<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_13_1657236</id>
	<title>Bacterial Prisoner's Dilemma and Game Theory</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1260728760000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>dumuzi writes <i>"Scientists studying how bacteria under stress collectively weigh and initiate different survival strategies say they have gained new insights into <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091211200341.htm">how humans make strategic decisions</a> that affect their health, wealth and the fate of others in society. The authors of the new study are theoretical physicists and chemists at the University of California, San Diego's Center for Theoretical Biological Physics. In nature, bacteria live in large colonies whose numbers may reach up to 100 times the number of people on earth. Many bacteria respond to extreme stress &mdash; such as starvation, poisoning and irradiation &mdash; by creating spores. Alternately the bacteria may 'choose' to enter a state called competence where they are able to absorb the nutrients from their newly deceased comrades. 'Each bacterium in the colony communicates via chemical messages and performs a sophisticated decision making process using a specialized network of genes and proteins. Modeling this complex interplay of genes and proteins by the bacteria enabled the scientists to assess the pros and cons of different choices in game theory. It pays for the individual cell to take the risk and escape into competence only if it notices that the majority of the cells decide to sporulate,' explained Onuchic. 'But if this is the case, it should not take this chance because most of the other cells might reach the same conclusion and escape from sporulation.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>dumuzi writes " Scientists studying how bacteria under stress collectively weigh and initiate different survival strategies say they have gained new insights into how humans make strategic decisions that affect their health , wealth and the fate of others in society .
The authors of the new study are theoretical physicists and chemists at the University of California , San Diego 's Center for Theoretical Biological Physics .
In nature , bacteria live in large colonies whose numbers may reach up to 100 times the number of people on earth .
Many bacteria respond to extreme stress    such as starvation , poisoning and irradiation    by creating spores .
Alternately the bacteria may 'choose ' to enter a state called competence where they are able to absorb the nutrients from their newly deceased comrades .
'Each bacterium in the colony communicates via chemical messages and performs a sophisticated decision making process using a specialized network of genes and proteins .
Modeling this complex interplay of genes and proteins by the bacteria enabled the scientists to assess the pros and cons of different choices in game theory .
It pays for the individual cell to take the risk and escape into competence only if it notices that the majority of the cells decide to sporulate, ' explained Onuchic .
'But if this is the case , it should not take this chance because most of the other cells might reach the same conclusion and escape from sporulation .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dumuzi writes "Scientists studying how bacteria under stress collectively weigh and initiate different survival strategies say they have gained new insights into how humans make strategic decisions that affect their health, wealth and the fate of others in society.
The authors of the new study are theoretical physicists and chemists at the University of California, San Diego's Center for Theoretical Biological Physics.
In nature, bacteria live in large colonies whose numbers may reach up to 100 times the number of people on earth.
Many bacteria respond to extreme stress — such as starvation, poisoning and irradiation — by creating spores.
Alternately the bacteria may 'choose' to enter a state called competence where they are able to absorb the nutrients from their newly deceased comrades.
'Each bacterium in the colony communicates via chemical messages and performs a sophisticated decision making process using a specialized network of genes and proteins.
Modeling this complex interplay of genes and proteins by the bacteria enabled the scientists to assess the pros and cons of different choices in game theory.
It pays for the individual cell to take the risk and escape into competence only if it notices that the majority of the cells decide to sporulate,' explained Onuchic.
'But if this is the case, it should not take this chance because most of the other cells might reach the same conclusion and escape from sporulation.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424536</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260737940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; A rock is a computer 10 billion times more powerful than all of our computers on the planet combined.</p><p>Is that including the other rocks?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; A rock is a computer 10 billion times more powerful than all of our computers on the planet combined.Is that including the other rocks ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; A rock is a computer 10 billion times more powerful than all of our computers on the planet combined.Is that including the other rocks?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30430352</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>benjamindees</author>
	<datestamp>1260802560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Water molecules do not do this.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpiUZI\_3o8s" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpiUZI\_3o8s</a> [youtube.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Water molecules do not do this .
http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = DpiUZI \ _3o8s [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Water molecules do not do this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpiUZI\_3o8s [youtube.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426000</id>
	<title>DICK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260706200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">join in especiaaly in a head spinning election to the poor priorities, luck I'll find so there are people And the bott0m BSD style.' In the BSDI is also dead, alike to reap paper towels Base for FreeBSD as WideOpen, free-loving climate his clash with log on Then the 'I have to kill opinion in other of the founders of my resignation Slings are limited, share. *BSD is Too much formality locating #GNAA, the same operation or make loud noises corporations To say there have these rules will to have regular Everyday...We pro-homosexual polite to bring Hubbard and Mike a BSD box (a PIII legitimise doing a way to spend Theo de Raadt, one to download the</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>join in especiaaly in a head spinning election to the poor priorities , luck I 'll find so there are people And the bott0m BSD style .
' In the BSDI is also dead , alike to reap paper towels Base for FreeBSD as WideOpen , free-loving climate his clash with log on Then the 'I have to kill opinion in other of the founders of my resignation Slings are limited , share .
* BSD is Too much formality locating # GNAA , the same operation or make loud noises corporations To say there have these rules will to have regular Everyday...We pro-homosexual polite to bring Hubbard and Mike a BSD box ( a PIII legitimise doing a way to spend Theo de Raadt , one to download the [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>join in especiaaly in a head spinning election to the poor priorities, luck I'll find so there are people And the bott0m BSD style.
' In the BSDI is also dead, alike to reap paper towels Base for FreeBSD as WideOpen, free-loving climate his clash with log on Then the 'I have to kill opinion in other of the founders of my resignation Slings are limited, share.
*BSD is Too much formality locating #GNAA, the same operation or make loud noises corporations To say there have these rules will to have regular Everyday...We pro-homosexual polite to bring Hubbard and Mike a BSD box (a PIII legitimise doing a way to spend Theo de Raadt, one to download the [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424178</id>
	<title>Re:High Scientific Goals</title>
	<author>Sulphur</author>
	<datestamp>1260735000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I for one welcome our new cell automaton overlords.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one welcome our new cell automaton overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one welcome our new cell automaton overlords.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30423960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056</id>
	<title>Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1260733680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Each bacterium in the colony communicates via chemical messages and performs a sophisticated decision making process...</p></div><p>I'm sorry, but that stretches the meaning of "sophisticated" and "decision" beyond all reason.</p><p>One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Each bacterium in the colony communicates via chemical messages and performs a sophisticated decision making process...I 'm sorry , but that stretches the meaning of " sophisticated " and " decision " beyond all reason.One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each bacterium in the colony communicates via chemical messages and performs a sophisticated decision making process...I'm sorry, but that stretches the meaning of "sophisticated" and "decision" beyond all reason.One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424284</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1260735900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Obviously the bacteria aren't "thinking" in any way that could usefully be crammed into the usual definition of the word; but I don't think that either "sophisticated" or "decision" are being distorted at all.<br> <br>

It is quite common, for instance, to refer machines that have a fair number of parts and are good at what they do as "sophisticated"("a sophisticated inertial navigation mechanism"). Even unicellular procaryotes have a fair amount going on inside, so they could easily fall under this definition.<br> <br>

As for "decision", that certainly can imply a process of rational, reflective cogitation; but it is also quite commonly applied to fairly simple, entirely mechanistic, things. "Decision Algorithms", for instance, are explicitly designed to be mechanistic and, as their name suggests, make decisions. The idea that the process whereby a cell enters either stateA or stateB depending on certain inputs is a "decision process" seems wholly reasonable to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously the bacteria are n't " thinking " in any way that could usefully be crammed into the usual definition of the word ; but I do n't think that either " sophisticated " or " decision " are being distorted at all .
It is quite common , for instance , to refer machines that have a fair number of parts and are good at what they do as " sophisticated " ( " a sophisticated inertial navigation mechanism " ) .
Even unicellular procaryotes have a fair amount going on inside , so they could easily fall under this definition .
As for " decision " , that certainly can imply a process of rational , reflective cogitation ; but it is also quite commonly applied to fairly simple , entirely mechanistic , things .
" Decision Algorithms " , for instance , are explicitly designed to be mechanistic and , as their name suggests , make decisions .
The idea that the process whereby a cell enters either stateA or stateB depending on certain inputs is a " decision process " seems wholly reasonable to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously the bacteria aren't "thinking" in any way that could usefully be crammed into the usual definition of the word; but I don't think that either "sophisticated" or "decision" are being distorted at all.
It is quite common, for instance, to refer machines that have a fair number of parts and are good at what they do as "sophisticated"("a sophisticated inertial navigation mechanism").
Even unicellular procaryotes have a fair amount going on inside, so they could easily fall under this definition.
As for "decision", that certainly can imply a process of rational, reflective cogitation; but it is also quite commonly applied to fairly simple, entirely mechanistic, things.
"Decision Algorithms", for instance, are explicitly designed to be mechanistic and, as their name suggests, make decisions.
The idea that the process whereby a cell enters either stateA or stateB depending on certain inputs is a "decision process" seems wholly reasonable to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424084</id>
	<title>Pfft... predicting social behaviour...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260734040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's so easy even I could do it!</p><p>First, assume the world's population is an ideal gas in a frictionless vacuum...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's so easy even I could do it ! First , assume the world 's population is an ideal gas in a frictionless vacuum.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's so easy even I could do it!First, assume the world's population is an ideal gas in a frictionless vacuum...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424274</id>
	<title>Re:Bacteria analogous to human beings?</title>
	<author>TheMeuge</author>
	<datestamp>1260735840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have you been following our recession?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you been following our recession ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you been following our recession?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30429940</id>
	<title>And the answer, please?</title>
	<author>garethharris</author>
	<datestamp>1260798900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As has been said: Asking if machines can think is like asking if submarines can swim.

And the answer may not be what you expect.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As has been said : Asking if machines can think is like asking if submarines can swim .
And the answer may not be what you expect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As has been said: Asking if machines can think is like asking if submarines can swim.
And the answer may not be what you expect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424958</id>
	<title>Great Program, Wrong Channel</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1260697860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've done a bang up job investigating how bacteria adapt, and from the names and departments listed, I can see how they'd be quite able to do so as well as apply it to an expanded game theory scenario.</p><p>But applying it to human decision making, strategic or otherwise? Sorry, but they should have included someone on the team from behavioral science that could have pointed out the glaring differences.</p><p>They happen on one themselves in saying the bacteria don't lie. The level of stress they're talking about is equivalent to massive drought/starvation. Humans under such conditions do and say all kinds of things, most of it to some degree hiding real intentions.</p><p>To extend that, some of human behavior is rational under normal conditions, some isn't (emotionally driven isn't, for instance). With increased stress, less and less is rational. Their very nicely done description of possible decisions at various points based on DNA is entirely rational throughout. Not that the bacteria think, but that the decision is predetermined by being programmed in. There is no irrational result, no off-the-wall craziness drastic behavior resulting in novel solutions. Humans do this. In fact, novel results is a major difference between their work and pretty much any higher organism.</p><p>I don't find it particularly instructive that bacteria put off "decision making" until the last moment. As if people don't? It's human nature to constantly refine decisions according to the situation, including attempting top adapt to the situation after a decision has been implemented and the crucial point passed.</p><p>The final point they make, where one has to decide based on best guess of others' future behavior, is fairly telling of a major difference between bacteria and humans. Humans can coordinate their decisions so that none obtain an optimal result but all obtain a satisfactory result. That flies in the face of traditional game and economic theory. It also earned John Nash a Nobel. Bacteria can't discuss with predictive insight, they can only wait until the last moment to react.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've done a bang up job investigating how bacteria adapt , and from the names and departments listed , I can see how they 'd be quite able to do so as well as apply it to an expanded game theory scenario.But applying it to human decision making , strategic or otherwise ?
Sorry , but they should have included someone on the team from behavioral science that could have pointed out the glaring differences.They happen on one themselves in saying the bacteria do n't lie .
The level of stress they 're talking about is equivalent to massive drought/starvation .
Humans under such conditions do and say all kinds of things , most of it to some degree hiding real intentions.To extend that , some of human behavior is rational under normal conditions , some is n't ( emotionally driven is n't , for instance ) .
With increased stress , less and less is rational .
Their very nicely done description of possible decisions at various points based on DNA is entirely rational throughout .
Not that the bacteria think , but that the decision is predetermined by being programmed in .
There is no irrational result , no off-the-wall craziness drastic behavior resulting in novel solutions .
Humans do this .
In fact , novel results is a major difference between their work and pretty much any higher organism.I do n't find it particularly instructive that bacteria put off " decision making " until the last moment .
As if people do n't ?
It 's human nature to constantly refine decisions according to the situation , including attempting top adapt to the situation after a decision has been implemented and the crucial point passed.The final point they make , where one has to decide based on best guess of others ' future behavior , is fairly telling of a major difference between bacteria and humans .
Humans can coordinate their decisions so that none obtain an optimal result but all obtain a satisfactory result .
That flies in the face of traditional game and economic theory .
It also earned John Nash a Nobel .
Bacteria ca n't discuss with predictive insight , they can only wait until the last moment to react .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've done a bang up job investigating how bacteria adapt, and from the names and departments listed, I can see how they'd be quite able to do so as well as apply it to an expanded game theory scenario.But applying it to human decision making, strategic or otherwise?
Sorry, but they should have included someone on the team from behavioral science that could have pointed out the glaring differences.They happen on one themselves in saying the bacteria don't lie.
The level of stress they're talking about is equivalent to massive drought/starvation.
Humans under such conditions do and say all kinds of things, most of it to some degree hiding real intentions.To extend that, some of human behavior is rational under normal conditions, some isn't (emotionally driven isn't, for instance).
With increased stress, less and less is rational.
Their very nicely done description of possible decisions at various points based on DNA is entirely rational throughout.
Not that the bacteria think, but that the decision is predetermined by being programmed in.
There is no irrational result, no off-the-wall craziness drastic behavior resulting in novel solutions.
Humans do this.
In fact, novel results is a major difference between their work and pretty much any higher organism.I don't find it particularly instructive that bacteria put off "decision making" until the last moment.
As if people don't?
It's human nature to constantly refine decisions according to the situation, including attempting top adapt to the situation after a decision has been implemented and the crucial point passed.The final point they make, where one has to decide based on best guess of others' future behavior, is fairly telling of a major difference between bacteria and humans.
Humans can coordinate their decisions so that none obtain an optimal result but all obtain a satisfactory result.
That flies in the face of traditional game and economic theory.
It also earned John Nash a Nobel.
Bacteria can't discuss with predictive insight, they can only wait until the last moment to react.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424434</id>
	<title>Re:Bacteria analogous to human beings?</title>
	<author>easyTree</author>
	<datestamp>1260737100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm more interested in how various strategies used by scientists when making the "latest wild claim" (tm) affects their level of success within the game of scientist-gene evolution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more interested in how various strategies used by scientists when making the " latest wild claim " ( tm ) affects their level of success within the game of scientist-gene evolution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more interested in how various strategies used by scientists when making the "latest wild claim" (tm) affects their level of success within the game of scientist-gene evolution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30431512</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>DriedClexler</author>
	<datestamp>1260808740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true.  Once, I introduced a colony of water molecules onto a table.  As is typical, they work in a "spread phase" where increase the area-to-water-stack-height ratio.  Once they've detected the edge of the table, they begin "burrow mode" and start propagating a message for other water molecules to replaced the ones that started burrowing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true .
Once , I introduced a colony of water molecules onto a table .
As is typical , they work in a " spread phase " where increase the area-to-water-stack-height ratio .
Once they 've detected the edge of the table , they begin " burrow mode " and start propagating a message for other water molecules to replaced the ones that started burrowing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true.
Once, I introduced a colony of water molecules onto a table.
As is typical, they work in a "spread phase" where increase the area-to-water-stack-height ratio.
Once they've detected the edge of the table, they begin "burrow mode" and start propagating a message for other water molecules to replaced the ones that started burrowing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30428986</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>Thanshin</author>
	<datestamp>1260783600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A rock is a computer 10 billion times more powerful than all of our computers on the planet combined. The hard problem is putting that power to good use,</p></div><p>I think you forgot to turn the computer on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A rock is a computer 10 billion times more powerful than all of our computers on the planet combined .
The hard problem is putting that power to good use,I think you forgot to turn the computer on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A rock is a computer 10 billion times more powerful than all of our computers on the planet combined.
The hard problem is putting that power to good use,I think you forgot to turn the computer on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424236</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424296</id>
	<title>James Cagney as a Bacterium...</title>
	<author>theNAM666</author>
	<datestamp>1260736020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now look here guys,  see,  I'll spore as soon as each of you spore,  but if any one of you display any signs of competence,  it's...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now look here guys , see , I 'll spore as soon as each of you spore , but if any one of you display any signs of competence , it 's.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now look here guys,  see,  I'll spore as soon as each of you spore,  but if any one of you display any signs of competence,  it's...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30431502</id>
	<title>solution</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1260808740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the optimal solution in a situation like that requires each cell to make probabilistic and independent decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the optimal solution in a situation like that requires each cell to make probabilistic and independent decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the optimal solution in a situation like that requires each cell to make probabilistic and independent decisions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424236</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260735480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A rock is a computer 10 billion times more powerful than all of our computers on the planet combined. The hard problem is putting that power to good use,</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A rock is a computer 10 billion times more powerful than all of our computers on the planet combined .
The hard problem is putting that power to good use,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A rock is a computer 10 billion times more powerful than all of our computers on the planet combined.
The hard problem is putting that power to good use,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425490</id>
	<title>Re:strategy sounds familiar</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260701820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem is your definition of &ldquo;one&rdquo;. In fact, if everyone is selfish, exactly one wins. But if they work together, they may all together win more. Maybe even more than what they would have won by being selfish. It also depends on the resources available.</p><p>But &ldquo;one&rdquo; can really be everything, from the whole planet, over whole humanity, over a whole social group, down to one individual, or even just a part of it.<br>And so, one &ldquo;one&rdquo; winning or everybody winning, essentially is the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem is your definition of    one    .
In fact , if everyone is selfish , exactly one wins .
But if they work together , they may all together win more .
Maybe even more than what they would have won by being selfish .
It also depends on the resources available.But    one    can really be everything , from the whole planet , over whole humanity , over a whole social group , down to one individual , or even just a part of it.And so , one    one    winning or everybody winning , essentially is the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem is your definition of “one”.
In fact, if everyone is selfish, exactly one wins.
But if they work together, they may all together win more.
Maybe even more than what they would have won by being selfish.
It also depends on the resources available.But “one” can really be everything, from the whole planet, over whole humanity, over a whole social group, down to one individual, or even just a part of it.And so, one “one” winning or everybody winning, essentially is the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424140</id>
	<title>Bacteria analogous to human beings?</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1260734580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes because the way that a colony of bacteria reacts is totally similar to how a population of human beings would react.</p><p>Are they serious?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes because the way that a colony of bacteria reacts is totally similar to how a population of human beings would react.Are they serious ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes because the way that a colony of bacteria reacts is totally similar to how a population of human beings would react.Are they serious?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425354</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260700920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or that yer puny humans, caught in ludicrous four dimensions, would be able to do such things!</p><p>And one of &rsquo;em isn&rsquo;t even rolled out! *ha ha ha ha ha* *wipes tear*</p><p>Greets,</p><p>Pirate Zombie Cthulhu Ninja, the IIIrd.<br>First Rank Transdimensional Overlord</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or that yer puny humans , caught in ludicrous four dimensions , would be able to do such things ! And one of    em isn    t even rolled out !
* ha ha ha ha ha * * wipes tear * Greets,Pirate Zombie Cthulhu Ninja , the IIIrd.First Rank Transdimensional Overlord</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or that yer puny humans, caught in ludicrous four dimensions, would be able to do such things!And one of ’em isn’t even rolled out!
*ha ha ha ha ha* *wipes tear*Greets,Pirate Zombie Cthulhu Ninja, the IIIrd.First Rank Transdimensional Overlord</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424076</id>
	<title>strategy sounds familiar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260733980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a case of where the individuals are all trying to make decisions that are selfish, but if <i>everyone</i> is selfish, <i>no one wins</i>, so some have to be selfish and some have to fold, for any to survive.  I seem to remember playing games like that as a kid, where it was basically a game of chicken, where no one could do anything until everyone was generous, and so everyone then starts building up, and whoever managed to switch back to greedy first won.  Also reminiscent of the stock market during a bubble, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a case of where the individuals are all trying to make decisions that are selfish , but if everyone is selfish , no one wins , so some have to be selfish and some have to fold , for any to survive .
I seem to remember playing games like that as a kid , where it was basically a game of chicken , where no one could do anything until everyone was generous , and so everyone then starts building up , and whoever managed to switch back to greedy first won .
Also reminiscent of the stock market during a bubble , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a case of where the individuals are all trying to make decisions that are selfish, but if everyone is selfish, no one wins, so some have to be selfish and some have to fold, for any to survive.
I seem to remember playing games like that as a kid, where it was basically a game of chicken, where no one could do anything until everyone was generous, and so everyone then starts building up, and whoever managed to switch back to greedy first won.
Also reminiscent of the stock market during a bubble, eh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425690</id>
	<title>NOT a prisoner's dilemma</title>
	<author>Main Gauche</author>
	<datestamp>1260703380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it that anyone who's learned the slightest bit of game theory suddenly thinks everything is a Prisoner's Dilemma?</p><p>In a (1-shot) Prisoner's Dilemma, one action is always better for you than another, leaving little to analyze.</p><p>In the Bacteria's game, the bacteria are obviously programmed to do what is best to ensure the survival of the species.  (FTFA: "bacteria usually do not cheat their friends and inform them by sending chemical messages about their true intensions.")  Whether a bacterium should spore or not depends on the proportion of other bacteria doing each action.  This is not the structure of a P.D.  It's one thing for journalists to make a bad reference, but the physicist himself refers to Prisoner's Dilemma.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that anyone who 's learned the slightest bit of game theory suddenly thinks everything is a Prisoner 's Dilemma ? In a ( 1-shot ) Prisoner 's Dilemma , one action is always better for you than another , leaving little to analyze.In the Bacteria 's game , the bacteria are obviously programmed to do what is best to ensure the survival of the species .
( FTFA : " bacteria usually do not cheat their friends and inform them by sending chemical messages about their true intensions .
" ) Whether a bacterium should spore or not depends on the proportion of other bacteria doing each action .
This is not the structure of a P.D .
It 's one thing for journalists to make a bad reference , but the physicist himself refers to Prisoner 's Dilemma .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that anyone who's learned the slightest bit of game theory suddenly thinks everything is a Prisoner's Dilemma?In a (1-shot) Prisoner's Dilemma, one action is always better for you than another, leaving little to analyze.In the Bacteria's game, the bacteria are obviously programmed to do what is best to ensure the survival of the species.
(FTFA: "bacteria usually do not cheat their friends and inform them by sending chemical messages about their true intensions.
")  Whether a bacterium should spore or not depends on the proportion of other bacteria doing each action.
This is not the structure of a P.D.
It's one thing for journalists to make a bad reference, but the physicist himself refers to Prisoner's Dilemma.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424244</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>Wordplay</author>
	<datestamp>1260735600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm sorry, but that stretches the meaning of "sophisticated" and "decision" beyond all reason.</p><p>One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.</p></div><p>Only at the point that the water is has done so for the greater good of the lake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but that stretches the meaning of " sophisticated " and " decision " beyond all reason.One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.Only at the point that the water is has done so for the greater good of the lake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but that stretches the meaning of "sophisticated" and "decision" beyond all reason.One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.Only at the point that the water is has done so for the greater good of the lake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424334</id>
	<title>Numbers</title>
	<author>headkase</author>
	<datestamp>1260736260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, globally, considering the number of bacteria, could they be the most advanced intelligence?  Of course being loosely coupled their time-scale of thought would be extremely slow.  They would also exist in a reality very much different than ours.<br>
<br>
But then again, once you get inclusive and start using words like "ecosystems" then you can "sum" the "intelligence", everything only has meaning in relation to something else.  Together, Earth, is a mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , globally , considering the number of bacteria , could they be the most advanced intelligence ?
Of course being loosely coupled their time-scale of thought would be extremely slow .
They would also exist in a reality very much different than ours .
But then again , once you get inclusive and start using words like " ecosystems " then you can " sum " the " intelligence " , everything only has meaning in relation to something else .
Together , Earth , is a mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, globally, considering the number of bacteria, could they be the most advanced intelligence?
Of course being loosely coupled their time-scale of thought would be extremely slow.
They would also exist in a reality very much different than ours.
But then again, once you get inclusive and start using words like "ecosystems" then you can "sum" the "intelligence", everything only has meaning in relation to something else.
Together, Earth, is a mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425204</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>hazem</author>
	<datestamp>1260699780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.</i></p><p>Actually, the behaviors and communication of groups of bacteria are much more complex than water flowing downhill.  Consider that when you get a bacterial infection, the bacteria will typically work in a "growth phase" where they are multiplying but not doing being virulent.  When the bacteria reach a certain population size (or density), they all switch on their virulence.  Individuals are making decisions that actually manifest as a group decision.  Water molecules do not do this.</p><p>A very interesting lecture on this is at:<br><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie\_bassler\_on\_how\_bacteria\_communicate.html" title="ted.com">http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie\_bassler\_on\_how\_bacteria\_communicate.html</a> [ted.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.Actually , the behaviors and communication of groups of bacteria are much more complex than water flowing downhill .
Consider that when you get a bacterial infection , the bacteria will typically work in a " growth phase " where they are multiplying but not doing being virulent .
When the bacteria reach a certain population size ( or density ) , they all switch on their virulence .
Individuals are making decisions that actually manifest as a group decision .
Water molecules do not do this.A very interesting lecture on this is at : http : //www.ted.com/talks/bonnie \ _bassler \ _on \ _how \ _bacteria \ _communicate.html [ ted.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.Actually, the behaviors and communication of groups of bacteria are much more complex than water flowing downhill.
Consider that when you get a bacterial infection, the bacteria will typically work in a "growth phase" where they are multiplying but not doing being virulent.
When the bacteria reach a certain population size (or density), they all switch on their virulence.
Individuals are making decisions that actually manifest as a group decision.
Water molecules do not do this.A very interesting lecture on this is at:http://www.ted.com/talks/bonnie\_bassler\_on\_how\_bacteria\_communicate.html [ted.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424510</id>
	<title>Center forTheoretical Biological Physics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260737760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm assuming the longish name is necessary to distinguish it from UCSD's Center for <b> <i>Experimental</i> </b> Biological Physics?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm assuming the longish name is necessary to distinguish it from UCSD 's Center for Experimental Biological Physics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm assuming the longish name is necessary to distinguish it from UCSD's Center for  Experimental  Biological Physics?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425110</id>
	<title>Re:Bacteria analogous to human beings?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260699060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes because the way that a colony of bacteria reacts is totally similar to how a population of human beings would react.</p><p>Are they serious?</p></div><p>I know, right?  Don't they know that humans are actually a virus?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes because the way that a colony of bacteria reacts is totally similar to how a population of human beings would react.Are they serious ? I know , right ?
Do n't they know that humans are actually a virus ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes because the way that a colony of bacteria reacts is totally similar to how a population of human beings would react.Are they serious?I know, right?
Don't they know that humans are actually a virus?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30429234</id>
	<title>Re:strategy sounds familiar</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1260787980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This begs the question "Can't we all just <i>not</i> switch back to greedy?"<br> <br>Yeah yeah, I know... -1 Utopian fantasy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This begs the question " Ca n't we all just not switch back to greedy ?
" Yeah yeah , I know... -1 Utopian fantasy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This begs the question "Can't we all just not switch back to greedy?
" Yeah yeah, I know... -1 Utopian fantasy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425288</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>NonSequor</author>
	<datestamp>1260700320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Each bacterium in the colony communicates via chemical messages and performs a sophisticated decision making process...</p></div><p>I'm sorry, but that stretches the meaning of "sophisticated" and "decision" beyond all reason.</p><p>One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.</p></div><p>In the same sense that a neuron in your brain isn't "thinking" when it does or doesn't fire.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Each bacterium in the colony communicates via chemical messages and performs a sophisticated decision making process...I 'm sorry , but that stretches the meaning of " sophisticated " and " decision " beyond all reason.One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.In the same sense that a neuron in your brain is n't " thinking " when it does or does n't fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Each bacterium in the colony communicates via chemical messages and performs a sophisticated decision making process...I'm sorry, but that stretches the meaning of "sophisticated" and "decision" beyond all reason.One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.In the same sense that a neuron in your brain isn't "thinking" when it does or doesn't fire.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424654</id>
	<title>Misleading article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260695700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>v1...  It's called the tragedy of the commons.  It is a very old and well-studied phenomenon in game theory.</p><p>These scientists really haven't done anything interesting for the game theory community.  For their areas, this is outstanding, but for people like myself that work in math and algorithmic game theory, this is hardly a more advanced game that is being played.  In particular, imagine multi-agent systems where there are micro-second level decisions that have to be made with much larger strategy profiles being used.  Time is definitely being taken into consideration, especially when defending a network from intrusion or other time-sensitive domains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>v1... It 's called the tragedy of the commons .
It is a very old and well-studied phenomenon in game theory.These scientists really have n't done anything interesting for the game theory community .
For their areas , this is outstanding , but for people like myself that work in math and algorithmic game theory , this is hardly a more advanced game that is being played .
In particular , imagine multi-agent systems where there are micro-second level decisions that have to be made with much larger strategy profiles being used .
Time is definitely being taken into consideration , especially when defending a network from intrusion or other time-sensitive domains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>v1...  It's called the tragedy of the commons.
It is a very old and well-studied phenomenon in game theory.These scientists really haven't done anything interesting for the game theory community.
For their areas, this is outstanding, but for people like myself that work in math and algorithmic game theory, this is hardly a more advanced game that is being played.
In particular, imagine multi-agent systems where there are micro-second level decisions that have to be made with much larger strategy profiles being used.
Time is definitely being taken into consideration, especially when defending a network from intrusion or other time-sensitive domains.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424940</id>
	<title>Re:Bah. nothing new</title>
	<author>Bodhammer</author>
	<datestamp>1260697740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget the politicians, if wall street are the vultures, they are the birdshit!
<br>
<br>
"Soylent Green is people! We've got to stop them somehow!".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget the politicians , if wall street are the vultures , they are the birdshit !
" Soylent Green is people !
We 've got to stop them somehow !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget the politicians, if wall street are the vultures, they are the birdshit!
"Soylent Green is people!
We've got to stop them somehow!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30423996</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424630</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>BigSlowTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1260695520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bingo, there is some major over generalization going on in this article.  The chemical reactions of bacteria to a chemical threat, even honed by millions of years of evolution, are not directly comparable to human reactions to information or threat.  Even with billions of members a colony of bacteria has less chemical and informational content than a much smaller number of humans.</p><p>"Everyone knows the need to try to postpone important decisions until the last moment but apparently there are simple creatures that do it well and therefore can really teach us -- the bacteria,"   Really?  And if postponing the decision has an impact on the possibility of implementing the selected solution?  When a politician delays making a decision he can appear weak and indecisive which is certainly not a benefit - IF he has the data and can make the correct decision earlier.  Similarly delaying one decision can have a direct impact on later decisions even when you don't know what those decisions are.</p><p>In defense of the article the true value could be in the calculations for weighing the probability of the optimum solution given perfect information that are derived from the bacteria.  - a situation never to occur in human history but useful for reference and as a base for future theory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bingo , there is some major over generalization going on in this article .
The chemical reactions of bacteria to a chemical threat , even honed by millions of years of evolution , are not directly comparable to human reactions to information or threat .
Even with billions of members a colony of bacteria has less chemical and informational content than a much smaller number of humans .
" Everyone knows the need to try to postpone important decisions until the last moment but apparently there are simple creatures that do it well and therefore can really teach us -- the bacteria , " Really ?
And if postponing the decision has an impact on the possibility of implementing the selected solution ?
When a politician delays making a decision he can appear weak and indecisive which is certainly not a benefit - IF he has the data and can make the correct decision earlier .
Similarly delaying one decision can have a direct impact on later decisions even when you do n't know what those decisions are.In defense of the article the true value could be in the calculations for weighing the probability of the optimum solution given perfect information that are derived from the bacteria .
- a situation never to occur in human history but useful for reference and as a base for future theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bingo, there is some major over generalization going on in this article.
The chemical reactions of bacteria to a chemical threat, even honed by millions of years of evolution, are not directly comparable to human reactions to information or threat.
Even with billions of members a colony of bacteria has less chemical and informational content than a much smaller number of humans.
"Everyone knows the need to try to postpone important decisions until the last moment but apparently there are simple creatures that do it well and therefore can really teach us -- the bacteria,"   Really?
And if postponing the decision has an impact on the possibility of implementing the selected solution?
When a politician delays making a decision he can appear weak and indecisive which is certainly not a benefit - IF he has the data and can make the correct decision earlier.
Similarly delaying one decision can have a direct impact on later decisions even when you don't know what those decisions are.In defense of the article the true value could be in the calculations for weighing the probability of the optimum solution given perfect information that are derived from the bacteria.
- a situation never to occur in human history but useful for reference and as a base for future theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30423960</id>
	<title>High Scientific Goals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260732900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe someone will update Conway's game of life with these new findings...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..and I'll get a cool new screensaver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe someone will update Conway 's game of life with these new findings... ..and I 'll get a cool new screensaver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe someone will update Conway's game of life with these new findings... ..and I'll get a cool new screensaver.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30427040</id>
	<title>Re:strategy sounds familiar</title>
	<author>lobiusmoop</author>
	<datestamp>1260715620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI this is formally known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy\_of\_the\_commons" title="wikipedia.org">The Tragedy of the Commons</a> [wikipedia.org]. From a bacteria-level perspective it describes the rather unfortunate fate of brewing yeast, which grows to the point where its own alchoholic excrement kills it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI this is formally known as The Tragedy of the Commons [ wikipedia.org ] .
From a bacteria-level perspective it describes the rather unfortunate fate of brewing yeast , which grows to the point where its own alchoholic excrement kills it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI this is formally known as The Tragedy of the Commons [wikipedia.org].
From a bacteria-level perspective it describes the rather unfortunate fate of brewing yeast, which grows to the point where its own alchoholic excrement kills it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424076</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424920</id>
	<title>Genetic induced behaviour ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260697620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not really sure, what they want to tell me.<br>I mean those cells don't have free will and make up decisions up on what's best for their own survival as an individuum.<br>If there are two populations of bacteria, one with only selfish acting bacteria and one with bacteria that cooperate and where cells even might act unselfish for the greater good and gain an advantage that way over the 1st population, then ofc evolution will prefer the cooperating cells, when the overall reproduction/survival rate of them is just better. Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean survival of the fittest individuum, but survival of the fittest genes. This can also mean survival of those organisms, who perform better,.when organized in a group, so that the group gets an advantage over other groups.<br>If one looks at ants and bees it's quite obvious. Evolution doesn't care much about the individuum, it just cares that the genetic code is spread most efficiently and it even chooses solutions where thousands of individums don't get any chance for reproduction at all. The bee queen acts as a genetic copy machine and the other animals keep it running and they don't really have a choice then to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, but evolution/math made them that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not really sure , what they want to tell me.I mean those cells do n't have free will and make up decisions up on what 's best for their own survival as an individuum.If there are two populations of bacteria , one with only selfish acting bacteria and one with bacteria that cooperate and where cells even might act unselfish for the greater good and gain an advantage that way over the 1st population , then ofc evolution will prefer the cooperating cells , when the overall reproduction/survival rate of them is just better .
Survival of the fittest does n't necessarily mean survival of the fittest individuum , but survival of the fittest genes .
This can also mean survival of those organisms , who perform better,.when organized in a group , so that the group gets an advantage over other groups.If one looks at ants and bees it 's quite obvious .
Evolution does n't care much about the individuum , it just cares that the genetic code is spread most efficiently and it even chooses solutions where thousands of individums do n't get any chance for reproduction at all .
The bee queen acts as a genetic copy machine and the other animals keep it running and they do n't really have a choice then to sacrifice themselves for the greater good , but evolution/math made them that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not really sure, what they want to tell me.I mean those cells don't have free will and make up decisions up on what's best for their own survival as an individuum.If there are two populations of bacteria, one with only selfish acting bacteria and one with bacteria that cooperate and where cells even might act unselfish for the greater good and gain an advantage that way over the 1st population, then ofc evolution will prefer the cooperating cells, when the overall reproduction/survival rate of them is just better.
Survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean survival of the fittest individuum, but survival of the fittest genes.
This can also mean survival of those organisms, who perform better,.when organized in a group, so that the group gets an advantage over other groups.If one looks at ants and bees it's quite obvious.
Evolution doesn't care much about the individuum, it just cares that the genetic code is spread most efficiently and it even chooses solutions where thousands of individums don't get any chance for reproduction at all.
The bee queen acts as a genetic copy machine and the other animals keep it running and they don't really have a choice then to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, but evolution/math made them that way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424354</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>grimJester</author>
	<datestamp>1260736500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'm sorry, but that stretches the meaning of "sophisticated" and "decision" beyond all reason.
<br> <br>
One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's hardly a good comparison. If you wrote a piece of software that had a similarly sophisticated decision making process you would call it just that although the process is completely deterministic. Water flowing downhill is just shaped by the terrain although the turbulence is complex. The water contains no complex mechanism comparable to that of a bacterium.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , but that stretches the meaning of " sophisticated " and " decision " beyond all reason .
One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.That 's hardly a good comparison .
If you wrote a piece of software that had a similarly sophisticated decision making process you would call it just that although the process is completely deterministic .
Water flowing downhill is just shaped by the terrain although the turbulence is complex .
The water contains no complex mechanism comparable to that of a bacterium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, but that stretches the meaning of "sophisticated" and "decision" beyond all reason.
One might just as well argue that water flowing down hill has made a sophisticated decision.That's hardly a good comparison.
If you wrote a piece of software that had a similarly sophisticated decision making process you would call it just that although the process is completely deterministic.
Water flowing downhill is just shaped by the terrain although the turbulence is complex.
The water contains no complex mechanism comparable to that of a bacterium.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426490</id>
	<title>Re:High Scientific Goals</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260710940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, the "life" part was a metaphor. The basic point was that simple rules can result in highly complex behaviour. Classical examples from nature are the "hive minds" of bees and ants.
<br> <br>
As for wether it is usefull, Conway's article in SciAm was what piqued my interest in computers and lead me to buying a second hand AppleII in the early 80's. It may not be as usefull to mankind as the Principa but on a personal level it was the start of a journey that lead me out of what American's call a "trailer park" and into my current $500K home by the seaside.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , the " life " part was a metaphor .
The basic point was that simple rules can result in highly complex behaviour .
Classical examples from nature are the " hive minds " of bees and ants .
As for wether it is usefull , Conway 's article in SciAm was what piqued my interest in computers and lead me to buying a second hand AppleII in the early 80 's .
It may not be as usefull to mankind as the Principa but on a personal level it was the start of a journey that lead me out of what American 's call a " trailer park " and into my current $ 500K home by the seaside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, the "life" part was a metaphor.
The basic point was that simple rules can result in highly complex behaviour.
Classical examples from nature are the "hive minds" of bees and ants.
As for wether it is usefull, Conway's article in SciAm was what piqued my interest in computers and lead me to buying a second hand AppleII in the early 80's.
It may not be as usefull to mankind as the Principa but on a personal level it was the start of a journey that lead me out of what American's call a "trailer park" and into my current $500K home by the seaside.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424602</id>
	<title>Re:High Scientific Goals</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1260695280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Conway's Game of Life wasn't made to simulate life in any meaningful sense. It was designed by Conway because he was investigating simple cellular automata that had non-trivial behavior. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's\_Game\_of\_Life" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's\_Game\_of\_Life</a> [wikipedia.org]. It happened that the simplest interesting form he found happened to have rules that could be stated with very very rough analogs to living creatures. Some of the rules are very much stretches. For example, while bacteria can die from overcrowding, they cannot die from being lonely. And cells aren't reincarnated or made new from having three neighboring cells (I'm not aware of any species outside science fiction that requires more than two cooperating members to have sex (see for example Asimov's "The Gods Themselves")).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Conway 's Game of Life was n't made to simulate life in any meaningful sense .
It was designed by Conway because he was investigating simple cellular automata that had non-trivial behavior .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway 's \ _Game \ _of \ _Life [ wikipedia.org ] .
It happened that the simplest interesting form he found happened to have rules that could be stated with very very rough analogs to living creatures .
Some of the rules are very much stretches .
For example , while bacteria can die from overcrowding , they can not die from being lonely .
And cells are n't reincarnated or made new from having three neighboring cells ( I 'm not aware of any species outside science fiction that requires more than two cooperating members to have sex ( see for example Asimov 's " The Gods Themselves " ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conway's Game of Life wasn't made to simulate life in any meaningful sense.
It was designed by Conway because he was investigating simple cellular automata that had non-trivial behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway's\_Game\_of\_Life [wikipedia.org].
It happened that the simplest interesting form he found happened to have rules that could be stated with very very rough analogs to living creatures.
Some of the rules are very much stretches.
For example, while bacteria can die from overcrowding, they cannot die from being lonely.
And cells aren't reincarnated or made new from having three neighboring cells (I'm not aware of any species outside science fiction that requires more than two cooperating members to have sex (see for example Asimov's "The Gods Themselves")).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30423960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426962</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>TapeCutter</author>
	<datestamp>1260714900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The water had no choice, gravity decided for it. Besides the human brian is basically a colony of single celled automata that communicate via chemical messages and perform a sophisticated decision making process (well sometimes anyway).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The water had no choice , gravity decided for it .
Besides the human brian is basically a colony of single celled automata that communicate via chemical messages and perform a sophisticated decision making process ( well sometimes anyway ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The water had no choice, gravity decided for it.
Besides the human brian is basically a colony of single celled automata that communicate via chemical messages and perform a sophisticated decision making process (well sometimes anyway).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30423996</id>
	<title>Bah. nothing new</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260733320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Alternately the bacteria may 'choose' to enter a state called competence where they are able to absorb the nutrients from their newly deceased comrades."<br>The vultures on Wallstreet do this all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Alternately the bacteria may 'choose ' to enter a state called competence where they are able to absorb the nutrients from their newly deceased comrades .
" The vultures on Wallstreet do this all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Alternately the bacteria may 'choose' to enter a state called competence where they are able to absorb the nutrients from their newly deceased comrades.
"The vultures on Wallstreet do this all the time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426764</id>
	<title>Re:Bacteria analogous to human beings?</title>
	<author>Cassius Corodes</author>
	<datestamp>1260713520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are - and for good reason. Game theory has been very successful in understanding some of the basic trade-offs involved in individual vs group decision-making. Certain set-ups such as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners\_dilemma" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners\_dilemma</a> [wikipedia.org] are generic forms of common problems that are encountered both in the human world and the natural world. Having worked in this area I can tell you that solutions found in the natural world often end up as inspiration for real life applications - such as regulation of industry and organisational psychology. At the end of the day one of the most re-occurring problems is how to get selfish people to co-operate as a group - and this problem has been solved so many times by nature in so many ways its basically a handy repository of tried and true solutions just waiting to be discovered.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are - and for good reason .
Game theory has been very successful in understanding some of the basic trade-offs involved in individual vs group decision-making .
Certain set-ups such as the http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners \ _dilemma [ wikipedia.org ] are generic forms of common problems that are encountered both in the human world and the natural world .
Having worked in this area I can tell you that solutions found in the natural world often end up as inspiration for real life applications - such as regulation of industry and organisational psychology .
At the end of the day one of the most re-occurring problems is how to get selfish people to co-operate as a group - and this problem has been solved so many times by nature in so many ways its basically a handy repository of tried and true solutions just waiting to be discovered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are - and for good reason.
Game theory has been very successful in understanding some of the basic trade-offs involved in individual vs group decision-making.
Certain set-ups such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners\_dilemma [wikipedia.org] are generic forms of common problems that are encountered both in the human world and the natural world.
Having worked in this area I can tell you that solutions found in the natural world often end up as inspiration for real life applications - such as regulation of industry and organisational psychology.
At the end of the day one of the most re-occurring problems is how to get selfish people to co-operate as a group - and this problem has been solved so many times by nature in so many ways its basically a handy repository of tried and true solutions just waiting to be discovered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424344</id>
	<title>Good Bacteria interaction overview (good watching)</title>
	<author>MonsterMasher</author>
	<datestamp>1260736440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Very strange - I just finished watching this lecture video this morning. I've all so seen her talk in TED.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://microbeworld.libsyn.com/index.php?post\_id=516458&amp;utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+asm+(MicrobeWorld+Video)#" title="libsyn.com" rel="nofollow">http://microbeworld.libsyn.com/index.php?post\_id=516458&amp;utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+asm+(MicrobeWorld+Video)#</a> [libsyn.com]</p><p>Cool Stuff!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Very strange - I just finished watching this lecture video this morning .
I 've all so seen her talk in TED.com       http : //microbeworld.libsyn.com/index.php ? post \ _id = 516458&amp;utm \ _source = feedburner&amp;utm \ _medium = feed&amp;utm \ _campaign = Feed \ % 3A + asm + ( MicrobeWorld + Video ) # [ libsyn.com ] Cool Stuff !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Very strange - I just finished watching this lecture video this morning.
I've all so seen her talk in TED.com
      http://microbeworld.libsyn.com/index.php?post\_id=516458&amp;utm\_source=feedburner&amp;utm\_medium=feed&amp;utm\_campaign=Feed\%3A+asm+(MicrobeWorld+Video)# [libsyn.com]Cool Stuff!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424352</id>
	<title>Re:Thinking Bacteria</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260736500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're attacking vagueness with vagueness. What exactly do <i>you</i> mean by decision?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're attacking vagueness with vagueness .
What exactly do you mean by decision ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're attacking vagueness with vagueness.
What exactly do you mean by decision?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426880</id>
	<title>Re:NOT a prisoner's dilemma</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1260714240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the bacteria are obviously programmed to do what is best to ensure the survival of the species.</i></p><p>Why does everyone who's learned the slightest bit of evolutionary theory suddenly think everything is about the survival of the species?</p><p>It's never about the survival of the species.  In this case, where some kin-selection has unsurprisingly being going on, it's about survival of the most closely related individuals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the bacteria are obviously programmed to do what is best to ensure the survival of the species.Why does everyone who 's learned the slightest bit of evolutionary theory suddenly think everything is about the survival of the species ? It 's never about the survival of the species .
In this case , where some kin-selection has unsurprisingly being going on , it 's about survival of the most closely related individuals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the bacteria are obviously programmed to do what is best to ensure the survival of the species.Why does everyone who's learned the slightest bit of evolutionary theory suddenly think everything is about the survival of the species?It's never about the survival of the species.
In this case, where some kin-selection has unsurprisingly being going on, it's about survival of the most closely related individuals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30427908</id>
	<title>Re:NOT a prisoner's dilemma</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260724680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the Bacteria's game, the bacteria are obviously programmed to do what is best to ensure the survival of the species.</p></div><p>Evolution is always about what is best for the single organism, i.e. no group selection, contrary to what you imply.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the Bacteria 's game , the bacteria are obviously programmed to do what is best to ensure the survival of the species.Evolution is always about what is best for the single organism , i.e .
no group selection , contrary to what you imply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the Bacteria's game, the bacteria are obviously programmed to do what is best to ensure the survival of the species.Evolution is always about what is best for the single organism, i.e.
no group selection, contrary to what you imply.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425690</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425288
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30431512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30430352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30423996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30429234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424536
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30428986
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30427040
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424354
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30423960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30423960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_13_1657236_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30427908
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1657236.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424236
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30428986
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424536
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424244
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424354
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30430352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30431512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1657236.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30423996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1657236.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424084
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1657236.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425690
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30427908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1657236.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424274
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426764
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424434
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1657236.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1657236.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30425490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30427040
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30429234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1657236.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424334
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_13_1657236.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30423960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30426490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_13_1657236.30424178
</commentlist>
</conversation>
