kenneth collins wrote:
> <fbonsignore at beethoven.com> wrote in message
news:1108270669.512609.275490 at c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> | Can we erase codons? Particular codons?
>> Yes.
>> See "recombinant DNA" Research efforts.
>> | If the inhibiting factor is
> | codified in a single codon and it is erased, we would have a
modified
> | neurone dividing and giving *normal* (non reproducing) neurones.
>> It's not so simple. [The rest of what I'll say,
> here, is from my own studies, and has not
> yet been accepted by others. So don't re-
> ceive it as if it is.]
>> The "genetic material" is, itself, "multi-
> plexed". Nothing in it is as a simple
> "on/off" switch. Rather, everything in
> "the genome" is configured in a way
> that is further "configured" by the 3-D
> energydynamics that occur within a
> cell's extremely-dynamic environment
> [in NDT, "standing-wave genetics"].
>> So, again, one cannot just add or re-
> move stuff from "the genome", because
> doing so always adds or removes whole
> complexes of of "the genome's" 3-D en-
> ergydynamics' tuning capabilities.
But conceivably erasing a codon will lead
to some chain reaction that would eventually
stop of its own accord. So even if DNA code
is highly self-referential, the dynamic of
deleting codons one by one can be eventually
self stabilizing. Since we don`t have a DNA
expression simulator (do we?), only by doing
it we can learn `what happens`. It may be that
the key is one modification apart. Maybe we can
do this in parallel way, experimenting with cells
deleting codons one by one, letting the system
restabilize, see what happens... One such test
might lead to what we look for.
> | Once
> | an adequate mass is obtained, the modified, mother neurones can be
> | erased (killed) to stop the process. By careful dosification this
> | mechanism would create neurones at such rate that the self
organizing
> | features of the brain would make the difference in the mass,
>> What you're talking about, above, is
> literally intervening within evolutionary
> dynamics that have been "perfected"
> over the course of billions of 'years'.
>> So it's =Hard= to "perfect" them, more,
> in a a research effort that's bound to a
> 'time' course of relatively-few 'years'.
It would depend on our search mechanisms and
our test functions. In this case the test is
rather simple to begin with, we can neurones
to multiply in a controllable (converging) way.
> And, because of stuff that I've discussed
> earlier in my replies to your posts, it's
> Dangerous to attempts such.
Dangerous? Depends on the security of your lab.
> This said, there's a version of what you've
> proposed that occurs naturally within nerv-
> ous systems. Molecular dynamics within
> nervous systems routinely dip-into their
> eons-old evolutionary-'engineered' molec-
> ular repetoirs to "try stuff" as a result of
> the 3-D energydynamics that occur with-
> in them.
This being done naturally and (can I understand?)
randomly, can alo be systematized by us.
> Overall evolutionary dynamics are literally
> guided by such -- because routine repro-
> ductive dynamics are "selected" as a result
> of such [of course, to varying degrees. Folks
> like me have a "snowball's chance in Hell"
> of ever reproducing because we run too-
> far-ahead in the sort of molecular-tuning
> that I discuss above, leaving us "too weird"
> to attract a mate :-]
>> In my case, I do it so that others will mate-
> wisely :-]
What about artificia insemination ;)
> | from a
> | cognitive point of view, unnoticed by the conscious individual.
>> Be-cause nervous systems are necessarily
> so tightly-integrated in their functioning, this
> is routinely rarely the case. Even coming
> down with the flu alter's consciousness.
A lost consciousness recovered weidly might be
better that totally losing it.
> | We can
> | also rely on the neurones, as long as grwth is suffciently
controlled
> | and slow, to organize in the mechanical sense, without forming
lumps of
> | oxgen starved neurones (though a brain oxygenator can be further
used
> | as therapy). Of course, this kind of tretment would be reserved for
> | advanced age patients.
>> Here, again, neuronal growth is, itself
> tightly-integrated within overall nervous
> system functionality.
>> So doing what you've proposed will
> definitely simultaneously alter nervous
> system function in ways that are deleter-
> ious to overall nervous system function.
Isn`t deleterious jumping to conclusions?
> But, if there's already structurally-em-
> bodied nervous system dysfunction, it
> is possible to eliminate such by driving
> nervous system trophic dynamics back
> to a 'normal state'.
>> Doing so is =Hard=, though, for the
> reasons that I've been discussing.
>> | Another path would be to attack specifically the proteins that
directly
> | inhibit the mitosis process, which again can be assumed as a
working
> | hypothesis that work in the same way in all cells.
>> Be-cause of nervous systems' extreme-
> dynamicism, it's not so simple.
>> Yes, there are 'stereotypical' molecular
> dynamics within nervous systems, but
> nervous systems 'just' do what will op-
> timize their global 3-D energydynamics,
> which includes continual "probing" with
> respect to "manufacturing" novel molecular-
> level dynamics.
>> And it was to say =that= that I, smilingly,
> took up replying to the "Food for thought"
> that your posts constituted :-]
If this is the meat, can you cook it a little
bit more? 8-O
> | By identifying molecules trigering brain tumors (like nitrites),
oth
> | mre useful molecules should be `easily` found.
>> This's is Possible, but it's =Hard= to do.
If we automatize the process and use heuristics to
control the search, it might be easier than expected.
> But I encourage you to continue to think
> Daringly. Such is the wellspring of Pro-
> gress.
>> Cheers, Fabrizio,
>> ken [k. p. collins]
