"More than 30 [US] states nationwide have no ban on child marriage. And it is not an anomaly. According to the non-profit Unchained At Last, since the year 2000, the United States has documented 315,000 cases of child marriage within its own borders—largely sanctioned by the Church and courts. No federal law bans child marriage in America. Not one."
"CEDAW was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 18, 1979. Afghanistan has ratified this treaty. The United States has not."
"Today, the spectacle of America condemning child marriage abroad while refusing to adopt the international treaty that prohibits it is a moral and legal incoherence that undermines every word we say."
Not that either is great, but there is a world of difference between saying "a 16-year-old can marry another 16-year-old if the couple and both sets of parents agree" (an often a judge too) and saying "a 12-year-old can marry a 30-year-old against her will".
Alas, several states still lack minimum ages, so your 30-on-12-year-old scenario is still quite possible in the US.
Particularly disturbing is how much pushback there was to the recent Oklahoma bill to finally end child marriage two weeks ago. Thankfully it passed anyway, but the state house vote was 51-36. Some of the quotes from the house members voting against the law are rather chilling, e.g.:
“This was a vote in favor of parents rights over government overreach. It’s possible that some people are comfortable with the government overriding parental decisions, but I’m not one of them. To vote yes on this is a vote to let the government dictate how to parent your children.”
- Rep. Clay Staires (R-Skiatook)
Prior to that, it was one of the aforementioned states without a minimum marriage age (in the case of pregnancies), so it was semi-common for families to force girls to marry the much older men who'd impregnated them.
AFAIK, California, Mississippi, and New Mexico still lack a minimum age for marriage.
Interesting. I tried it for a bit over a minute (8 cycles), but then I had to stop. I get really dizzy unless I take breathing breaks after outbreaths. Will try again to see where this goes, thanks! Really like the simplicity.
11 cycles this time. Went a bit further into the dizziness, since I was more prepared for it this time. Unsure whether it makes sense to just stay with the dizziness as long as I can, or whether I should stop earlier. Probably either is fine as long as I am somewhat confident about it?
Thank you for sharing your experience. Try more shallow breathing rather than modifying the frequency/timing, which is the whole point of this approach :)
> What he didn't get was that computing was not going to stop at word processors.
Huh? We seem to have a completely different read of his work, like the whole ZUI Zoomable Interfaces research? That is not about word processing at all. How to navigate and interact with multi-dimensional data.
Probably because it evolved very early (like before bilateral symmetry, multi layer body cavity, or kidneys early... maybe even before multicellular animals early) and so has been incorporated as an essential pillar into multiple processes layered on top of that fundamental architecture.
You've merely stated observations about the context and the process that led to it. That doesn't in any way answer the question of what it's actually doing that's so essential.
My point is that, in a higher organism, it may be essential to how a lot of their processes function, in that it was infrastructure that already existed at the time those processes were developed, so they were in turn developed to depend upon it.
So "the reason it originally exists" and "what breaks if you take it away" aren't necessarily the same thing.
As with, say, digestion, or an major organ like the liver, it's reasonable to think that it does simple things in simple animals, and more complex things in more complex ones.
Take out an animal's liver, it's not one process that stops working, it's dozens. There's one or two that will kill it quicker, so those are the ones it dies of, but artificial livers are hard to build as they implement so many vital processes.
I don't dispute any of that but it's stating the obvious, it's nothing more than topical conjecture (even if it's almost certainly correct), and (most importantly) it does nothing to answer the question. What essential functions are being performed?
Take your liver example. We can largely answer that same question. I can't off the top of my head but the answer is fairly well established even if incomplete to varying degrees depending on the species.
There is widespread consensus on why a liver is needed for survival whereas there is not for sleep. That's particularly interesting when you consider that sleep is more common across the tree of life than dedicated livers are (at least AFAIK).
Sleep is more common across the tree of life because it's older.
Older than bilateral symmetry even - jellyfish are thought to sleep, sponges however do not. Jellyfish don't have spinal columns, lungs, gills, livers, kidneys, hearts, guts or blood, but they do have nerves and they do seem to sleep.
There is widespread consensus as to which processes failing will kill you first in acute liver failure, but it governs dozens of processes that, medium term, are essential to life; not all are widely understood.
In the case of sleep, it seems to be nervous system dysregulation that kills. It's notable that comatose patients don't seem to suffer the ill-effects of sleep deprivation. But still, "the thing that kills an animal subject to extreme sleep deprivation" is not necessarily "the original process for which sleep was evolved".
Human brains do some fairly complicated vital things during sleep (REM, spindles, slow wave activity), but that can't be the original essential function - the simplest animals that sleep (jellyfish) don't really have brains, although they do have nervous systems.
Whereas those animals which lack nervous systems (sponges) can't be said to sleep, although it's reasonable to ask.. "how would you tell?", or ask whether the question itself makes sense for something that lacks the ability to sense, plan, act.
So another framing is "anything which can be awake, must also be asleep". But one might equally argue, we don't know why animals are awake.
We can go one step further and suppose that, in order for an animal to act, to exercise will, it must do so at above its average metabolic rate, and in doing so it necessarily incurs metabolic debt.
If he articulated a particular essential process and why it depends on sleep in an incidental manner that might make for a reasonable hypothesis. However it would not refute the earlier (cited) claim that there is no consensus.
As presented without any concrete information about the processes involved it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, merely empty handwaving. In context it's even worse, being an entirely baseless contradiction of a claim pulled from a prominent paper.
I never agreed with him but all of that is implied. It being informed speculation included.
Also there being no consensus means most scientists who touch on the topic are FFA speculating except the person stating there is no consensus in the overview. It's not "settled science" but rather the opposite.
The question was "why is it needed". In context the meaning is clearly to ask what it's doing that's essential and (it follows) why those things are essential.
The subsequent response did not (as you suggest) articulate some subset of nonessential things done during sleep. Rather it rattled off plausible (and widely understood) aspects of the process that could have led to the current situation. Even if it had listed concrete activities that would still not have made for a meaningful answer.
The first clue that something is wrong should be that the linked article is recent and prominent. Thus short a brand new groundbreaking development we can be reasonably certain that a random commenter on the internet will not be sensibly rebutting the claims (and certainly not in the span of ~2 sentences).
No that was not the question. Why precisely sleep is essential is a complete non-sequitur to the original question, which was "does something occur during sleep which resembles what is described in TFA such that it can justifiably be called sleep."
As a general rule of thumb, if you find someone's responses incoherent, it's good practice to check what is actually being discussed.
I've always assumed its spontaneous specialization of species: leaving the safety of their nest at those times of day when they are the fittest to occupy a niche.
Once energy conserving "sleep time" exists, the genome can postpone or schedule for activity during these times of day, if it turns out to be more effective somehow.
It's still an open debate whether the seat of consciousness (or even simpler, perception) is the brain.
see e.g. Wahbeh, H., Radin, D., Cannard, C., & Delorme, A. (2022). What if consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? Observational and empirical challenges to materialistic models. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 955594. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955594
Same for memory, which is "needed" as well for your question to make sense. The more current theories assume memories are stored not only in the brain, but throughout the body.
see e.g. Repetto, C., & Riva, G. (2023). The neuroscience of body memory: Recent findings and conceptual advances. EXCLI journal, 22, 191–206. https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2023-5877
Ok, I only skimmed the paper but it seems like all of the "non-local phenomena" in support of their theory are basically psychic powers. Not exactly strong evidence.
You're free to stop there. We can also turn it around, and I can ask you for any paper that details the theory of why the brain should be the location of consciousness.
I only gave one example and Wikipedia to start with. There's a lot of material out there if you're (rightfully) skeptical of that one paper. I don't even know what you're refering to as "their theory", as the way I read it, they're basically documenting various co-existing theories, and the authors don't disclose which one they find the most likely. I also don't see it as necessary for science to pick one; it's all about theories. I prefer documentation of all possible theories, and see no reason to dismiss one over the other unless they're disproven. I pointed to that paper, because any paper that talks about alternative theories shows the point I was making: We don't know yet. The point was not to claim that they've managed to put together good or bad arguments.
We understand the fundamental laws of physics well enough to say there is not some mysterious soul influencing the brain. Just like we can say that the moon is not made from cheese.
> Modern physics, in other words, provides evidence for what philosophers call “causal closure of the physical”: physical events have purely physical causes (Loewer 1995, Papineau 1995), at least in the regime relevant to human life. Without dramatically upending our understanding of quantum field theory, there is no room for any new influences that could bear on the problem of consciousness.
> We understand the fundamental laws of physics well enough to say there is not some mysterious soul influencing the brain. Just like we can say that the moon is not made from cheese.
I don't see how this relates to the "seat of consciousness" (with)in a human body, or how the biological system works together to "form it". Or where thinking or memory storage or retrieval takes place. At least that was what I was talking about. You're talking about something else.
It is a theory that we think in the brain. As far as I understand it, and please prove me wrong, there are other, valid theories? It's unscientific to discard theories purely based on belief. You seem to be arguing from a certain belief, not from science.
The modern term for "soul" is "psyche".
Remember that the OP was asking: "How do you ensure that you aren’t torturing a brain that can’t see, hear or scream?" -- clearly refering to something... conscious?
> It is a theory that we think in the brain. As far as I understand it, and please prove me wrong, there are other, valid theories? It's unscientific to discard theories purely based on belief. You seem to be arguing from a certain belief, not from science.
The evidence that the brain is where thinking happens is overwhelming, the minor influence of the rest of the body notwithstanding. There are no other theories.
Plenty of examples of theories listed there, no? Picking a random one: "Open individualism states that individual personal identity is an illusion and all individual conscious minds are in reality the same being".
"the extended mind thesis says that the mind does not exclusively reside in the brain or even the body, but extends into the physical world"
To state it explicitly, I am not saying I believe in these alternative theories. I am also not stating anything about their probabilities. I just want to be accurate in my understanding, which is that multiple theories do exist and none of them have been proven or disproven. It is not known whether you only need a brain to think, or how much other regions like the nervous system spread throughout the body play a crucial role for "thoughts" to form.
If you discard a theory just because you judge there not to be sufficient evidence, you're working from a belief, and not from scientific reason.
In this particular thread, we're not even coming from "thinking" or "mind", but from sentience -- the stated idea that the "brain can feel pain", as brain alone (!). Depending on which physical regions and matter you include in "brain", it doesn't even have any structures that according to the current scientific consensus provide or relay perceptive data. Unless you believe in one of the many theories that place the mind outside of the physical structures of the brain.
Sure. We can't even agree on a good definition for "consciousness", we certainly don't know _how_ it works. I don't think there's a lot of debate around that specific point.
I'll try and read the paper more carefully after work, but my quick read was: they posit that consciousness might not be localized in the brain because if it were, then how would people be able to perform telepathy / remote viewing / future foresight? I can't assert that their non-local hypothesis is wrong, but I can pretty confidently say that the evidence they're using to back it up is unscientific BS.
Agreed. I don’t consider what they present as “evidence”. But that doesn’t turn it into evidence against the theories either. There are other theories that explain “out of body experiences”. We just don’t know. There doesn’t seem to be convincing enough evidence to make the case for “the brain is where consciousness resides”, nor is there against it.
We know the brain is the seat of consciousness because damage to the brain damages consciousness. There is no other organ in the body where that's true. You can completely replace all other organs without changing consciousness.
You can always find a paper by a quack that posits the earth is flat, that doesn't mean there's serious debate.
Can you point me to a paper or other source that proves that the brain is the seat of consciousness? Or that disproves other theories?
I am familiar with the works of Oliver Sacks, Paul Broks, and others, who have spent their lives researching damage to brains and the potential consequences for the psyche. I agree that it sounds like damage to the brain can have big impact, but none of that research, as far as I am aware, proves or even tries to argue that the brain is the only component necessary for consciousness to exist.
I am not interested in beliefs in one theory over another. I am not even asking for probabilities. I am asking for a scientific approach, which is to detail all possible (potentially fringe) theories until they're proven wrong. Anything else is the business of religion.
Singer, J., & Damasio, A. (2025). The physiology of interoception and its adaptive role in consciousness. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 380(1939), 20240305. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2024.0305
We think that organs can be replaced with little apparent change in consciousness (- this is an active research area, too, by the way). There is also research into how body tissues may form a part of what other theories place exclusively in the brain.
Aderinto, N., Olatunji, G., Kokori, E., Ogieuhi, I. J., Moradeyo, A., Woldehana, N. A., Lawal, Z. D., Adetunji, B., Assi, G., Nazar, M. W., & Adebayo, Y. A. (2025). A narrative review on the psychosocial domains of the impact of organ transplantation. Discover mental health, 5(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44192-025-00148-y
> "Having its own enteric nervous system, sometimes referred to as the “second brain,” the gut is also an immune organ and has a large surface area interacting with gut microbiota. The gut has been shown to play an important role in many physiological processes, and may arguably do so as well in perception and cognition."
Boem F, Greslehner GP, Konsman JP and Chiu L (2024) Minding the gut: extending embodied cognition and perception to the gut complex. Front. Neurosci. 17:1172783. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1172783
Ok, I've actually read into the 3 articles you've suggested and none of them are making the argument you are making. I think you just title mined.
Article 1. is about how the brain interprets incoming signals from the body
Article 2. is about dealing with psychiatric needs, such as medication compliance and stress, which result from organ transplants.
And, as I addressed in another comment, Article 3. is a discussion about the impacts of gut microbiome on mood. It is not a discussion of "consciousness".
Three are a million case studies and studies on it. So much so that you'll find studies on the best ways to repair consciousness after traumatic brain injuries [1].
You can't find a single case study where someone's consciousness was notably altered due to bowel resection. Something that has happened all the time.
Where are the people losing or having alerted consciousness after having their stomachs stapled? Their perforated bowels resected? Their bowel cancer polyps removed?
The closest you'll find is soldiers suffering from, understandable, PTSD.
Also, I'd point out that the studies you referenced aren't suggesting your point. They are saying that the gut can affect our mood and cravings. But as anyone that's taken a powerful antibiotic can attest, that did not modify their consciousness even though it nuked a huge portion of their biome.
People also get fecal transplants, they don't share consciousness as a result.
Unless you want to define consciousness as an eternal soul that exists in rocks, then you'll find no support for the suggestion that it exists outside a brain.
You also need to explain why it is that traumatic brain injuries alter consciousness and memory. Why it is that we can observe physical changes in the brains of dementia patients.
If you're going full philosophy of science, are these alternative theories falsifiable in the first place? Much of this kind of argument turns into philosophy and metaphysics instead of empirical science.
Imagine what would happen if we transplanted a head, or full brain, and the consciousness self would still remain the same, like with other organ transplantation.
We'll see!
I am saying: we can guess, but we don't know. I am not saying it's likely. I just want to remain precise in what are theories. It is a theory that consciousness "lives" inside the physical brain, as much as it is one that it doesn't. It is physically possible that it exists energetically and moves and stays with "the larger chunk of body".
I believe to some extent that everything is conscious and that it's specifically our species' prized mental features that lessen it's level at least temporarily. purely esoterically the statement "a rock is more conscious than a human being" doesn't even seem too outrageous to me.
Some people may say that Anna's has great OPSEC because she hasn't been identified following this release, but part of OPSEC is reliability, which they clearly failed at with the Spotify release. They let ego come in front of their OPSEC.
> "Malta’s AI for All initiative will offer people of all backgrounds the opportunity to learn how AI can be used responsibly through a course developed by the University of Malta. The course is designed to help people understand what AI is, what it can and can’t do, and how to use it responsibly at home and work. After the course is completed, citizens can access ChatGPT Plus for one year at no cost to them."*
"CEDAW was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 18, 1979. Afghanistan has ratified this treaty. The United States has not."
"Today, the spectacle of America condemning child marriage abroad while refusing to adopt the international treaty that prohibits it is a moral and legal incoherence that undermines every word we say."
https://www.qasimrashid.com/p/the-taliban-legalizes-child-ma...
reply