What bacteria is this?

[another1]

Captured from 1995 National Geographic show called Little creatures who run the world. This particular bacteria is from the Amazon. The name wasn't given but the narrator mentioned teeth. Teeth imply a face. Do bacteria have faces? This one seems to, and it looks like it is having a very good time.

 

[bilby]

View attachment 9676

Captured from 1995 National Geographic show called Little creatures who run the world. This particular bacteria is from the Amazon. The name wasn't given but the narrator mentioned teeth. Teeth imply a face. Do bacteria have faces? This one seems to, and it looks like it is having a very good time.

Bacteria is a plural. If there's only one, then it's a bacterium.

But this isn't a bacterium - it's a mite. Specifically, it is a soil mite, most likely Diapterobates Sp., which is found in the sub-arctic tundra soils of Northern Canada and Alaska.

 

[another1]

I didn't see any pics of the bacterium smiling in the link. Just locations of where it may be located. That was good info, don't get me wrong. Is the bacterium smiling? I think it is smiling for the microscope camera. Not a soil mite according to the show but hmm interesting. So bacteria is plural. Learn something new everyday.

 

[fast]

I didn't see any pics of the bacterium smiling in the link. Just locations of where it may be located. That was good info, don't get me wrong. Is the bacterium smiling? I think it is smiling for the microscope camera. Not a soil mite according to the show but hmm interesting. So bacteria is plural. Learn something new everyday.

It's neither bacteria nor bacterium. It's something much (I'm guessing) bigger.

 

[another1]

No I'm pretty sure it is bacterium bacteria. Do you see it smiling?

 

[another1]

I was asking because I was thinking a lot of microscopic and telescopic images are affected by the people who first see them. Maybe the person who discovered this little fella was ready to party. Maybe it was a Friday, and that was an image that manifested in his mind. Now that bacteria bacterium forever looks like it is ready to party. Same with space clouds. Ever see the party animals in space vapor neutron clouds? space is great for faces. Maybe the telescope scientist contributes to the image. The first to see is the one to mold the image, because there may be nothing there. Or something prohibited and unseen for unknown reasons.

But this bacteria bacterium is the point. I think is smiling. A happy little bacterium bacteria.

 

[fast]

Well, yes, she's smiling, but it's a disengenuous smile, kind of like a momentary fake smile put on from sad eyes looking up. Not that she's trying to be fake, but from behind those sad eyes are the twinkling recognition that she aims to please, as if she knows you recognize her sadness and wishes for her gloom to subside.

Let the little girl dance.

 

[another1]

Lovely comment. Surprising you mentioned a female because I think it looks a little like Betty Boop. Suppose you pull her into our world and x ray her at the moment she realizes she is just a cartoon. This is probably the image you would get. She is melting away, and for some reason chewing on a femur bone (if you saw that strange detail in the pic).

Why do pictures like this exist, fast? Do you think the image is "real"? I do not. I have a lot of space pics that defy rational explanation. Not the usual pareidolic images you see in popular culture. I've been careful to sift out anything that has been identified already. Recently started looking at microscope illusions. Seems to be more there, than in space. I think both are just as unreal.

I don't know how to gather it together for what seems to be a sane presentation, fast. I depend on highly educated people to do that for me. More convenient would be some highly intelligent people, who think abstractly with ease. My I.Q is a solid 90, so I can make a soup. I just can't tell you what the F is in it. I have a soup of ideas about the realness of our world. I think they are good (or at least unheard) ideas, and I just need help with spelling and counting sometimes. How many Betty Boops are crying in the picture, and is this how you spell Betty Boop? We can start there.

I will settle for poetic and possibly cryptic comments because that is all anyone has ever had, when faced with something like "space isn't real". I don't have the footing to throw that one very far. It is too likely, too. It is more plausible (to me) that space is NOT real. I aint been in no spaceships. Have you?

I knew Christians believing something similar but it involved a dome around the planet. There is no Goddamn Firmament. How insane is that! More likely, space is just not there at all. What we are seeing up there is from our own minds - and possibly our minds themselves. I'd love a real conversation about that sometime. Don't be afraid to look stupid. Stupid feels soooo good. OMG you have no idea how wonderful it is, and how much more you can get done when you just give in. Dancing around like a little ballerina is an awesome visual for a good lot of things.

 

[fast]

Lovely comment. Surprising you mentioned a female because I think it looks a little like Betty Boop. Suppose you pull her into our world and x ray her at the moment she realizes she is just a cartoon. This is probably the image you would get. She is melting away, and for some reason chewing on a femur bone (if you saw that strange detail in the pic).

Why do pictures like this exist, fast? Do you think the image is "real"? I do not. I have a lot of space pics that defy rational explanation. Not the usual pareidolic images you see in popular culture. I've been careful to sift out anything that has been identified already. Recently started looking at microscope illusions. Seems to be more there, than in space. I think both are just as unreal.

I don't know how to gather it together for what seems to be a sane presentation, fast. I depend on highly educated people to do that for me. More convenient would be some highly intelligent people, who think abstractly with ease. My I.Q is a solid 90, so I can make a soup. I just can't tell you what the F is in it. I have a soup of ideas about the realness of our world. I think they are good (or at least unheard) ideas, and I just need help with spelling and counting sometimes. How many Betty Boops are crying in the picture, and is this how you spell Betty Boop? We can start there.

I will settle for poetic and possibly cryptic comments because that is all anyone has ever had, when faced with something like "space isn't real". I don't have the footing to throw that one very far. It is too likely, too. It is more plausible (to me) that space is NOT real. I aint been in no spaceships. Have you?

I knew Christians believing something similar but it involved a dome around the planet. There is no Goddamn Firmament. How insane is that! More likely, space is just not there at all. What we are seeing up there is from our own minds - and possibly our minds themselves. I'd love a real conversation about that sometime. Don't be afraid to look stupid. Stupid feels soooo good. OMG you have no idea how wonderful it is, and how much more you can get done when you just give in. Dancing around like a little ballerina is an awesome visual for a good lot of things.

Like a rubber-band stretching too and fro, it's easy sometimes to switch back and forth between alternate frames of thought, sometimes between 1) supremely vague and esoteric as a continentinal philosopher elucidating as if on hallucenagens (and pushing farther into the fantastic) and sometimes 2) as critically minded as a steadfast analytical philosopher honing in on its target (and fine tuning things to a point).

You asked, and quite well you asked, "do think the image is real," and if I brought to bare the more critically minded frame of thought, I would immediately bring to the forethought of your attention a distinction ever so important to my way (or at least that side of my way) of thinking. Just as there are differences between ideas and what ideas are ideas of, just as there are differences between concepts and what concepts are concepts of, and like differences between maps and what maps are maps of, and like the difference between a statue and what a statue is a statue of, I say unto you that the distinction you must be willing to differentiate is between that of an image (on the one hand) and what the image is an image of (on the other hand).

Yes, most definitely yes, oh so much of a yes, I must submit to you that the image is real, so if that's your intended question, then yes is most certainly my answer. Actually, it's my answer regardless of what you meant by your question, as my answer stands good for the question posed. It might very well be that you want to know if what the image is an image of is real. For instance, a statue of a unicorn is oh so very real, but what it's a statue of (namely a unicorn) may yield a different answer. If you want to know if what the image is an image of is real, then in sticking with that same critically minded perspective, I'd ask if if there is an instance of it in the world in which we live--not the image (we know that's real--or at least we should) but rather if that little creature as depicted can be instantiated--an instance of it detected.

 

[another1]

Well that was at least something. I don't think this is going to work out in terms of progress of any kind but I never object to words. Was just trying to goad people into contributing, with the whole intelligence thing. People on the internet are absolutely obsessed with their own intelligence nowadays, but nobody around here is stupid enough to fall for that one. I'd rather people care about that than glitter nails and puppy dogs, so people are making progress in the priorities department on social media. I don't use it anymore but it is hard to resist spying on women and random people who will never know I existed. And yeah the end part, when you started coming out of the strangeness - I do mean the thing in the image. Is the thing in that image real? Don't question if the image is real because I don't know that either. I mean the little partying bacteria inside the frame. Is that thing something that actually exists in our supposed world? It is bacteria. I checked. So what is really going on around here?

I had a Hubble book a long time ago. Size of a coffee table. There were no hi-def anythings to drool at back then. This book was just unreal. And I mean that. I never believed anything in that book was real, and I still don't. I went through a period where I acknowledged matter of all sorts as real, sure, I had to fit in, but it made me feel so dirty inside. I just couldn't accept that it was matter as we know it made those images. It was impossible to me. I don't think that it is matter at all. Not the images and not the supposed things in them. Neither, and however you want to flower it up multiplied by one million thousand - NO. Not real.

Please continue in any way you feel comfortable. You don't believe in God, so there is that to contend with. Maybe you do, I don't know. It isn't my job to know. If so, it may not be doomed from the start, like I automatically assume everything will be. That is 50% of your confusion right there. Spirituals love this kind of thing but I like proposing things to those who will disagree because I have integrity as a researcher.

It is about making the world a better place. That is what it is about, fast. Imagine the money we could save if we told NASA they've been wrong this whole time. They would be so relieved. We could use that NASA cash to travel our minds together in peace, and give up this horrid delusion of matter in space. Wow man. This is really picking up. We've almost solved all of the worlds problems in two pages.

 

[BH]

That critter looks like a cross between a chicken and tarantula and had just returned home after losing a bar fight.

 

[fast]

Well that was at least something. I don't think this is going to work out in terms of progress of any kind but I never object to words. Was just trying to goad people into contributing, with the whole intelligence thing. People on the internet are absolutely obsessed with their own intelligence nowadays, but nobody around here is stupid enough to fall for that one. I'd rather people care about that than glitter nails and puppy dogs, so people are making progress in the priorities department on social media. I don't use it anymore but it is hard to resist spying on women and random people who will never know I existed. And yeah the end part, when you started coming out of the strangeness - I do mean the thing in the image. Is the thing in that image real? Don't question if the image is real because I don't know that either. I mean the little partying bacteria inside the frame. Is that thing something that actually exists in our supposed world? It is bacteria. I checked. So what is really going on around here?

I had a Hubble book a long time ago. Size of a coffee table. There were no hi-def anythings to drool at back then. This book was just unreal. And I mean that. I never believed anything in that book was real, and I still don't. I went through a period where I acknowledged matter of all sorts as real, sure, I had to fit in, but it made me feel so dirty inside. I just couldn't accept that it was matter as we know it made those images. It was impossible to me. I don't think that it is matter at all. Not the images and not the supposed things in them. Neither, and however you want to flower it up multiplied by one million thousand - NO. Not real.

Please continue in any way you feel comfortable. You don't believe in God, so there is that to contend with. Maybe you do, I don't know. It isn't my job to know. If so, it may not be doomed from the start, like I automatically assume everything will be. That is 50% of your confusion right there. Spirituals love this kind of thing but I like proposing things to those who will disagree because I have integrity as a researcher.

It is about making the world a better place. That is what it is about, fast. Imagine the money we could save if we told NASA they've been wrong this whole time. They would be so relieved. We could use that NASA cash to travel our minds together in peace, and give up this horrid delusion of matter in space. Wow man. This is really picking up. We've almost solved all of the worlds problems in two pages.

There's no need to fear women. Be polite. Never seem eager. Listen attentively. Be confident but not bragdocious. When there's an opening, refrain with all your might. Eat before a dinner date, and say no to lunch. Things will quickly become unreal.

Unreal is something different, something to be amazed at. She is real (that woman that has caught your eye), and if you were to take a picture of her, that picture would be real as well. And if a painter were to draw a painting, it would be real as well as the person that inspired it.

If something is not real, then it's imaginary. There is another use of the term where if something is not real, then it's counterfeit. Clearly, something that is counterfeit is not imaginary, so it's real in one sense while not real in another, and that's whether the thing is something to be amazed at at all.

You seem to be denying that things are real in the sense that opposes imagination, but that's a philosophical absurdity. Of course the picture of her is real. To genuinely deny the reality of that in the privacy of your own thoughts indicate that you're in the grip of a theory that you can't quite get a handle on.

Remember, she's real. Thoughts and feelings and dreams and hopes and likes and a favorite color.

 

[another1]

Right, there is no questioning where the frame ends and the rest of the screen begins. The image is right there. It is real, and so is the screen I see it on. So is the room where my monitor is. But the chick in the pic is from the imagination of someone else.

If I were the first to see the bacterium, it would look more Roger Rabbity. Still ready to party, but not in any way similar. That bacterium looks the way it does because of someone else. Part of what I couldn't get a grip on was the point that first observers of previously unseen microscopic and cosmic worlds contribute to what they look like. My assumption is that the supposed objects are not actually there, so the thoughts we bring to the image brand them, and then we agree on a set image once the first observer has observed and subsequent observers have tuned in somehow. Nothing in nature should look like that under a microscope.

Some things in space are impossibly stupid looking, too. A telescope is more of a crystal-ball time machine that will show you whatever it is you're thinking you'll see. Then, through whatever resonance in consciousness and self trickery involved - we all suddenly see the same thing. Or do we actually see the same thing? The closer we look, the more detail me may see, but that doesn't mean the details are real. It just means we're communicating with our minds and creating an image.

 

[Peez]

The OP presents a scanning electron micrograph of an arthropod (an animal related to insects and spiders), much like this one:

It is probably about the volume of 100,000 typical bacteria, and does have a mouth (though you cannot see it in that image). Bacteria do not have a mouth, nor do they have a face in any meanignful sense: some carry out photosynthesis but all exchange materials with their environment through the plasma membranes and cell walls.

Fun fact: there are animals with a mouth that is not anywhere near their 'face'.

Peez

 

[another1]

Neat one. It looks more like a machine than the other fella. This image looks like it was taken with a better camera, or at least had a more mechanically thinking first observer. The Betty Boop lookin bacterium looks like it was caught off guard.

Now that we have a better framework (in our minds) for what this stuff is supposed to look like, the illusions probably form more easily. Now it is the image of a thought - set in stone. Those little things are supposedly crawling everywhere because we need an explanation as to why they are not.

 

[fast]

Right, there is no questioning where the frame ends and the rest of the screen begins. The image is right there. It is real, and so is the screen I see it on. So is the room where my monitor is. But the chick in the pic is from the imagination of someone else.

If I were the first to see the bacterium, it would look more Roger Rabbity. Still ready to party, but not in any way similar. That bacterium looks the way it does because of someone else. Part of what I couldn't get a grip on was the point that first observers of previously unseen microscopic and cosmic worlds contribute to what they look like. My assumption is that the supposed objects are not actually there, so the thoughts we bring to the image brand them, and then we agree on a set image once the first observer has observed and subsequent observers have tuned in somehow. Nothing in nature should look like that under a microscope.

Some things in space are impossibly stupid looking, too. A telescope is more of a crystal-ball time machine that will show you whatever it is you're thinking you'll see. Then, through whatever resonance in consciousness and self trickery involved - we all suddenly see the same thing. Or do we actually see the same thing? The closer we look, the more detail me may see, but that doesn't mean the details are real. It just means we're communicating with our minds and creating an image.

Oh, that's a horse of another color. If what we're looking at is a drawing created by an artist, and if the drawing is inspired by something the artist has seen, then the drawing may not be an accurate representation of what was seen. If what we're looking at is a picture of something captured by a camera, then a different picture taken from a different angle and magnification will yield a different picture. However, different perspectives of something doesn't negate the existence of something. If something exists (which is to say something has properties), then it's real (which is to say something is not a product of the imagination).

There (I suppose) can be a blend of the two--not in the case of a mechanically created picture that excludes the possibility of human imagination. If I have a poor view of an object and use my creative talent to highlight unseen characteristics, then there (I suppose) there could be an imperfect representation--there might be a degree of inaccuracy.

Earlier in the last post, I wasn't referring to the picture; I was referring to a real woman. Sorry for that particular confusion. My bad.

 

[Peez]

Neat one. It looks more like a machine than the other fella. This image looks like it was taken with a better camera, or at least had a more mechanically thinking first observer. The Betty Boop lookin bacterium looks like it was caught off guard.

Now that we have a better framework (in our minds) for what this stuff is supposed to look like, the illusions probably form more easily. Now it is the image of a thought - set in stone. Those little things are supposedly crawling everywhere because we need an explanation as to why they are not.

If you are referring to the organism in the OP, it is not a bacterium.

Peez

 

[another1]

I'm saying the bacterium wouldn't look like that at at all if I myself looked at it first, and in that case it would look different than what we assume we're seeing. Wouldn't look anything like the supposed bacterium in the pic. The bacteria isn't from a horse and I'm not making a relation to any analogies about that. I guess there is one, and yes I understand what I said sounds like that, but what I was saying is that the first to see anything is the first to determine what it looks like (in a sense)

 

[Peez]

I'm saying the bacterium wouldn't look like that at at all if I myself looked at it first, and in that case it would look different than what we assume we're seeing. Wouldn't look anything like the supposed bacterium in the pic. The bacteria isn't from a horse and I'm not making a relation to any analogies about that. I guess there is one, and yes I understand what I said sounds like that, but what I was saying is that the first to see anything is the first to determine what it looks like (in a sense)

You seem to be supposing that it is a bacterium, but it is not a bacterium. This is what a couple of dozen typical bacteria look like:

Outside of that I really cannot understand what you are trying to communicate.

Peez

 

[bigfield]

I'm saying the bacterium wouldn't look like that at at all if I myself looked at it first, and in that case it would look different than what we assume we're seeing. Wouldn't look anything like the supposed bacterium in the pic. The bacteria isn't from a horse and I'm not making a relation to any analogies about that. I guess there is one, and yes I understand what I said sounds like that, but what I was saying is that the first to see anything is the first to determine what it looks like (in a sense)

You could try telling us why you thought it was a bacterium in the first place so that we can figure out why you are so terribly confused.