I remembered some two years ago that someone had a theory on how to become immortal. It had to do with removing this gene that acts like a timer; when the timer hits its time the gene orders the halt of blood cell creation and the stopping of the heart. The gene is also the reason for age, as time passes by, the gene, you could say, "gets slow" and makes you grow old. So if you remove that gene at the proper time you could be immortal.

Is this true? My expertise is in earth science not biology or genetics.

The theory that ageing is controlled by genetics is much more unpopular now I believe. Can anyone come up with a good reason for why we would evolve genes which kill us after a certain length of time?

There are genes which certainly slow down ageing through other means such as reducing free radical numbers, increasing antioxidants and making us less hungry (calorie restriction) but there is no ultimate gene which decides when we're going to die IMO

You cannot avoid free radicals, we breath oxygen and from O2 reactive oxygen species (oxygen per se is biradical!) are constantly evolving and your genom can't stop this.

You cannot avoid free radical production but thats not what I said now was it?

I said some of us can REDUCE radical numbers AFTER production better than others depending (indirectly) on their genome. If u aren't blessed with such a genome then u can do it DIRECTLY using antioxidants.

speaking of immortality: http://www.geocities.com/pathways2eden/immortality.html

I remember that the reason cells do not divide indefinitely is because of something at the end of a chromosome called telomeres. Yeah, once they stop dividing, free radicals start to do some damage.

In response to the original question, I do believe that immortality is possible. I believe the clue lies in our worst nemesis, cancer. Cancer cells, although weak, have an uncanny ability to manipulate their telomeres and multiply indefinitely. This is why tumors can keep growing, spreading, metastasizing unless you make each and every single cancer cell die.

Apparently, even the telomere theory has gone out the window. Studies have been done with mice where their telomeres have been shortened but there was no change in longevity.

At some point your brain would run out of storage space and it would have to copy over memories or quit working. The only remedies are to keep the brain growing as you age or to have yourself hooked into a different storage medium. That is the real challenge, in my opinion.

I heard that we can halt the gene for aging, but cells can only multiply so many times. Does altering this gene cause cells to multiply at an infinite rate? If so, then it is theoretically posible to live forever. The genetic problem would be to alter it in such a way that the cells mature until a certain amount of multiplications. Then the cells stop changing.

There are several sources of degradation and error which are responsible for aging. One of the heavy hitters in this process is undesirable chemical reactions in the body caused by free radicals. Our body produces naturally, and we can also augment by consumption, antioxidants which sacrifice themselves in chemical reactions which quench free radicals. This process will slow down, but not stop free radical damage. A long study at Tufts University has shown that among fruits and vegetables, those with the most effective set of antioxidants are prunes, raisins, and blueberries. To find out more about this do a keyword search on the Web using the two keywords "Tufts" and "ORAC."

Another major contributor to the degradation which results in aging is the mechanism of cross-linking - the formation of protein-sugar bonds between tissue fibers. Unbelievably, a company called Alteon has produced a drug known as ALT-711 which, when taken for a couple of months, undoes a lifetime's worth of this accumulated damage throughout the body. It is currently in phase 2 human testing, and could be a powerful anti-aging aid. To avoid controversy and opposition, Alteon is only seeking FDA approval for its use in certain heart conditions, but once it is approved for that, there will be nothing to stop doctors from writing off label prescriptions for anti-aging use.

Barring moving a person into an entirely new body, it appears that aging can be significantly slowed down, but not stopped. Perhaps nanotechnology will someday provide other powerful anti-aging remedies.

the centriole is the "suicide sac" in a mammal's cell, correct? Just wondering. I think that is the "timer" Hypercane was originally referring to.

Even if we were able to disable the genetic factors leading to aging, we'd be smited by environmental factors. A gradual accumulation of heavy metals and radiation would eventually kill us. Think about how nutty you'd get after 500 years of life. Sure the flesh thrives, but non-multiplying brain cells would get hit hard by all that wear and tear.

But we are just mortal in ' Form ' not in material. :D TO make us immortal we may have to correct it from the ' day one ' of our basic evolution & modren environment may be making us more mortal. :)

If you would reallyt want to be immortal you would want to have great regeneration capabilities. Unfortunately there is no way to accomplish this by changing a gene. We would have to change probably almost every aspect of being human, which would create something that is rather non-human.

Immortality can be somewhat like this:-
Law of conservation of matter -
"matter cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system"

Law of conservation of energy -
"the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes"

Also look at this:-

1. In the Universe there is a finite amount of matter and energy. We cannot create any new matter or energy nor can we destroy any of the matter or energy we have for the Universe as a whole.

2. We can change matter to energy and energy to matter without gaining or losing any of either to the Universe.

3. Energy can be changed in form, from one to another, without any loss to the Universe.

4. Matter can be changed in form, or state, without any loss of matter to the Universe.

In the above form/sense we are immortal, otherwise not/can't. However, we can think of just "Longevity" in our present form.

Can we say that " Longevity" or " great regeneration capabilities" is/can be just effected by the environmental effects surrounding us?

Can we say that " Longevity" or " great regeneration capabilities" is/can be just effected by the environmental effects surrounding us?

Why would you think that?

Apart from genetic mutations(which may had also already be effected by the previous environment), environments surrounding us can change/effect us accordingly? Btw, what basically creates variations in one generation to other next generations?

I heard that we can halt the gene for aging, but cells can only multiply so many times. Does altering this gene cause cells to multiply at an infinite rate? If so, then it is theoretically posible to live forever. The genetic problem would be to alter it in such a way that the cells mature until a certain amount of multiplications. Then the cells stop changing.

There is more than one gene for aging but none of them affect telomerase as I have said before. It seems, telomeres are not the key to aging.

Apart from genetic mutations(which may had also already be effected by the previous environment), environments surrounding us can change/effect us accordingly? Btw, what basically creates variations in one generation to other next generations?

what has tha got to do with aging?

Immortality can be somewhat like this:-
Law of conservation of matter -
"matter cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system"

Law of conservation of energy -
"the total energy of an isolated system is constant despite internal changes"

Also look at this:-

1. In the Universe there is a finite amount of matter and energy. We cannot create any new matter or energy nor can we destroy any of the matter or energy we have for the Universe as a whole.

2. We can change matter to energy and energy to matter without gaining or losing any of either to the Universe.

3. Energy can be changed in form, from one to another, without any loss to the Universe.

4. Matter can be changed in form, or state, without any loss of matter to the Universe.

In the above form/sense we are immortal, otherwise not/can't. However, we can think of just "Longevity" in our present form.

Can we say that " Longevity" or " great regeneration capabilities" is/can be just effected by the environmental effects surrounding us?
Not sure what this has to do with extending a person's life span, or how the above will help me as I age and my body deteriorates.

Not sure what this has to do with extending a person's life span, or how the above will help me as I age and my body deteriorates.

You need to understand:-

"In the above form/sense we are immortal, otherwise not/can't. However, we can think of just "Longevity" in our present form.

Can we say that " Longevity" or " great regeneration capabilities" is/can be just effected by the environmental effects surrounding us?"

Means, we can't be immortal in our present human body form. Longevity of our present human body form can possibily be improved by improving environment--which may ultimetely leads to improving the body environment & so the life span. Opposite can effect just opposite.

You can't change the environment because we are adapted to it.

You can't change the environment because we are adapted to it. Which environment, body's or outside?

Which environment, body's or outside?

both

In the long run even the universe will not last forever, when you live to see then end of the universe where do you go afterwards? Where do you get energy from? Sorry but all things in this universe and these set of physics requires that nothing last forever, entropy wins. Perhaps we could run off to another dimension where infinite existence is possible and thermodynamics is non-existent.

As for immortalizing the human body, fat chance, aging is a multi-cause process, to defeat it would require some serious re-designing of the human form, or at the very least a constant fresh replacement of organs and bodies and a cybernetic brain.

including your brain (which you wouldn't want).

including your brain (which you wouldn't want).

Why woudlnt I want it?

Let us first assume a logical model of evolution. I assume as under:-

Basic Energy>* Matter+some differantiated energy> Sub-atomic particles>atoms>differanciated atoms>molecules>differanciated molecules>cells>>**differanciated cells>>multi cellular livings>>differanciated multi cellular livings>>Living body>>differantiated living bodies>>plants,birds & animals>>differant species of plants, birds & animals>>higher animals & other livings>>all livings: humans,animals,birds,plants etc.>>>***degradation of livings.....
>*good/creative/positive environmental effects.
>>**medium/some postive/maintainable environmental effects.
>>>*** Bad/destructive/negative environmental effects.

Is it somewhat ok? Big Bang cycle/theory may somewhat indicate creative, maintance & destructive phases of evolution.

Is it somewhat ok?

Totally wrong

Why woudlnt I want it?

I didn't realize you wanted to be someone else.

You can't change the environment because we are adapted to it. Why can't we change? It is adaption/nurture not our 'nature'. As we have adapted it, by doing just opposite & equally we can also change it (possible but if we will do or not, can't say :) )

Why can't we change? It is adaption/nurture not our 'nature'. As we have adapted it, by doing just opposite & equally we can also change it (possible but if we will do or not, can't say :) )


you will stop being human.

It is ok that changing/removing all environmental effects may mean stoping being human. But can't we improve environment even being human by changing some destructive environmental effect?

Can you assess that environmental changes are pH(body's environmet) changes related & by making changes in pH imbalances, we may probably improve environmental bad effects?

It is ok that changing/removing all environmental effects may mean stoping being human. But can't we impreve environment with in being human by changing some destructive environmental effect?

What is destructive?


Can you assess that environmental changes are pH changes related & by making changes in pH imbalances, we may probably improve environmental bad effects?
I can't assess.

What is destructive?

Modren civilization un-naturalities, hereditory diseases etc.


I can't assess.

I again feel that you can assess it. Just assess it.

Modren civilization un-naturalities, hereditory diseases etc.

it seems modern civilization has an overall good effect on the human condition. Hereditory diseases are not enviromental.

it seems modern civilization has an overall good effect on the human condition. Hereditory diseases are not enviromental. Just feel: "Survival of the fittest" is the best living being. In this sense compare highest/higher lived & fittest ones, previously(with less unnaturalities in environment) with the present ones. Just compare the qualities of the 'fittest ones' not the quantities. In nature, best fittest ones may be entitled to continue or carry on, other weak/unfit one may just spread & carry on-- weaknesses.

But heriditory diseases can be due to environmental effects-- an *adaptation of changed environment. It can be just passing a signal of ' environment type' to next generations unabling those to prepare/keep updated for it.

*Adaptation: 1 : the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2 : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment

Survival of the fittest is a term coined by the social darwinist Spencer. Don't confuse it with evolution.

What can we name it now? Can it be called as 'best natural selections'? But, changing name may not change the concept.

What can we name it now? Can it be called as 'best natural selections'? But, changing name may not change the concept.

Obviously 'survival of the fittest' is confusing you.

Obviously 'survival of the fittest' is confusing you. Do you mean it is not for evolution but for other purpose--say existance?

I'm saying that you think that evolution is survival of the fittest.

Do you mean it is not for evolution but for other purpose--say existance?

It doesn't have a purpose! It just happens.

Yes, thanks. What is it now--an evolution or an existance/maintainance or a destruction?

evolution is a process in time.

Is evolution not a :a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state?

No. Progress is not a dominant trend in evolution.

I'm saying that you think that evolution is survival of the fittest. Are we following evolution(as above) now?

You can say it as the historical development of a biological group : PHYLOGENY, but what is positive & negative evolution? Is it follow : creation/positive>>maintainance>>destruction/negative, sequence.

you might say:

positive evolution - speciation

negative evolution - extinction

But I don't know if there is a true meaning to associate evolution with either positive or negative. Evolution is there and just does its thing. It doesn't care (if it could care) about bad or good.

Where we are now on evolution cycle? I mean: are we experiancing speciation or extinction? Just consider the qualities not the quantities.

Strangely enough, speciation and extinction seem to be in an equilibrium on a grander time scale. The number of species doesn't really seem to very much.

That said, there can be temporary imbalances. peoplpe claim that the actions of the human species are causing a rather large number of extinctions as we speak.

Strangely enough, speciation and extinction seem to be in an equilibrium on a grander time scale. The number of species doesn't really seem to very much.

That said, there can be temporary imbalances. peoplpe claim that the actions of the human species are causing a rather large number of extinctions as we speak. In other words this can be called as 'nature balance' or 'nature balances itself '. Are we not become/done bit more? If we become/done bit more then, if nature/our actions are leading us to extinctions? :rolleyes:

There is no force guiding evolution in this sense. nature cannot strive to force the extinction of a species. Extinctions happen and new species come about in response.

Extinctions happen and new species come about in response. But that is the nature only. Now the other point.

Whether pHs of the body(body's environment) & evolution's(due to outside environment) both phases are inter-dependant or inter-linked? Can we effect this change in evolution by changing pHs og the body? It is bit important & deep to assess & understabd it. Pls also follow logics not only science. :)

But that is the nature only. Now the other point.

is there anything else than nature?


Whether pHs of the body(body's environment) & evolution's(due to outside environment) both phases are inter-dependant or inter-linked? Can we effect this change in evolution by changing pHs og the body? It is bit important & deep to assess & understabd it. Pls also follow logics not only science. :)

You can't change the pH of the body. The body requires homeostasis. pH changes will lead to conformation changes in the protein and hence affect their function.

You can probably extend a human life span to several hundred years by taking a combination of drugs that slow down the aging mechanisms, although you might have to take them failthfully almost every day from an early age.

I believe that it would probably also be possible to create very complex molecules, perhaps even more complex than hormones, almost like little computer programs, which perform various tasks related to undoing certain aspects of aging, e.g. repairing certain types of damage to cells or DNA.

As for immortalizing the human body, fat chance, aging is a multi-cause process, to defeat it would require some serious re-designing of the human form, or at the very least a constant fresh replacement of organs and bodies and a cybernetic brain.

The most promising option will be to develop cellular repair nanotechnology: have microscopic, self-replicating robots keeping watch from within every cell, ready to repair any significant molecular damage as it occurs.

They would ensure that replicative errors in the DNA did not accumulate as it divides, and rebuild fraying telomeres atom by atom. If there is a termination date programmed into out genome, they could isolate it - and excise, or neutralise, that particular sequence (better yet, it could be removed from the original zygote of every human).

Individual cells might still die eventually, but the nanites would ensure that daughter cells were not less perfect or efficient than their predecessors.

They might even be able to stimulate nerve cell regeneration, healing paralysis or leprosy - and preventing the brain from deteriorating over time. Also, neurally-integrated data storage devices would have to be provided as a buffer for ever-increasing centuries of memory. :m:

Science fiction? :p So were transplants and cell cultures, once upon a time.

Well you need to compare the genes of the oldest people in the world. To see if there is any similarities. All of my grand parents that have died so far have made it into there 95+ range with out a problem. Even some of my great grand parents that died of natural causes. My grand mother on my mothers side is 94 years old and still living on her own. Yes she is a little shorter and looks like a blood hound but that's what drinking all your life does to you. So if you think genes have nothing to do with how long you live I would have to say your wrong. I should be living well into the 90's.

The trick is not immortality is looking good and feeling good your hole life. If you looked like you where 25 when you where 60 and 30 when you where 90 and could still act and do things like a 30 year old. That would be good enough for me. I think the trick will be directly controlling hormone production in the body. Keeping them at the levels of a 25 year old. Along with Stem cell Research they have proven that steam cells can make them self's into brain tissue. They have also proven that injecting stem cells into Alzheimer's effected people the tissue forms new brain tissue. This effetely reverses Alzheimer's. Stem Cells are the key lets say your liver is in bad shape like 80% of it is damaged all the cells are dead its black and shriveled. So inject stem cells into in with them triggered to form new liver tissue. Bang you have your self a liver that works better its not a new one but it would work.

Now I know some one out there is going to say your body would reject the stem cells because they are not your own. Well that's the trick, you take your dna and replace that in the embryo of a just fertilized egg before it splits. and bang stem cells with start to form and harvest away. Well until they find a better way to get stem cells.

Now you might be saying hormones have nothing to do with the aging effect on people. Then tell me why when a woman goes though metapause she falls apart? Reason her hormone levels have gone way out of wack.

Take my ideas or leave them. What it will all come down to is genetic engineering all the genes that make you look good and last longer being sliced into the wealth and the poor will be left to rot. :D

is there anything else than nature?

Pls tell.



You can't change the pH of the body. The body requires homeostasis. pH changes will lead to conformation changes in the protein and hence affect their function. It is ok that blood pH is in narrow range of 7.35-7.45 appx. But we can have some other pHs as on GI tract pH. Some other body parts also have differant pH. Protiens & their differant substances works on differant pH. If various pHs are imbalanced, it can lead so some imbalances in blood pH. Just look at stomach pH, higher Hcl may lead to better digestion so more absorption of many body substances & lower Hcl may lead to less digestion so less absorption. Bile & pancreatic bicarb. will effect other substances. Constipation, loose motions, vomating, infections, gas formation, ulcers etc all can be pH dependent. Internally, you can assess its systematic effects by residue acid/alkaline & lower/higher absorption of all & most body substances. I think heriditory effect/environmental changes in body oprete through changes in GIT pH, alongwith internal changes in pHs. Can you provide some referance/information on differant pHs in body.

Let me explain how aging is complex, this list is definitely not complete or all inclusive.

Non-replaceable design:
Lets see as you get older the fin hairs in your ear (stereocilia in your cochlea) start to be destroyed by vibration one by one and hearing function decreases, this stereocilia are made once: during fetal development. This is true for many other cells such as the ova in ovaries, for humans only produced once and all die off by ~50 years of age. Many types of brain cells, teeth, ect.
- You can’t use nanorobots to fix these, cells need to be replaced, organs need to be re-grown.
- biorobots could fly in like stem cells and re-grow all these cells.
- The organs for these cells could be replaced.

Finite design:
All cells in the body suffer from a limited number of replications cycles things thanks to a lack of telomerase, and other genes that induce Senescence (cell againg) this cause the skin to wrinkle, hair to turn gray, organs to decay, ect.
- biorobots or stem cells could replace aging cells.
- Telomerase levels could be brought up by gene therapy.
- Aging organs could be replaced.

Cancer:
All cells are alive and as a living systems they ply to the laws of evolution, those cells that reproduce better will multiple, there are many safe guards to prevent this such as telomers, but mutation will find away around them, some cells will multiply uncontrollably. Cancer is guaranteed to happen if you live long enough, at present for an 80yr life space it happens to 1 out of 2 of us.
- Cancer must be made less lethal and curable
- Nanorobots or Biorobots under sentient control could hunt and destroy cancer cells
- The genetics of cells could be redesigned to make cancer far less likely.

Atherosclerosis and waste build up:
As you live your arteries get clogged and stiff with pelagic, heart failure and stroke become more and more likely and is guaranteed if you live long enough. Other materials build up inside the body as you age as well, toxins, crap in the lungs, ect.
- Nanorobots or Biorobots under sentient control could clean out this stuff.
- Organs could be replaced when they get abused up.

Memory:
The Brain like all physical things cannot store a infinite amount of data. If you lived long enough memories would over write memories, you would forget your past and you might as well just die, as it would be equivalent to it.
- The brain would have to be redesign for more memory storage, cybernetics could extend memory. But all this is a short-term replacement.
- Move your consciousness and memories to a form with near-infinite expandability (say a ultra-computer of some kind)

Brandon9000, Starthane Xyzth, WellCookedFetus,

What basically, can effect to all that which you mentioned above? Are these 'Genotype' (all or part of the genetic constitution of an individual or group) or 'Phenotype' (the visible properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment) changes?

I don't think you can stop the natural aging process. However, through advancements in medicine, it should be possible to reverse it at some point in the future. Provided you go back for your "fix" every so often, it should be theoretically possible to become immortal...well, as far as natural death is concerned anyway.

Most important question/thought:

Do the all or most inputs, effects & causes to body (foods, supplements, medicines, diseases, environmental effects,radiations,Sunlight, mental stresses & relaxations..etc) are related & just work on changes by GIT & internal PHs of the body?

Brandon9000, Starthane Xyzth, WellCookedFetus,

What basically, can effect to all that which you mentioned above? Are these 'Genotype' (all or part of the genetic constitution of an individual or group) or 'Phenotype' (the visible properties of an organism that are produced by the interaction of the genotype and the environment) changes?

Ideally, both genotype and phenotype would be modified. Deleterious genes would be removed, especially any which specify a limit to age; other genes would be helped to copy faithfully in perpetuity, without building up imperfections as cells continued to renew themselves.

Phenotypically, physical damage would have to be repaired on all levels down to the molecular - everything from replacing a failing heart to inducing the growth of new neurones and removing cholesterol deposits from blood vessels.

I didn't realize you wanted to be someone else.


And really what exactly so nice in being human? If I can keep my memories I don't mind being something completely different - if this something has some obvious advantages over humans (such as being smarter). I don't think humans are such a perfect species to regret about not being one of them.

I don't think you can stop the natural aging process. However, through advancements in medicine, it should be possible to reverse it at some point in the future. Provided you go back for your "fix" every so often, it should be theoretically possible to become immortal...well, as far as natural death is concerned anyway.
There are known ways to slow down the aging process, e.g. combatting free radical damage with antioxidants, breaking cross-links, etc., but there is no known way to stop it and become immortal.

Ideally, both genotype and phenotype would be modified.

What causes genotype modification?

What causes genotype modification?

Sex.

Sex. Say just two individuals Adam & Eve OR first two. How then their next generations can differ in their genotype? Does the environment never effect or effected genotype?

There are known ways to slow down the aging process, e.g. combatting free radical damage with antioxidants, breaking cross-links, etc., but there is no known way to stop it and become immortal.

Yes, but given the pace we're moving at today, I would say it's just a matter of time before we go way beyond this and become capable of stopping and reversing it entirely. At that point, we would become immortal as far as natural death is concerned.

Come to think about it, once we've passed the reproductive stages in life, we just shrivel up and die like a flower.

Yes, but given the pace we're moving at today, I would say it's just a matter of time before we go way beyond this and become capable of stopping and reversing it entirely. At that point, we would become immortal as far as natural death is concerned.
I'm not sure about this. It's very hard to stop what is essentially just entropy - the slow accumulation of various types of disorder throughout the body. I think our best hope of achieving this would be through nanotechnology. If nature can create complex molecules like hormones, which are programmed like little computers to perform certain tasks, then Man should be able to create even more complex molecules programmed to perform even more complex tasks.

Btw, if cloning youself continiously, will be immortality or otherwise? Can we enhance longevity by positive thoughts in self hypnosis way(may be somewhat like 'self coloning within us')? :)

I'm not sure about this. It's very hard to stop what is essentially just entropy - the slow accumulation of various types of disorder throughout the body. I think our best hope of achieving this would be through nanotechnology. If nature can create complex molecules like hormones, which are programmed like little computers to perform certain tasks, then Man should be able to create even more complex molecules programmed to perform even more complex tasks.

To say that hormones are programmed molecules is stretching it a bit I would say. I can't really even give a straight answer to the nature of hormones since this class encompasses many different kinds of molecules, peptides and steroids.

The only thing they do is bind to a receptor. It is difficult to see the programming part in that.


Hormones
Chemical substances having a specific regulatory effect on the activity of a certain organ or organs. The term was originally applied to substances secreted by various endocrine glands and transported in the bloodstream to the target organs. It is sometimes extended to include those substances that are not produced by the endocrine glands but that have similar effects.

A link to human hormones
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/H/Hormones.html

steroid hormones
http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/steroid-hormones.html

Does the environment never effect or effected genotype?

The environment effects both the phenotype and genotype.

Phenotype example -
The sex of crocodiles it determined by the temperature at which the eggs are developing

genotype -
The environment induces mutations.

(Adam and Eve) How then their next generations can differ in their genotype?

Sex means recombination of the genetic material of both parents in a somewhat random manner. That is why children are never the same of the same parents (except for identical twins of course, which are derived from the same egg).

Btw, if cloning youself continiously, will be immortality or otherwise?

your genome will achieve immortality, but your mind won't.

In a manner bacteria for instance follow this idea of cloning themselves indefinitely quite nicely. They usually don't start interchanging genetic material until they are forced to do so. Usually because of changes in the enviroment.

The environment effects both the phenotype and genotype.
genotype -
The environment induces mutations.
It means that environment is only responsible for all types of genetic( phenotype and genotype) changes. I repeat that, pls assess pH role in changes due to environmental effects. I assume:

Outside environmental effects>>body's environmental/pHs changes>>effects on both genotype & phenotype so genetic changes.

That is why children are never the same of the same parents (except for identical twins of course, which are derived from the same egg).

Btw, how much egg is responsible for differance in children.

your genome will achieve immortality, but your mind won't.

In a manner bacteria for instance follow this idea of cloning themselves indefinitely quite nicely. They usually don't start interchanging genetic material until they are forced to do so. Usually because of changes in the enviroment. It may be good to change the(worn out) mind also alongwith. :D But why mind do not remains similar on cloning?

But why mind do not remains similar on cloning?

It is, it is almost identical!

It may be good to change the(worn out) mind also alongwith. :D But why mind do not remains similar on cloning?

The mind is not genetically programmed: it is the sum of one's lessons and experiences since birth. (Though it may be that some basic aspects of one's temperament, and one's innate IQ, are set by genetics). Recreating the body from a DNA template will not reproduce the mind - any more than building a new computer from the blueprints of an old one will automatically duplicate all its software and hard disk data.

That said, the information stored in a computer can be duplicated easily. One day, the same may be possible with human brains. Though this is far from certain - for all we know at this time, each individual brain may have its own unique system of neural "encoding" which will have to be deciphered from scratch, like a whole new programming language. Brains are undoubtedly far less standardized in design than machines.

It is, it is almost identical!

Is it so? Then, what is the problem in getting the immortality? :D Btw, which body cell we take for cloning?

In theory, any cell which has a full genome: the only ones which don't are red blood cells and eggs or sperm.

There's no current theory, however, which would allow a cloned human body to grow any faster than a normal baby. It would take 18 years or so to reach physical maturity - if you wanted a new body ready and waiting for when your current one expires, the clone would have to be brought up just like your child. In other words, he (I assume you are male, Kumar) would have a fully-developed mind & personality of his own. Transplanting your mind into him would effectively mean killing another person - or, at best, giving him multiple-personality disorder!

The mind is not genetically programmed: it is the sum of one's lessons and experiences since birth. (Though it may be that some basic aspects of one's temperament, and one's innate IQ, are set by genetics). Recreating the body from a DNA template will not reproduce the mind . Interesting, Something God has kept with him. ;) It means all or most that we have in mind is just current life-time's 'environmental' effects not genetic. Anyway, we can be taught the same & I think learning it may be easier in cloned person than his children. DNA template: is it similar in all body cells other than as you mentioned? Had we tried brain cells?

Btw, how much egg is responsible for differance in children.

As I tried to explain during each conception of individual child different genetic material of mother and father are combined. No sibling will therefore ever be the same.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_3.htm

identical twins are bascially natural clones and there genetic material is the same. And even though twins are raised in the same environment they do not have the same mind. This should suggest that you cannot clone your mind.

body's environmental/pHs changes>>effects on both genotype & phenotype so genetic changes.

Not all environmental changes have an effect. You assume here that pH does. you would have to establish the effect and in this case I postulate that they will be negible.

Is it so? Then, what is the problem in getting the immortality? :D

The problem is, the clone is not YOU!

When u kill yourself u will experience NOTHING, the black void u "experienced" before u were ever born.

The other clone will however continue to exist and do the exact same stuff u used to do :eek:

Ok if I were to extract your consciousness while your sleeping then kill your body, who is to say the extract is not you?

As I tried to explain during each conception of individual child different genetic material of mother and father are combined. No sibling will therefore ever be the same.
identical twins are bascially natural clones and there genetic material is the same. And even though twins are raised in the same environment they do not have the same mind. This should suggest that you cannot clone your mind.Thanks. The above indicates that each genetic material of every person is differant. In other words all sperms or ova are differant as evident in identical & fraternal twins. Can we say that each genetic material is differant but cell's DNA not, since they make similar trait clone by every cell in body. Is it ok? Btw, is there any role of blank egg(Egg minus female genetic material) in the development of personality trait or environmental/phynotype?

Not all environmental changes have an effect. You assume here that pH does. you would have to establish the effect and in this case I postulate that they will be negible.

What Causes DNA Mutations?
Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:

DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals
Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.
http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/disorders/sloozeworm/mutationbg.cfm Does the body's pH changes when we are exposed to environmental agents or are in between the above two processes?

Are the body's pHs changes(including GIT's) heriditory?

Your obsession with pH change is bizarre.

Your obsession with pH change is bizarre. We have already tried/searched "everything" or "something" or "most of the things" or "senses" except which looks like "NOTHING" or "ABSENSES" or "NON-SENSES". We may therefore [ONLY] find "SOMETHING" or "OTHERTHINGS" or "SOME SENSES" in them. :rolleyes:

We have already tried/searched "everything" or "something" or "most of the things" or "senses" except which looks like "NOTHING" or "ABSENSES" or "NON-SENSES". We may therefore [ONLY] find "SOMETHING" or "OTHERTHINGS" or "SOME SENSES" in them. :rolleyes:

That reply is even MORE bizarre :D

Ok if I were to extract your consciousness while your sleeping then kill your body, who is to say the extract is not you?

U can't extract consciousness because it depends on the material matter that is your brain!

Only religious people believe in extraction and they call it "The Soul" :D

That reply is even MORE bizarre :D

What about this:-
And if our pH is unbalanced, what is the result? Well, by now you should start having a good idea. Pick your disease, choose your unbalance. Cancer, arthritis, diabetes, heart disease, chronic fatigue, allergies, obesity, just name it. If you don't feel good, one of the basic things that stands between you and perfect health is your body's pH. Your basic metabolic body balance.
http://biomedx.com/microscopes/rrintro/rr4.html

Not all environmental changes have an effect. You assume here that pH does. you would have to establish the effect and in this case I postulate that they will be negible.
Aims: To show TOP2 is involved in acidic pH-induced DNA damage. Suggest possibility of TOP2 mediated DNA damage contributing to acidic pH induced Carcinogenesis
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:cCRbHqKUim0J:www.up.ac.za/academic/biochem/afr/Sched/2003/Summary2003_11.pdf+mutation+%26+pH+acidic&hl=en&start=7&ie=UTF-8 It is bit technical for me but does it suggest pH effect on mutations?

John Connellan,

we could slice your brain up and record the position of every neuron and synapse, emulate the mapping in a AI and those "extract" your consciousness and memory in a AI, how dare you think I was talking about a spiritual soul! :mad:

John Connellan,

we could slice your brain up and record the position of every neuron and synapse, emulate the mapping in a AI and those "extract" your consciousness and memory in a AI, how dare you think I was talking about a spiritual soul! :mad:

To map and record the entire structure of a human brain in that kind of detail - down to the direction and intensity of the ionic gradient across every axonal membrane - would probably require dozens of man-years work, and more computer memory than half the Internet contains.

I dare say a computer could cut down the work time required. :bugeye:

Ancient & spritual litretures, mentions memory transfer, cloning, self cloning(just refereshing/reloading) etc. So some logic or chance can be thought. But even if, brain memory is copied & tranferred, people may still like his origional body or not like to leave it.Cloning with mind & without mind then make no much differance (even cloned entity can also be taught all or most). We may therefore, have to much concentrate on immortality or longevity or self cloning/cloning within. How much & what the regular & continious practice of deep or deepest positive & specific thoughts with fullest concentration(self hypnosis type) for long time can do in getting somewhat self or cloning with-in? :)

The combined data alone would be equal to a couple thousand terabytes, nothing a computer several decades from now could not handle.

The combined data alone would be equal to a couple thousand terabytes, nothing a computer several decades from now could not handle.

And what are you going to do with this information?

Have the computer emulate the person's mind.

Have the computer emulate the person's mind.

Obviously, but how?

What do you mean how? Does a human brain not think? Its functions are all limited to the physical world (at least all evidence points to that) thus it could be emulated. All you need is a computer capable of the same calculating abilities of the human brain.

How are you going to make an emulation of a brain based on its architecture. That is not really how a brain works or is it?

The architecture need not be identical - it would simply require a neural-network design of sufficient complexity to contain all that data, and manipulate it in patterns as diverse as our various mental processes. (Not yet achievable, of course!)

Come to think of it: the detail of a human brain on the molecular level might not actually be necessary. Just the ability to translate the information it stores into a digital format which computers could store and process.

I mean, if every axon or dendrite stores the equivalent of one binary digit, the contents of the average brain might still be manageable by a technically possible supercomputer (as WellCookedFetus said). It would certainly be many orders of magnitude smaller than all the ionic gradient data I previously referred to.

John Connellan,

we could slice your brain up and record the position of every neuron and synapse, emulate the mapping in a AI and those "extract" your consciousness and memory in a AI, how dare you think I was talking about a spiritual soul! :mad:

Thats not extracting your conscioussness! Thats creating consciousness which resembles your own! U do not move over to the other body nor do u feel anything which happens to the other body!

we have to come out of specializational discourse when we speak of 'immortality.

for me it is a boy-thang-idea. a one-up on the 'big-bad-Dragon', ie., NATURE. with all 'her' death, and nasty things us boys are better than.
so you see in myth--patriarchal myth, this desire for immortality. NOW it is still with us in the arena of post-modernist scientifical theory

but ask yourself a serious question. do you ever get BORED. do you not think you wouldn't be VERY bored if you WERE immortal. and is death dispensable?

If your dead already who to say the emulation is not you?

you won't ever get bored because you can reprogram your mind.

I didn't know that the mind was just the physical architecture of dendrites and axons.

[add a dose of skepticism]

i think the real question here, is who would want to live forever? i know i'd get bored after a while.

The theory that ageing is controlled by genetics is much more unpopular now I believe. Can anyone come up with a good reason for why we would evolve genes which kill us after a certain length of time?

There are genes which certainly slow down ageing through other means such as reducing free radical numbers, increasing antioxidants and making us less hungry (calorie restriction) but there is no ultimate gene which decides when we're going to die IMO

According to a great book, "The Selfish Gene", everything that happens to an organism is for the propagation of the gene. When we get older, we do not repair and manufacture cells as well as a younger individual, and therefore were likely to carry some defective DNA. That's why we are considerd useless by our genes after we are no longer a prime vessel for their distribution.

The theory that ageing is controlled by genetics is much more unpopular now I believe. Can anyone come up with a good reason for why we would evolve genes which kill us after a certain length of time?

There are genes which certainly slow down ageing through other means such as reducing free radical numbers, increasing antioxidants and making us less hungry (calorie restriction) but there is no ultimate gene which decides when we're going to die IMO

According to a great book, "The Selfish Gene", everything that happens to an organism is for the propagation of the gene. When we get older, we do not repair and manufacture cells as well as a younger individual, and therefore were likely to carry some defective DNA. That's why we are considerd useless by our genes after we are no longer a prime vessel for their distribution.

According to a great book, "The Selfish Gene", everything that happens to an organism is for the propagation of the gene. When we get older, we do not repair and manufacture cells as well as a younger individual, and therefore were likely to carry some defective DNA. That's why we are considerd useless by our genes after we are no longer a prime vessel for their distribution.

I think the main problem gerontologists have is understanding why this has to be the case. WHY does the body not repair itself just as well later in life?

Isn't it supposed to be because of cumulative genetic errors from the continuous renewal of cells (one reason we have evolved masses of non-coding intron DNA - to act as a buffer for the inevitable mistakes)? And/or the fact that teleomeres seem to degrade with repeated fissioning, making the replication of the genome less efficient. Those ideas were bounced around earlier in this thread: anyone have any more?

Isn't it supposed to be because of cumulative genetic errors from the continuous renewal of cells

The same would be valid then for sperm and eggs.

Isn't it supposed to be because of cumulative genetic errors from the continuous renewal of cells (one reason we have evolved masses of non-coding intron DNA - to act as a buffer for the inevitable mistakes)?

I don't think so. I am sure there are DNA repairing enzymes out there. Aging seems to only begin after the age of about 20 or so. It seems genetically programmed into us.

And/or the fact that teleomeres seem to degrade with repeated fissioning, making the replication of the genome less efficient. Those ideas were bounced around earlier in this thread: anyone have any more?

Its definitely not this!

The genetically programmed idea has been abandoned and is not discussed in current literature.

Now aging is believed to be caused by a number of different sources of degradation and error, of which a prime contributor is reactions with free radicals.

The many sophisticated internal mechanisms we possess for combatting these aging mechanisms, e.g. DNA polymerase, extend our lives to their present value, from the much shorter period that we would otherwise survive.

So then telomeres have no effect on the aging process, creation of new blood cells, etc?

food for thought


There must be some kind of genetic aging, since all current cells are progeny of a single ancestral cell and hence all cells alive nowadays are of the same ancient age.

The genetic program might be a reverse one though. One of protection instead of active aging.

The genetically programmed idea has been abandoned and is not discussed in current literature.

Not the one I'm talking about

Now aging is believed to be caused by a number of different sources of degradation and error, of which a prime contributor is reactions with free radicals.

Eh, that also comes under the genetic aging theory.

The many sophisticated internal mechanisms we possess for combatting these aging mechanisms, e.g. DNA polymerase, extend our lives to their present value, from the much shorter period that we would otherwise survive.

Basically, the sophisticated mechanisms are switched off gradually as we get older. This is genetic.

So then telomeres have no effect on the aging process, creation of new blood cells, etc?

No.

Basically, the sophisticated mechanisms are switched off gradually as we get older. This is genetic.
They may simply function less and less efficiently as accumulating damage degrades their functioning.

No we definitely have the power to stop and reverse accumulating damage. It's what happens to us until we reach our twenties!

No we definitely have the power to stop and reverse accumulating damage. It's what happens to us until we reach our twenties!
Maybe not. Maybe we are accumulating damage then too, but it only becomes apparent when the damage reaches a certain level.

No apparently there is scientific evidence that our bodies have a regenerating capacity for the years up to adulthood which declines with age.

Well its just not possible, and the only reason for this is that even though you may be biologic immortal, the chance for getting a devastating accindent is such that at average you'll grow to a healthy 500 years 'roundabout'. Think of carcrashes, explosions, taking an sudden dipe in a barrel acid......
(americans bombing your country to hell) :bugeye:
And for the part of transporting our conscious to highly advanced computers, even they have a tendisy to fail, or get corrupted. And then im not even speaking about the sun swalling up our planet. So im my humble opinion this subject is mute.

OK... OK... I think the usual concept of "immortality" is thought of simply being immune to old age (and maybe disease also), being able to stay healthy and vigorous indefinitely.

JRR Tolkien's elves were referred to as immortal in this context - but they could still be killed by fire, or thirst, or drowning, or starvation, or dismemberment, or whatever, and often were. They could even die of a broken heart.