Genecks

Valid for sure. I think I'm mostly trying to put forth the idea that a person could instate a larger lifespan for a mouse through various surgical and organogenesis techniques. Nonetheless, the mouse could be killed from a falling rock, a poison, etc... So perhaps making an immortal mouse would be difficult to prove, as it would go into assumptions about the current state of the cosmos (whether resources are limited or not).

Yeah, reaching enlightenment is all about killing time afterward.

That's a really good book, too. <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtdM1pqbX6A&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtdM1pqbX6A&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object> I also like Corduroy, but I think it's somewhat depressing, thus I can't say it's my favorite book. Here is a good recap of it: I mean, in terms of social influence, I think Corduroy is the best book. It shows oppression, social rejection, etc... It shows the importance of looking nice and neat, always having buttons to your clothes, and more. But it worries me that the author made the little girl black. It made me wonder if this was a social commentary in saying that the poor will be dating other persons whom may be of poor communities. It's really curious what things were implied in that book.

So, what caused the incident? a pipe burst?

I've read into what that show is about, and I feel as though it would be a waste of my time. The show seems to have attempted to give Dexter a classic sociopath persona and childhood. The character and his actions does not interest me. Also, I was attempting to be rhetorical with the blood statements, as vampires like blood. I was looking for irony in making that statement.

Long ago, the APA considered homosexuality a mental illness. Many people throughout the past decades considered that idea silly, and it was thrown out as a mental illness. I thought it was silly when I learned about it. However, in my studies of psychology, biology, and neuroscience, I've considered that homosexuality may indeed be a mental illness in a sense... But take its possibility into consideration. Take it with seriousness. What does it mean to have a mental illness? Is it better defined as a mental abnormality? Well, I'd like to consider the sex drive in reference to its design. In its design, it can serve in the function of reproduction. As such, homosexuals, living truly as homosexuals with no intention of reproducing with a female, are not living out their biological function. And their refusal/inability/non-desire to carry out their biological function goes against neurobiological programming in reference to reproduction... So, in that sense, I could say it's a mental illness. It seems absolutely reasonable to me. Perhaps it's not a mental illness in the same way schizophrenia is a mental illness, but it's some an inability to assimilate according to typical biological function. I don't truly believe evolution provided persons with a gene to be homosexual. I think that knock-out function of a gene could cause people to behave abnormally, thus homosexual. But I don't think nature provided people with a functional gay gene, as that would work against concepts of reproduction in order to sustain life. Evolution can act to increase fitness. As such, genes that come into existence would more than likely exist to sustain/increase fitness.

Chick flicks... chick books.... No. I didn't bother reading Twilight... But for a more important reason... I am a scientist and a philosopher. I refuse to read some fictional B.S. unless it holds immediate value to me. Bascule pointed out some features of "immediate value." In general, I don't like fiction. I do like blood, though... lots of blood... fresh blood.

The Very Hungry Caterpillar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Very_Hungry_Caterpillar

Obesity can cause fat to clog the arteries and lead to decreased blood flow, thus decreased blood flow means a decreased amount of nutrients for cells, thus leading to cellular death. And the increase in cellular death amongst various important organs can cause larger physical break down of the body. I think obesity is often linked to heart attacks. Decreased blood flow is common among the elderly. Blood flow becomes an important factor as a person ages. Many elderly will have purple toes and a hint of blue to their body parts if they are not active enough. As such, decreased blood flow might eventually cause a restriction that will lead into a future amputation. In general, I think most people die from bacterial infections in old age. If obese people are not active, that means their lymphatic system is not moving around so much. If it's not moving around so much, that means it is not actively being used to attack possible bacterial infections. At an increased age, the cells in the body may have undergone changes that deter it from dealing with the obesity/overweightedness as it had once done before. As said earlier, mutations occur as a person ages.

If I could make an immortal mouse, would that be proof in concept that I could do it with a human? Let us assume that I'm opening up mice, putting in robot limbs, inserting stem cells, and playing doctor with them. Yes, I know, quite serious stuff. If I could make that mouse live as long as I desired (which means I had to actively open it up and alter its anatomy/physiology) would that be proof of concept that I could do the same with a human?

Obesity is often linked to diabetes. If a person often has bad eating habits, takes in a lot of sugar, etc, and forms diabetes, then that can be with the person for life. From there, the person is not only diabetic but obese. And with age, mutations in DNA can occur in the mitochondria and cell nucleus. As the person age, external and internal factors compound. In general, having diabetes would somewhat be more detrimental if the cells cannot easily take in glucose. But then again, it could be seen as a highlight of aging, because then cells that cannot easily take in glucose would go through apoptosis; and perhaps the remaining cells would have the good DNA. That might be a kind of cellular darwinism that occurs, but I'm unsure of that (I've been knocking around this idea of cellular darwinism as of late). I'm not sure of the statistics, but you might find that a lot of people who are obese often die early. Many health complications come with being obese for long periods of time.

I've recently pondered the question, "Why can men often get bigger than women in bodybuilding competitions?" Would this have to do with the Y chromosome?

The brain has various structures with supposed functions. Some people argue about whether or not a part of the brain actually serves a specific function, such as the hippocampus in totality being required for memory. I suggest if you're new to the realm of anatomy and physiology that you start with the human body and then move toward understanding the human brain. Starting with the human body (skeletal and then muscle systems) will help advance structure/function memorization skills. Maybe visit a local college/uni/medical library and start looking at their anatomy and physiology books.

I'm slightly under the belief that humans never got the chance to evolve and do such. Thus, there is a mutualistic relationship with bacteria. I suspect if some taxonomic studies were done, perhaps there are animals that feed on cellulose more than others. Maybe there are some advanced mechanisms. Maybe if a person were to biohack such a mechanism into an organism, I suspect finding a way to move the food through the intestinal tract while digesting cellulose would be key. - DOI 10.1007/s00427-003-0379-8 - The evolutionary origin of animal cellulose synthase Development Genes and Evolution Maybe there is more to this issue. Seems like that knowledge was found in the past decade. Perhaps more research will uncover more knowledge.

I only feel that the varying forms of forced education I have endured have slowed me down. I will admit that I had a large interest in engineering and physics as a child. It progressed into a like for computer science, because computers and the Internet provided me with free tools to learn and work with. However, as I went to college, I decided to get involved in neuroscience. Did secondary school (American) help me? For the most part, no. I simply remember a bunch of ignorant educators who misled me most of the way. I seriously wanted to go back to my old highschool and call the teachers ignorant pieces of trash, but unfortunately there are security guards all over these days. They seem to actively walk the halls. I would have to say that what influenced me in my later decisions was the fact that I had a psychiatrist whom went to the University of Chicago. I had sessions with her for about 10 to 12 years. I was largely interested in psychology before I hit college. I was diagnoses with ADHD as a child back in... maybe 1992 (I believe ADHD is linked to stimulation and arousal deficiencies). It's more than that, but I don't want to disclose that information. However, after studying psychology and biology, I began to move toward neuroscience. It offered me the ability to involve my past loves with my current (then) loves. I would have stuck with engineering if my parents would have bought me supplies and books. They never wanted to do that. Both had college degrees (associates), but they didn't care about me wanting to educate myself nor advance myself. It was a ridiculous situation, and after I got my associates degree, I voiced my opinions to them how I thought they were both ignorant pieces of crap. At best, I'm not addicted to anything, and I'm still in one piece. I guess they did their legal duty. They could have been better parents, to say the least. After getting my A.S. degree, I figured out why I constantly got strept throat as a child, too. If I had been guided and shaped right, I would have more than likely been on of those kids in his junior year of university when turning 18. These days I help my siblings, because it would appear my parents lacked the ability. Secondary education is a prison for children. That's what it is. If there are educated parents who wanted educated children, then there is the possibility those children will have better access to educational resources and recreation for their psyche. I didn't learn about interlibrary loan until 18. I didn't know I could continue my mathematics learning by going to a college library (I transferred to an alternative high school). I didn't really understand that there was a medical library in my town with neuroscience and biology books. I didn't know I could walk in and start reading. I thought those things were for students, and I would be stopped from going in. I was very ignorant and raised ignorant. Even in college/university, you have to study things you don't want to study. Social science courses and humanity/arts courses are often required for science majors. Did I have any interest in them? The art classes? The history class? NO! I had an interest in economics, which I appreciate, since the world runs on money. I wouldn't bother with government politics, since they are ad-hoc. I don't care for what people call "well-rounded" education. It's B.S.. It's a way to get educators money. I firmly believe that is an old, classist argument generated by the higher classes. Look at the fact that these annoying required courses that don't relate to the major still exist in college! What's with that? Hmm? Seriously. It costs money to take those courses, too. It's like the biggest ripoff. In reference to highschool: I'll admit that taking acting back in high school helped me remember large amounts of information in a short sitting. Art class didn't help me too much. I like being able to draw a bit better than the usual scientist. Theatre tech didn't help me too much. Reading Shakespeare was a serious waste of my time, especially when I was taking acting at the same time. I was critical enough to say, "Shakespeare sucks. Nice costumes, but these scripts are archaic and of little value to me." I thought black and white acting without speech was some of the most impressive stuff in the world. Impressive blocking and body/facial expressions. I also love method acting. I can be an effective liar and illusionist: That's what I got out of high school education. A lot of problems exist in secondary education. I've recently hypothesized there are a general amount of idiots in these secondary educational institutions. What do I mean? I mean people like... 2.0/2.5 out of 4.0 GPAs. You know... people who got Cs in university/college... teachers who weren't the brightest as students, perhaps as teachers, too. So, we've got a bunch of teachers who are not too intelligent. As such, they cannot effectively prepare the youth nor bring the best out of them. It's a sad situation. College is different, because it actually has people who had to stay above 3.0 GPAs in order to be educators. Plato believed art was crap. Plato desired scientific realism. Aristotle tried to support the arts, thus overturning Plato. I'm more of a neo-platonist. It is because of the failing of the public education system that I believe that the Internet can be an effective tool to reach and teach younger generations. I have little to no interest in the public educational system these days. If you look at the statistics, more students are being home-schooled and home-schooling themselves. They've begun the practice of being an autodidact before hitting college. Yes, it's a waste. I believe that here in America a large percentage of Ph. D holders have parents whom earned graduate degrees or at least bachelors degrees. That's what I got from the Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) reports. For what I've evaluated, parents are the more determining factor if a child will be successful in education. Guess who can be with the child more than the individual teacher? The parent. Parents are more of a determining factor than teachers. And then you have society. You have a lot more nursing students these days and people whom want to be doctors. I don't know if that's TV or the economy. I still want to study engineering, physics, etc... I don't have the time nor money to fully do those things right now. But I suspect I could learn them on my own. I'm getting use to the university system, so I could probably take the classes and have transcripts to prove knowledge somewhere down the line. I don't know. That feels like I'm giving people money. I'd probably save a bunch of money for just sitting in on a class and taking exams with/without letting the professor know I'm not enrolled.

Let's say I could make the same enzymes that other animals/bacteria do in order to digest cellulose. In general, would that cause my body any harm? Let's say I make some transgenic mice that produce cellulase and cellobiose... Is anything going to go wrong? Can those mice eat wood? What about a bug? Is this a surface area issue, which might involve villi? Do you think I could make a transgenic bug that can eat and digest wood? I'm aware some bugs use gut prokaryotes already, but I'm thinking of what would happen if the animal/bug had the enzymes.

Well, a real question would be "Has nature given us the ability to do something undetermined, such as a random act within nature?" People are still trying to figure out how evolution occurred. In general, I would have to say that many things are deterministic, and that perhaps nature has given organisms the ability to complete random tasks. In theory, I suspect a person could make something similar to a human. But in reality, I doubt it could occur. With a computer it's got deterministic limitations, even when creating random processes. You could have a computer simulate that, but it would be a limited mocking of that human process. You could make something extremely similar but it would never be the same unless the computer has DNA and the other little physical properties that came with molecules. I don't really think science is going to attempt to get that far. I think it's a novel concept, but people would more than likely walk away from the ordeal. Maybe if you created an AI system to attempt to make itself as human as possible, then it would attempt to do so. Otherwise, I do not believe that humans in the long run would be interested in getting every single physical detail down could be understood and exist in the realm of physics now and in the future. I'm not saying human->cyborg-> android can't occur. If a person still feels like him/herself in the end, good enough. What I'm trying to say is that I do not believe we would know all of physics that could ever exist to make a virtual human. Curious how the man called the cytoskeleton the paramecium's nervous system. I'm not sure if I can agree with that.

Is it that perhaps certain lengths of DNA cause cohesins to be less tightened around the DNA, thus there is less chance for that strand of DNA to be kept in place? Is the Spo11 protein the only thing causing these breaks? Are the breaks soley dependent on the Spo11 protein?

What about gold? We could scan long distance objects for gold or radioactive materials and teleport carbon in its place. That would rule. I wonder what the energy displacement costs would be. Perhaps a person would have to send an incredible amount of carbon in place of a 1 oz. of radioactive material. Questionable. And could we create a virtual object and then transmit that objects properties to a simple particle, thus forming gold? That would kill the law of conservation of mass.

Then that's not teleportation, in my opinion unless by information you mean "physical properties" kind of like "file properties" but while including the data in the file.

I use the Baconian method. Therefore, I am a scientist. <.< >.>

Generally, the brain starts to forget things, hence the forgetting curve. Scientists and psychologists have found better ways to define "if you don't use it, you lose it." There a lot of cognitive aspects to humans. A person cannot expect people to remember everything, but you can hope they can keep relevant information to weekly/daily tasks. Continual attempts at recall help form better plasticity, thus increasing the ability to "burn the information into your skull." Neural darwinism takes over and from continual practice in re-reading material, "understanding"/recognizing material, and being able to recall it will plasticize the brain so that the knowledge stays there until the stimulation stops.*** If the stimulation stops, then a lot of the neurons that help you understand/know/remember the material die. I consider, however, there to be a cluster of cells that remain in order for a person to quickly pickup a material again. I call these "thought origin neurons." Somehow I still remember how to rewire a telephone system in a house, although I learned about it all as a child. Sometimes there are things that just stay with you, or perhaps they are so easy to pick back up that not much is to be forgotten. I truthfully think an active application of learned materials while knowing what is going on during the time helps a person remember something later on. It's also possible for people to tag "importance" onto things. I don't know how the human brain does it, but it's still fascinating, because when a person tags importance on something, then the ability to remember that thing often increases, especially with continual recall. Some levels of loneliness/depression/feeling-like-life-sucks can inhibit retention rates and can interfere with long-term potentiation. Being able to mathematically model your knowledge and recall using a graphical representation is pretty awesome but time consuming. Doing so could tell you more about yourself if you attempt to graph retention along with keeping a journal about your daily activities, food consumption, and perhaps find correlations between your psychology/anatomy/physiology and learning retention. If you attempt to examine yourself on physicalist grounds, you may learn a lot (yet be irked in considering yourself as complex physical entity rather than just being yourself). I believe that some people's brains are shaped differently than others. As such, they are able to retain data unlike other persons. Nonetheless, the ability to undergo neural darwinism can give an average joe a chance of fighting. see also: learning curves. *** As a note, I don't believe in the word "understanding" anymore, because I've recently been turned on to the concept of "data mining" in reference to human learning. I would like to replace the concept of "understanding" with pattern recognition, memorization, rule relation in reference to the pattern (the pattern has a set of rules that allow it to be that pattern), and the ability to employ novel applications of pattern and rule knowledge.

If you mean that I would be good at verbal skills and science? Sure, then. I'm somewhat already decent at both, though.

I suspect scientists and psychologists would attempt to find ways to make men better with verbal skills and women better in science.

What I really meant is that we have some math/physics persons here at SFN: Graduate students, Ph. D holders, etc.. Just type out a question, and maybe someone will be able to answer. Some of them might be interested in being hired to be a tutor, too; but I'm not sure what the admins would think of such things business deals going on.