Cryptobiosis research?

Vytautas Slotkusl at yahoo.com
Fri Dec 8 21:48:52 EST 2000


>
>We say a neuron is excitable if it is quiescent and, when given
>sufficient current injection (and other conditions), it fires action
>potentials.
>
>We say a dessicated cell is life capable if it is dormant and, when
>properly hydrated (and other conditions), it restores normal cellular
>function.
>
>'Life capable' can be a property of an object in the same way that
>excitability can be a property of neurons.  The definition of the
>property can refer to intrinsic and extrinsic features. I see no
>problem with the reliance on extrinsic factors in the definition of a
>property of an object.  How about reflective?  Can you define this
>without reference to light?
>
>
>No!  Because even after you have mixed up your enormously complicated
>soup, the CO2 is still not alive.  It is just a component of a living
>thing.  It is no more alive than the CO2 in my bloodstream is.  The
>'thing' which is life capable must be the same thing that is alive
>after the environmental input.


Your bloodstream IS ALIVE. Check out your data about the subject and you
will find there are CELLS inside it, wich ARE alive. But this is not the
case. I stated this as an extreme case to point out the week logical
structure of your "theory".  We all know, CO2 is not "alive", but as I
explained under certain conditions it "could" be. We can't accept such a
term, because of it lacks what it does - deffinition! Read my explanation
below, and I think we can end this useless "discusion".

>That is why your corpse example above is flawed.  The corpse is not
>life capable.  We may extract some DNA from it, clone it, and create
>an organism with nearly the same DNA, but the damned corpse is still
>dead as a doornail.  With the resurrection plant, cryogenically
>preserved animals and dessicated cells, the thing before and after the
>ressurection is the same, in the same way that I am the same thing
>before and after a glass of water, or before or after I have had my
>hand amputated.
>

AS I mentioned in my statement my point about the corpse can be discused,
especialy when I am offering a "current" technology, I mean clonning. As I
stated, a complete restauration could be done if a necesary nanotechnology
level would be achieved. By knowing the initial body structure or finding it
out by DNR analysis (of course such simulations would require a computer
analysis capability orders of magnitude above our current level), we could
restore it from the same material it was made before (even from the
putrefact material the corpse was made from) and got the biochemical
processes run again, so life would be restarted. If you try to refute this
argument (wich I hinted on my previous statement) then you will refute your
"theory" yourself. Yes this would requiere a certain input, but some input
is necesary too for your "dehidrated life capable cell", so by denniying
this you deny yourself. So first you would need to define exactly what is
"life capable", certainly redefining what is "alive" and  what is "dead".
You must restrict your "life capable" term and use,as it was mentioned by
someone else, only as complementary for "alive". So if something is "life
capable", then it is "alive". Case solved.  I will not continue this thread,
this discusion is trivial and pointless, so if you want to talk about
something more, change the theme. Respectfully Vytautas.







More information about the Neur-sci mailing list