Unfortunately, it's not that easy. Axon terminals of neurons release neurotransmitters. We know of dozens of different types, but are not certain that we know about all of them yet. The same synapse can release multiple different neurotransmitters too, with one or more released depending on the axonic signals. And what to these chemicals do? It depends! There are receptors on the post-synaptic cell that respond to neurotransmitters, but there can be multiple different receptors that respond differently to the same neurotransmitter. Again, we aren't sure we know about all of them. The post-synaptic neuron is probably also listening to neurons of other types that signal using different neurotransmitters that it uses to determine if it should transmit an action potential or not. Oh, and invertebrates (like nematodes) send graded potentials (not action potentials like us vertebrates usually do) where the signal strength can vary.

In short - we are a long way from being able to simulate a nervous system. Our knowledge of neuronal biochemistry is not there yet.

The paper is specifically about how space is represented in the human brain. Data representing space can be encoded in many different, but functionally equivalent, ways. Showing how it could be encoded by neurons in the hippocampus is valuable to understand our brain, but philosophically not significant.

How can understanding how the world works not be philosophically significant?

How did we come to the point where we relegated philosophy to be the study of only the things not connected with reality?

I'm fine with thinking about philosophy as a field that also explores ideas that are not connected with reality, but it's not only about those things.

> How did we come to the point where we relegated philosophy to be the study of only the things not connected with reality?

If it deals with reality, then it's in the realm of science; science being the superior form to tackle such things, there's simply no reasons to involve "philosophy". The only room left for philosophy is thus wherever science doesn't operate.

Not that I think it's a good thing: the dogmatic, rigid, mindset advocated by contemporary institutionalized science feels detrimental to a "lighter" approach to life: it's as if people don't have the right to ponder about existence on their own anymore; it's child's play if it's not done in such and such a way.

A lot of good science can be done without much philosophy.

But you can't have good philosophy if you intentionally avoid science.

I regained respect in philosophy by reading the work of philosophers like Dan Dennet who break that unfortunate cliché where philosophy has been stuck to only ponder at the left-overs of science and instead embrace science and apply sound philosophical thinking to navigate the consequences of what we discovered about reality.

> A lot of good science can be done without much philosophy.

> But you can't have good philosophy if you intentionally avoid science.

As always, it all depends on the definition of "philosophy" and "science". If it's the "love of wisdom" and "knowledge" respectively, then I doubt hardly anything of value can be produced without both philosophy and science; and philosophy should be of greater value (e.g. Socrates' "I know that I know nothing").

They got sick of philosophers asking tough questions probably.

If a rigorous definition of consciousness existed, how would you be convinced that it was correct?

Same way I am convinced of relativity without having recognized experiencing the effects. Deduction and consistent observation. That's just me. Getting people to believe in things, is not a hard problem.

That's why it's so great to hear they aren't doing well. The delicious schadenfreude.

I guess it depends on how you define religion. I think that we can have faith in anything - science, your doctor, etc. that could work in a similar fashion to religious faith.

This is specious. Religion is clearly centered around the spiritual and physical beliefs about the world and the practices of a specific group.

Trusting your doctor is usually more along the lines of an educated guess due to the necessity to act without perfect information.

We usually wait until Christmas so we can put a giant novelty bow around it in the driveway.

Poor Santa must have a serious back pain the 25th... :D

It's a good way to get the kids hooked.

Precisely - these aren't "Warning signs" that are only clear in hindsight. They are proof of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt. If a person or organization has these traits and you continue to trust them, it is not an honest mistake.

Heaviside promoted Maxwell's equations and created clearer, simpler versions of them. So I think it would be a language that uses list processing and functional concepts as a feature of a syntax that is easier for beginners. Something like Python or JavaScript.

Reminds me of Peter Norvig's sketch of Lisp in Python: https://norvig.com/lispy.html

How do you give your intranet site an internal domain? Or do you make the family use the IP address?

You probably already have this. Nearly every ISP has been delivering home gateways with DHCP and DNS built in, and DHCP-registration into the local DNS cache. So <your-computer>.lan or <your-computer>.home are likely candidates. Check your settings to find out.

Besides DNS-based naming there is Multicast DNS (Bonjour/Avahi/ZeroConf) and NetBIOS naming (which still exist and works on most operating systems that have Samba or something similar).

In any case, you don't need a remote service like Cloud9 or Tailscale to any of this. Normal networking has done this for decades.

The next step beyond this is running a more capable DNS system in your home network. Generally this takes the shape of a DNS forwarder service running on a router or server. It could be as simple as a PiHole or OpnSense firewall, or however complicated you might want to make it.

See also .home.arpa which is designated for this purpose.

You can use mDNS [0] to publish an internal domain to others on the same LAN. Alternatively, you can use something like a Pi-Hole [1] to be the DNS server for your LAN. Pi-Hole gives you GUI way to point any domain to any IP [2].

[0] https://wlog.viltstigen.se/articles/2021/05/02/mdns-for-linu...

[1] https://pi-hole.net

[2] https://docs.callitkarma.me/posts/PiHole-Local-DNS/

Not the OP, but for a small local network it is easy enough to sneakernet hosts files around. (On a USB drive if not a properly classic floppy.)

Also, somepcname.local mDNS works on most operating systems today (once you grant firewall permissions to it; for instance, on Windows setting your home network as a "Private" network for instance when it asks Public or Private).

We have a lot of computers, so DNS is easier than hosts files (also easier for dynamic updates,e.g. random Pi's given a hostname will update DNS via DHCP so no need to find the IP address and update other hosts).

It runs DNS and DHCP as well (so we have a domain that's the same as the house name); the DNS is primarily caching so for most sites it's just stock internet (except a bit faster due to the caching). It's also authoritative for a small number of domains that serves ads/do tracking (it's amazing how much better that makes the internet, even the kids comment on how fast it is compared to their friends - and we're out in the sticks on a relatively slow connection).

Tailscale MagicDNS [1] can also do this, which you can also setup with TLS certs using their Let's Encrypt integration [2].

1. https://tailscale.com/kb/1054/dns/

2. https://tailscale.com/kb/1153/enabling-https/

This might be an overkill, but you can host internal domain using public DNS.

I've got a domain, and I've added multiple A records pointing to IPs of servers in my 192.168.X.Y NAT. This has a downside thought, that with short enough TTL, you may not be able to access your server during intermittent connectivity problems.

I'm using letsencrypt through traefik for the certs.

I personally use avahi (mDNS) as many other replies have suggested.

I use NixOS, so it was easy to make a function to abstract over the config. In each computer's config, all I do is specify a hostname. This function does the work (or really, some nixpkgs committer did):

    { hostName }:

    {
      services.avahi = {
        enable = true;
        nssmdns = true; # Allows programs like ssh to resolve .local domains via avahi
        inherit hostName;
        openFirewall = true;
        publish = {
          enable = true;
          addresses = true;
          workstation = true;
        };
      };
    }

Configure following items on your router:

- desired hostname and search domain(can be bogus though not recommended)

- DHCP server parameters with the router's IP as primary DNS

- DHCP static assignment for (each of)server(s)

- DNS static assignment such as "yourserver.bogusdomain.tld 192.168.10.10"

- (optionally) domain names, ddclient, certbot

"Proper" classical router/firewall OSs like Cisco IOS, Juniper JunOS, VyOS, RouterOS, OpenWrt, all easily do it like they do a cigarette, but good gamer routers and some NASs also can do it okay in many cases.

Edit the internal dns server(s).

I am asking this out of ignorance, not knowledge. Isn’t that why the Lord gave us a hosts file?

Or run a local DNS in your router, so you don't have to set each client device up.

(How would you even add hosts to an iPhone or something?)

But of course. Thanks.

you'd have to edit the hosts file on every single device you want to access that domain. personally, i wouldn't even know how to do that on any of my mobile devices.

TIL. Thank you

Network router with DNS resolver, internal domain, all DHCP clients get registered with a name as a subdomain. mycomputer.networkname.lan - I use pfsense, but lots of others support this.

You could have your own top level domain as well.

if you're using pi-hole, you can actually do all of this within the admin panel itself. they added Local DNS a couple releases ago.

If you have a Pi hole, you are already running a dns server. Otherwise, it's not too hard to set one up.