Tuesday, December 31, 2024
Monday, December 30, 2024
1131227 共匪之民主脫褲生活會
https://youtu.be/IgwndPu2jsk?si=Q-m1AQw_WzAfFYhT
重點當然，不是民主，不是生活，只是脫褲，你要理解，隔著褲子舔，和脫了褲子舔，是完全不同的民主，前者隔山打牛，後者與牛鞭 （dick, phallus)，齊嬉戲翻滾于泥漿，不亦樂乎，
車行形上學
1. Travels with Charley in Search of America (John Steinbeck, 1960)
2. Philip Cushman, 2018)
3. Keiji Nishitani, 1990)
4. Theodor Adorno, 1951)
5. Douglas Coupland, 2009)
6. James Bahoh, Michael Marder, Pieter Hallward, Jane Bennett, Karen Barad
7. 余英時評政治現實 （無處非中）（2022）
8. 物的反撲，人的退位；物的復位，人的歸位
9. Metaphysics includes cosmology and ontology, how does development of cosmology influence our understanding of ontology? （ChatGPT, 2024-12-28) (自體的心理學）（車行形上學）（自由）（2025）
10. 物的演化，生命的演化，意識 （心）的演化，
11.
車行形上學
首須處理，形上學的終結 （end of metaphysics)，
意思是說，車行，係行于，形上學的廢墟 （ruins of metaphysics)，
以前我說，詮釋學是構建形上世界的誠意，
現在我說，詮釋學是一個套套循環，走不出既有的材料，
意思是說，推翻滿清習共，必由蒙難倫敦開始，
意思是說，車行形上學，非止詮釋學，必由事件開始，
必由歷史判斷的事件 （event of historical judgment) 開始，
方無愧于，那個廢墟，
12/30/24（星期一）
回條寄醫學會，處理置物櫃，充電插座雙線，Kill Shot 發生在蒙大拿，Xian Mikol has a great ass，你要理解，我不要我的病人破費，40 公里之後，明寄自關，
Sunday, December 29, 2024
關于 2025 廢墟花園心理治療團督的數點說明 （2025）
1. 這是基于自體的心理學的心理治療的團督，
2. 基于自體的心理學的心理治療，是五合一，回到歷史 + 回到自然 + 存在治療 + 批判的心理治療 + 後結構主義的心理治療，
3. 就是，傳說中的，菊次郎十六式，岩中花樹療法，船子擺渡療法，
4. 但是，有趣的是，P-H-E 仍在那裡，
5. 所以這是，在變動不居中，作 P-H-E 的考察，
6. 在變動不居中，留下一個夏天的回憶，
7. 你要理解，行已至此，
8. 自體的心理學，非自體心理學，非客體關係理論 （包括克萊茵學派，中間學派，依附理論），非關係學派精神分析，非拉岡學派，非心智化理論，非精神分析場論，
9. 但上述，精神分析的遺產 （legacy)，都包涵在內，
10. 又加上，上述五合一的，行走荒野的車行 （van life)，
11. 至此，我相信，你不知道，我在講什麼，
12. 有趣的是，你很快就會知道，我也不知道，我在講的，如何實現，
13. 意思是說，我還不知道，菊次郎十六式，到底是什麼，
14. 就像 Deleuze & Guattari，也不知道，分裂分析（schizoanalysis)，是什麼，
15. 這兩個不知道，其實是同一個不知道，
16. 意思是說，菊次郎十六式，
17. 如果 D&G 尚且在世，
車行形上學
我先前說過，這是被事件事件，被他者（的事件）事件，
所以正確的說，這是車行之「被」形上學，
你要理解，多了「被」一字，你有多麼，鬆了一口氣，
那口氣，就是一條腰帶一口氣的氣，
意思是說，少了那條腰帶，你終于可以，光天化日脫褲，
正確的說，「被」脫褲，
12/29/24（星期日）
家樂福，USB 插座，充電線，衛生紙，柯文哲說，感謝上蒼給他滅證機會，滅證收工，下午三點，歸鄉土城，繼續研究區塊鏈，和史明台灣史，的辯證關係，和心疼的想像，橘子怎麼偷偷，花那幾十億，
偉大的反共鬥士韓國瑜傅崐萁說共匪統戰公公王滬寧含著習近平的屌嘎嘎作響對蔣經國發誓漢賊曾經不兩立國民黨 （懶得假裝）不是匪諜黨
https://youtu.be/-ATrQJJb4lY?si=w5_7ANuAcn_4mANC
你要理解，A 片是視覺聽覺的經驗，意思是說，舌頭蠕動的音效很重要，有點像，幽靜森林裡，溪澗聲鳥鳴聲落雨聲，大海醉臥海潮聲，聲聲入耳，所謂床前明月光，疑是地上霜，兩岸猿聲啼不住，輕舟已過萬重山，
What’s the brain capacity of the Denisovans? (ChatGPT, 2024-12-29)
The brain capacity (cranial volume) of Denisovans is not definitively known because we have limited fossil evidence. However, based on indirect evidence and comparisons with their close relatives (Neanderthals and modern humans), we can make some informed estimates.
1. Limited Fossil Evidence
• The primary Denisovan fossils discovered so far include:
• A finger bone and teeth from Denisova Cave (Siberia).
• A jawbone from Tibet.
• These fossils provide limited information about the size of their skull or brain.
2. Estimations Based on Related Species
• Neanderthals: Had an average brain capacity of 1,200–1,750 cm³, slightly larger on average than modern humans.
• Homo sapiens: Modern humans have an average brain capacity of 1,200–1,500 cm³.
• Denisovans: As a sister group to Neanderthals, their brain size was likely within a similar range, estimated at 1,300–1,600 cm³, making it comparable to or slightly larger than that of modern humans.
3. Cognitive Implications
• Brain size alone does not determine intelligence, but Denisovans likely had cognitive capacities similar to Neanderthals and early modern humans.
• Genetic studies suggest that Denisovans shared some advanced traits with modern humans, such as the ability to adapt to extreme environments (e.g., high altitudes in Tibet).
4. Genetic Evidence of Cognitive Abilities
• FOXP2 Gene: Associated with language and speech, was present in Denisovans, suggesting they may have had some capacity for complex communication.
• Their contributions to modern human genomes (e.g., in Southeast Asia and Tibet) suggest they were capable of survival in diverse environments, indicating advanced behavioral adaptability.
Conclusion
While exact measurements of Denisovan brain capacity remain speculative, it likely fell within the range of 1,300–1,600 cm³, similar to or slightly larger than modern humans. Their cognitive abilities were advanced enough to adapt to extreme environments, interact with Homo sapiens and Neanderthals, and leave a genetic legacy that persists today.
Were the ancient Chinese children of the Denisovans? (ChatGPT, 2024-12-29)
The ancient Chinese population was not entirely descended from Denisovans, but Denisovans did contribute to the genetic makeup of some ancient populations in East Asia and surrounding regions. Here’s how Denisovans relate to ancient Chinese populations and modern East Asians:
1. Denisovan Genetic Legacy in East Asia
• Genetic studies reveal that Denisovans interbred with Homo sapiens after modern humans migrated into Asia, contributing small percentages of their DNA to modern populations.
• Denisovan DNA is most prominent in:
• Southeast Asian populations, especially Melanesians, Aboriginal Australians, and Papuans, where Denisovan ancestry accounts for 4–6% of their genome.
• East Asian populations, including ancient Chinese, though at much lower levels (0.2–0.5%).
2. Evidence of Denisovan DNA in Ancient Chinese Populations
• Genetic research shows Denisovan admixture in the ancestors of East Asians and Tibetans:
• The EPAS1 gene, which aids adaptation to high altitudes, is derived from Denisovans and is prevalent in modern Tibetans and Sherpas.
• Ancient DNA evidence, such as a Denisovan jawbone discovered on the Tibetan Plateau, suggests Denisovans lived in regions close to what is now China.
3. Relationship Between Denisovans and Ancient Chinese
• Denisovans contributed indirectly to the genetic diversity of populations in East Asia, including ancient Chinese, but these populations were primarily descended from modern Homo sapiens who migrated into the region.
• The majority of ancient Chinese ancestry comes from migrations of early modern humans, who first left Africa around 60,000–70,000 years ago and later populated East Asia.
4. Denisovan Influence on Modern East Asians
• Denisovan DNA in modern East Asians is relatively minor compared to populations in Southeast Asia and Oceania.
• However, some traits in ancient and modern populations may be linked to Denisovan genes, such as:
• Adaptations to cold or high-altitude environments.
• Contributions to immune system diversity.
Conclusion
The ancient Chinese were not “children of the Denisovans” in the sense of being direct descendants, but Denisovans did interbreed with early modern humans in Asia. This genetic exchange contributed a small percentage of Denisovan DNA to some East Asian populations, including those in ancient China. The primary ancestry of ancient Chinese populations, however, comes from modern Homo sapiens who migrated into the region tens of thousands of years ago.
Let me know if you’d like more details on Denisovan genetic contributions or ancient Chinese population history!
When were Denosovans active? At the same period with Neanderthals? (ChatGPT, 2024-12-29)
Yes, Denisovans were active during the same general period as Neanderthals but in different geographical regions. Here’s a timeline and context for Denisovans:
Timeline of Denisovans
1. Emergence:
• Denisovans likely diverged from their common ancestor with Neanderthals around 400,000–600,000 years ago. This places their origins at a similar time to Neanderthals.
• Both species evolved from populations of Homo heidelbergensis or a similar archaic human species.
2. Peak Period:
• Denisovans are believed to have been active from at least 200,000 years ago and possibly earlier.
• They coexisted with Neanderthals and Homo sapiens for tens of thousands of years.
3. Extinction:
• Denisovans likely disappeared as a distinct population around 40,000–50,000 years ago, coinciding with the arrival of Homo sapiens in their territories and possibly climate changes.
Overlap with Neanderthals
• Denisovans and Neanderthals coexisted for a significant period (200,000–40,000 years ago).
• Evidence suggests they interbred, as modern human populations carry genetic material from both groups:
• Neanderthal DNA is found in non-African populations (1–2%).
• Denisovan DNA is found primarily in Melanesians, Aboriginal Australians, and some Asian populations, where it accounts for up to 4–6% of the genome.
Geographical Range
• Denisovans were primarily located in Asia, whereas Neanderthals inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia. However, their ranges likely overlapped in some regions, such as central and northern Asia.
Discovery and Evidence
• The first evidence of Denisovans was discovered in 2010 at the Denisova Cave in Siberia, from a fragment of a finger bone.
• Genetic analysis revealed that they were a distinct group, related to both Neanderthals and modern humans.
• Additional fossil evidence (e.g., a jawbone in Tibet) and genetic studies suggest a broad range across Asia.
Interbreeding and Legacy
• Homo sapiens interbred with Denisovans, contributing to the modern human gene pool. Denisovan genes are particularly associated with adaptations to:
• High-altitude living (e.g., the EPAS1 gene in modern Tibetans).
• Immune system diversity.
Conclusion
Denisovans were active during the same period as Neanderthals (roughly 400,000–40,000 years ago) but occupied different regions. They interacted and interbred with Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, leaving a genetic legacy that continues in some modern human populations.
Would you like to explore their interactions, adaptations, or genetic contributions further?
Why Homo sapiens replaced Neanderthals? (ChatGPT, 2024-12-29)
The replacement of Neanderthals by Homo sapiens around 40,000 years ago remains a subject of active research, but several factors likely contributed. Here’s an overview of the key reasons why Homo sapiens may have outcompeted and eventually replaced Neanderthals:
1. Cognitive and Cultural Advantages
Complex Thinking and Innovation
• Homo sapiens displayed greater cognitive flexibility and innovation:
• More advanced tool-making techniques (e.g., Aurignacian tools) compared to Neanderthals’ Mousterian tools.
• Use of a wider variety of materials, including bone, ivory, and antler, to create tools and symbolic objects.
• Early humans may have had better problem-solving abilities and adaptability in changing environments.
Symbolic Behavior and Communication
• Homo sapiens exhibited more advanced symbolic thought, as evidenced by cave paintings, carvings, and ornaments.
• Superior language skills may have facilitated better communication and coordination, giving them an edge in hunting, resource sharing, and social organization.
2. Social Structure and Networking
• Larger social groups: Homo sapiens likely lived in larger, more interconnected groups compared to Neanderthals.
• Broader networks: They maintained wider social networks, which allowed for the exchange of tools, knowledge, and resources.
• This larger pool of shared ideas and innovations may have enhanced survival and adaptability.
3. Dietary Flexibility
• Homo sapiens had a more varied diet, including plants, fish, and small animals, in addition to large game.
• Neanderthals, on the other hand, relied heavily on large herbivores like mammoths and bison, making them more vulnerable to environmental changes that affected these food sources.
4. Mobility and Range
• Homo sapiens were highly mobile and better adapted to explore and settle in diverse environments.
• Their ability to adapt to colder climates and exploit a wider range of habitats gave them a broader ecological niche than Neanderthals.
5. Environmental and Climatic Factors
• During the period of Neanderthal decline, Europe experienced significant climate fluctuations, including colder and harsher conditions.
• Homo sapiens may have been better equipped to adapt to these changes due to their advanced technology (e.g., clothing, shelters) and broader diets.
6. Competition for Resources
• As Homo sapiens expanded into Neanderthal territories, they likely competed for the same resources (e.g., game, shelter).
• Over time, direct competition or the depletion of resources critical to Neanderthals may have pushed them toward extinction.
7. Interbreeding and Assimilation
• Genetic evidence shows that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals interbred. While Neanderthals contributed to the modern human gene pool (1–2% in non-African populations), their smaller population may have been gradually absorbed or displaced through this genetic mixing.
8. Disease and Pathogens
• Homo sapiens may have introduced new diseases to which Neanderthals had little immunity.
• Conversely, Neanderthals may have struggled to adapt to pathogens carried by expanding Homo sapiens populations.
Key Points of Debate
• Was it Replacement or Extinction?: Some researchers argue that Neanderthals were outcompeted and gradually replaced, while others suggest that interbreeding led to their genetic assimilation.
• Role of Violence: There is limited evidence for direct conflict between Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, though some localized confrontations could have occurred.
Conclusion
The replacement of Neanderthals by Homo sapiens was likely due to a combination of technological superiority, cognitive and cultural advantages, adaptability to diverse environments, and social structures. Neanderthals’ smaller population size and narrower ecological niche made them more vulnerable to these pressures, leading to their eventual extinction.
Would you like to dive deeper into any specific factor?