Genecks

This story has supposedly has been on the news in the past couple of weeks: http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/university_diaries/amy_bishop I wasn't aware until this week on Tuesday, I think. Or maybe it was last week Tuesday. Either way, interesting story. So far, I've read the general beliefs from people that she is crazy, etc.. etc.. I rarely believe anyone is crazy. I've studied into psychology, and few people are actually so schizophrenic that they kill people in a completely delusional state: and they live a schizophrenic live almost everyday. Those people need medication and to be brought off the streets asap. I've also been friends with some schizophrenics. It's often weird to see someone go out of their mind. But this obviously wasn't the case. I've read that she was supposedly a fraud. I'm not an expert in neuroscience yet, but I'm seeing a lot of the arguments this person makes: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/203288-Is-an-accused-murderer-Dr-Amy-Bishop-an-academic-fraud-delusional-or-both- alternative link: http://afamilyofshepherds.blogspot.com/2010/02/is-accused-murderer-dr-amy-bishop.html I've looked at her university profile (here), and it seems like she was doing research. However, much of it was misleading. If anything, she was not making a great deal of progress. I read into that Neuristor thing, and seems like it's been lurking around the past few decades. Nonetheless, it seems like she created another technology called the InQ, which I'm not sure how it completey works; but it seems more promising than whatever she planned with the Neuristor. The InQ is supposed to be a better way of keeping cell cultures alive for long durations; it emphasized using computer technology to control the living conditions of the culture. InQ: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27014308/Amy-Bishop-on-the-cover-of-the-R-D-Report If she could make such a technology, then I suspect she would have advanced the Neuristor technology. The InQ seems to be working off a dynamic relationship with computer technology. If she could sustain the neurons with the InQ and then interface them with Neuristor, she'd definitely have a working technology. However, it does not seem like she got that far. It also seems like the InQ is wrapped up with the university's agenda, thus making me think that the university possibly stole her idea yet she was quiet about it. Maybe she was quiet, because she figured she still had a job and could be part of the project. My guess is that when she was denied tenure once and for all (thus being cut from an invention she made: As such, if she was cut from all ties to the project, she could not claim to be part of it), she decided to fly off and kill people. Female serial killers are rare. Often murder by a female is an issue of care ethic; but this seems to have been something else. I think a lot of people argue that murder from women deals with money. However, I think many modern females whom show violence are involved with some type of competition and care ethic. If it were care ethic, I would think the murdering of those people was to prevent them from committing certain actions again. Perhaps this was preventing them from wasting another person's time with attempting a tenure position, stealing an invention, or preventing the murdered people from doing something more... Her actions somewhat reminds me of the movie Dogma, to say the least. As a final note, I would just like to say that I find it unfortunate that this person committed such a crime. Society is forced to take away someone who could have contributed a great deal if not to science then to empowering other scientists with knowledge. It's unfortunate that she decided to put herself into that situation. What do some of you think about this ordeal?

Is there a limit to how fast a photon can travel in relation to another photon? If so, can it be considered that a photon is never at its maximal speed? I'm looking for a layman explanation.

I suggest biochemistry, because it pays. I figure biochem would be seriously dull, though, if you want to study microbes and cellular processes and physiology of living organisms. If that's what you're into, probably a bio route. But if you're trying to take a reductionist approach, then I suggest chemistry and physics. I believe in reductionism, but I think it's tiring to only study for that purpose. I'm doing the bio/neuro route. But I suspect if I were not focusing on neuro, then I'd definitely be doing biochem. Premises: Money and reductionist philosophy involved with understanding physiological processes via chemistry. Biochem would surely be difficult, and anything to study should be studied and understood in advance and in a timely manner. Serious thought and discrimination toward core concepts should be applied. In terms of missing out if not taking the bio route, just read a few biology books. There are only about two core books in most colleges: genetics and cell biology. Any further than that, and you become more specialized in something in biology. Furthermore, there is always graduate school to become more specialized. I've met many professors whom have done a B.S. in BIochemistry and gone to graduate school to partake of a biological science rather than a chemical science. Still, I think if you were to do biochem and had little interest in looking at molecules rather than cellular processes each day, you'd get agitated and seriously annoyed with a biochem major. As a bio/neuro major, I feel it necessary to study biochem, math, and physics. I think that because I understand they are part of a knowledge set to understand things on a finer level. I suspect a biochem major would attempt to learn genetics and cell biology in order to understand things on a broader level.

Everything is important. The importance will depend on the situation. I would set forth the idea that if you lose control of the external sphincter, then you'd have some serious problems. Given the ability for no usage of "will," then consider what happens when you do need to go to the bathroom. Thus, importance for social creates, such as humans, I hypothesize, will be shown in needing to retain waste through voluntary control.

I think the phenylalanine obtained from soda pop is dangerous. Given the chance for phenylalanine presence to overwhelm the enzymatic activity that breaks it down, it would cause problems. In other words, if there are molecules to break down that molecules that can break them down, then you start having issues. Supposedly most people can handle a certain amount of that stuff and actually have the enzymes degenerate so no negative effects happen. However, I've often noticed that I feel kind of "out of it" after drinking lots of diet pop in a day (maybe 8 liters of diet mountain dew). Native Americans had problems with consuming liquor. There are people with PKU disorders. Maybe there are others that simply can't digest 12 liters of diet pop in a day but can drink a can once a week. It has to do with a person making an enzyme to take care of the phenylalanine. Given the possibility that a viral infection disabled creation of the processes to take care of phenylalanine, then there would be some serious issues. From what I've been told, a person would have to drink like 100 cans of pop in a day for many days in order to actually feel the effects of the phenylalanine. I laughed at my microbiology professor a few years ago. She was the one who told me that. One of the reasons the study with mice was skewed, was because they were taking in large amounts of the aspartame (more than in a typical can or 2 liter). Premise for laughing: Get me some diet mountain dew, and we can test that hypothesis. I <3 diet mountain dew. She was also the kind of person to claim that she'd given anyone an A if they'd be willing to inject themselves with the AIDs virus. She doesn't seem to like me because I spouted some gene therapy junk to her a few years back. I got my A, though, without injection. Maybe it was the fact that she heard me whistle Hawaii Five-O this one time the entire campus electric grid went down for the day, as I walked through the halls. Good day. I'm guessing that if you're looking for a study, then there are probably keywords to use: famous, aspartame, controversy, and so forth In summary, even though you might be able to break down phenylalanine, if you don't have enough things to process it, then it would be as if you have the PKU disorder.

Well, maybe the person is better off doing a quick bacteria cell staining and using that olympus to see if he/she likes viewing them with a 60x. All the OP needs is a small glass slide (go to a glass retailer), a swab of the mouth, and a couple of drops of blue food dye. Heat fix. Add dye. Dry the glass after dropping the food dye, and observe the slide under the microscope.

Draw out a few images, and I'll be more able to help you. In general, however, when carrying out an experiment, you have a research question: Can Goldfish Remember Sequences? So, bam, you have that down. The next thing you need to do is create your conditions, set your hypothesis, and then run the experiment to see if the hypothesis is confirmed. Do some statistical work to show your data and how it relates to a nullification or support of your hypothesis. To have something work means confirming the hypothesis or nullifying/falsifying a previously conceived hypothesis with the intent of doing so. In terms of functionalism, you need to operationally define success of memorization yourself.

I'm reading about apomixis. Is that the same as selfing?

I thought so. Interesting.

What thread was this broken-off from?

I think you will want a 100x objective on any microscope you get. That will allow you to view bacteria. You'll need to do oil immersion, though I doubt you'd get decent magnification with a 60x. You can view eukaryotic cells with the 10x, 40x, and 60x. It also depends on the cost of this olympus you speak of. If it's like $25, I would get it anyway. But if it's around $100, then I wouldn't bother.

I think you are relating intelligence perhaps to something like a central procecessing unit in a computer. The faster it is, the more power you have. Albeit, I think such a thing does exist with the human brain. I think we have research that had increased its touch on this field within the 21st century. One of the first things that lead to me to such a concept was Joe Tsien's (neuroscientist) research on the mice. I don't fully understand the extent of his research, but I have come to consider that if enzymatic pathways that normally conduct thought processing in mice could be sped up, then a person could "think faster," thus seem more "intelligent." I think that's a good way of referring to intelligence: Quicker thinking. Perhaps why you don't understand some of my posts is because it's very difficult to define intelligence. It's a word that people attach meanings to, as I'm sure we both understand. And I defined intelligence as an impractical term, which relates to knowledge: And since we can never KNOW anything, we can never be "intelligent." This isn't to say that we can't conduct better "thinking." There are differences between the man who sits around and the athlete, given both have the same level of education. I think this century we've gone further into studying how exercise influences "thinking" skills and input/output of data. If we are to increase intelligence, we must do so through increasing memory and speeding up thought processes. Even if a person could speed up thought processes, though, that might not bring a person anywhere unless that person can "think on a new level." In other words, that person begins to critically examine the world around him/her and attempt to trial/error different feasible concepts of reality until one becomes apparently related to the ultimate Truth of reality. Some might say that's the process, while others would argue that it's about not undergoing trial/error so often, because that would take a long time; as such, some might argue that what allows people to reach that "new level" of processing is the deterministic past of the individual. Yet, we could still argue that the equilizer is increasing the thought processes of individual to go through extreme amounts of information processing. Even if we were to do this, it'd still require a lot of energy. Keep in mind the brain uses a lot of glucose. We'd have to speed up the neural processing of molecules, and I'm not sure what consequences there would be on the CNS. To answer your question, I believe that the ability to increase "intelligence," in a general sense, is there. But we would have to be very sure, very very sure, about our theories regarding the brain, how its psychology works, information retainment, and information processing work before we could fathom exactly how to pull off intelligence enhancement. In terms of cadavers, they are dead. That's like Joe Tsien doing research on dead mice. Unless he were making zombie mice, I don't think there would be much point to research a dead brain. You could attempt to take the brain out of a doogie mouse, run it through tests (ala brain in a vat) style, and record whatever data occurs, but that may bring forth limited data, since the animal is not motive enough to see results. In general, my view is that perhaps the best way to examine data and research intelligence is the brain-in-a-vat style research. This would be highly unethical, and would force you to create a Matrix-like reality for the brain. Given that the cadaver's brain still has enough ability to function (and we have found ways to keep brains artificially alive, I believe), you might be able to research a "dead" human that way. Nonetheless, I'd assume such a being to be alive. In my last post, I really tried touching on a few things: 1. Why become intelligent? 2. Can you really be intelligent? In relation to #1, perhaps the best answer is to examine the universe and the reason for existence. In relation to #2, perhaps the best answer is through knowing the universe and the reason for everything. Some people could do the very human thing, the thing they are programmed to do: Reproduce. In doing so, however, they fall to the human condition. I suspect unless a person has a higher reason for intelligence enhancement, which not many people do, the consequences would be severe. It's an odd comment, I know. It's like saying, "Why was Einstein a depressive-realist? Shouldn't he have been happy to feel closer to the ultimate Truth?" Then again, there are schools of stoicism, and so forth. To increase "intelligence," you probably need to make sure the same pathways that allow thinking occur are able to do their job faster and easier without breaking down. That's from a purely physicalist basis. What those pathways are? I'm not sure. That's an exploration of current research. To answer another question, when you experiment with yourself, let's say gene therapy, you make permanent changes. Those changes could be dangerous. Let's say you increase glucose processing of all neurons. Well, if the glucose can't get there fast enough, it's like a really skinny person who never eats (with no rational to eat) yet runs everyday. Eventually, that person is going to hit the ground, pass out, and die. If the neurons die, you die. There is the probability that plasticity will occur if you make only some neurons genetically altered. But if it were only a few neurons, I doubt you'll notice the qualitative effects. I'm going to assume the change needs to be widespread: Not 0.0001% change but a 1% change or higher. Hence why some people influence the usage of nootropic drugs: Temporary drugs to increase enhancement. The idea is they go in like any illicit drug and eventually come out with time. It's considered a more feasible solution and temporary change. Here is an article: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/07/science/scientist-at-work-joe-z-tsien-of-smart-mice-and-an-even-smarter-man.html?pagewanted=1

Bites are not the only way it can be obtained. It can also be obtained through aerosol form via salvation combined with air. I'm not too sure how many viruses need to be inhaled for the rabies virus to take hold of the host cells, though. I think there is a term for that in microbiology, but I cannot remember. I suspect, however, that there aren't cold symptoms involved with this virus, thus causing various animals to sneeze. I'm not sure about that, though. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAs fate would have it, I seem to have come across a virology book today. It was free, as a professor mentioned today without prior notice that another professor retired and his office was being cleaned up. Perhaps after a further examination of this book, I'll have a better way of figuring this issue. Fate is a beautiful yet mischievous woman.

Intelligence is an invented term. Long ago people described to me the study of organic chemistry as a class in understanding the organic chemistry reaction mechanisms. Unfortunately, I had more experience in the study of cognition and learning psychology than those people. I began to understand that it truly was a class in memorization with only a slight deviation in the application of memorized details. The chemists here might disagree with me, though. You're better of finding mechanisms to help you memorize and retain large amounts of material in a faster rate than possible from even the most deviated of individual. I can assure you that I believe that is feasible. I do not think it is possible (the mechanisms to do such don't exist) at this moment at time. From such, you'll be able to have an extensive knowledge of perhaps falsifiable theories. From there, you could attempt to use the modern critical thinking skills you've learned from memorizing, processing, and retaining large amounts of data to reach new heights. Perhaps you'd build a system of falsifying Einstein from developing tools which examine an Aristotlean-like center of the universe, from which all physical phenomena are influenced from. But intelligence enhancement? No, I don't see that as feasible. Someone once told me that if I knew how the universe was made, I'd be the smartest person in the world. This must have been about a decade or so ago. Well, use that as a basis. You're smart if you can understand more about how the universe was made. How much you know defines how intelligent you are. But since each thing you know is supposedly falsifiable, you can never gain more intelligence. As such, the concept of intelligence can only be reached once you know everything. Alas, it can be claimed that modern education does not make anyone truly intelligent. As such, all we are learning is lies. These IQ tests test how well we have a memory of falsifiable theories, ideas of pseudo-science, supposed "facts," and various puzzle-solving abilities. A boost of intelligence does well for an individual within this contemporary society we live in, which is based on competition. However, given that each individual is well-excelled in knowledge of Earthly matters, could we not assume they would have a serious disinterest and distaste for any system of policy that enforces competition? I would suspect rebellion. There is a grave danger involved with the general increase of knowledge and decrease of stupidity within a world community. Theoretically, it's possible to do what you may be thinking on "your level." I don't mean to insult you, but I want you think think about it at least the way I am. We don't do too much research with humans. That's the serious hold-up. The government regulates this issue, and the government is what is preventing enhancement of the human self. Unless you have a bunch of money and volunteers who keep quiet, you're more than likely not going to be able to examine the human brain. Scientists have this idea of testing on mammals that are not human. From such, they try different experiments on them to see how well they have learned and so forth. These experiments are difficult to say if anything was accomplished or if anything was learned about the learning processes the brain undergoes. Given the ability to use humans over and over again, then sure, perhaps we'd have this stuff sorted out by now. Some technological advancements have held us back, such as knowledge of nanomaterials. We're also learning interesting things about cytology each decade as I learn more and more. So, some people will attempt to say that usage of humans as guinea pigs is unjustified. You could try experimenting with yourself, but there is the chance you would kill yourself. But if we could enhance the intelligence and wisdom of large communities all around the world? Well, then I suspect that there would be a large amount of self-autonomy, government structures would be in chaos, and various economic collapses would happen. It's not within the interest of a society to be intelligent; it's within the interest of the individual. I use to be a member of the World Transhumanist Association, but I simply don't believe that a transhumanist democracy can exist.

Something I've been wondering about a lot as of late is evolutionary of viruses. In particular, I'm interested in the rabies virus. It would appear that it has been around a long time, and since Louis Pasteur created the vaccine, there have been less cases. However, I question the possibility of a rabies revival. Would it be possible for the rabies virus to evolve and become an epidemic issue again? Should this be considered like the smallpox virus? In other words, once eradicated and widespread vaccinations, then it should become obsolete?

So far, I've come into contact with information that says RISC complexes are not found in bacteria. This, however, could always be changed. I suggest a hypothetical scenario during which the genes that encode for RISC complexes are understood and then applied to bacterial genomes. From there, we attempt to use bacteriophages to see if the RISC complexes can be used to target and destroy the foreign DNA that enters Rickettsia bandaid. I do not know too much about the RISC complex, but I suspect it could be applied to a bacterial system.

I think you're referring to quantum leaps within atomic structures: an electron changes an energy state and when it goes down an energy state, it releases light, which is a form of luminescence (I think). The input of energy, such as light, can make it leap to a more excited state. Leaping down from the excited state can cause it to release energy, such as light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_leap

The concept and definition of death, according to medical science, can differ amongst people. There are many papers written about what exactly medical death is, and many people consider it death of the brain in relation to conscious beings. This would mean the person has lost function of the brain, can no longer being conscious and function (even if released from a coma), and so on. A person can argue a lot of different ways about death. I would have the say brain death is massive brain degeneration along with the brain unable to undergo plastic recovery (neuroregeneration) to bring a person back to a state of homeostasis. I think a more modern definition will discuss something along the lines of plasticity and regeneration. With a coma, the person more than likely hasn't undergone massive neural degeneration. ... can we please lock these old threads?

Well, there is the equilibrium that occurs with water. 2H2O <----> OH- + H3O+ I believe that's it. So, in that sense, yes, water can become ionic.

That would be possible with H3O+, then... right?

Let's say water is attracting a H atom. That's hydrogen bonding, but can this also act as ionic bonding?

Do you think it would be possible to create a RISC complex that uses a complementary mRNA strand to detect the RNA strands that code for virus structures and target those for destruction? I've been reading about microRNA as of late. Supposedly, these can form complexes with RNA that target complementary RNA to degrade/destroy them. Also, I've been trying to wrap my head around mitochondria and their applications. So, I came to an idea: What if a person could genetically alter a pre-evolutionary aspect of a mitochondrion relative that can infiltrate eukaryotic cells in order for the invader to transcribe a RISC complex that targets viral RNA? I don't have the equipment nor knowledge to actually try this out, but it is at least an idea. Let's attempt to take a genus of invader species, such as Rickettsia. Then, let's attempt to make it less pathogenic. From there, we will make it form RISC complexes that target the RNA that code for materials that compose the virus. We would take the AIDs virus and inject it into a culture of eukaryotic cells. From there, we would take this invader species, which I will call Rickettsia bandaid, and inject it into eukaryotic cells. The prokaryote will infiltrate the host eukaryotes, create the RISC complexes that target RNA that transcribe AIDs products, and rid the cell of the AIDs virus. Furthermore, if a person desires to remove Rickettsia bandaid from the body, then he or she would only need to use antibiotics. This could also have other possible evolutionary aspects, such as allowing progeny to have immunity to the virus if the invader can reside in the gametes without disturbing the biological cybernetics of the living organism.

Yeah, I think so. Thanks.

Yes, I was reading about this "hybrid" protein, during which a gene, such as GFP, does not cause the entire protein to lose functionality when the GFP becomes part of the protein. I'm guessing it could, but somehow scientists figured out how to do it. The mechanics behind it are unknown to me. source: http://www.wormbook.org/chapters/www_reportergenefusions/reportergenefusions.html But isn't another way to put the protein in before the gene of interest? Doesn't that make the system like an operon? And what you're suggesting is a "translational reporter," right? This is probably a better version of my first post's question: Why is GFP occurring as a transcriptional reporter? Why is RNA polymerase II punching out both genes?

I'm reading about embryonic development and tagging organisms with "reporter genes." What I don't understand is why the eukaryotic organism would transcribe the reporter gene and the gene of interest at the same time. Supposedly, these can be hooked up somehow? Wouldn't that make the two genes like an operon? But eukaryotes don't have operons, right? I don't understand.