ecoli

Basically yes, but not exclusively. Coordination of chemical, electrical synapses, as well as action potential in individual axons result in neural oscillations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_oscillation

Or better yet, a pizza and deliver it here.

Fyi, one of the authors of the paper is answering questions in this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/5m11tu/new_study_confirms_that_global_warming_never/

Neuronal synapses can produce currents in either direction, so the electromagnetic field associated with neuronal activity cannot be said to be produced by DC or AC, which typically refer to engineered systems. Perhaps variable current is the most accurate.

Histidine is an amino acid with natural affinity for nickel, so peptides with polyhistadine residues (i.e. introduced with the his tag). The wording of your question (what you mean by 'natural') is ambiguous.

Electrical synapses exist in the brain, which are neurons linked by gap junctions. However, electrons aren't transferred directly, rather ions flow through gap junction channels. For details and diagrams, see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11164/

If that is a belief that your immortal soul will persist forever in heaven...? Yes, I'd call that living forever.

That's a bit harsh. "Natural philosophy" was once the domain of theologians only. That modern evangelicals are not great at critical thinking has more to do with education than 'religiosity' itself. We shouldn't be discouraging a group/person trying to do better!

Oh yeah I agree with that completely, but I'm also assuming humans are going to cook up some really cool things in a post-scarcity society. From a pure utilitarian standpoint, I would love to survive long enough to experience wireheading. Being dead, on the other hand, gets me nothing. I would never encourage someone to commit suicide...and since I'm the one advocating for everyone's immortal here, interpreting my comment that way is, I believe, disingenuous. I have lost several friends to suicide, which has contributed to my beliefs that people should strive for immortality. And, no, talking about immortality with my one friend who was interested in this possibility did not drive him to it.

I agree in principle, yet people are still reluctant to put an upper bound on how long they think is really enough life and then commit to calling it quits after that time (given a hypothetical scenario where you can live without degrading the quality of life/health). This suggests to me an innate preference for indefinitely prolonging life. Of course this is an argument based on extrapolation, I'm not pretending otherwise.

The implication being that people generally have a preference for life over death over any time scale.

If your brain can't comprehend living for billions of years, then you can't possibly imagine that it will be unpleasant. So you've talked your way out of your own argument. And even then... so what? I'm not taking away the option of calling it quits after a few centuries, I'm arguing that you guys eagerly looking forward to death after less than a century (and possibly tomorrow) is a product of social brainwashing. A reasonable and necessary assumption is that you continue to get positive utility out of life. I'm not forcing anybody to live forever, just that reasonably happy and healthy people ought to want this.

But it can be yours to decide, given the hypothetical backup and the ability to commit suicide. Since we've established that you have experienced all the life you really want to and will be perfectly fine with dying later today, the question remains, why haven't you killed yourself yet? See, I am skeptical when people claim they don't want to live forever. Since dying is 'natural' we've come up with all sorts of rationalizations for why it's a good thing and have imbued death with mystical properties that should *never* be questioned. Yet given the choice of dying today vs dying later, most (physically healthy, psychologically well-adjusted) people would choose to put off death, and would put it off again when 'later' comes. I believe this reveals true preference for eternal life. Science and medicine are slowly chipping away at disease processes to prolong and improve human life, but when another disease is conquered nobody is lamenting that 'natural' processes such as disease and death are farther from reach. If you don't want to die today and you'd rather not die tomorrow either, if this preference is also true tomorrow then you want to live forever.

OP seems to be asking about codon translation, not about sequencing. The algorithmic analogy would be a hash function. The 'God' part of the question is confusing, seems nonsensical so I will ignore it.

Electromagnetic radiation is standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

So what arbitrary upper bound have you assigned to life? For example, lets say you can backup your consciousness today and download it into a brand new, identical body tomorrow after you got hit by a truck crossing the street? Would you go for that or have you decided that you've lived enough to this point?

* very loosely. Attempts to obtain AI by closely emulating brain behavior have been less successful than developing theory, independently, for NNs.

To people in this thread who claim they do not want to live forever... what is stopping you from killing yourself right now?

You can use wolframalpha to visualize the function, fyi: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=((x(sqrt(x%2B2)))%2Fsqrt(x%2B1))-x

I'm just saying persuasive politicians can and will do this no matter what side of the aisle they are on. Trump happens to be really good at it.

This is human nature. Republicans are particularly stubborn on climate change, but it is hard for anyone to actually change their mind.

I meant gun owners perceive Obama as taking away an unalienable right to bear arms... which is untrue except at the margins. I would personally never recommend taking up arms against a legitimate gov't, but when human rights are assailed by a tyrannical force, and diplomacy fails, taking up arms is an acceptable recourse. This is how it was done in 1776 (the musical).

ESS is based on game theory: the most stable strategies are likely to be selected. Consider the case of a pathogen infecting a host. Being highly virulent is a bad/unstable strategy for a pathogen that wants to use the human body to replicate because if the host gets killed, the pathogen cannot replicate. Similarly, a hyperactive immune response to pathogen is bad from the host perspective because sustained immune responses can result in tissue damage, autoimmunity and death of the host. Therefore it is in the best interest of both parties to adapt to stable relationships; the host gives up some of its fitness to the pathogen, the pathogen gives up some of its virulence (and thus replication potential) both both organisms get to persist. This kind of thing is pretty common in biology, particularly in infectious diseases. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943121 The reason ESS probably evolve in biology (unlike in classical game theory where its people making decisions) is that cheaters get punished when destabilizing systems reaching a new 'equilibrium' (death) and therefore only stable equilibria survive. One interesting side effect is that modern medicine and social behaviors (air travel, etc) could be perturbing these stable equilibria in unintended ways, resulting in new emerging disease.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIID3Bottlenecks.shtml

An interesting interview with the WBC by Russel Brand. Probably the best, least offensive way they can be presented: