hot baths helped reduce arterial stiffness and reduced blood pressure in young sedentary adults.

"Hot baths increase blood flow not only to skin but also to other vital organs," Dr. Higgins says. This boost in blood flow promotes the production of more nitric oxide, which keeps the blood vessel walls smooth and prevents inflammation and plaque build-up, he explains.

The increased dilation of blood vessels also leads to a lowering in blood pressure, Dr. Higgins adds.

2. They Increase Your Heart Rate

Just like a brisk jog, stepping into a hot bath will raise your heart rate.

Here's why: A steamy bath causes the blood vessels to dilate and lowers your blood pressure. Consequently, "your heart rate speeds up to compensate," Dr. Higgins says.

Indeed, the same review in the Journal of Applied Physiology found that passive heating (such as taking a hot bath) can increase heart rate between 20 to 40 beats per minute. Still, it's worth noting that this effect is substantially milder compared to the rise that occurs during moderate-intensity exercise.

3. They May Help Reduce Inflammation

Exercise can help curb chronic low-grade inflammation which drives many diseases and there's some evidence that regular hot baths can have a similar benefit.

Hot bathing can decrease inflammatory markers, which may reduce your risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality by as much as 25 percent, Dr. Higgins says. But the long-term effects of hot baths on inflammation aren't certain and more research is needed.

4. They Promote Better Blood Sugar Levels

Research has found that just three weeks of daily hot bathing can improve blood glucose levels in people with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Higgins says.

For instance, a July 2015 study in Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care found that heat therapy, such as using a sauna or hot tub, shows some promise in treating type 2 diabetes.

The extreme heat can cause your blood vessels to dilate, which makes your body absorb insulin more quickly and as a result, lower blood sugar levels, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

5. They Can Help Boost Mood

Anyone who's ever experienced a runner's high or the feel-good rush of post-workout endorphins can confirm exercise can boost your mood.

Apparently, so can a hot soak. Warm baths may reduce stress hormones and help balance serotonin levels, which play a role in regulating mood, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

In addition, some research shows that bathing in hot water (104 degrees Fahrenheit) for a half-hour can help decrease depression symptoms, per the Cleveland Clinic.

While hot baths may mimic some of the health benefits of exercise, there are certain things they simply can't do. Here are a few:

1. They Dont Build Muscle, Strength or Bone Density

Exercise puts force on a muscle, leading to muscle damage and subsequent repair and growth (as well as increased bone density), Dr. Higgins says.

But you can't build lean muscle and sturdy bones or make strength gains by relaxing in a hot bath. "To build and strengthen muscles, you have to use them," Dr. Higgins says.

2. They Dont Enhance Endurance

Though a hot bath can raise heart rate temporarily, it can't help you sustain physical activity for an extended period. In other words, it won't support your stamina.

To improve your endurance, you must increase the distance, time or difficulty of an exercise, and this does not happen with a hot bath, Dr. Higgins says.

3. They Dont Support Weight Loss

While working out can be part of a healthy weight loss (or weight management) strategy, a steamy soak in the tub won't foster fat loss or lower your BMI.

Case in point: The same Journal of Applied Physiology review found that eight weeks of moderate-intensity cycling reduced body weight whereas hot baths did not. That may be because aerobic exercise burns more than 10 times the calories as passive heating.

When to Take a Hot Bath for the Best Benefits

The best time to reap the benefits of a hot bath is right after a workout, Dr. Higgins says. Thirty minutes in the tub can soothe sore muscles and support muscle recovery and growth.

That's because hot baths improve blood flow, which helps repair and rebuild muscle fibers and reduce inflammation, Dr. Higgins says.

For an even greater bang for your bath buck, add Epsom salts, which can help loosen muscles and alleviate pain, per the Cleveland Clinic. Three hundred grams should do the trick.

For the optimal hot bath benefits, aim to take a hot bath four times weekly and soak for 30 to 60 minutes, Dr. Higgins says.

While there are many benefits of taking a hot bath, they can also dry out your skin. To avoid this, dont soak in steamy water every day. And try these tips:

So, Can Hot Baths Replace Exercise?

"The best way to think about a hot bath is (pardon the pun) like a watered-down version of exercise," Dr. Higgins says. With a hot bath, you get some of the vascular benefits of exercise, but not the major cardiorespiratory or cardiometabolic gains of moving your body.

So, if you only have 30 minutes in your schedule, going for a jog or taking an aerobics class will always be better than 30 minutes of lying in a hot tub, Dr. Higgins says.

In other words, hot baths should not be used as a substitute for exercise but rather as a complement to your regular workout regimen.

Continue reading here:
Does Taking a Hot Bath Really Have the Same Health Benefits as Exercising? - Livestrong

Ice baths: UCLan researchers find out if we’re doing it all wrong – Lancashire Post

The study, led by UCLan in Preston and published in the scientific journal Sports Sciences for Health, invited athletes, coaches and support practitioners to provide anonymous feedback

about their current cold-water immersion (CWI) protocols.

Out of the 111 respondents, most were involved in elite sport at international, national and club level, with many having used CWI previously and 78 percent finding it beneficial for

The study found that more than half of the respondents used a water temperature outside of the recommended range of 9C to 15C and only 14 per cent spent the recommended duration

of 10 to 15 minutes in the water.

The most popular immersion time was only two and a half to five minutes long with many coaches setting a temperature of below 5C and athletes having no set temperature target.

Dr Robert Allan, lecturer in human physiology at UCLan and lead author on the research paper, said: Whilst many athletes, coaches and support practitioners are aware of the many

physiological benefits associated with post-exercise CWI, such as reductions in tissue temperature, alterations in blood flow and pain relief benefits, there seems a discordance between

the knowledge of the benefits and understanding of the mechanisms controlling them.

The protocol used during cold-water immersion is important; with the temperature of water, duration and depth of immersion important variables to consider.

Ultimately short durations will be unable to illicit sufficient reductions to either core or muscle temperatures and have any subsequent impact on physiological mechanisms.

In many cases, what is being used in practice will not be stimulating the benefits trying to be achieved.

Dr James Malone, senior lecturer in coaching science at Liverpool Hope University, was also involved in the study.

He said: This study highlights some of the potential gaps that can occur between what the science is telling us and what actually happens in practice.

Myself and Dr Allan are part of a five-person team currently producing an expert statement on the use of cooling therapies for exercise recovery on behalf of the British Association of

Sport and Exercise Sciences (BASES). We believe that this work will help to better educate the wider audience around the best use of cooling therapies, such as cold-water immersion, to

help narrow the gap between research and practice.

Thanks for reading. If you value what we do and are able to support us, a digital subscription is just 1 for your first month. Try us today by clicking here

Original post:
Ice baths: UCLan researchers find out if we're doing it all wrong - Lancashire Post

Researchers identify a common gene variant that drives the efficiency and outcome of dialysis – News-Medical.Net

Every day, the human kidneys clean about 1,500 liters of blood by producing approximately 12 liters of urine. Thereby, the body gets rid of excess water and toxic waste products of the metabolism or also drugs and maintains the balance of water and minerals in the tissues.

While waiting for kidney transplantation, patients with chronic kidney failure must be treated regularly with dialysis that cleanses the body of fluid and deleterious substances. Peritoneal dialysis, which can be done at home with only minimal medical and technical support, is gaining popularity across the world. Today, kidney failure is a growing medical concern, concerning up to 10% of individuals globally.

An international research team led by the University of Zurich (UZH) has now identified a common variant in the AQP1 gene coding for the water channel called Aquaporin-1 that has a significant effect on treatment efficacy and patient survival on dialysis.

The identification of this common genetic factor regulating the expression of Aquaporin-1, which is associated with a higher risk of death and technique failure, provides a big step for precision medicine in dialysis. The gene variant is driving the outcome of peritoneal dialysis and the choice of treatment modalities, which is very important for the care and outcome of patients with kidney failure."

Olivier Devuyst, Study Last Author and Coordinator, Department of Physiology, University of Zurich

The efficiency of dialysis depends on how well it removes excess of water, restores normal body fluid status, and clears waste substances. Peritoneal dialysis is based on osmosis: the introduction of an osmotic solution in the peritoneal cavity drives water transport preferentially through the Aquaporin-1 channels, which constitute the body's plumbing system. Previous studies by Devuyst' group showed that Aquaporin-1 is abundant in endothelial cells lining capillaries of the peritoneum, where it mediates fast osmotic water transport across cell membranes and up to half of the water removal during dialysis, a process named ultrafiltration.

To test which effects gene variants for Aquaporin-1 have on ultrafiltration and outcome in dialyses, the researchers followed 1,851 patients of diverse ethnic origins for several years and analyzed their data. Using a variety of techniques ranging from human genetics to mouse models, modeling and cellular studies, the team was able to show that patients carrying a common variant in the Aquaporin-1 gene have a lower level of this protein in their tissues.

Hence, their basic capacity to move water across cell membranes is decreased. Devuyst adds: "Our research shows that relatively common genetic variants the AQP1 variant is detected in about 30% of the population may affect fundamental processes, but are only exposed in special circumstances like the dialysis here".

Carrying the Aquaporin-1 variant is deleterious in patients treated by peritoneal dialysis, because the lower expression of water channels impairs a full removal of water by the treatment. This situation causes an overload of water and an increased risk of death due to various complications. In fact, peritoneal dialysis patients carrying the variant have a 70% higher risk to die or to be transferred to hemodialysis in hospitals compared to patients not carrying the defective gene. The team consisting of researchers and clinicians from six different countries present a way to circumvent this problem: "It is possible to overcome the genetic defect by using specific osmotic solutions that attract water independently of aquaporins so-called colloid osmotic agents instead of glucose," says Olivier Devuyst.

Source:

Journal reference:

Morelle, J., et al. (2021) AQP1 Promoter Variant, Water Transport, and Outcomes in Peritoneal Dialysis. New England Journal of Medicine. doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2034279.

See the original post:
Researchers identify a common gene variant that drives the efficiency and outcome of dialysis - News-Medical.Net

World Space Week was held from 4 to 10 October – India Education Diary

PetrSU scientists are summing up the results of their scientific research in the field of space physiology.Since 2015, the Department of Human and Animal Physiology, Pathophysiology, Histology of the Medical Institute of PetrSU has been conducting research to study the effect of ground-based simulated weightlessness on the body of an elderly person suffering from Parkinsons disease.

This year there were 3 articles in the journal Human Physiology and 2 articles in the journal Frontiers in Physiology, 3 articles are under review or ready for submission.

It should be said that, judging by the statistics of readings and downloads, the interest in these articles is huge, especially in Germany, Belgium, the USA and the PRC. We attribute this to recent flights to suborbital space by two private spaceships Jeff Bazos on Blue Origin and Richard Branson on VVS Unit with a crew of elderly tourists.

As a prospect, we reported in our articles that soon flights of older people into suborbital space will be a reality, but there is little research on the physiology of an elderly person in space, and on a person with neurodegenerative diseases, there are no at all. Our studies have shown that a short-term state of weightlessness, with careful selection of applicants, does not have negative consequences for the cardiovascular system, even for a patient with parkinsonism. In some respects, this flight is even useful. In fact, with our work, we have closed a large gap in space physiology and the rationale for space tourism. The recent arrival on the ISS of a team to shoot the first space movie only confirms this trend.

said medical scientists, professors A.Yu. Meigal and L.I. Gerasimova-Meigal.

In April of this year, the Human in Space conference was held, in May the traditional conference of the International Society of Gravitational Physiology (ISGP42), which were dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the first manned flight into space. The members of this organization are professors. The Road to Space conference has just been held.

The last event is worth noting, since this conference is held within the framework of the World Space Week (October 4-10), which this year was dedicated to women in astronautics, as well as within the framework of the Space Science Days held under the auspices of Roscosmos in honor of the launch of the first Earth satellite and the Russian Year of Science and Technology. In general, there are many significant events.

We spoke at all conferences with the scientific results of many years of research, talking about the prospects for education in the field of space medicine. In the future, the department will continue to cooperate with the Center for Aerospace Medicine and Technologies in Moscow on the use of virtual reality methods to assess the reaction rate in zero gravity, the introduction of such new physiological research methods as the assessment of cerebral circulation during immersion, the phenomenon of muscle tone in conditions of model zero gravity, investigation of the reactions of interception of a moving target. We will also continue our educational and educational mission, because it is more interesting to study with space.

A simple example. Physiology textbooks pay very little attention to the fact that all our physiological functions (and their pathophysiological changes) occur under conditions of gravity and are essentially antigravitational. This applies to movement, orientation in space, the usual upright standing and holding the posture, the movement of blood, especially venous blood, the ratio of ventilation and perfusion in the lungs. In general, it makes you be a physicist, biophysicist, mechanic and more and more often look into the textbook of elementary physics.

The project to immerse patients with parkinsonism in a state of ground zero gravity has become a real catalyst for cooperation, in which more and more colleagues from various institutes of PetrSU are involved,

told the scientists of PetrSU L.I. Gerasimova-Meigal and A.Yu. Meigal.

View original post here:
World Space Week was held from 4 to 10 October - India Education Diary

Would We Still See Ourselves as ‘Human’ if Other Hominin Species Hadn’t Gone Extinct? – Singularity Hub

In our mythologies, theres often a singular moment when we became human. Eve plucked the fruit of the tree of knowledge and gained awareness of good and evil. Prometheus created men from clay and gave them fire. But in the modern origin story, evolution, theres no defining moment of creation. Instead, humans emerged gradually, generation by generation, from earlier species.

As with any other complex adaptationa birds wing, a whales fluke, our own fingersour humanity evolved step by step, over millions of years. Mutations appeared in our DNA, spread through the population, our ancestors slowly became something more like us and, finally, we appeared.

People are animals, but were unlike other animals. We have complex languages that let us articulate and communicate ideas. Were creative: we make art, music, tools. Our imaginations let us think up worlds that once existed, dream up worlds that might yet exist, and reorder the external world according to those thoughts. Our social lives are complex networks of families, friends, and tribes, linked by a sense of responsibility towards each other. We also have awareness of ourselves and our universe: sentience, sapience, consciousness, whatever you call it.

And yet the distinction between ourselves and other animals is, arguably, artificial. Animals are more like humans than we might thinkor like to think. Almost all behavior we once considered unique to ourselves is seen in animals, even if theyre less well developed.

Thats especially true of the great apes. Chimps, for example, have simple gestural and verbal communication. They make crude tools, even weapons, and different groups have different suites of toolsdistinct cultures. Chimps also have complex social lives and cooperate with each other.

As Darwin noted in Descent of Man, almost everything odd about Homo sapiensemotion, cognition, language, tools, societyexists, in some primitive form, in other animals. Were different, but less different than we think.

And in the past, some species were far more like us than other apes: Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo erectus, and Neanderthals. Homo sapiens is the only survivor of a once diverse group of humans and human-like apes, the hominins, which includes around 20 known species and probably dozens of unknown species.

The extinction of those other hominins wiped out all the species that were intermediate between ourselves and other apes, creating the impression that some vast, unbridgeable gulf separates us from the rest of life on Earth. But the division would be far less clear if those species still existed. What looks like a bright, sharp dividing line is really an artefact of extinction.

The discovery of these extinct species now blurs that line again and shows how the distance between us and other animals was crossedgradually, over millennia.

Our lineage probably split from the chimpanzees around six million years ago. These first hominins, members of the human line, would barely have seemed human, however. For the first few million years, hominin evolution was slow.

The first big change was walking upright, which let hominins move away from forests into more open grassland and bush. But if they walked like us, nothing else suggests the first hominins were any more human than chimps or gorillas. Ardipithecus, the earliest well-known hominin, had a brain that was slightly smaller than a chimps, and theres no evidence they used tools.

In the next million years, Australopithecus appeared. Australopithecus had a slightly larger brain;larger than a chimps, still smaller than a gorillas. It made slightly more sophisticated tools than chimps, using sharp stones to butcher animals.

Then came Homo habilis. For the first time, hominin brain size exceeded that of other apes. Tools like stone flakes, hammer stones, and choppers became much more complex. After that, around two million years ago, human evolution accelerated, for reasons were yet to understand.

At this point, Homo erectus appeared. Erectus was taller, more like us in stature, and had large brains, several times bigger than a chimps brain and up to two-thirds the size of ours. They made sophisticated tools, such as stone hand axes. This was a major technological advance. Hand axes needed skill and planning to create, and you probably had to be taught how to make one. It may have been a meta-tool used to fashion other tools, such as spears and digging sticks.

Like us, Homo erectus had small teeth. That suggests a shift from plant-based diets to eating more meat, probably from hunting.

Its here that our evolution seems to accelerate. The big-brained Erectus soon gave rise to even larger-brained species. These highly intelligent hominins spread through Africa and Eurasia, evolving into Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo rhodesiensis, and archaic Homo sapiens. Technology became far more advanced; stone-tipped spears and firemaking appeared. Objects with no clear functionality, such as jewelry and art, also showed up over the past half-million years.

Some of these species were startlingly like us in their skeletons, and their DNA.

Homo neanderthalensis, the Neanderthals, had brains approaching ours in size, and evolved even larger brains over time until the last Neanderthals had cranial capacities comparable to a modern humans. They might have thought of themselves, even spoke of themselves, as human.

The Neanderthal archaeological record records uniquely human behavior, suggesting a mind resembling ours. Neanderthals were skilled, versatile hunters, exploiting everything from rabbits to rhinoceroses and woolly mammoths. They made sophisticated tools, such as throwing spears tipped with stone points. They fashioned jewelry from shells, animal teeth, and eagle talons, and made cave art. And Neanderthal ears were, like ours, adapted to hear the subtleties of speech. We know they buried their dead, and probably mourned them.

Theres so much about Neanderthals we dont know, and never will. But if they were so like us in their skeletons and their behavior, its reasonable to guess they may have been like us in other ways that dont leave a recordthat they sang and danced, that they feared spirits and worshipped gods, that they wondered at the stars, told stories, laughed with friends, and loved their children. To the extent Neanderthals were like us, they must have been capable of acts of great kindness and empathy, but also cruelty, violence, and deceit.

Far less is known about other species, like Denisovans, Homo rhodesiensis, and extinct sapiens, but its reasonable to guess from their large brains and human-looking skulls that they were also very much like us.

I admit this sounds speculative, but for one detail. The DNA of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other hominins is found in us. We met them, and we had children together. That says a lot about how human they were.

Its not impossible that Homo sapiens took Neanderthal women captive, or vice versa. But for Neanderthal genes to enter our populations, we had to not only mate but successfully raise children, who grew up to raise children of their own. Thats more likely to happen if these pairings resulted from voluntary intermarriage. Mixing of genes also required their hybrid descendants to become accepted into their groups; to be treated as fully human.

These arguments hold not only for the Neanderthals, Id argue, but for other species we interbred with, including Denisovansand unknown hominins in Africa. Which isnt to say that encounters between our species were without prejudice, or entirely peaceful. We were probably responsible for the extinction of these species. But there must have been times we looked past our differences to find a shared humanity.

Finally, its telling that while we did replace these other hominins, this took time. Extinction of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other species took hundreds of thousands of years. If Neanderthals and Denisovans were really just stupid, grunting brutes, lacking language or complex thought, its impossible they could have held modern humans off as long as they did.

Why, if they were so like us, did we replace them? Its unclear, which suggests the difference was something that doesnt leave clear marks in fossils or stone tools. Perhaps a spark of creativitya way with words, a knack for tools, social skillsgave us an edge. Whatever the difference was, it was subtle, or it wouldnt have taken us so long to win out.

While we dont know exactly what these differences were, our distinctive skull shape may offer a clue. Neanderthals had elongated crania, with massive brow ridges. Humans have a bulbous skull, shaped like a soccer ball, and lack brow ridges. Curiously, the peculiar smooth, round head of adult Homo sapiens is seen in young Neanderthals,and even baby apes.

Similarly, juvenilized skulls of wild animals are found in domesticated ones, like domestic dogs: an adult dog skull resembles the skull of a wolf pup. These similarities arent just superficial. Dogs are behaviorally like young wolves, less aggressive and more playful.

My suspicion, mostly a hunch, is that Homo sapiens edge might not necessarily be raw intelligence, but differences in attitude. Like dogs, we may retain juvenile behaviors, things like playfulness, openness to meeting new people, lower aggression, more creativity and curiosity. This in turn might have helped us make our societies larger, more complex, collaborative, open, and innovative, which then outcompeted theirs.

Until now, Ive dodged an important question, arguably the most important one. Its all well and good to discuss how our humanity evolved, but what even is humanity? How can we study and recognize it without defining it?

People tend to assume that theres something that makes us fundamentally different from other animals. Most people, for example, would tend to think that its okay to sell, cook, or eat a cow, but not to do the same to the butcher. This would be, well, inhuman. As a society, we tolerate displaying chimps and gorillas in cages but would be uncomfortable doing this to each other. Similarly, we can go to a shop and buy a puppy or a kitten, but not a baby.

The rules are different for us and them. Even die-hard animal-rights activists advocate animal rights for animals, not human rights. No one is proposing giving apes the right to vote or stand for office. We inherently see ourselves as occupying a different moral and spiritual plane. We might bury our dead pet, but we wouldnt expect the dogs ghost to haunt us, or to find the cat waiting in heaven.

And yet, its hard to find evidence for this kind of fundamental difference.

The word humanity implies taking care of and having compassion for each other, but thats arguably a mammalian quality, not a human one. A mother cat cares for her kittens, and a dog loves his master, perhaps more than any human does. Killer whales and elephants form lifelong family bonds. Orcas grieve for their dead calves, and elephants have been seen visiting the remains of their dead companions. Emotional lives and relationships arent unique to us.

Perhaps its awareness that sets us apart. But dogs and cats certainly seem aware of us they recognize us as individuals, as we recognize them. They understand us well enough to know how to get us to give them food, or let them out the door, or even when weve had a bad day and need company. If thats not awareness, what is?

We might point to our large brains as setting us apart, but does that make us human? Bottlenose dolphins have somewhat larger brains than we do. Elephant brains are three times the size of ours; orcas, four times; and sperm whales, five times. Brain size also varies in humans. Albert Einstein had a relatively small brainsmaller than the average Neanderthal, Denisovan, or Homo rhodesiensis was he less human? Something other than brain size must make us humanor maybe theres more going on in the minds of other animals, including extinct hominins, than we think.

We could define humanity in terms of higher cognitive abilities like art, math, music, or language. This creates a curious problem because humans vary in how well we do all these things. Im less mathematically inclined than Steven Hawking, less literary than Jane Austen, less inventive than Steve Jobs, less musical than Taylor Swift, less articulate than Martin Luther King. In these respects, am I less human than they are?

If we cant even define it, how can we really say where it starts and where it ends, or that were unique? Why do we insist on treating other species as inherently inferior if were not exactly sure what makes us, us?

Neither are we necessarily the logical endpoint of human evolution. We were one of many hominin species, and yes, we won out. But its possible to imagine another evolutionary course, a different sequence of mutations and historical events leading to Neanderthal archaeologists studying our strange, bubble-like skulls, wondering just how human we were.

The nature of evolution means that living things dont fit into neat categories. Species gradually change from one into another, and every individual in a species is slightly different; that makes evolutionary change possible. But that makes defining humanity hard.

Were both unlike other animals due to natural selection, but like them because of shared ancestry; the same, yet different. And we humans are both like and unlike each other; united by common ancestry with other Homo sapiens, different due to evolution and the unique combination of genes we inherit from our families or even other species, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans.

Its hard to classify living things in strict categories, because evolution constantly changes things, creating diverse species and diversity within species.

And what diversity it is.

True, in some ways, our species isnt that diverse. Homo sapiens shows less genetic diversity than your average bacterial strain; our bodies show less variation in shape than sponges, or roses, or oak trees.

But in our behavior, humanity is wildly diverse. We are hunters, farmers, mathematicians, soldiers, explorers, carpenters, criminals, artists. There are so many different ways of being human, so many different aspects to the human condition, and each of us has to define and discover what it means to be human. It is, ironically, this inability to define humanity that is one of our most human characteristics.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image Credit: hairymuseummatt viaWikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA)

Read the original here:
Would We Still See Ourselves as 'Human' if Other Hominin Species Hadn't Gone Extinct? - Singularity Hub

Would You Trust Teslas FSD Beta After Watching This Video? – CarScoops

Teslas driver assistance systems are currently under the scrutiny by federal authorities, but video footage of its full-self driving package in operation shows just how close it is to replicating real human behavior.

You might even say its a little too human-like after watching this video from AI DRIVR. The Tesla-driving YouTuber has been testing out the FSD Beta software for several months on his Model S and produced a number of videos that show the technology attempting to tackle different real-world traffic scenarios. And the latest video shows just how much more confident FSD has become in its latest 10.2 incarnation.

First, in its recent form it seems much better at predicting the behavior of other vehicles, rather than simply seeing their initial movement something thats always been one of the biggest issue with basic adaptive cruise control systems. We see a mail truck go to make a three-point turn in the road, and instead of trying to fit through the gap that appears when the truck makes the first part of its maneuver, the Tesla waits for the truck to back up and drive away.

But in other situations its assertiveness is genuinely surprising. It creeps forward at intersections on the Berkley, CA, route, and begins to move into the road before the other cars have fully cleared, just as a human driver might. At one junction it even cheekily cuts in front of a Prius, again, like a human might if they were late for work, and is rewarded by a blast of horn from the irate Toyota driver.

Related: Elon Musk Says Teslas Beta Testers Are Ignoring Their NDAs

The Model Seven treats stop signs like humans often do, not quite coming to a halt as it goes to make a right turn, but simply checking the road is clear before moving out. The maneuver is safe, but an officious cop could still pull you over.And when it needs to move wide to give cyclists room it crosses the central lines, moving deep into the oncoming lane, unperturbed by an approaching car. Which a human might do, too, but is a rather ill-advised move.

Tesla has received criticism from some tech experts for relying solely on camera-based systems rather than highly detailed maps and lidar, a technology Elon Musk has described as a stupid, expensive and unnecessary. Instead, it hopes to improve its cars self-driving capabilities by developing a neural network, drawing on the behavior and experiences of Tesla drivers.

Although Musk conceded that Teslas FSD Beta was actually not that great back in August, on this evidence, FSD does a mostly great job of tackling some tricky traffic situations on Berkleys narrow, twisty streets. But it doesnt get everything right, occasionally veering between lanes (fortunately on a quiet bit of road) when it gets confused. And there were a couple of occasions when the driver had to intervene.

Tesla warns drivers participating in the FSD Beta test to keep hold of the wheel at all times, and AI DRIVR claims he does, but you can imagine many other drivers leaving the car to its own devices.So, having seen this footage, would you let a FSD Tesla drive you home?

View post:
Would You Trust Teslas FSD Beta After Watching This Video? - CarScoops

Dogs may not return their owners’ good deeds – Vet Candy

Domestic dogs show many adaptations to living closely with humans, but they do not seem to reciprocate food-giving according to a study.

The researchers trained 37 domestic dogs to operate a food dispenser by pressing a button, before separating the button and dispenser in separate enclosures. In the first stage, dogs were paired with two unfamiliar humans one at a time. One human partner was helpful - pressing their button to dispense food in the dog's enclosure - and one was unhelpful. The researchers also reversed the set-up, with a button in the dog's enclosure that operated a food dispenser in the human's enclosure. They found no significant differences in the dogs' tendency to press the button for helpful or unhelpful human partners, and the human's behavior in the first stage did not affect the dog's behavior towards them in free interaction sessions after the trials.

Previous studies have demonstrated that dogs are capable of directing helpful behaviors towards other dogs that have helped them previously - a behavior known as reciprocal altruism - and research suggests dogs are also able to distinguish between cooperative and uncooperative humans. However, the present study failed to find evidence that dogs can combine these capabilities to reciprocate help from humans. This finding may reflect a lack of ability or inclination among dogs to reciprocate, or the experimental design may not have detected it. For example, the authors suggest that the dogs may not have understood the experiment because humans are typically the food-giver in the relationship, not the receiver, or because the dogs failed to recognize the connection between the human's helpful behavior and the reward.

Continued here:
Dogs may not return their owners' good deeds - Vet Candy

There Is No Such Thing as a Fossil Mind – Discovery Institute

Photo: Tree of Life, a cave painting from Borneo, Indonesia, by Lhfage at English Wikipedia [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons.

This month,The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith:Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos(Harvest House 2021) appeared. The basic theme of the handbook, as described by editorsWilliam Dembski, Casey Luskin,andJoseph Holden,is how Science and Christianity are often presented as opposites, when in fact the order of the universe and the complexity of life powerfully testify to intelligent design.

I wrote one of the chapters, What Is Evolutionary Psychology? It concerns the effort to understand human psychology by appealing to a prehuman evolutionarypast. As such, it explains a large variety of human behaviors as the unconscious enactment of a Darwinian survival scenario among not-quite humans that is wired into modules in our brains.

Thus, the reasons we do things are not at all what we suppose:

Evolution explains, for example,why we shop: Gatherers sifted the useful from things that offered them no sustenance, warmth or comfort with a skill that would eventually lead to comfortable shopping malls and credit cards.Or gossip:Back in the day, if you didnt care to find out what was going on, you were more likely to die and less likely to pass on your incurious genes. Oh, and anger over trivial matters was oncekey to our survival.

As the examples above illustrate, EP does not explain puzzling human behavior so much as it offers Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest explanations for conventional behavior, whichsupplant traditional ones.

For example, why we are sexually jealous (not fear of abandonment, but sperm competition); why we dont stick to our goals (evolution gave us a kludge brain); why we developed music (to spot the savannah with little Pavarottis); why art exists (to recapture that lost savannah); why many womendont know whenthey are ovulating (if they knew, theyd never have kids); why some people rape, kill, and sleep around (our Stone Age ancestors passed on their genes via these traits), and why big banks sometimesget away with fraud(we havent evolved so as to understand what is happening).

EP alsoaccounts for dreams(they increase reproductive fitness),false memories(there might be a tiger in that tall grass ),menopause(men pursuing younger women),monogamy(control of females or else infanticide prevention),premenstrual syndrome (breaks up infertile relationships),romantic love(a hardwired drive to reproduce), rumination onhurt feelings(our brains evolved to learn quickly from bad experiences but slowly from the good ones),smiling(earlier, a cringe reaction), andwonder at the universe (explained by how early man lived).

In the chapter, I offer many more examples of the current effort to explain aspects of life or human behavior in a narrow, Darwinian way. These explanations satisfy a need felt by many for a scientific account of their behavior. But often, the science behind evo psych is nothing more than the fact that the persons offering the explanation have degrees in one or another field of psychology and a knack for coming up with an idea that is easy to market in popular media. The output has earned considerable skepticism.

Of course, we are free to accept these ad hoc evo psych explanations if we wish. Like astrology and palm reading, they make good conversation pieces. But the claim that they are science does not strengthen them and should not give them more credibility.

American philosopherSubrena E. Smithrecently launcheda sharp attackon evo psych. She points out that neuroscience has never identified the brain modules or systems that would enable evo psych to make sense.

Read the rest at Mind Matters News, published by Discovery Institutes Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.

Here is the original post:
There Is No Such Thing as a Fossil Mind - Discovery Institute