Re: Long term genome (was Re:Is crypreservation a solution?)

Joao Pedro (
Thu, 18 Sep 1997 00:50:39 -0700


Henri Kluytmans wrote:
> There are much less complex (however still not simple) ways to create
> physical immortality without requiring any genetic alterations (to
> the original code).

I find that hard to believe but carry on.

> Just restore all the cells back to their original situation at the age
> of 25 years (assumed they already have passed the age of 25 years).

Less would be best, it's better 19 years or the high of sexual
performance (for men, for women I would have to think about it). BTW,
I'm 19, see the smile in my face?

> How to do this : use cell-repair-machines as described by the molecular
> nanotechnology concept. These machines should be able to repair all
> possible molecular damage created by aging (or deseases), by deducting
> the original structure from the damaged structure left.
> Damaged DNA can be repaired by comparing the DNA of several different
> neighbouring cells. Crossbonds can be repaired if detected.
> Damaged proteines can be repaired because the cell repair machines
> will have the programmed knowledge to detect damaged proteins
> and to restore the original proteines. Etc.

Okay, here's my problem: if you don't change the DNA, after 19/20 years
(assuming the repair process to be perfect) you would have to do all the
same thing again. Nanotechnology is not my area of expertise but I don't
expect it to come cheap. Wouldn't it be easier to change the DNA errors?
It's also not going to be cheap but at least it lasts more than
nanotechnology repair.
Overall, I think that we don't know if any of these processes will be
possible at accessible prices. I'm graduating in Microbiology, I know
gene therapy is here, I know genetic engineering is here, I know the
Human Genome project will be completed in the near future but I don't
know nothing of present or reliable near future technologies to do what
you propose. Perhaps is ignorance of mine but I think that genetic
transformation is the most likely choice for the future of life

> Such a procedure of using cell repair machines should also be able to
> repair damage created by cryonic preservation. Remember, damage is not
> the same as destruction. Most (if not all) damage, created by cryonics,
> that will render a cell biologically non-functional, can still be
> repaired by cell-repair machines because the original structure
> can still be DEDUCTED. I might add that cell repair machines will
> be easily able to do that, because they will be controlled by
> computers (with dimensions of cubic micrometers).

I don't want to be rude, being you new to the list and everything, but,
where did you come up with the ideas that the original neurons will be
deducted and that cell repair machines will be able to do that? I don't
know much of nanotechnology but, from what I know, I think it has some
interesting applications, including computers and repair of cells, but
from there to deduct, repair and/or rebuild a neuron goes a long way.

> Joa Pedro seems to have a misconception about cryonics.
> I sugest Joao Pedro to read some information concerning molecular
> nanotechnology, to start with the books "Engines of Creation" and
> "Unbounding the Future", which are both available online! Many
> articles written by Ralph C. Merkle should also prove interesting.

Probably, the only extropian area where I feel comfortable is life
I'll try to find the books you recommend.

> >> What's the difference between altering you current brain and genome, and
> >> transferring to a new one? Is there something special about the neurons
> >> that nature gave us? And if they're so special, why don't you leave
> >> them the way they are? I'm not so attached to them. As long as I can do
> >> all the same things with my new consciousness-vehicle(or more things), why
> >> should I care whether I've got organic axons or metal ones?
> Joao Pedro then wrote:
> >Transferring? Transferring what? Your brain? Your 'soul'?
> >I never understood that uploading approach. Consciousness-vehicle? What
> >is that? A machine with your thoughts?
> Our brain is a network of neurons, the interactions between these
> neurons
> also generate our consciousness (or soul if you prefer). From
> experiences
> with artifcial neural networks and neurobiology it is known that the
> behavior of the neural network is stored in it's structure (e.g. the
> links between the neurons and the weight factors and switching values
> (which are stored by proteins in the neurons) ).
> If we could emulate a biological neuron within certain limits, we could
> in principle emulate the complete brain. (After scanning the existing
> brain structure, which will be a bit tricky.) Research is
> currently being done to exactly emulate single neurons using
> conventional computer systems. However to upload a complete brain
> such systems seem to be quite inadequate. More likely
> to be used for this are networks of artificial neurons or neurons
> emulated by cellular automa (in quantum dot electronics?).
> (This is a bottom-up way of creating "artificial" intelligence.)
> With the consciousness-vehicle is meant the physical system on which
> the neural network is running, be it biological neurons, artificial
> neurons, or an electronic system emulating neurons.
> Joao Pedro wrote:
> >Natural selection, selects the genes that can produce the higher numbers
> >of the most fit offspring whereas fitness is defined as the
> >capacity to produce fit offspring.
> Shouldn't that be:
> Natural selection, selects the genes that can produce the highest
> numbers
> PER UNIT OF TIME of most fit offspring .

No, I'll give you an example (note - fitness is the always the same):
Let's suppose 2 organisms with a reproduction cycle of 1 year, one of
them has an offspring of 100 in the first year and an offspring of 150
in the second year and then dies. The other organism has an offspring of
200 in the first year and then dies. The first organism had an offspring
of 125 per year while the second had an offspring of 200 per year. By
your assumption, the second organism would be favored by natural
selection which is not the (usually) case. What if you have two
organisms each of them with an offspring of 100 individuals per day but
one of the organisms lives 10 days while the other lives 20, obviously,
although both of them have the same offspring per day, the organism that
lives longer has it's genes favored by natural selection.
I understand, however, what are you trying to say. Say, two organisms
capable of reproducing each day. If one of them has an offspring of 100
in the first day and 150 in the second day and then dies while the other
has an offspring of 200 in the first day and then dies. The second
organism is favored by natural selection because he had an extra
offspring in the first day of 100, if this offspring is ready for
reproduction right away it will result in an extra 100*200 organisms.
This is not the case in mammals, such as us, because we take several
years before we reach sexual maturity.
Anyway if I put something as "...can quickly produce..." is not wrong.
Thanks for the tip.

> > Just our brain, is so much more advanced than a
> > frog's that the possibilities of errors are incomparable.
> Indeed, the human brain is more complex than that of a frog (or a
> mouse). But
> I seem not to be able to think of any other organs (or parts) of a human
> that are also much more complex.

Let me see, important, vital organs, the endocrine system is more
complex, presumably (I'm not sure) the immune system is more complex,
perhaps the digestive system and the circulatory system too and probably
others that my (very) limited knowledge of frog biology don't know.
Also, like Geoff noticed, not only we are more complex but we are
different and it is this differences (is our circulatory, respiratory,
digestive system, etc) that might create incompatibilities between us
and the frog's antifreeze.

> >Hkl
> Because the future is where we will spend the rest of our lives ...
> You see things and ask "Why?" ; I dream things and ask "Why not?"

That's nice,

         Hasta la vista...

"Life's too short to cry, long enough to try." - Kai Hansen Visit my site at: