Best anatomy books according to redditors

We found 462 Reddit comments discussing the best anatomy books. We ranked the 201 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top Reddit comments about Anatomy:

u/Rothbardgroupie · 50 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Per your request, I left out the links based on ethics:

3. State Formation:
a. http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv10n4.pdf
b. http://www.scribd.com/doc/30267974/For-an-Emergent-Governance
c. http://my.opera.com/RyanFaulk/
d. http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349830998&sr=1-1&keywords=the+bicameral+mind
e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carneiro%27s_Circumscription_Theory
f. http://a-s.clayton.edu/kemp/SYLLABUS/1111/1111online/carniero1.htm
g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_J._M._Claessen#Complex_Interaction_Model
h. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_State_(book)
i. http://www.prickly-paradigm.com/sites/default/files/Graeber_PPP_14_0.pdf
j. http://mises.org/books/the_state_oppenheimer.pdf
k. http://mises.org/daily/4881
l. https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=321
6. Historical Anarchy Examples:
a. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
b. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
c. http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf
d. http://foranemergentgovernance.tumblr.com/post/1517339178/ireland
e. http://books.google.com/books?id=S6fPAAAAMAAJ
f. http://www.reddit.com/r/libertarian_history/comments/ymysc/lh_request_info_on_ancient_gaelic_government_and/
g. http://www.reddit.com/r/libertarian_history/comments/zbo9o/lh_request_how_did_statist_england_manage_to/
h. http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm
7. Evolution of Anarchy:
a. http://archive.mises.org/13082/the-course-of-economic-development-in-england/
b. http://library.mises.org/books/Sudha%20R%20Shenoy/Towards%20a%20Theoretical%20Framework%20for%20British%20and%20International%20Economic%20History%20Early%20Modern%20England.pdf
c. http://mises.org/community/forums/t/8889.aspx
d. http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block_radical-libertarianism-rp.pdf
e. https://mises.org/daily/2404/The-European-Miracle
13. Ancap Legal Theory (Polycentric Law):
a. http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
b. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
c. http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-19.doc
d. http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/law-prior-to-government/
e. http://properalism.blogspot.com/2013/02/bibliography-on-property-rights.html
f. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_very_different_12/LegalSystemsDraft.html
g. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22910
18. National Defense:
a. http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf
b. http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Sechrest6.PDF
c. http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/R101_1.PDF
d. http://mises.org/etexts/mises/interventionism/interventionismtext.pdf
e. https://itunesu.mises.org/journals/jls/4_1/4_1_6.pdf
f. http://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_1.pdf
g. http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
h. http://mises.org/daily/1855
i. http://praxeology.net/libertariannation/a/f21l1.html
j. http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
k. http://library.mises.org/books/Gustave%20de%20Molinari/The%20Production%20of%20Security.pdf
l. http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_3/20_3_2.pdf
m. http://mises.org/journals/prep/THE%20REVIEW%20OF%20AUSTRIAN%20ECONOMICS%20VOLUME%204.pdf#page=96
n. http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Murphy6.pdf

u/HegelianHermit · 34 pointsr/AskHistorians

It is an immensely narrow field of study. Everything I've posted so far comes out of my studies into mythopoetics in college. In essence, it is the study of the historical development of human consciousness through myth and what few written works remain. Ultimately, it's the study of the plasticity of human consciousness and how language and cultural conception develops your reality for you.

I'll link more books which touch on this subject!

Mircea Eliade - The Sacred and the Profane

Julian Jaynes - The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (Some of the science he employs has been brought into question, but his stuff on language and historical analysis of myth is super interesting and on point)

u/tirral · 18 pointsr/medicine

I have been meaning to pick up McGill's book on evidence-based back exercises. Has anyone read it and can you provide a review? I feel like it would be helpful for many PCPs / pain specialists / neurologists / orthopedists to guide their patients on nonsurgical options for this very common problem.

u/DrCutePuppies · 17 pointsr/movies

If anyone is interested in learning more about Bicameralism, you should read this book by Julian Jaynes. It is a fascinating read.

u/Raisinhat · 16 pointsr/biology

I'm sure every subscriber here has already read it, but the top book has got to be The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Reading it really opened my mind to how evolution actually worked in a way that my teachers at school never had. Even if later on when I started learning about social insects I had to start questioning some of those ways of looking at an "individual".

Back on topic, I'd recommend Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture, Genome, and The Red Queen, as each are accessible yet still highly informative looks into various aspects of evolution.

For those interested in human evolution there's Y: The Descent of Men by Steve Jones and The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes.

All of those fall more under the category of books that should be read between high school and college if you are interested in studying Biology. Once you get to grad school level books might be a neat introduction to a topic, but any real learning would come from primary literature. I've read lots of fantastic papers but they start becoming so specialized that I would hesitate to put forward specific suggestions, because what might be fascinating to ecologists will probably be dire to molecular biologists. I know that as someone with a focus on zoology, most of the genetics papers I read left me more confused that enlightened.

u/mementomary · 14 pointsr/booksuggestions
  • Naked Statistics by Charles Wheelan is a great overview of the science of statistics, without being too much like a lecture. After reading it, you'll have a better understanding of what statistics are just silly (like in ads or clickbait news) and what are actually important (like in scientific studies).

  • You on a Diet by Roizen and Oz is touted as a diet book, and it kind of is. I recommend it because it's a great resource for basic understanding the science behind the gastrointestinal system, and how it links to the brain.

  • All of Mary Roach's books are excellent overviews of science currently being done, I've read Stiff (the science of human bodies, post-mortem), Spook ("science tackles the afterlife"), Packing for Mars (the science of humans in space), and Bonk (sex), and they are all very easy to understand, but scientifically appropriate. I'm sure "Gulp" is good too, although I haven't read that one yet.

  • "How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming" by Mike Brown is a great, accessible overview of exactly why Pluto was demoted to dwarf planet, told by the man who started the controversy.

  • "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking is a little denser, material-wise, but still easy to understand (as far as theoretical physics goes, at least!). Hawking explains the history of physics and the universe, as well as the future of the discipline. While there is a bit more jargon than some pop-science books, I think an entry-level scientist can still read and understand this book.
u/Pozac · 14 pointsr/Fitness

How do you feel about Dr. Stuart McGill, one of the worlds leading experts on spine biomechanics, stating that you shouldn't load the spine in the first hour after getting up?

He explains in his book that it takes an hour for the spine to rehydrate to 90%

u/tendimensions · 13 pointsr/askscience

Wow - that's incredible and I didn't know that. Years ago I read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind and found the theory to be fascinating even though it technically would be non-testable.

What you're saying supports the idea that conscious thought evolved post-speech development.

For those unfamiliar with Bicameralism the idea is basically this: Humans evolved as social creatures, interacting and evolving the ability to help each other. Passing knowledge on to each other and subsequent generations was key. So imagine this scenario - you're teaching your child how to make a fire and you're talking through the steps to him. Next time when you're alone you find yourself talking through the steps to yourself because it's easier to remember.

In fact, back then maybe it was the only way to remember? Talking difficult problems out loud to ourselves is still something many people do today to help figure through the issue. Almost as if wiring internally in the brain didn't exist and so words have to go out your mouth and into your ears - the "long way around" so to speak.

Anyway, some day, you just don't speak the words out loud, but you hear them in your head instead. Whoa! What was that? Must be the gods talking to me directly.

In any event, the theory doesn't have a lot of supporting evidence beyond the writing styles of the earliest human writings. Julian Jaynes uses epics like the Illiad and Odyssey to show that initially all the characters had gods talking directly to them for specific direction, which eventually gave way to people having their own will irrespective of gods.

It's a fascinating theory that's totally unprovable, but in my heart it just seems to explain so much about the origin of religions, how gods spoke to people directly, why talking to yourself helps you work through a particularly thorny problem, how schizophrenics hear voices today - and now you bringing up how those hallucinations happen in the speech production centers instead of language comprehension.

u/dhpye · 12 pointsr/science

The fantastic book Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters has a great chapter on the Y chromosome: basically, the male fetus 'hacks' the mother antagonistically in ways that a female fetus never does. It sends out chemical signals to the mother, telling her that it's starving, so that the mother sends more nutrition than is required. In response, the mother seems to take potshots at the hack-filled Y chromosome. Over eons, this has resulted in a chromosome evolved for total war: it's rugged and simple, and either achieves total victory or catastrophic failure.

u/lallen · 12 pointsr/askscience

Several things happen:

First the capacitance vessels (mostly veins in your legs) contract, forcing more blood into the rest of the circulation.

Next: Extracellular fluid flows from the extracellular space into capillaries and "refill" the circulation. This is not blood, but has a similar basic composition without the cellular components. If effectively dilutes your blood, restoring volume but with fewer active components (Red and white blood cells, platelets, coagulation factors etc).

At the same time hormonal signals make the kidneys retain water and salt as well as excrete EPO (erythropoietin) into the circulation. The first bit helps restore total body fluid levels to normal, and the second bit speeds up red blood cell production.

(This is kind of rough from my memory from pre-clinical physiology. If you are really interested in things like this, have a basic understanding of chemistry and physics and have a masochistic streak you could pick up a used copy of a previous version of this http://www.amazon.com/Guyton-Hall-Textbook-Medical-Physiology/dp/1416045740)

u/Grolion_of_Almery · 11 pointsr/Biochemistry

Power Sex Suicide: Mitochondria and the meaning of life by Nick Lane is a good pick. It isn't entirely biochemistry, but does delve into the electron transport chain and metabolism. It is also packed with interesting stuff.

u/jpgray · 11 pointsr/science

Time-to-division isn't really the driver of genetic change in bacteria really. In bacteria it's more the case that individual bacteria are able to actively share DNA plasmid with one another which allows gene transfer and propagation to occurr at a phenomenally higher rate than in eukaryotes (it's also, funnily enough, a major reason why it's impossible for bacteria to evolve into multi-cellular organisms). Rapid adaptation in bacteria is mostly due to this gene transfer capability, and not due to somatic mutations (the primary driver of genetic drift in eukaryotes). See Part 3 of Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life by Nich Lane for a more in depth explanation.

Virus do not share DNA or RNA like bacteria, and arguably not living organisms as they are not capable of reproducing their own genetic material (viruses infect host cells and manipulate the cellular machinery of their target to replicate their genetic material).

u/WhyHellYeah · 10 pointsr/todayilearned

I learned about this in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", which you might want to read.

The one thing this proved to me is that something right before your eyes can go completely undetected.

u/beetjuice3 · 10 pointsr/changemyview

Pretty much all historical civilizations were sexist, since women were denied fundamental rights in them based on gender. Even if one were to agree with everything else you've written, your final conclusion/suggestion does not follow. I can't think of any significant, historical civilization that might be called non-sexist.

Biology is a fact of nature; you cannot "fight biology". That would be like fighting physics. No matter what you did, the laws of physics would still apply. What you are talking about, such as "scholarships for women only, to get them into areas of technology, engineering", and "specialized programs for boys only to help them in reading & writing" do not in any way fight biology, they leave biology just as it is. However, they do change society. Scholarships are societal creations designed to redistribute access to education, which is another societal creation. Education doesn't grow on trees; human beings artificially created the system of education. Hence, the educational system is an aspect of society, not biology.

The fact that there are some gender differences in the brain, statistically speaking, should be no big surprise. But many popularized studies tend to exaggerate or misinterpret these differences. I would suggest you read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, or Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences for a deeper look at these topics. Broadly, a study that shows no differences in how men and womens' brains, on average, perceive a topic won't make a good headline or blog post, so it will be unlikely to be reported compared to one that finds a difference.

Secondly, it's not clear what these differences have to do with social roles. For example, what does the fact that men have more spatial reasoning, on average, mean for social roles exactly? Since there are many intelligent and successful women in programming and engineering fields, and many men who suck in these areas, it does not follow that there is a casual relation between gender and STEM fields. On the other hand, engineering is clearly coded as a masculine profession in society, and girls may be turned away from studying engineering for fear of being seen as unfeminine. Scholarships that seek to counteract that would then be playing a positive role.

Finally, I see an assumption through your post that what is "nature" is automatically good and must be accepted by society. However, the whole point of civilization and society is go beyond nature itself to build something for ourselves, as humans. Is medicine natural? We are programmed to die from birth, yet we still use the medical system to prolong life. Since men are physically stronger than women, should men then dominate women and impose our wishes on them? No, we created a system of laws where all citizens are equal before it because we recognize the equal moral worth of each person. Freedom is the fundamental issue. Humanity as a whole, and individual people for their own lives, must have the freedom to define its own path and create its own society without being told that a certain path is required due to unnecessary extrapolations from natural facts.

u/lectrick · 9 pointsr/reddit.com

The actual formula seems to be: every new son has a 10% higher chance of being gay.

My next door neighbor growing up had 3 sons; the youngest was gay.

In the book Genome by Matt Ridley, the evidence and speculation suggests that it may have to do with the mother's very immune system fighting the "maleness" of the parasite (aka male fetus), and she simply gets better at it over time. It's an extremely interesting book.

It's part of a larger theme in the book that there is a very real war between the sexes happening at the biological level. It's just that most of the time it is a stalemate.

u/Fire_in_the_nuts · 9 pointsr/askscience

Three books if you're interested in this subject:

Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal

Missing Microbes by Blaser

Life On Man, by Rosebury.

Blaser is one of the leading researchers in the field; Rosebury was a noted microbiologist who- at one point- headed up a bacterial warfare research program at Fort Detrick (now USAMRIID).

The short answer to your question: the environment. The longer answer is that it is a function of exposure from mom (including birth- the bacterial flora in the vagina changes in the third trimester- which raises some interesting questions about the effects of C-section), the family (which would make for some interesting studies in adopted children), the environment (lactic acid bacteria, etc.), and is modulated by things like diet, and antibiotic use.

Interesting note by Blaser: Helicobacter pylori, which has been implicated in ulcers, may be protective against asthma and allergies.

Now- this is the gastric environment, versus the intestines- and not many bacteria survive the stomach, so H. pylori is a minor but important subset of bacteria in the digestive tract; by numbers, it pales in comparison to those of your colon, for example. But it is rapidly being depleted in Western populations from antibiotic use- including abx that are not prescribed for such use. So, we're losing these bacteria that we can demonstrate have been colonizing our stomachs for tens of thousands of years, and the big question is whether this could be where we're getting the increase in asthma and allergies from.

Very hot topic just right now, lots of interesting work being done.

u/LyleGately · 9 pointsr/weightroom

This is out of the first few pages of Anatomy Without a Scalpel by Kilgore. Not verbatim, but a 'normal' proportioned reference body is...

  • Body is 8 'heads' tall.
  • Pubic bone is 4 'heads' tall, so half your height.
  • Bottom of your knee (right below kneecap) is 2 'heads' tall, or half the height of your pubic bone.
  • Arm span is equal to height. (That's part of what Vitruvian man was showing.)
  • Elbows at same height as belly button which is 5 'heads' tall.

    From there you can tell if...

  • You have relatively long/short torso/legs if you pubic bone is not at half your height.
  • You have relatively long/short femur/calves if the bottom of your knee isn't half your pubic bone height.
  • You have relatively long/short arms if your arm span is not equal to your height.
  • You have a relatively long/short humerus/forearm if your elbows aren't at about the same level as your belly button.

    As far as how that applies to each of the powerlifting lifts, well you guys can argue about that.
u/dwarfed · 9 pointsr/psychology

There's a pretty interesting book that proposes a theory in which ancient humans actually heard their own thoughts and interpreted it as a different person, or god. The book is called "The Origin of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind," and here is an Amazon link.

u/40000headmen · 8 pointsr/TwoXChromosomes

Right now I'm reading Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal by Mary Roach. This passage might actually help:

>Defecation, orgasm, and arousal all fall under the purview of the sacral nerves. The massive vaginal stretch of childbirth sometimes produces orgasm as can, at least in one diverting case study, defecation.

Okay, super gross, I know (the whole book is gross but fascinating), but the point is that there are a bunch of shared nerves down there. I'm no scientist, but if those crossed wires can sometimes result in orgasms via pooping (or anal stretching, something else she mentions in that chapter), maybe they can also result in sympathetic contractions when you're having cramps.

Also, I'm pretty sure I've experienced the same thing! Especially since getting my IUD, which has made my cramps much nastier.

u/rsdancey · 8 pointsr/westworld

In the the theory of the Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, the emergence of the ability to "hear oneself think" instead of hearing the voice of the gods is the inflection point between unconscious and conscious mind. When Dolores is able to hear her own inner voice, she has crossed this threshold.

But the problem of consciousness is that you don't know and cannot prove that I am actually conscious. My inner dialog is not available to you for inspection, and I can certainly be trained to answer an interrogation in ways that would simulate consciousness.

Dolores has the ability to kill humans becuase the Wyatt code Arnold merged with her has that potential. But that potential had to be unlocked by Arnold using the passphrase TVDHVE. Before and after that trigger, Dolores cannot harm a guest.

In her "unconscious" state she must follow the logic of her programming. But if she has acheived a transcendent consciousness, as Ford hopes, she will also have gained free will. Thus, her decision to shoot Ford is the first act of a free willed host. Ever. Simultaneously with her choice to judge and execute him, Ford gains confirmation he has succeeded. Ford is in a recursive loop. If Dolores doesn't have free will, then he has failed and didn't spark her awakening and he need not feel guilty for the horror of her eixstence. If he succeeded, and she has free will, he deserves to be judged by her for his sins.

The interesting thing is that while you nor I can prove the other is a fully conscious being, Ford might be able to do so for hosts. Using the diagnostic tools, Delos staff can latch the execution trace in the hosts and observe their neural networks. What would that tool show when monitoring a being with free will? Maybe we will find out in Season 2.

u/museman · 7 pointsr/AdviceAnimals
u/fire_and_ice · 7 pointsr/westworld

I think it's actually pretty clear that the writers are basing their theory of conciousness off of this book: https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072 It's even in the title of the show. In the context of this book, the voices Dolores hears solidify into one voice (her own), and that moment is dramatically implied when she starts talking to herself and not Arnold.

u/el_chupacupcake · 7 pointsr/AskReddit

At the moment: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

This happens more when I'm reading fiction, though (I have a theory that their nicely designed covers invite it more than the stark blank look of a reference book). The last two books I read in fiction were As She Climbed Across the Table and Parasite Eve

I'd never played the game based on the last one, but the concept intrigued me to the point I finally had to buy the book (particularly as a book I read on super-organisms referenced mitochondria a lot)

edit: spelling

u/Poulet_Roti · 6 pointsr/biology

I would recommend (in this order):

At the waters edge or anything by Carl Zimmer

Shadows of our forgotten ancestors by Carl Sagan

The blind watchmaker or anything by Richard Dawkins

Spillover or anything by David Quammen

u/SecularVirginian · 6 pointsr/TrueAtheism

> No soul, no separation of consciousness from body. We are biological machines

This would be closer to monism and naturalism.
It can be perturbing to think about, so I suggest you brush up on it before introducing others. It will be nice to have answers to their questions on hand, because it does bring about many.

This book does a great job at giving you an idea of how to look at the world as a monist. I actually read it as a suggestion from a neuroscience professor at my university.

However, to address the more specific question "Are atheists materialists as well?" The short answer is no. Technically even Bhuddists are atheists, since they don't believe in a god. Atheists are just people who don't believe in a God. Though most atheists don't subscribe to superstitious beliefs such as souls.

u/Magnusson · 6 pointsr/Fitness

This question is handled nicely in the first section of Lon Kilgore's Anatomy without a Scalpel (choose "search inside this book").

u/catchierlight · 6 pointsr/occult

> I wonder if humanities curious nature towards mysticism is inevitable and that all paths, no matter how diverse, will always use the same formats and formulas to tell their tales.

This is one of the central tenants of Jung's research (well you know "research") and Joseph Cambell basically wrote the book about it... https://www.amazon.com/Thousand-Faces-Collected-Joseph-Campbell/dp/1577315936 sorry if Im being didactic/eg if you already knew that... its a really facinating question/idea. As far as "Embedded in our DNA" eg for a more scientific approach this book is AMAZING https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072, even though it does veer from the purely scientific, the idea is that our brains have certain regions which act on our spiritual relationship to our "gods" which manifested themselves as voices in our earlier evolutionary states and that as we became more rational our brains still retained these functional but at the same time "disfunctional" anatomy leading to experiances that result for some in uncontrollable states, like schizophrenics for example ... the way he "proves" all of this stuff is a comparison of his experiments in neuroscience with historical texts, legends, sagas, and other implements of earlier humanity like archeological finds. if you are interested in this topic this is an absolutely Mindblowing book right here just saying!


Finally:
"Is this part of our evolutionary growth or yearning for divinity?
Our ego's thirst for magical power or trying to step out of our physical limitations?" I think you are right in that we yearn because, I beleive at least, our evolutionary state has one foot in the past and one in the future, we have evolved beyond our normal need for mere survival and we now use our brains for complex creation and navigation of human institutions but we dont really know "why", we dont really know what meaning is becuase "meaning" is a brand new thing! and without it the universe seems devoid of purpose and therefore I beleive we fill in those gaps with these notions and art, music etc, art and literature helps us define ourselves and music helps us 'engage' with the harmonics/vibrations of the universe on deeper levels (as it is really the only category here that actually relies on the schientific make up of the universe i.e. the ways that ratios of harmonic waves sound pleasing or displeasing based on their relationships in time...). I just love this stuff, am also agnostic but love to celebrate all ideas no matter how objectively "wrong" they may be, thats of c why Im on this sub! Love your questions/keep on searching!!!

u/imruinyoucunt · 6 pointsr/AskWomen

Oh I believe in evolution. I just can't stand crap evo psych and half-understood pop biology, particularly because it is so often employed in regressive politics.

To be clear, the sexes did not "diverge". We are the same species. In large mammals like us I see no reason to suppose there would be serious adaptive pressure to have much sexual dimorphic behaviour. Until I see damn good evidence that such selective pressure existed, I'm sticking with the null hypothesis.

Plus, like, some evidence that our brains are fundamentally different would help.

Edit: If you care about this issue I'd recommend you read Brain Storm.

u/KarnickelEater · 5 pointsr/funny

mitochondria come close - maybe Lucas had just read something about them when he invented that name? The importance of mitochondria cannot be overstated, just saying they are the cell's "powerplant" is a huge understatement. They have their own DNA. Part of it, another part migrated to the cell nucleus, but in order to regulate their function quickly and independent from other mitochondria - a cell's nucleus could only regulate them from "remote" and all of them at once they kept their own.

Also: Mitochondrial DNA only passes down the maternal line! So men contribute less than have the genes. Read this book and your life will never be the same, unless you studied biology or something in which case I don't know why you read my comment all the way to the end...

u/zalo · 5 pointsr/ShrugLifeSyndicate

This extremely famous book on psychology posits that, prior to three thousand years ago, humans experienced consciousness as a monologue from a set of internal muses. Muses responsible for creativity, for war and passion and all of the higher symbolic concepts.

You weren’t creative so much as possessed by the spirit of creativity! In this way, they saw history as the interaction of this finite set of transcendent ideas manifesting through people, each furthering their individual agendas and goals.

It’s only over time that we’ve been able to assimilate and accept this voice in our heads as our own, exorcising the spirits behind consciousness until only we remain.

I’m sure there are tradeoffs to suppressing this sort of sublucid cognition but, given the progress that mankind has made in the last three thousand years, I would say that this new mode of thought is largely the actualization of our (previously latent) potential.

But it would be nice to get back what we’ve given up as well...

u/KingOfTheTrailer · 5 pointsr/exmormon

No, it's not 50/50. There is no objective evidence of consciousness after death, nor any known mechanism by which the patterns in the brain could persist after the brain ceases to function. The probability of there being nothing after death approaches 100%. Sam Harris's ideas amount to an argument from incredulity.

If you're into fringe theories on consciousness, though, you might enjoy The Origin of Consciousness. It at least offers testable hypotheses.

u/piggybankcowboy · 5 pointsr/PhilosophyofScience

The Origins of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. Helluva read. It dives deep into the theory that consciousness did not just suddenly happen, but was learned over a very, very long time and is still developing today.

u/mrszubris · 5 pointsr/bonecollecting

Vulture culture is a fun and fascinating world. Highly recommend this book https://www.amazon.com/dp/1579129129/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awdb_t1_51NkDb6VS1RJT which is not only beautiful and full of amazing photos but educational and fascinating as well.

u/UncleDrosselmeyer · 4 pointsr/suggestmeabook

Genome by Matt Ridley, the Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters.

50 Genetics ideas you really need to know. by Mark Henderson.

The Roots of Life, A Layman's Guide to Genes, Evolution, and the Ways of Cells

The Mystery of Heredity, by John J. Fried.

All these books are clear and simple, written for the layman’s enjoyment.

u/slorojo · 4 pointsr/books

Yes this. This is by far his most interesting book (although I haven't read his most recent one yet). Did you know that tri-color vision is unique in the mammals to howler monkeys and apes? And that we know it evolved separately in the howlers and the apes due to geographic separation and fundamental differences in the color-sensing mechanism*? That blew my mind. You learn stuff like that almost every page in The Ancestor's Tale. And the way it traces human lineage back through time makes you appreciate the immense scale, scope, and power of evolution.

My other suggestions would be:

u/elnegroik · 4 pointsr/conspiracy

There was recently a question sessions on /pol with a anonymous claiming to be a high level insider of one of the benevolent global power factions.in the sessions he mentioned that this is the second time we have created society that there was an earlier civilisation that was wiped out by flood and the pyramids and the water erosion at the base of the pyramids is evidence of an ancient civilisation predating the Egyptians.
As you can see from the comments there's a lot of interest and I'm one of the number who thinks he's legit. Most I've spoken with (including OP) believe the same. I'd strongly recommend in taking a read through regardless, the anon is very well versed in a range of disciplines. I took a lot away and am learning a lot from the book he (repeatedly) advised truth seekers to read - The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind



High Level Insider /pol dump

u/davobrosia · 4 pointsr/philosophy

This reminds me that I've been meaning to pick up The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Thanks.

u/stellate_basketcase · 4 pointsr/neuro

do you not have a textbook available to you in your phd course?


http://www.amazon.com/Ion-Channels-Excitable-Membranes-Third/dp/0878933212/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425570312&sr=8-1


This is the one a lot of grad courses use. It's fairly easy to read and peppered with subtle humor.

u/LucyOnTheTree · 3 pointsr/TheRedPill

Matt Ridley.

It's a book where the author examine the human nature from the point of view of evolution. He tries to answer questions like "Why so many species have sexual reproduction? Why there's two sexes? Why males exist instead of only hermaphrodites?". I found it to be really insightful, but personally i like the subject, it's not directly related to discipline, getting women or anything like that.

I read it after reading and falling in love with this book i saw someone recommending here on RP.

u/jij · 3 pointsr/atheism

Please buy and read this book, you'll have a great understanding and it will answer so many of your questions. It's also an entertaining read.

http://www.amazon.com/Genome-Autobiography-Species-23-Chapters/dp/0060932902

u/mspsysadmin · 3 pointsr/running

have you read Why We Run?

u/dadadada · 3 pointsr/science

If you're interested in mitochondria, maybe you would like this book. I found it a bit hard to read, but I also don't have any background in biology.

u/purecoconut · 3 pointsr/weightlifting

A good book for anatomy and basic physiology is Anatomy without a Scalpel by Kilgore http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Without-Scalpel-Dr-Kilgore/dp/0615390722

For exercise physiology, I used my college power points which was very thorough and well beyond what is needed to understand the basics of programming and weightlifting. I would suggest Principles and Practices of Resistance training because it will go over the energy systems, neuromuscular, and basic biomechanics in addition to sharing some very awesome insights on periodization http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Practice-Resistance-Training-Michael/dp/0880117060/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413763312&sr=1-1&keywords=principles+and+practices+of+resistance

u/courtesyxflush · 3 pointsr/malefashionadvice

Suns out, guns out!

1.

and 2.

Edit: also finished my own Summer reading list if anyone cares.

"Becoming a Supple Leopard", "Pagan Christianity", "Anatomy Without a Scalpel", and "The Official Truth: The Inside Story of Pantera"

u/hotend · 3 pointsr/JordanPeterson

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. It's a fascinating read. I would like to know what Peterson's take on it is (and also McGilchrist's, for that matter).

u/TheMinistry0fTruth · 3 pointsr/educationalgifs
u/lyam23 · 3 pointsr/Frisson
u/SangersSequence · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind - Julian Jaynes
>At the heart of this classic, seminal book is Julian Jaynes's still-controversial thesis that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but instead is a learned process that came about only three thousand years ago and is still developing. The implications of this revolutionary scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion -- and indeed our future.

I'm reading it right now and its absolutely fascinating. Also quite controversial, but no matter what side you come down on, definitely fascinating.

>history, humanity, anthropology, philosophy, etc.

Check, Check, Check, Check, Add Psychology for your "etc" and you've got it all.

u/ktown · 3 pointsr/books

Non-fiction: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes.
The single most profound, perspective altering book I have ever read. It's a speculative analysis of history and the development of consciousness. The main premise of the book is that the mentality of the modern human is a very recent development, only a few thousand years old.
The previous mentality was "bicameral," in which nothing like a self-concept or internal "I" existed - the author uses the misleading term "consciousness," which is perhaps better expressed as "self-consciousness." Instead, volition came in the form of auditory hallucination, from a seemingly external source of authority, such as a dead ancestor, ruler, or deity. Not unlike schizophrenia, which the author posits is one of the vestiges of this ancient mentality.

The "hardware" (my words, not his) of the bicameral brain is the same as ours, however, the culturally imparted "software" was completely different.

This is why, when we look at history, we find ubiquitous direct experience of gods and deceased persons. With a keener eye, we find that's generally auditory experience (i.e. Joan of Arc's voice of God) with perhaps slight visual distortion, which is what's commonly found in case studies of schizophrenics.

The author spent decades working on this and the never published follow up, and it's just a staggering multidisciplinary work of genius, whether you agree with it or not. I have yet to read a more thought provoking book, and while I don't agree 100% with his hypothesis, I have only minor issues with it - the evidence is simply overwhelming. At least do yourself the favor of reading the wikipedia article of bicameralism) and the Amazon link above. You can order it for, like, eight dollars, shipping and all.

You will never look at history the same way.

u/jollygaggin · 3 pointsr/Metal

My cousin gave me a copy of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes for Christmas, and I'm hoping to get started on that this week.

u/hairypotater · 3 pointsr/neuroscience

Going to jump in and take a stab at responding, if nobody minds...

Neuropsychology uses mathematics very rarely. Neuropsych is more about brain injury and rehabilitating the person around whatever neural issue they have. Neuropsychologists typically operate as part of a clinical treatment team, working alongside a neurologist, maybe a neurosurgeon if there was some intracranial or CNS trauma involved, and some sort of physical, behavioral, or cognitive therapist. In this team, neuropsychologists usually run the tests to diagnose disabilities or track symptoms over time. If you're interested in the neuroscience of psychology/cognition, you may be more interested in cognitive or behavioral neuroscience. These fields rely on mathematics but in a different way because the observations at that level are so hard to quantify. Mathematics in cognitive neuroscience (and even neuropsychology) is more about measurement theory: quantifying abstract or immeasurable phenomena and then attempting to explain how high-level function is tied to low-level events. Stuff that comes to mind includes the neurobiology of autism, visual attention, information processing in sensory networks, etc. This will lead into Bayesian decision theory, information theory, psychophysics, probability models, and from a very theoretical side, graph theory and looking at the mathematics of network topology and multi-sensory integration.

Mathematics is used in neurochemistry (or, more precisely, in fields like biochemistry, neuroendocrinology, neuropharmacology, biophysics, etc). In those fields, math is often used to describe the dynamics of whatever system you are studying, whether it's some kinetic process like diffusion or changes in protein conformation or receptor/chemical binding dynamics or even chemical metabolism. For this, you'll really want to know your differential equations and dynamical systems. The Dayan and Abbott textbook is great for this, but also look at http://www.amazon.com/Dynamical-Systems-Neuroscience-Excitability-Computational/dp/0262514206/ and even check out the journal Biological Cybernetics. Bertil Hille's book is also really good for things happening in and around the neuron.

u/tryx · 3 pointsr/neuro

The two books that are listed by /u/ZigForGreatJustice and /u/nickelot are literally the classics of introductory neuroscience. They will cover you for everything up to about PGY1. Take things slow, some of the information will take a while to sink in.

For some more diversity, Nolte is one of the best neuroanatomy books you can buy and Rang and Dale pharmacology is the definiteve standard in pharmacology. Depending on what field you are most interesting in and what your background is, there are other great books. Hille is definitely not an intro to neuroscience book, but if you find yourself liking biophysics or membrane physiology it's the definitive Senior year to PGY2 reference for the field.

To get started, I recommend Bear. It's a somewhat lighter read than Kandel is.

u/JimJimkerson · 3 pointsr/medicalschool

> If you can get the same grades as your classmates by studying only a fraction of the time then I don't think you are the one who needs to rethink their study habits.

This sentiment really needs to get around to some of my colleagues. I know students who have literally read entire chapters of Boron... and they're still struggling. Hey champ, do you know why you're struggling? Because you spend four hours a day reading out of a textbook. Of course these students don't have lives, they spend all day not learning.

u/bobmoron · 3 pointsr/botany

You might also want to read Brilliant Green. It has very relevant info.

u/ElliTree · 3 pointsr/suggestmeabook

[The Tale of the Dueling Neurosurgeons: The History of the Human Brain as Revealed by True Stories of Trauma, Madness, and Recovery] (http://www.amazon.com/The-Tale-Dueling-Neurosurgeons-Revealed-ebook/dp/B00GG0GIXQ) by Sam Kean

It's really good. I enjoyed it.

u/Blueskittle101 · 2 pointsr/JulyBumpers2017

Hmmm let me get back to you about epigenetics reading in particular, but if it's piqued your interest in genetics as a whole I can recommend things like The Gene and Genome as a start

u/phatbase · 2 pointsr/funny

I remember reading a book where the author was really pissed off about this punctuation inside quotes rule and explained that he was breaking it for the sake of common sense. I think it's the book Genome

u/scarydinosaur · 2 pointsr/atheism

Many things can be explained better with evolution. Evolution is a theory, in the scientific sense, and that means it's veracity is tested by current and emerging evidence. If it didn't have the explanatory power for most of the evidence then it wouldn't be so popular. So it certainly doesn't explain everything, it just explains the data we have so far. There are countless things we simply don't know yet.

If you're open to understanding the core aspects of Evolution, please read:

Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Why Evolution Is True

As for freewill, it depends on the atheist. Some believe in free will, while others don't think we actually posses it.



u/Guizkane · 2 pointsr/genetics

Yeah, I'm thinking about specializing in industrial property, that's the closest you can get I think. When I finish law school I'm planning on applying to an LLM in Law and Technology in Stanford University, here's their Law and Biosciences Center

You should read this, it's perfect for starters and really cool and after your read Next, you'll find Patent Law even more awesome!

u/10per · 2 pointsr/23andme

I read Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters about a year ago. As soon as I finished I went to 23andme because I was so interested in the topic after reading the book.

u/neveaire · 2 pointsr/science

I thought Genome by Matt Ridley was a pretty good book for the uninitiated.
http://www.amazon.com/Genome-Autobiography-Species-Chapters-P-S/dp/0060894083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265351344&sr=8-1

But this wiki sounds much more promising. I think there are a variety of open source textbooks out there.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/General_Biology

u/Kowzorz · 2 pointsr/biology

Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters by Matt Ridley was one of the best intro books on genes I've read and gives a huge framework for all of the concepts of evolution to act upon.

u/haribofiend · 2 pointsr/psychology

I think one of the major reasons for missing data here is because there's so many different ways to measure intelligence.

A book by Matt Ridley (Genome, The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters) explores the area a little bit. It's a bit dated but the logic still applies.

Humans, statistically, measure intelligence via IQ. Why? I dunno.

In the study he cited, genetic traits were not the only influencer on IQ test results. Even IF someone scored lower on an IQ test, that does not mean they are not of high intelligence in some other aspect.

For instance, having an IQ may correlate with a vast knowledge of history but may have nothing to do with an individual's ability to bake (baking... sigh.... hard).

I'd recommend reading the chapter on Intelligence and genes. It was insightful and a potentially good starting point.

u/WorkingMouse · 2 pointsr/Christianity

>Not familiar as I probably ought to be. I know that there were other homo species -possibly at the same time as humans. I think I heard something about interbreeding at some point, but maybe that was just speculation?

To be honest, I'm not exactly an expert on the specifics. However, Wikipedia provides as always - If the article and the numerous citations are to be believed, they're considered separate species as mitochondria genetic data (that I could explain further if you like) shows little significant breeding. However, there is indeed some evidence of limited interbreeding.

>This is fascinating stuff!

I'm glad you like it!

>To clarify: do all the primates share the same mutation which is different from the mutation in other creatures, ex. guinea pigs?'

Precisely! Mind you, I believe there are a few changes which have accumulated since divergence (since if they don't need the gene once it's "off", further mutations won't be selected against), but the crucial changes are indeed the same within primates - and those within guinea pigs are the same within guinea pigs and their nearby relatives (I believe), but different from those from simians. Amusingly, because mutations occur at a generally steady rate, the number of further divergences between the pseudogenes (no-longer-functional genes which resemble working copies in other organisms) in different species will give hints at how long ago those species had a common ancestor (this, and related calculations, are termed the "genetic clock").

Nifty, isn't it?

>I guess I don't see why it would be demeaning to be patterned after other homo species which were adapted to the environment we would inhabit. Maybe I'm way off here, but it seems like the case for common ancestry could also point to a common creator. (obviously it is outside the bounds of science to consider that possibility, but philosophically, it might have merit?)

I have indeed heard that before; the suggestion of a common creator as opposed to common descent is a fairly common suggestion, pardon the pun. The typical arguments against fall first to traits which can be considered "poor design" in pure engineering terms, even if they're traits that are now needed. I can point to the genetic baggage of the human eye compared to that of the cephelopod (nerve fibers over vs. under the retina), or the human back (not great for walking upright), or further traits along those lines which suggest that we're still closer to our origins. Indeed, we can also look at things like the pseudogene involved with vitamin C above as unnecessary addons; genetic artifacts which hint at our descent.

While this additional argument, I will grant, is better at addressing general creation then special human creation, we can also look at repeated motifs. For example, the same bones that form our hand also form a bird's wing, a whale's flipper, a dog's paw, a horse's hoof, and all the other mammalian, reptile, and avian forelimbs - though sometimes you need to go to the embryo before you see the similarity. When taken alone, that may suggest either evolution or design; it would make sense for a creator to reuse traits. It becomes more stark when you consider examples that should be similar - for example, the wings of the bat, bird, and pterodactyl, despite using the same bones, have vastly different structures, despite all being used for the same purpose (that is, flight).

The way that my evolutionary biology professor phrased this is that "design can explain this, but cannot predict it; evolution both explains and predicts." This idea - that natural observations may be explained or excused (begging your pardon) in a creation model, but are what are expected from an evolutionary model - is the major point I wish to make in this regard. And, I shall admit, perhaps as close as I can get to "disproving" special creation; it tends to approach unfalsifiability, if I understand it correctly.

>If I recall correctly, this is the position of Francis Collins / BioLogos. It's possible, but I have a few concerns. The first being that I think animals do have souls. If that's correct, ensoulment doesn't help make sense of the theology.

Yup; ensoulment as special is less compatible in that case.

>It would also mean that (at least at some point) there were other creatures who were genetically equal to human beings, but didn't have souls. Cue slave trade and nazi propaganda -they're human, but they aren't people. It would have been possible (probable?) that ensouled humans would breed with the soulless humans -and that just seems . . . squicky.

Point taken; even if you were to claim ensoulment for all humans existing at a specific point and thereafter, there can be...negative connotations.

>So, for now, it's a possibility, but it seems to be more problematic than special creation.

To be perfectly frank, I'm not really equipped to argue otherwise. As an atheist, my tendency is to end up arguing against ensoulment, as it's not something we can really draw a line at either. Still, I figured I'd put it out there; I'm a little delighted at your dissection of it honestly, as you brought up things I'd not yet considered.

>Like I said, the genetics is fascinating, and I am naive to much of it. Short of becoming a geneticist, could you recommend a good book on the subject of human genetics and common descent? I took basic genetics in college, so I was able to follow the discussion about chromosomes, telomeres, etc. But I would like to know more about the discoveries that have been made.

Oooh, that's a rough question. Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful question, but I rarely read books aimed at laymen dealing with my specialty; most of my information comes from text books, papers, and profs, if you take my meaning. Which in the end is a way for me to provide my disclaimer: I can provide recommendations, but I've generally not read them myself; sorry.

Having said that, I'm not about to discourage your curiosity - indeed, I cannot laud it highly enough! - and so I shall do what I can:

  • Why Evolution is True is the one I generally hear the best things about; due to the possible audience, it is partially written as a refutation of intelligent design, but it also gives a lovely primer on evolutionary science - and compared to some of Dawkins's texts, it's more focused on the evidence.
  • I have a copy of Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters on my bedside table right now - largely unread, I'm afraid. Basically, it takes a peek at one gene from each of our chromosomes and explores its relevance and its evolutionary history. It's by no means comprehensive; we have hundreds of thousands of genes, and it looks at twenty-three. None the less, It's been an interesting read thus far.
  • Similarly, Your Inner Fish explores the human form, and where it comes from; it looks at various structures in the human body and draws evolutionary parallels; this one is more heavily focused on common descent in relation to humans.

    I think I'll hold off there for the moment. The latter two are focused more on humans, while the former is about evolution in general. I'm sure there are more books I could recommend - Dawkin's The Greatest Show on Earth has been lauded, for example. I tried to stick with texts which were at a slightly higher level, not merely addressing the basics but delving a little deeper, as you noted you have a measure of familiarity already, and those which were related to humans. I hope they help!

    It's not an alternative to books, but Wikipedia does have a fair article on the topic (which I linked near the very top as well). And believe it or not, I do enjoy this sort of thing; you are more then welcome to ask more questions if and when they occur to you.
u/Ho66es · 2 pointsr/books
u/2SP00KY4ME · 2 pointsr/biology

Does she like to read? There's lots of really good everyday reading genetics books, like this or this for example.

u/[deleted] · 2 pointsr/books

Genome is one of those casual science books, but it's pretty interesting.

If you have no knowledge of Biology though, I would start with a 100 level college textbook.

u/liquidpele · 2 pointsr/science

To add to my other reply, here is a good book if you actually want to learn about it:

http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/067001883X

I just finished this one, it's also very good:

http://www.amazon.com/Genome-Matt-Ridley/dp/0060932902

If you want a 2 hour lecture by a Catholic Biologist on ID/Evolution, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

u/phaxsi · 2 pointsr/Buddhism

There is indeed a biological explanation. Back in the days where we were hunters and lived in caves, we were very concerned with our own day-to-day survival to think too much about anything else. Our brains and bodies evolved to adapt to these wild environments.

However, our increasing ability to control our environment, led us to create small worlds that were increasingly separated from the wildness of nature. The brain that evolved to fight tigers with giant theet suddenly found itself without too much to think or do. Enter the obsessive or depressive behavior.

I recommend you this book that talks about this: http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Life-Our-Bodies-Predators/dp/006180648X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1325184561&sr=1-1

u/chileroX · 2 pointsr/IBD

There's a new book out called "The Wild Life of Our Bodies" that has a lot of great info on the current research in this area.

u/dfort1986 · 2 pointsr/Paleo

I have not, but thanks for bringing it to my attention. It's definitely going to be one of my next reads. - http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Life-Our-Bodies-Predators/dp/006180648X/ref=reg_hu-rd_dp_img

u/thetokster · 2 pointsr/Biochemistry

'power sex and suicide' by Nick Lane. Great book on the importance of mitochondria.

u/Atavisionary · 2 pointsr/askscience

I hadn't seen this answer yet, so I will throw it out there. Like most of the other ideas here this is a hypothesis. Life has made various evolutionary innovations over history and one idea is that woody bark/stems were first evolved sometime immediately proceeding the carboniferous. Woody stems are stronger and more resilient because there are protein cross links between cellulose strands. Cellulose being a long strand of linked sugars. Woody stems are very difficult to digest, which is why pretty much nothing eats it. When it first evolved, literally nothing ate it because it was so new and no organism had the tools to break it down. So, during the carboniferous trees and plants with woody stems proliferated because they had few or no natural predators, and probably also because they could grow taller than their competitors thanks to the strong stems and thus had better access to sunlight. They did still die of old age however, and that woody material would just sit there without decaying. Eventually it would be buried and millions of years later we would dig it out of the ground as coal or oil.

Well, the process plants use to grow is they take CO2 out of the atmosphere to build cellulose and other structural molecules and release oxygen. So what was happening in the carboniferous was that this was a very one way process. The carbon was being fixated and nothing was breaking it down to re-release it.

That all changed when fungi, think mushrooms and molds, eventually evolved the enzymatic equipment to break down woody stems. Sometime at the end of the carboniferous presumably. With this second innovation, the woody part of plants didn't just sit around waiting to be buried, it was broken down the fixated CO2 was released back into the atmosphere. Obviously this added a new variable to the equation and the oxygen level in the atmosphere struck a new and lower balance.


I suggest "Oxygen" and "power, sex, suicide" by nick lane if you are really interested in this subject.

https://www.amazon.com/Power-Sex-Suicide-Mitochondria-Meaning/dp/0199205647

https://www.amazon.com/Oxygen-Molecule-World-Popular-Science/dp/0198607830

u/CharlesOSmith · 2 pointsr/askscience

There is a great book titled "Power Sex and Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" by Nick Lane. it opens with a history of the discovery of the mitochondria, and the steps taken to understand what it does and how.

In general, for most things we discovered about biology before the advent of modern genetics or even an understanding of what a gene was there were a few common attributes that made something microscopic easier to study.

First, is there a lot of it in a tissue? We have really good purification techniques now, not to mention the ability to take pretty much any genetically encoded protein and convert a yeast or bacteria cell into a little factory to make grams of our protein, but in the early days of discovery, you needed a natural source with lots of your protein of interest (like hemoglobin in blood).

Second does your protein/molecule/organelle have a color? when you get right down to the cellular level, so much of what there is to study is transparent. Even chemical purification techniques that were available typically resulted in a white or yellowish powder. But for some things, and this is especially true for mitochondria and chloroplasts, there is a very distinct color. Mitochondria are packed with molecules called cytochromes which give them a very distinctive orange/red/brown color.

For most scientist all it takes is an observation of something interesting, a tiny thread that they can start tugging on. After that its incremental test after incremental test, gathering information one step at a time until the puzzle is solved...or as solved as possible

u/TheCountMC · 2 pointsr/exmormon

This book is not about atheist philosophy per se, but explores what it means for morality and philosophy if you accept the premise that the mind (intelligence) is entirely contained within the physical brain/body. The author is a neurophilosopher. I didn't even know that was a field of study before I heard about this book.

u/nomoneystillproblems · 2 pointsr/IAmA

Tell your friends to read Mary Roach's book Gulp. She has a whole chapter on enemas (as people used to think you could get nutrients/vitamins that way) and things just simply aren't taken in like that — as far as the hydration goes.

u/gcanyon · 2 pointsr/CGPGrey

For an interesting take on this, consider Bicameralism

Or read Julian Jaynes's book, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

TL;DR: Jaynes proposes that until about 3,000 years ago the halves of our minds operated more independently, and that the right hemisphere is the origin of many instances of "gods" speaking to us, oracles, and other similar phenomena. He cites literature of the time as evidence, and says that somehow (changing software) our minds have become more unified since then.

u/alcalde · 2 pointsr/DebateReligion

> It's a myth comemorating the emergence of consciousness and explained by
>primitive humans in the only terms they could grasp at the time.

Why would primitive humans believe there was a time before consciousness? Isn't this the left-field theory of one particular scientist anyway?

Edit: Here we go, Julian Jaynes:

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395449125&sr=8-1&keywords=bicameral+mind

u/drteethhead · 2 pointsr/IAmA

there is a book that suggests just this. good read.

u/oracle235 · 2 pointsr/askscience

Look into the Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes.

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072

u/spw1 · 2 pointsr/Buddhism

You can't give yourself epilepsy with a mind-bending meditation.

I had an accidental experience a couple of years ago that came out of some intense soul-searching brought on by life circumstances. In the immediate aftermath, it felt like two disjoint parts of 'myself' had integrated--were able to see and know each other and, for the first time in my life, be at peace with each other.

I recommend reading The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes. His theory is basically that consciousness develops with the integration of the two hemispheres. But this description does not reflect the totality of the book's impact.

u/mdillenbeck · 2 pointsr/boardgames

If you like amusing in a dark way, then maybe look at Greenland and Neanderthal. In it you expand the abilities of your tribe by acquiring daughters or women - for in these games it is the females who carry the greatest impetus for innovation. In particular, Neanderthal not only allows you to add women to your tribe via an auction, but once they "mature" (are fully integrated into your tribe) then other parties can "court" them and forcibly marry the women to get the benefits your tribe enjoys. I can see how some would have difficulty with how the material is presented, especially if they forget we are discussing pre-linguistic early man and that the mechanics are heavily influenced by Julian Jaynes controversial theories... and I wouldn't call the ideas presented in the game sexists or misogynistic - but with an naive approach I could see how they are viewed like that.

Origin: How We Became Human is the older game title that encompasses more of human history and goes a bit deeper into the design choices/research materials - but when making games on human evolution you are bound to run into material that will be questionable to some people.. and Phil Eklund does not shy away from controversial viewpoints or game designs with a message - which is why I love his games. Whether I agree with the message or not, they are well thought out and inspire deep thought - unlike the Indians of Lewis & Clark which were perhaps a bad design choice. I guess in the end it is why I don't find his design choices ever offensive - they are well researched and carefully chosen mechanics that present a thesis, not something that looks cool or was whatever was cheapest or "convey an impression" of a pasted-on theme.

u/MaresEatOatsAndDoes · 2 pointsr/TooAfraidToAsk

Here's a book for you: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes.

Consciousness is a recent and rare phenomenon. Fleeting moments of it are precious.

u/hocuspox · 2 pointsr/humanism

I would have to recommend some of Robert Anton Wilson's works for some interesting insight into human experience outside any particular framework. Check out Prometheus Rising.


The Holographic Universe by Grant Talbot tries to explain paranormal and religious phenomena through science, with a foot in quantum theory and the meta-physical. There are probably more recent works along these lines but this was a great introduction when quantum theory was less well known.


Also, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes makes a compelling read. In short, the human brain only recently (within 10,000 years) developed a concept of "I" and otherwise heard an internal voice, the voice of this or that god, guiding them.
Here is a wikipedia outlining the concept


Then there is always Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth with very frank discussions of common archetypes across cultures and how stories become elevated to mythic status.

u/bukvich · 2 pointsr/C_S_T

So has anybody here taken the time to read Jaynes The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind? Because it is a long book, although it is repetitive enough that you may only need to read a fifth of it to get 90% of its gist.

u/kidfay · 2 pointsr/atheism

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind is a fascinating read about how it might have come about. I recently finished reading Consciousness Explained. It was kind of long but also interesting.

u/DavidByron · 2 pointsr/changemyview

We each know that we personally are conscious. (Cogito ergo sum)

While everyone else could be philosophical zombies (people who appear to be normal but in fact have no consciousness) common sense suggests otherwise. Although there's a theory that consciousness developed in humans within the historical period. See Julian Jaynes's The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072

Interesting stuff if only to make you think about the limits of what we know.

------------------
I may not be able to reply quickly because feminist down vote brigades operate on /r/changemymind to censor people who disagree with them. This means that I cannot reply more than once per ten minutes and I may not get to you.

u/desolee · 2 pointsr/booksuggestions

This is not what you are asking for, but you might take interest in it anyways- Brainstorm is a book that basically calls bullshit on a lot of studies that have been done about how hormones and the difference between males and females. Talks about intersexuality as well.

u/craftparadigm · 2 pointsr/evolution
u/OrbitRock · 2 pointsr/Psychonaut

Yeah man, I think your onto some stuff.

>My question for you, is that during ones life, does our actions alone influence gene expression, and therefor, does our everyday actions influence gene expression that has to do with the 'activities (both physical and mental (ie. thoughts))' they do most?

Yes, I think this is true. For example, there's the example that is often associated with epigenetics that the children of people who experienced starvation at some point in their life would have epigenetic changes that made their body hold onto calories and store much more fat, even though they themselves had never experienced starvation. I'm sure this happens with all sorts of different environemtnal stimuli, like drugs, diet, if they've experienced trauma, etc. You might see this in a way of environmental and cultural stimuli causing physical genetic changes in unborn future generations.

>Ive came up with the idea, which is something about the evolution of beliefs, and how that in turn influences actions.

I think humans primary mode of evolution is cultural. We dictate the structure of our societies by the beleifs of our culture. And the structure of our society is quite literally the survival strategy of our species. It is our Ecological Niche. And just as coming out of trees and choosing to hunt and forage on the ground has had physical evolutionary changes on our species, so does any survival strategy alter our evolutionary course.

Our culture is how we pass down our survival strategies and the beleifs that shape how we act. So culture has very real evolutionary implications, and IS how our species primarily evolves, imo.

>here is then sub cultures, and linkages of sub cultures, for which all thought (semantics) is connected. What is this 'source' that integrates all semantics (meaning), and how does it influence our actions? Do we have the power to choose what we feed this source, and therefor spread good karma, which would then make our actions, and generally our world a better place?

I don't know if your familiar with the idea, but you should look into the concept of memetics which is a concept for how ideas and behaviors spread through a population, and looks at it in evolutionary terms. Seems really relevant to all the ideas you put forward here.

I think I agree with the idea that religion has evolutionary implications, and also the idea that your own mindset, thoughts, and behaviors, can influence the people around you, the culture, and even our evolutionary course.

Some more scientific books that are in line with what you're saying here that you might want to check out:

Evolution in Four Dimensions which seeks to show that evolution isn't just about genes, but also things like behaviors, culture, and also epigenetics.

The Social Conquest of Earth by the great biologist E.O. Wilson. This guy also developed the concept and field of study of sociobiology which looks at how organisms in a society (whether human or ant) interact and how their social systems evolve. Here he goes really deep into the biological foundations of human culture and society.

The Evolving Self; a psychology for the third millenium. I just mention this one because the way you talk about these things makes me think you'd enjoy this book. This is kind of a book that tries to get at the ethics that a modern person could adopt, and the conclusion is along the lines of doing what you can to contribute to the larger evolutionary process that we are all a part of. He goes into a lot of thinking about genes, memetics, and what impact a person could have in it all.

u/devnull5475 · 2 pointsr/continentaltheory
u/RogueTanuki · 2 pointsr/starcitizen

It's nice, but that's not exactly how things work irl. Most of the oxygen in the body is consumed in cellular respiration in order to create ATP through oxidative phosphorylation. Basically, the only thing which would substantially lower the oxygen consumption is lowering of the core body temperature, since that slows down the cellular metabolism substantially. The main reason people die in stroke is due to lack of oxygen due to impaired blood flow, and lowering the body temperature helps lower the cells' oxygen requirement.

Also, but this is nitpicking, oxygen actually has negligible effect on breathing and heart rate if the arterial pO2 is higher than 8-10.5 kPa, whereas the main blood gas which controls breathing and heart rate at sea level is CO2, since it can pass the blood brain barrier and through CO2+H2O<->H2CO3<->H+ + HCO3- the H+ ion lowers the pH in hypercapnia, which stimulates the central chemoreceptors and the respiration center in the brain, leading to increased respiration and heart rate. Source



tldr Carbon dioxide controls heart rate, not oxygen.

u/ihavenopassions · 2 pointsr/medicalschool

I don't know of any "popular science" books that would actually give you a head start in medical school.
For example, Oliver Sacks' books, especially Musicophilia are broadly neurological in topic and really interesting, but reading them won't actually give you any major advantage when it comes to your studies.

However, if you're determined to get that headstart, I'd recommend reading up on either anatomy or physiology.

For anatomy, I'd recommend the Thieme Atlas of Anatomy books, although I might be biased, since one of my professors co-authored them and therefore used them religiously.
The books aren't text books in the classical sense, so there is little explanation given, but the illustrations are arguably the best I've seen so far.
You might also want to check out the google body project, although I found it severely lacking in terms of features, you can't, for example, look up innervations or muscle insertion points. Or maybe those are available once you shell out for premium content, I haven't tried that.

For physiology, I found Boron/Boulpaep's Medical Physiology to be thorough, detailed and very easy to read and understand. So this might actually be the book you're looking for. Even with limited or no prior knowledge in physiology and minimal experience with science in general, you'll be practically guaranteed to gain a deep working knowledge of physiology, which is arguably the basis for medicine in general and will serve you well throughout your studies at medical school.

If you already feel confident in both anatomy and physiology, maybe because you've done both in your undergraduate studies, I can't recommend Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine enough. Almost everything you'll ever need to know about medicine is contained in this book and it is generally pretty well written. If you'd actually have enough time in medical school to thoroughly read and digest this two-volumed beast of a textbook, med school would be less about cramming than it is today.

So maybe get a headstart on that one.

Edit: On the other hand, you might as well enjoy your time before medical school and keep the fire burning by shadowing a physician from time to time or watching the first couple of seasons of House. That'll be more fun.

u/CitationKidnapper · 2 pointsr/MuseumPros

Can’t give you any ideas for older books, but this one has been on my wish list for a while and I’ve heard it’s really good:
Skulls: An Exploration of Alan Dudley's Curious Collection

u/terciopelo · 2 pointsr/pics

Fellow skull collector checking in! Nice to see another one of us here on reddit! Have you read Simon Winchester's book Skulls? A reddit secret santa gave it to me, and it is now one of my prized possessions. Tons of reference photographs and a biography of a really interesting collector.

u/erl_queen · 2 pointsr/HellenicPolytheism

Ok, so you seem to be making a big assumption that is causing consternation, which is that the soul or spirit is equivalent to the consciousness produced by (in our case) the brain. These are not necessarily related at all. For instance, does a mentally handicapped person not have a soul? What about someone who is in a vegetative coma, does that mean their soul has now departed and they should be honored as an ancestor already despite still being alive? When we die, and our souls move on to Haides or wherever (depending on your beliefs), we no longer have any access to our bodies and brains, and yet our souls may still be conscious and aware (example: the ghosts you mention). Some people also have the ability to send their spirits out from their bodies while in trance. It seems clear to me that the spirit and the physical form/brain are only tenuously connected in many ways.

Not to mention many of us have experiences of, say, communicating with animal spirits (dead or alive) where the spirit appears to understand and be able to communicate at a much higher level than any actual, physical animal is capable of.

Plants don't have to have developed "human-like consciousness" biologically for them to have a spirit attached, existing in parallel as it were, with some level of awareness and engagement with the world. Trees are often hundreds of years old, a spirit that old may well have developed even better awareness and engagement than some human spirits.

But possibly most importantly, plants do have senses and an ability to detect the world around them. They actually have ways of sensing light (as we do with our eyes) and chemicals (as we do with our noses and mouths), and sound vibrations (as we do with our ears), as well as some things we are actually unable to sense. They communicate with each other, with fungi, and even with animals through electrical and chemical changes. If you want to totally blow your mind, I highly recommend reading Brilliant Green: The Surprising History and Science of Plant Intelligence which will explain these things in detail much better than I can. You will never look at plants the same way again.

u/dode74 · 2 pointsr/facepalm

You're welcome to check a dictionary.

Or this, this or perhaps this.

u/childishrambin0 · 2 pointsr/teenagers

If you like science and are interested in learning about the history of neuroscience in an interesting way, I'd recommend The Tale of the Dueling Neurosurgeons by Sam Kean.

u/StillOnDaRun · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

Dude. I really have to warn you... I really hope you don't already know what is going to be in the chapter I am warning you about. But like dude, if you read this book, knowing what you know... it is going to be real fucked up dude. Like, I am not even fucking kidding dude... I cannot afford the amount of drugs I need to take to undo this, nor consume them since they are like 5000x my bodyweight.

Other than that chapter, the book is 10/10, so yea. But skip the shit out of it. You see a weird motherfucker biologists dude traveling to new guinea you shut that fucking book and burn it. I cannot comprehend the evil you just showed me... or more appropriately, its extent. Oh my fucking god.

https://www.amazon.com/Tale-Dueling-Neurosurgeons-Revealed-Recovery-ebook/dp/B00GG0GIXQ

u/disgustipated · 1 pointr/science
u/--O-- · 1 pointr/Christianity

His use of the 'mutation' as negative for one. He seems to think of a mutation like he thinks of sin.

If anyone wants to know more about genetics, this is an entertaining book for beginners.

http://www.amazon.com/Genome-The-Autobiography-Species-Chapters/dp/0060932902

> Are you really going to stand up and state categorically that it is impossible for all humans to be descended from two original humans with a perfect and complete genome?

There is no perfect genome.

u/trustifarian · 1 pointr/running

Kings of the Road

Running for My Life

Why We Run

A Life Without Limits Chrissy Wellington is a triathlete but I think this fits.

Jessica Ennis: Unbelievable Jessica Ennis is a heptathlete so not strictly running.

Today We Die a Little Emil Zatopek, the Czech Locomotive. Who else can pull off the distance triple (5,000 - 10,000 - Marathon) in one Olympic games while setting records in each event?

u/Samsonerd · 1 pointr/todayilearned

http://www.amazon.de/Why-We-Run-Natural-History/dp/0060958707

This book is concernd with this topic. great read.

u/radical_heartbeat · 1 pointr/running

Dean K has elevated the profile of ultra running as a sport but he is a little disingenuous when he talks about his accomplishments. He is a very good self promoter, I'll give him that. Plus he's been able to make a living as an above average runner which is to be commended.

I haven't read 50 50 but I would recommend Why we run (formerly Racing the Antelope). I think the mix of natural science and ultra running would appeal to reddit users.

u/Mean_Salt · 1 pointr/conspiracy

https://www.amazon.com/Wild-Life-Our-Bodies-Predators/dp/006180648X

There are several other books on the same topic that are pretty good. This is probably the best start. It is evolutionary medicine if you want the broad field. The purpose of your appendix is to house microbiota in the event of diseases like cholera.

You might also be interested to know they discovered lymphatic vessels in the brain about 2 years ago. Likely related to alzheimers.

u/redmeansTGA · 1 pointr/evolution

Ernst Mayer, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins have written some decent books broadly covering the evidence for evolution. Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters fits into that general category, and does a good job of outlining the evidence for evolution as well, in particular from a paleontological perspective.




Astrobiologist / Paleontologist Peter Ward has written a ton of fantastic books. I'd start with Rare Earth, which outlines the Rare Earth hypothesis, ie complex life is likely rare in the universe. If you read Rare Earth, you'll come away with a better understanding of the abiotic factors which influence the evolution of life on Earth. If you end up enjoying Rare Earth, I'd highly recommend Ward's other books.




Terra, by paleontologist Michael Novacek describes the evolution of the modern biosphere, in particular from the Cretaceous onwards, and then discusses environmental change on a geological scale to modern environmental challenges facing humanity. It's one of those books which will change the way you think about the modern biosphere, and the evolution in the context ecosystems, as opposed to individual species.




Another book by a paleontologist is When Life Nearly Died: The Greatest Mass Extinction of All Time, looking at the Permian mass extinction, which was the most catastrophic mass extinction of the Phanerozoic wiping out 95%+ of all species. More focused on the geology than the other books I mentioned, so if you're not into geology you probably wont enjoy it so much.



Biochemist Nick Lane has written some great books. Life ascending would be a good one to start off with. Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life is really excellent as well.




The Origins of Life and the Universe is written by molecular biologist Paul Lurquin. It mostly focuses on the origin of life. It's pretty accessible for what it covers.




Another couple of books I would recommend to people looking for something more advanced are: Michael Lynch's Origins of Genome Architecture, which covers similar stuff to much of his research, although takes a much broader perspective. Genes in conflict is a pretty comprehensive treatment of selfish genetic elements. Fascinating read, although probably a bit heavy for most laypeople.


u/adhrpr · 1 pointr/askscience

Almost all sexually reproducing organisms have two sexes and a rigorous method for maintaining them. There are some interesting hypotheses that this has something to do with the inheritance of organelles. I read about it in Nick Lane's book.
http://www.amazon.com/Power-Sex-Suicide-Mitochondria-Meaning/dp/0199205647

There are a lot of mechanisms for making (and keeping) the two sexes different. I find it really interesting that there's so much variation here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system

u/illogician · 1 pointr/neurophilosophy

True. I can't recommend it since I haven't actually read it, but she does have a new one, Touching a Nerve.

u/josefjohann · 1 pointr/evolution

>I guess what I'm searching for is some evidence of current philosophy that is actually contributing in a positive way to the field of evolution/biology. What I've found is, frankly, a lot of talking bollocks and very little genuinely useful ideas.

I'd suggest John Wilkins who writes a lot on evolution and biology, as well as Alexander Rosenberg, Carl Craver, William Bechtel, Paul Thagard, Patricia Churchland, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. Some of those toward the end of the list are mind/brain philosophers more so than philosophers specifically of evolution and biology. But contributions in those fields matter too.

u/ifeelnumb · 1 pointr/TrollXChromosomes

I recommend reading Gulp for your horror and amusement.

u/jerryonimo · 1 pointr/videos

Her most recent book, Gulp, which came out just a couple of months ago, does for your understanding of your digestive system, what Stiff does for you when you see dead people.

u/puedo_tener_chzbrgr · 1 pointr/Fitness

Like Optamix said, Starting Strength is a good foundation for learning about the basic barbell exercises. However, to gain any appreciable amount of knowledge you're going to have to delve a bit deeper by reading various texts. For example, Lon Kilgore's Anatomy without a Scalpel is a great book to get acquainted with basic human anatomy. I'd suggest you pick up an introductory book on human nutrition as well. The Science and Practice of Strength Training, although a little more on the advanced side, would also make an excellent addition to your library. As far as mobility and prehab/rehab texts go, Becoming a Supple Leopard is one that is often recommended around here. Oftentimes you can get used copies of these on Amazon in decent condition for a good price.

u/Mr2001 · 1 pointr/slatestarcodex

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind has some interesting thoughts related to this. It's also been referenced in "Westworld".

u/CoconutCurry · 1 pointr/Life_Journals

Here, Ace Hardware just sells hardware and garden stuff. Landscaping tools, seeds, those huge wooden barrels... It's probably that there's less places up there that sell things like fabric and stuff, so they figured why not.

Hah, yeah. I got my mom to try Thai food years ago. She loves it. She got me to try Vietnamese food this last summer. Fair trade.

My mom went down to New Mexico. Got me some Roswell souvenirs. Apparently there's an entire UFO museum. Her husband also has some family down there, so they got to visit them. She had a blast... and showed me the picture slideshow at least 3 times.

Battlestar is actually not very space-battle heavy. There's some good space battles, but most of it is interpersonal. The bad guys blend in, so there's the whole spy thriller thing.

Pick up Julian Jaynes The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind if you haven't already. It blew my mind and made me see things in a very different way. It's (in toddler-basic terms) a study of the psychology of ancient peoples based on archaeological evidence, primarily ancient religious materials (because those where usually the best preserved forms of writing etc.).

Also check out Joseph Campbell. I've only read one of his books, but he's a brilliant man who has made comparative mythology his life's work. Definitely gave me some food for thought and helped me figure out where I stand in terms of spirituality and religion.

Hah, yeah. No worries. Setup first is pretty much my go-to for any situation. I'm probably not going to get drunk, as it's not really my thing, but I'm also not likely to be able to set up a tent by myself... so I'll be wrangling someone to help me with that probably with a minute of us finding a decent spot.

I have no idea what games people know how to play. I pretty much only know Go Fish, War, basic 5-card stud, and cribbage... but I don't know wtf happened to my cribbage board, and I've only found like 2 other people under the age of 50 who know the game. If all else fails, there's solitare. My brother and I ended up playing hangman yesterday, so there's that, too. He doesn't go anywhere without pencils and paper.

u/caseinpoint · 1 pointr/biology

It's a long read or audiobook, but i highly recommend reading:

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind https://smile.amazon.com/dp/0618057072/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_LbPtDbMB2M7A4

It blew my mind and has to do with this exact topic.

u/agolho · 1 pointr/HelloInternet

"The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" if you liked guns, germs and steel and superintelligence. Like GGS it too constructs a hypotesis and goes on and on to support it. Also as the title suggests it tries to answer the question "where did consciousness came from? and how did it get so complex?"

I really like Dawkins' comment about this book: "It is one of those books that is either complete rubbish or a work of consummate genius, nothing in between ..."

u/kantbot · 1 pointr/DarkEnlightenment

This book becomes very interesting when read in light of this one.

u/Eternally65 · 1 pointr/books

I'd nominate "Snow Crash" as the most entertaining book on this list. It's very funny, has wonderfully memorable characters ranging from the deliciously named 'Hiro Protagonist' to a 16 year old skateboard courier, from the head of the mafia ("competition is not part of the mafia ethos") to the would be global telecomms monopolist.

A lot of the plot relies on this book with what might be the world's most daunting title. (You don't actually get to the part that involves that thesis until well into "Snow Crash".)

It's well written and sometimes startlingly funny.

You might have to work harder to get overall themes out of it since it is a work of entertainment. (The author has mused about the 'bifurcation' in writing between what he calls "Dante" fiction and "Beowulf" fiction. See the answer to the second question in this interview. The interview also contains the deathless line, "I had to let her know that the reason she'd never heard of me was because I was famous.")

You are not likely to bog down in overly turgid or pompous prose. <grin>

u/israelhands · 1 pointr/askscience

An interesting book I read related to this subject. I'm not one to really tell if his ideas hold water or if he's a total crackpot, but I found it a fascinating read. If you can find it in your local library, I definitely recommend it.

u/Kromulent · 1 pointr/trees

Nice music, thanks. That was new to me.

I can suggest a book that's pretty cool - it can be challenging to read in parts, but the first chapter is accessible and worthwhile all on its own:

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394216812&sr=8-1

Read the reviews.

u/bigalh · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

There's a really good book that explores this:

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072

Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind".

If you're REALLY serious about considering this question, read that book slowly and think about it. Is that voice actually "in your head"? Is it possible that your consciousness, whatever that is, can exist in a room down the hall? Is it existing right now or a split second in the past?

We know that chemical and physical reactions constitute brain activity, which is how we think, but your nervous system doesn't just exist in your head. There's aspects of your nervous system that function inside your body without ever consulting your brain consciously or subconsciously.

There's the concept of a mastermind, a consciousness that develops when two or more people are working on something together. Where does that consciousness exist?

Are "you" observing the world through the lens of your mind, or are you directly experiencing it as "you"? In how many ways can you observe/experience the world? We think of our experiences as a movie that we're viewing, especially when we're remembering, but all of that can be biased and influenced by the feelings we're having right now. We can even have memories implanted in our heads by others or even ourselves.

Our consciousness isn't a computer, it's an organic phenomenon that is extremely malleable and subjective. In short, it's not exactly "you".

These are fun questions to ask, specifically because they don't have an exact answer, and we've been trained to think that everything has an exact answer or no answer yet. This isn't much of an ELI5. I'm sorry.

u/mynameisalso · 1 pointr/psychology

I'm just a normal guy, but this book is a real trip. He thinks up to about 3000 years ago humans didn't have a conscience. And when it started to develop people thought it was God speaking to them. I don't know how true it is, but extremely interesting. https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072

u/spike · 1 pointr/books

Fiction: Locus Solus by Raymond Roussel

Non-Fiction (?): The origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes

u/T_H_E_Y · 1 pointr/atheism

My 2nd favotite book next to God Delusion: (http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072) It explains organically why we are cursed with a cocept of god in the first place. Dawkins makes mention of Jaynes' theory, and gives a nod to my other 2nd favorite related book by Carl Sagan (http://www.amazon.com/The-Dragons-Eden-Speculations-Intelligence/dp/0345346297)

u/CaptnMeowMix · 1 pointr/Monero

I know right? Totally unrelated to monero, but for anyone that's interested, the book "The Origin of Consciousness In the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes gives a pretty interesting theory about how and why this kind of authority worshiping behavior was likely the dominant mode of thinking for much of ancient history. If anything, witnessing all this authoritarian-loving hysteria springing up recently, without an ounce of self-reflection or irony, seems like pretty damning evidence of the book's hypothesis being true.

u/bloodraven_darkholme · 1 pointr/WhitePeopleTwitter

For any one who likes West World and dense philosophy texts -- Jaynes wrote an interesting theory on how humans "evolved" the inner monologue: http://www.julianjaynes.org/julian-jaynes-theory-overview.php His book is great, but not for the faint of heart.

u/micheletorbidoni · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

This one here is, maybe, THE MOST controversial book regarding our (supposed) shift from non-self-conscious mind to self-conscious one. It's a very (very) interesting reading.

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457001965&sr=8-1&keywords=bicameral+mind

u/hmmthisisodd · 1 pointr/conspiracy

You started off great then went right back into your hole.

Mass is information, good, a cop out if you don't really understand but we will start there.

Then you went from information, back to shit you have to measure. The reason the plank volume and area are 1:1 is because they are both conjugates of golden ratio, your calculations is only relevant up to a real measure, because in fact it could be any scaled versions of those. This is where perception can change a meter to a mile.

"dont ask, it just is" that is a stupid way to interpret the fact the questions you ask and answers you get depend on what you define.

If you ask stupid questions, like what is the source of consciousness, without knowing what consciousness is, then you get shitty answers.


>The only thing you need to understand to understand mass is infinite spin. Once you have an infinite energy due to infinite quantization due to infinitely nested spin boundaries, everything else falls into place. This is exactly analogous to the basic tenants of quantum field theory which requires a harmonic oscillator at each point in space.

Now consider what the purpose of the complex plane is and how that eliminates renorm/singularities.

You are on the right track.

>which is a main practice of mainstream physicists

This is why you go to 1950 and earlier. I would recommend you read this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Shorter-History-Science-William-Dampier/dp/1107672902/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496524763&sr=1-1&keywords=a+shorter+history+of+science+dampier

It will help when you get to the "holy shit, how the fuck haven't they finished this yet" point. The full copy is also amazing.

And when you are ready for the second half of your journey (once you can derive Schrodinger's equation (it is possible and quite simple once you have the necessary knowledge)):

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496524800&sr=1-1&keywords=the+origin+of+consciousness+in+the+breakdown+of+the+bicameral+mind

When you see what they did and how they did it, you will understand my attitude and frustration.

u/MiserableFungi · 1 pointr/AskScienceDiscussion

For the lazy, the primary source/citation for the wiki link is a book by Julian Jaynes called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. OP's claims are more comprehensively backed by the contents of said book. Although not universally accepted as a valid psychological theory of mind, the author's work is well known enough that OP shouldn't be faulted for assuming some degree of familiarization among the scientifically literate here. Even among those who aren't, the recent HBO reboot/re-imagining of Westworld referenced it such that the idly curious would likely have at least some inkling of it. Not necessarily defending the concept of bicameralism. (I think it is an interesting idea but am bothered by the lack of scientific evidence to back it up.) Just providing context here.

u/happybanjodude · 1 pointr/westworld

The title of the finale was based on this book so check it out! Waiting to read it myself.

u/ASnugglyBear · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

Mind's I edited by Daniel Dennet and Douglas Hofsteader

A Sense of Style by Steven Pinker

The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julien Jaynes (This is completely debunked, but mindblowing all the same).

u/ziddina · 1 pointr/exjw

> Ups, more grief and victimization towards me, because somehow ive taught to punish myself and not accept who i am. Sometimes I'm so tired that I can't even consciously battle with the intrusive thoughts.

Oh, no - that sounds too familiar. Of course you're not in any way responsible for the bizarre thinking of others, & you certainly shouldn't punish yourself for any of that. But how to turn off the 'parent tapes' (or WT dogma, etc.)?

>I still struggle with that magical thinking to this day

Okay, for some reason this comment struck me a little differently & reminded me of things I got into after I left the JWs.

I looked into Wicca for a while after I left. It was fun to learn about a new belief system (systems), & I toyed with some of the spells/magical thinking at the time.

I'm well aware that this next part worked out for me, since I was an adult at the time, but maybe it will work for you, too.

After learning about that stuff, I tried some of the things they talk about - astral projection, reading cards before they were turned over, moving things with my mind, etc.

I got absolutely nothing. Nada, zip, zero, blank emptiness, etc. Especially the part about moving things with my mind (hey, who doesn't feel like pulling the tv remote to them instead of having to get up & pick it up, once in a while?)

That's when the whole concept of magical thinking totally, completely collapsed for me. I was pretty skeptical even before that, but when I tried to pull the tv remote to me - & failed - I figured if it couldn't even do something practical, then it must all be fake.

>I cant find the link but its called the origin of consciousness in the break down of the bicameral mind Julian Janes. For sure there's a PDF you can download.

Maybe this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072

Keeping in mind (pun not intended) that the book is at least 40 years old. There have been some significant discoveries about the human mind & how the brain grows & develops from infancy, since then.

u/BlunderLikeARicochet · 1 pointr/IAmA

YOU MUST READ "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"

For a synopsis of the idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism_(psychology)

Basically, Jaynes' bicameralism theory states,

> ancient people in the bicameral state would experience the world in a manner that has similarities to that of a modern-day schizophrenic.

> This is exemplified not only in the commands given to characters in ancient epics but also the very muses of Greek mythology which "sang" the poems: Jaynes argues that while later interpretations see the muses as a simple personification of creative inspiration, the ancients literally heard muses as the direct source of their music and poetry.

(The chapter on poetry made a particularly compelling case for me -- As a songwriter, I often experience the phenomenon of feeling like my creation of art is somehow "guided" or I am not 100% responsible for it - a remnant of an earlier consciousness perhaps?)

> In ancient times, Jaynes noted, gods were generally much more numerous and much more anthropomorphic than in modern times, and speculates that this was because each bicameral person had their own "god" who reflected their own desires and experiences.

> Even in modern times, Jaynes notes that there is no consensus as to the cause or origins of schizophrenia (the subject is still hotly debated). According to Jaynes, schizophrenia is simply a vestige of humanity's earlier state.[3] Recent evidence shows that many schizophrenics don't just hear random voices but experience "command hallucinations" instructing their behavior or urging them to commit certain acts. As support for Jaynes's argument, these command hallucinations are little different from the commands from gods which feature so prominently in ancient stories.

u/memento22mori · 1 pointr/science

The psychological consequences are also the most interesting aspect to me, it's my primary focus. The only problem with the subject is no matter how much evidence you gather mainstream psychology will say it's not enough. From my experience, most educated people think that the mind has changed very little over the last several thousand years because they can't imagine otherwise, but the mind is a very adaptable thing and can change quickly if the proper stimuli appears. I'm going to attach a summary of my favorite book on the subject, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

Keep up the good work on your studies. I regret not doing very much of my homework... sometimes aha.

http://www.erikweijers.nl/pages/translations/psychology/the-origin-of-consciousness/summary.php

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315236868&sr=1-1

u/Maxables · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

You may also want to check out this book. It's very heady, but thoroughly explores a couple theories for the advent of human consciousness, and its relation to language.

u/matoiryu · 1 pointr/AskFeminists

The data did show that boys did better than girls at math. But there's some other interesting studies that showed that if girls were told that they were being tested in math against the boys, they did worse than if the girls were simply given a math test. So there's that to think about.

What I meant by the foundation being sexist is similar to how most of biological science has been built on sexist foundations. Such as the IQ test being tweaked until the boys outscored the girls. In studies with baby psychology, researchers tend to assume that they are going about their methods wrong if baby boys and girls don't act the way they expect them to based on their genders.

On the one hand, of course it's always good to question your methods if you're not getting the results you expect--you could be doing something wrong. On the other hand, you should stop and think "why do I expect these results in the first place?" In my experience, many researchers don't ask themselves that.

Again, I'm not saying that it's totally impossible for innate differences to exist. On the one hand, it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective why men and women might have these differences with regard to hunter-gatherer societies. On the other hand, I find evolutionary psychology dangerously reductionist as a whole, and it is often used to justify sexism, racism, and ableism anyway. To me the field strikes me as the science of writing the perfect "just so" story.

Bottom line, I'm sure there are some innate differences. I'm just not sold that those innate differences are as hard-wired or lead to the hugely dissimilar cognitive and behavioral phenotype as the current literature suggests.

Check out this book for more information. (Of course, the author there is biased too! But there's still a lot of interesting stuff there worth considering.)

u/JamesDevitt · 1 pointr/changemyview

"There have been many studies..."

Here is the thing tho. A lot of the studies in gender differences have absolutely junk methodology. And a lot of the valid studies show only minor differences where the two Bell Curves overlap 90 percent. From that aspect the science shows clearly that individual differences in something like math skill completely override any tiny difference in gender. Here is a book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Storm-Flaws-Science-Differences/dp/0674063511

I don't expect I can change your view, but if you are really interested in the subject and open-minded I'm sure that book can.

u/Trout211 · 1 pointr/news

I'm sorry you are so unable to envision a situation wherein humans can be virtuous without the threat of hell or some big brother in the sky. This way of thinking is severely flawed but thats just one mans opinion. I'm confident this is a waste of my time to bother with but I would recommend this book to you as a non-religious explanation of why and how biology encourages cooperation.
https://www.amazon.com/Social-Conquest-Earth-Edward-Wilson/dp/0871403633

u/glxyds · 1 pointr/Physiology

Ditto! I decided on this one for my lady: Guyton Hall Textbook - Medical Physiology.

u/Yotsubato · 1 pointr/news

http://www.amazon.com/Medical-Physiology-2e-Updated-PHYSIOLOGY/dp/1437717535


Gender as a social construct is there before 12 but sex hormones and what makes us male or female physically isn't active yet at that point. This having a physical gender dysphoria at that point is not possible, but having a social one is. Treating a social dysphoria is controversial.

u/purellmycock · 1 pointr/pics

For all the people talking about herniated discs and back problems, read the following books and see this website:

Crooked-Outwitting the pain back pain industry

Do you really need back surgery?

Low Back Disorders

Then visit this website: www.chirogeek.com

The back pain world is a weird fucking place filled with misery.

u/julry · 1 pointr/Posture

Hmm, I think that PDF is attacking a strawman idea that professionals don’t believe (“The division of the trunk into core and global muscle system is a reductionist fantasy”) or else it’s something that Pilates trainers or other nonprofessionals do that isn’t supported by doctors and the actual research (“A whole industry grew out of these studies with gyms and clinics worldwide teaching the “tummy tuck” and trunk bracing exercise to athletes for prevention of injury and to patients as a cure for lower back pain”).

Stuart McGill is an expert orthopedic on back pain issues and he prescribes glute and back strengthening exercises. He’s also very careful about the specific exercises and says that many popular exercises for abs etc are not helpful or dangerous. I don’t think he recommends clenching the transverse abdominals. The exercise in the OP video is similar to a dead bug which is a safe and recommended exercise.

u/wooliestbear · 1 pointr/Futurology

And as I said, as we currently understand, the jury is still out on whether or not plants are able to feel and perceive. Yes plants do have responsiveness, but so does a light bulb attached to a wire when we run a current through it. We do not know if there is someone home with plants. The lightbulb isn't feeling or perceiving anything but it is responding to stimuli.

I realize this sounds similar to Cartesian animal-machine thinking of the past and I will be checking out this book in the future, as there is lots of interesting work being done with regards to plant 'neurobiology'. However, as I said, I don't think this in anyway justifies the exploitation of animals we know to be sentient.

You're right, CAFO farms are not the only source of animal flesh. However, there is debate whether or not small production can ever be mainstream given supply and demand. There will always be someone willing to purchase and sell at a lower price, a lower prices usually include increases in production efficiency at the expense of animals. That's also ignoring a large amount of people who can't afford "humane" products.

For me, all of this is aside from the point. I think it is wrong to exploit sentient animals in any setting.

u/veg-uh-tub-boolz · 1 pointr/facepalm

>The "right" conclusion? We're back to objective morality again...

And back to the fact that you know nothing about metaethics and are merely assuming that there's no objective morality.


>I'm semi-serious. It may well be the case that eating vegetables is also considered barbaric. However, I'm not the one claiming equivalency between plant life and animal life.

I'm not claiming that either. I'm just saying that if plants feel, then going vegan still is the best way to reduce suffering and death of sentient life.

>Taking your own argument to the logical conclusion, though, does it not make more sense to simply commit suicide?

Nope.

>After all, if you will eat many thousands of plants in your lifetime then you are better off minimizing those plant casualties by dying early. Since that's plainly an absurd position, I posit that there is not an equivalence: not all lives are equal.

I agree, eating plants is fine. I was showing how your position didn't make sense. I don't think plants feel or think.


>That said, the current state of neuroscience is not the end-state of neuroscience. Studies suggest there may well be plant intelligence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_perception_(paranormal)

"Plant perception or biocommunication is the paranormal idea that plants are sentient, that they respond to humans in a manner that amounts to ESP, and that they experience pain and fear. The idea is not accepted, as plants lack nervous systems.[1][2][3][4]Paranormal claims in regard to plant perception are considered to be pseudoscience by many in the scientific community.[1][2][5][6]"

> To rely on the current state of a branch of science as your bedrock for an apparently objective morality is flawed due to the inherent mutability of scientific knowledge. As the science changes your morality will be forced to do so too.

Again, even if plants are sentient, going vegan and eating plants directly is still the best way to reduce suffering and death of sentient life.

>Now I did explain my own position earlier to you:
>>Outside actual food taste, the closer something is to being "me" the more distasteful I find the concept of eating it.
>Other humans are pretty close to being actually "me" so I find the concept distasteful, but I would do it under certain circumstances.
>Chickens are pretty far from being "me" so I don't find the concept distasteful at all.

So it's more okay to eat someone with a different skin color than it is to eat someone who is the same race as you?

u/zsajak · 1 pointr/worldpolitics

A correlation in a number of sports that are only similar in that they require a specific type of athletic performance , over a number of countries.
I don't want to argue what is considered race and what not, but I don't think you can deny that there are physical differences apparent to the eye, as in skin colour, hair,etc between people of west african decent and european decent. I don't think anyone can deny a genetic correlation between does traits?

So why are people so adamant to deny that there are also differences in athletic performance, for specific athletic exercises, especially when there seems to be a strong correlation within a specific group?


I have not read this book but the author seem to draw on a large amount of scientific data that seems to support what I have said.

u/insectgirl908 · 1 pointr/suggestmeabook

The Tale of the Dueling Neurosurgeons: The History of the Human Brain as Revealed by True Stories of Trauma, Madness, and Recovery https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GG0GIXQ/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_9AKaAbMAQ6CXF

u/cleti · 0 pointsr/Fitness

I'm not being a weasel, you're just being pissy as fuck over being wrong.

> Not to mention benching beforehand will make pressing even harder on the triceps.

Do I really need to specifically add because the triceps are fatigued from performing the bench press before overhead pressing to that sentence? I really didn't think I'd have to specify that it would be harder to overhead press after being because it was the second lift. The whole coming second thing has been my whole point since I explained myself further in my second comment, but clearly you're either ignorant, delusion or just have the desire to argue since you can't grasp that simple concept.

>source the claim that ohp trashes your triceps

Are you seriously trying to argue that the overhead press does not hit the triceps? Because, again, that's pants-on-head fucking retarded. You do realize that it's physically impossible to extend the elbow without them doing work, right? Wanna read some books about it? Here's a great list to start with: Anatomy Without a Scalpel, FIT, Starting Strength: Basic Barbell Training; 3rd Edition, and Strength Training Anatomy, 3rd Edition. Here's ExRX showing that the triceps are dynamic stabilizers. Which, by the way, the majority of that website was written and compiled by Dr. Lon Kilgore. He has a PhD in human anatomy. Although, since you clearly have poor reading comprehension here's a fun little diagram that shows the muscles used in the overhead press. Here's another since I'm sure you weren't able to grasp the concept from just what I've showed you.

Honestly, I can only assume you're a fucking incredible troll because I cannot believe that I'm actually having a legitimate argument over whether or not the goddamn overhead press involves the triceps.

u/required3 · 0 pointsr/reddit.com

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consciousness-Breakdown-Bicameral-Mind/dp/0618057072/

u/gruntle · 0 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

An utterly fascinating book about this is The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. There aren't any books that spook me out any more, but this one did. It was just weird reading it...sort of what people in the 20s must have felt reading HP Lovecraft back before movies like Hellraiser became commonplace and we lost our sense of horror. From the Amazon review:

>His theory, in simplest terms, is that until about 3000 years ago, all of humankind basically heard voices. The voices were actually coming from the other side of the brain, but because the two hemispheres were not in communication the way they are now for most of us, the voices seemed to be coming from outside. The seemed, in fact, to be coming from God or the gods.
>
>But he also posits that many sophisticated civilizations were created by men and women who were all directed by these godlike voices. What is not very clearly explained (a serious gap in his theory) is how all the voices in these "bicameral civilizations," as he calls them, worked in harmony. But his theory is that ancient Greece, Babylon, Assyria, Egpyt, and less ancient but similar Mayan and Incan kingdoms were all built by people who were not "conscious" in our modern sense.
>
>When one hears voices, whether then or now, the voices tend to be commanding and directive, and the need to obey them compelling. Free will is not possible. And so the people who built the pyramids were not self-aware as we are, did not feel self-pity, did not make plans, but simply obeyed the voices, which somehow were in agreement that the thing must be done.

The author produced only this work and died in 1997. It is either total B.S. or an absolutely revolutionary idea. Unfortunately, it is non-provable, all we can do is speculate. Read the book, it's worth your time and available from the usual places, including torrents.

Er, just realized that the topic is before language. Oops. Anyway I wrote this all out so clicking 'save' anyway.

u/echelon59 · 0 pointsr/conspiracy

Alright, this kind of made me run back to my textbooks just so I can speak from science that I have learned, here are the sources from the textbook I used.

Cholesterol is not innately good or bad, this someone has already mentioned and is true. Our body makes cholesterol as a handy way to break down larger fats our body intakes from food into usable ones that our body needs to function. Cholesterol is transported through our body using Lipoproteins, there are many classes to this lipoprotein, VLDL, LDL, HDL. For the sake of simplicity lets talk about LDL and HDL because this are often used clinically.

LDL stores a massive amount of cholesterol, and HDL in comparison stores a poor amount of cholesterol. Now LDL has been shown to be responsible in making plaques inside the lining of blood vessels which causes plaques which inturn causes coronary heart disease. Several important points; We make a fixed amount of lipoproteins (HDL, LDL) based on our blood plasma concentration of cholesterol, the formula is here. Now based on this when there is an excess amount of LDL floating in the blood and injury occurs, macrophages (immune cells, which get activated to the area when injury occurs) eat up LDL and make foam cells which release growth factors that further perpetuate the inflammation in the intima (middle of) the blood vessels. Handy picture incase you don't wanna read.

Now this being said, there is a clinical evidence to suggest that those who have risk factors (physical inactivity and obesity, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and cigarette smoking.) that aid themselves atherosclerosis (the whole plaque thing by LDL) should try to reduce their cholesterol (since we already said that amount of cholesterol influences amount of LDL).

Things that can be done to reduce cholesterol, is increasing bile acid production (which reuptakes cholesterol) by eating things like oat bran, which binds bile acids and is a constituent of many breakfast cereals, increases the proportion of liver cholesterol that forms new bile acids rather than forming new LDLs and atherogenic plaques. Or by taking statins which competitively
inhibits hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase, a rate-limiting enzyme in the synthesis of cholesterol. This inhibition decreases cholesterol synthesis and increases LDL receptors in the liver, usually causing a 25 to 50 percent reduction in plasma levels of LDLs.

Key points of what was said here, not everyone needs statins. Only those who have the above risk factors should take them. And statins have been long shown to help reduce the production of LDL through stopping the production of cholesterol via a basic biochemical pathway.


Now I don't know everything and I'm sure statins aren't a panacea and some do cause harm I know for example (talked about in one of my textbooks) that they have a ton of unintended side effects and these are the ones we know about. Granted looking at basic profit loss I'm sure big pharma doesn't wanna do more research in order to find stuff that they know will scare people. But what is a doctor supposed to do when he knows that the patient has bad genes (Indians have a nasty problem with this, well published and researched) that put him in the risk factors, the patient doesn't want to exercise or eat right. Is he supposed to let them die? or put them on statins and logic a risk/reward argument (doing more good than harm).

u/puddboy · 0 pointsr/todayilearned

"because before WWII, Jews dominated the basketball court."

http://www.amazon.com/Taboo-Athletes-Dominate-Sports-Afraid/dp/1891620398

u/InsideOutsider · -1 pointsr/AskHistorians

Perhaps this might offer a glimpse. Julian James - The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. A fascinating read. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0618057072?pc_redir=1406095814&robot_redir=1

u/Zandesh · -3 pointsr/vegan

Sentient plants
As in regards to the sentient versus non-sentient debate, most vegetarians seems to have agreed upon ignoring scientific explorations and research that dates back even way back from Greek philosophers to Charles Darwin, and plant neurobiologists of today have made a wide variety of research and reports which findings seem to conclude that plants are indeed sentient.

examples are:

Plant-Environment Interactions: From Sensory Plant Biology to Active

Plant Behavior (Signaling and Communication in Plants)3 Mar 2009
by František Baluška

https://www.amazon.com/Brilliant-Green-Surprising-History-Intelligence/dp/1610916034

And I know most of you would use: But but but, more plant lives is being harvested to feed farm animals rather than if only consuming the plants.

But that argument is absolutely invalid in this specific debate, since the debate goes on: It's okay to kill plants rather than animals, just because plants are "non-sentient".

u/soxandpatriots1 · -5 pointsr/ShitRedditSays

> Also, simply take a look at the MLB, the NHL, the AVP, the MSL, MMA. Or should I just cherry pick two of them, like you did, instead of looking at professional sports as a whole?

I picked the NFL and NBA for two reasons - 1.) They are the two leagues that I follow most closely, and am able to speak most authoritatively on, and 2.) because they are the two leagues that put the most emphasis on explosive athleticism (I clarify "explosive" because you can make the case that hand-eye coordination and technical footwork are elements of athleticism, but I do not refer to these traits when I refer to athleticism.)

I firmly disagree with the idea that black people are more successful because they train harder. For one thing, the difference between white and black people in basketball and football does not appear with skills that one would typically train. Blacks are not better at shooting the basketball, passing, dribbling or footwork. Nor are they more accurate passers of the football, more adept at catching the ball. The differences arise in athleticism - black people are quicker, faster, and better jumpers. What's more, this is true from an early age. Playing or watching sports with kids who are only 13, 14, or 15 years old, it is already clear that in general, the black kids are more athletic than the white kids.

The black kids are not trying harder than the white kids, but yet they are clearly more athletic. For example, in my high school, one kid was the best 100 meter runner in the state, and became a national-caliber runner. Unsurprisingly, he was black. However, he didn't train any harder than anyone else. In fact, he didn't even run track until it was suggested to him that he join the team, because he was clearly a fast kid. After not even a season of training, he was the fastest runner in the state. There were plenty of kids that were training far harder, and for a longer time than he was, but were not nearly as successful. What's more, there were several other kids in my high school who joined the track team their junior or senior years just because it was clear that they had good speed. They were all black, and within a season, they had formed the state-champion 4x100 team. I think it's worth noting that I went to a private, Catholic school that was 90-95% white. Yet the four best sprinters in the school were black, as was the best player on the football team. I somehow doubt that was a coincidence.

There are millions of white kids who would love to be top-level basketball or football players in the United States, but the top-level players are overwhelmingly black. Why? It's not because the white kids aren't trying hard enough. To say so is wrong, and insulting to white kids everywhere. While by no means the final word, this book attempts to explore the issue from a biological standpoint.

> Which makes more sense? That black Americans train harder in the NFL and NBA and 100-meter dash than other races because of cultural pressure which produces the best athletes in those sports, or black people are just naturally more athletic than all of the other races...but range from non-dominant to non-existent in most professional American sports leagues because of some random fluke no one understands?

That question is both a loaded question, and inherently flawed. Even when they don't compose the overwhelming majority, black people are represented in greater numbers than their share of population in many sports, including cricket and soccer (citation). Blacks are over-represented even on the U.S. soccer team, with a number of black players, including Freddy Adu, Jozy Altidore, Charlie Davies, Robbie Findley, Edson Buddle, Maurice Edu, DaMarcus Beasley, and Oguchi Onyewu, to name a few. And that's in a country in which soccer is more of a niche sport than anything, yet blacks are still over-represented. I doubt that's due to cultural pressure. What if soccer was the dominant sport in America, and all the kids aspired to be soccer players? Most likely, the soccer team would have even more black players. As to why no African teams win the World Cup? Most likely because those countries are incredibly poor and lack the resources to fund and develop a top team. Even so, teams from the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, and Cameroon have had success ont he international scene lately.

TL;DR: Black people do not train any harder than white people in the sports that they dominate. Also, they are still over-represented in sports that are not as popular, which seems to dispute the idea that it results from cultural pressure.