Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
crystal sage

Immortals

194 posts in this topic

Of course it would be a genetic clone as it has the same exact genetic make up as the origonal. Thats pretty much the definition of a genetic clone. So it would be a new tree in the same way that if someone cloned you, the clone would not be YOU. It would be the same genes but a seperate person, much like an identical twin i guess. The reason the new tree would perhaps not look identical to the old would be that the environment wont reproduce the exact same conditions the first had. Climate, where its planted, will over time all effect which way it stretches its branches, when and for how long it has a growth spurt etc. Thats what i think anyways though i am no biology expert.

Yes, I follow you there. Ok, so it would be a genetic clone, but what of the material from the original tree that is now in the new tree ? If even part of the original material is still living, why can it not be said that the original tree still survives ?

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I follow you there. Ok, so it would be a genetic clone, but what of the material from the original tree that is now in the new tree ? If even part of the original material is still living, why can it not be said that the original tree still survives ?

F

Because it is separated from the original and undergoing its own development. It will have different factors affect it and will not be phyiscally identical because of this. The original tree remains the original tree, any daughter becomes a new tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it is separated from the original and undergoing its own development. It will have different factors affect it and will not be phyiscally identical because of this. The original tree remains the original tree, any daughter becomes a new tree.

Maybe I'm being dim here, but I fail to see how the cutting being 'separated from and undergoing different development to,' the original tree suddenly make that physical material not part of the original ?? Do all the trees cells change as human cells do ? Is so, how does that account for tree rings ?

Clones aside, now.....

The first analogy that leaps to mind is a salvage part from a car... Of course, if you put the gearbox from a wreck into another car then it's not a new car, its the second repaired one with an old gearbox in it. But you can point at the gearbox and say, "That's an old gearbox!" Can you not in the same way point to the oldest part of the new tree and say "That part's the original cutting?"

With a transplant heart, the heart continues to grow after transplantation, but at what stage does it become not a donor heart but an original part of the patient ? At what stage can it no longer be pointed at and identified as an unoriginal addition ?

Or is it simply a case of plants being such relatively simple constructs that vegetable cells can hold all the necessary genetic coding for the whole plant whereas human DNA is so complex that cells cannot hold all the information necessary to grow a complete human ?

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm being dim here, but I fail to see how the cutting being 'separated from and undergoing different development to,' the original tree suddenly make that physical material not part of the original ?? Do all the trees cells change as human cells do ? Is so, how does that account for tree rings ?

Clones aside, now.....

The first analogy that leaps to mind is a salvage part from a car... Of course, if you put the gearbox from a wreck into another car then it's not a new car, its the second repaired one with an old gearbox in it. But you can point at the gearbox and say, "That's an old gearbox!" Can you not in the same way point to the oldest part of the new tree and say "That part's the original cutting?"

With a transplant heart, the heart continues to grow after transplantation, but at what stage does it become not a donor heart but an original part of the patient ? At what stage can it no longer be pointed at and identified as an unoriginal addition ?

Or is it simply a case of plants being such relatively simple constructs that vegetable cells can hold all the necessary genetic coding for the whole plant whereas human DNA is so complex that cells cannot hold all the information necessary to grow a complete human ?

F

With the tree this is a form of reproduction, the daughter is an offspring of the original. The original tree is still there, there is now a offspring of it so it is another individual organism. It is not the same as taking a component and adding it to something else, you are taking part of it and generating another individual out of it. If you take a car, scrap it and recycle it to make a new car, it is not the same car.

Plants can be quite complex actually and no less genetically complex as us. Our cells can hold all our DNA (red blood cells excepted but that is different), we have no system to reproduce in that manner though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm being dim here, but I fail to see how the cutting being 'separated from and undergoing different development to,' the original tree suddenly make that physical material not part of the original ?? Do all the trees cells change as human cells do ? Is so, how does that account for tree rings ?

Clones aside, now.....

The first analogy that leaps to mind is a salvage part from a car... Of course, if you put the gearbox from a wreck into another car then it's not a new car, its the second repaired one with an old gearbox in it. But you can point at the gearbox and say, "That's an old gearbox!" Can you not in the same way point to the oldest part of the new tree and say "That part's the original cutting?"

With a transplant heart, the heart continues to grow after transplantation, but at what stage does it become not a donor heart but an original part of the patient ? At what stage can it no longer be pointed at and identified as an unoriginal addition ?

Or is it simply a case of plants being such relatively simple constructs that vegetable cells can hold all the necessary genetic coding for the whole plant whereas human DNA is so complex that cells cannot hold all the information necessary to grow a complete human ?

F

Im just curious where you are intending to go with this in relation to the OP and immortality. Even if you take the claim a part of someone is living on when their organs are used, the individual is not living on. Plus this organ will not last forever so how does it come back to being immortal?

I also agree with Matt that one organ or spare part does not equate to a tree cutting. The tree is an entire living specimen that can go ahead and survive on its own and eventually reproduce . The heart or spare part is useless unless included into a new person or vehicle.

Edited by tipsy_munchkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suffer from the common genetic abnormality known as psoriasis. In my case my skin cells reproduce too quickly causing a red itchy rash that covers most of my body - its very painful. This activity - growth happening where it shouldn't, is exactly what happens with cancer, growth happens where it shouldn't. Apparently my condition is not as serious as cancer. I have other side effects - my hair and nails also grow at an accellerated rate. Things that work for cancer, work for psoriasis - Methotrexate for example, a form of chemotherapy, can give me clear skin but really slow me down and cause other damage.

I would be a willing guinea pig for Aubrey De Grey's rejuvination medicines, as I think not only would it cure cancer, but it would cure my condition and keep me in good condition for a long time. His idea is that every so often you would have your cells renewed, the old ones taken away through various means and replaced with new cells. You might be able to live for a very very very long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im just curious where you are intending to go with this in relation to the OP and immortality. Even if you take the claim a part of someone is living on when their organs are used, the individual is not living on. Plus this organ will not last forever so how does it come back to being immortal?

I also agree with Matt that one organ or spare part does not equate to a tree cutting. The tree is an entire living specimen that can go ahead and survive on its own and eventually reproduce . The heart or spare part is useless unless included into a new person or vehicle.

Well, what basically started off as a set of philosophical questions has for me turned into an actual learning curve. I admit that I don't know an awful lot about biology... human or plant. Genetics is another subject that I apparently owe most of my knowledge to Hollywood for; my understanding of a clone is not now what it was; so even though they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing I have pressed my questions along a more, shall we say, diverse route, to try to get not just the questions I wanted answered, answered, but also those questions answered in the way I wanted them answered.

For me, it's not enough to be told "Well, you just can't."

The concept I'm trying to grasp is the one I first started on. The possibility of a human gene or group of genes being responsible for aging, and the result of such a gene groups switch being thrown. This is currently being investigated by Dr. Walker at the University of South Florida CoM. A report of whose I read in the New Scientist last July stating that his subject appears to be a normal 3 year old, but is in fact 16 years old and has never been diagnosed with any known genetic syndrome or chromosomal abnormality that would explain her appearance... I was looking for parallels in the botanical world, as I thought it much more likely that vegetable matter would have yielded real results in this field than human and so have been discussed in this forum before...Someone may have some links to further reading for me. (Yes, I was cheating !!)

If it could be shown that vegetable matter could be considered immortal by a simple process of cutting and transplanting, or by genetic manipulation, then medical science could in theory perform the same feat with human material.. (Hopefully, the breast cancer gene is on the verge of being checked NRG1 Dr. Edwards, University of Cambridge) Seeing as it has finally been pointed out that there is no intrinsic difference between human and vegetable cells; at least none that cannot in theory be overcome in the lab; I am open to being shown how this effect cannot be transferred to humans... Much harder to prove a negative !!

I agree wholly that 'clones' are different organisms to their originals, but the donor material is still in existence within the working, living part of the recipient. Presumably, it will then proceed to act as 'normal' tissue' and replicate and grow and age...at which point, it will cease to be identifiable as donor material. An artificial control at this point may alter that stage. I am thus, still to be convinced that geneticists will be unable one day to isolate and educate the specific human gene group to perform as required and control even the collagen that gives the most outward appearance of aging.

Then it is a simple step to show if it can be done in the lab, it may have occurred naturally.

Possibly a pipe dream, possibly fantasy, possibly possible..

F

Edited by Fitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what basically started off as a set of philosophical questions has for me turned into an actual learning curve. I admit that I don't know an awful lot about biology... human or plant. ...........................................

<snip>

Then it is a simple step to show if it can be done in the lab, it may have occurred naturally.

Possibly a pipe dream, possibly fantasy, possibly possible..

F

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I'm no expert in biology either so as to the details of current experiments in gene therapy I'll leve comments to those with better knowledge. I can see that your leading towards the 'can science one day alter us to not age.' I think where the confusion is, is that to me for someone to be truely immortal their awareness of self, personality and memories etc would have to survive so any clone or transplant would not fulfill this. I think i get now that you are pursuing this line as something you believe could lead to advances that would make that possible rather than stating that such is immortality in itself? As i said i cant go into this in much detail as I am lacking the detailed knowledge of if or how gene therapy could alter the aging process or lifespans (which we must remember is two different concepts, aging can be altered without length being added)

To me a part of me survivng without awareness of 'me' is not me. Its all the little signals and chemicals doing their thing in my brain that make me, me and once that stops working I would say I am dead and gone even if my physical body were still in some way alive.

EDIT: TO snip quote as it seemed silly to have such a long one in full directly after the origonal.

Edited by tipsy_munchkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying that for me. I'm no expert in biology either so as to the details of current experiments in gene therapy I'll leve comments to those with better knowledge. I can see that your leading towards the 'can science one day alter us to not age.' I think where the confusion is, is that to me for someone to be truely immortal their awareness of self, personality and memories etc would have to survive so any clone or transplant would not fulfill this. I think i get now that you are pursuing this line as something you believe could lead to advances that would make that possible rather than stating that such is immortality in itself? As i said i cant go into this in much detail as I am lacking the detailed knowledge of if or how gene therapy could alter the aging process or lifespans (which we must remember is two different concepts, aging can be altered without length being added)

To me a part of me survivng without awareness of 'me' is not me. Its all the little signals and chemicals doing their thing in my brain that make me, me and once that stops working I would say I am dead and gone even if my physical body were still in some way alive.

EDIT: TO snip quote as it seemed silly to have such a long one in full directly after the origonal.

No, I don't think cloning is the answer. Cloning was just raised by someone else as a way of rebuking my suggestion that cuttings from a plant live on and age in a recipient. I agree on what a clone is, but continued to use the clone suggestion as a side route to answering a philosophical question.... what constitutes survival ? What if the cutting were the brain/spinal column ?

I don't see the similarity of re-booting a cells replacement ability to a cancer.... one is re-establishing a trait once there, now gone, the second is an uncontrolled new state.

I believe that geneticists and doctors (maybe even those ones working today) will eventually discover a way to harness the counter-productive habit of the 'aging genes' which work as nature intended to give cells a limited replacement ability. They will be able to alter the genes to allow continued cell replacement, thus giving unlimited replacement capacity.

Now the important point.... If it can be done artificially, it may have already happened naturally. There could be people alive now who were born with a specific genetic abnormality the same as the one the scientists are currently trying to design.

Just leaves the question would they wear black leather or yellow Spandex...?

F

Edited by Fitter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets hope black leather. Spandex belongs in the 80's even for a super hero :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reminded of the toaist immortals from Journey to the West. I like the Anthony C. Yu version University of Chicago Press. to gain immortality the practice austerities, that is they cultivate thier energies and avoid certain foods and actions. I think this mirrors the current living healthy theme as a path to longevity. I also think Marabods tale about leech like immortals seems to be analogous with the phsicic vampires theme's that seem to be getting more popular in the western mythos but have long been in place in some eastern culture. Which brings me to the topic of the op. Becoming immortal through nono-chemical means indicates a capitol based longevity. This scares me deeply. If such a thing were to happen and doubtlessly will with the advent of new technology the immortals in question would be the hyper rich. This would create a vacuum of financial wealth as there would be more and more of the immortal elite which would need to level the financial output in some way. In other words these immortals would have to put more back into the system than they were taking out. This is somewhat contradictory to the acruement of profit. Thus it would be a challenge to make ones profit margins down so that the non-immortal contingent was well looked after. Indeed it would be a sign of ethics and tact to have employees with a higher margin of profit than the company's percentage. In otherwords this immortal class would be harming the finances of the mortal class simply by using thier own profits frivelously without supporting those whom are of more meager means and less financial stability. This kind of class system already exists to a point and at the same time there would be little progress without financial backers and investors. The vacuum is only a potential hazzard that mirrors one already in action. In order for finances to become more level the rich must invest in the poor. This is called employment, but I fear the acruement of funds would become lopesided if immortality became easy and expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reminded of the toaist immortals from Journey to the West. I like the Anthony C. Yu version University of Chicago Press. to gain immortality the practice austerities, that is they cultivate thier energies and avoid certain foods and actions. I think this mirrors the current living healthy theme as a path to longevity. I also think Marabods tale about leech like immortals seems to be analogous with the phsicic vampires theme's that seem to be getting more popular in the western mythos but have long been in place in some eastern culture. Which brings me to the topic of the op. Becoming immortal through nono-chemical means indicates a capitol based longevity. This scares me deeply. If such a thing were to happen and doubtlessly will with the advent of new technology the immortals in question would be the hyper rich. This would create a vacuum of financial wealth as there would be more and more of the immortal elite which would need to level the financial output in some way. In other words these immortals would have to put more back into the system than they were taking out. This is somewhat contradictory to the acruement of profit. Thus it would be a challenge to make ones profit margins down so that the non-immortal contingent was well looked after. Indeed it would be a sign of ethics and tact to have employees with a higher margin of profit than the company's percentage. In otherwords this immortal class would be harming the finances of the mortal class simply by using thier own profits frivelously without supporting those whom are of more meager means and less financial stability. This kind of class system already exists to a point and at the same time there would be little progress without financial backers and investors. The vacuum is only a potential hazzard that mirrors one already in action. In order for finances to become more level the rich must invest in the poor. This is called employment, but I fear the acruement of funds would become lopesided if immortality became easy and expensive.

Always assuming that immortality were expensive and/or required continuous treatment. The gene therapy argument implies a one-off action that would require only a preliminary modification. The issue there would be, of course, the moral dilemma faced by the scientist or technician, or the parents in that the modification to the subject would have to be done at the time of conception. No one would be able to choose to become immortal, as the choice would be made for you before you were born.

In this scenario, I do not think the case for financial instability would carry.

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one would be able to choose to become immortal, as the choice would be made for you before you were born.

In this scenario, I do not think the case for financial instability would carry.

F

I paraphrased for space purposes

Yet at the same time this augmentation would be subject to a payment. I do not think just anyone could afford to have an immortal baby. In fact it could become a popular thing to make an immortal clone. Assuming this plausable possible happened there would still be an issue of not only overpopulation but of tact and ethical responsibility on behalf of the immortal children. Even if they were not financially well off they would have time on thier side. Even if they had no say in it they would still have to be financed in order to recieve this treatment {at inception or afterwards}. Thusly they would need a financial base. The vacuum is not written in stone it is just a paranoid take on a plausible possible. However I agree that just because someone had recieved such treatment does not automatically point to them being well off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a human is born immortal would they age???

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a human is born immortal would they age???

Nibs

I think the scifi angle of nano chemical immortality would allow them to age normally they just wouldn't entrophate after reaching maturity. Of course thats just my take on what they are trying to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I paraphrased for space purposes

Yet at the same time this augmentation would be subject to a payment. I do not think just anyone could afford to have an immortal baby. In fact it could become a popular thing to make an immortal clone. Assuming this plausable possible happened there would still be an issue of not only overpopulation but of tact and ethical responsibility on behalf of the immortal children. Even if they were not financially well off they would have time on thier side. Even if they had no say in it they would still have to be financed in order to recieve this treatment {at inception or afterwards}. Thusly they would need a financial base. The vacuum is not written in stone it is just a paranoid take on a plausible possible. However I agree that just because someone had recieved such treatment does not automatically point to them being well off.

If immortality were achievable, then yes I agree, it would be expensive. I don't think the immortal clone business would be quite so popular... people would veer away from that once they realised that the clone, although looking like them, would not actually be them. I wonder if technology advanced that far, would they be able to transplant the essence of 'being' from a mortal person into the clone, once it was grown...? But then, knowing bureaucracy, the Free Life For Clones movement would hold a rally demanding that clones be given the right to choose whether or not their personality was overlaid with that of a dying person !

Maybe, like Douglas Adams suggested, an immortal could just deposit a penny into a bank account and reap the massive interest earned over an extended period of time by simply outliving the hell out of everyone. The financial institutions would introduce clauses and prohibitions to prevent immortals from just such a practice, I guess. Maybe that would drive the immortals banking habits underground, and they would change their name every so often to disguise their investments. Possibly lead them to have to be covert in other factors in their lives.

I see lots of new issues coming out of the woodwork....Not so clear cut, this immortality business is it ?

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think clone rights and a.i. rights go hand in hand, but that doesn't account for un-programmed units. Do they have rights? I don't think the neuro mapping is too terribly far off. Its all about the pattern especially since it is highly individualistic. In order to do anything with a subjects brain pattern thier personal neuro pathways would need to be mapped. It reminds me of the movie, Overdrawn At The Memory Bank in a way. The way it could be stored and placed in virtual surroundings. With reagards to a.i. clone rights. There may indeed be a standard of treatment but at the same time it would most likely vary from place to place. Money makes things happen, sometimes unfortunately without regards to ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think clone rights and a.i. rights go hand in hand, but that doesn't account for un-programmed units. Do they have rights? I don't think the neuro mapping is too terribly far off. Its all about the pattern especially since it is highly individualistic. In order to do anything with a subjects brain pattern thier personal neuro pathways would need to be mapped. It reminds me of the movie, Overdrawn At The Memory Bank in a way. The way it could be stored and placed in virtual surroundings. With reagards to a.i. clone rights. There may indeed be a standard of treatment but at the same time it would most likely vary from place to place. Money makes things happen, sometimes unfortunately without regards to ethics.

Would there be such a thing as an 'un-programmed unit' ? I was under the impression that a human clone would be indistinguishable from a naturally born person, complete with character and personality traits. The only difference would have been the somatic cell nuclear transfer at conception. Even a carrying mother and birth would be the same as 'ordinary.'

But yes, money talks and actively disregards ethics, I agree. And the sad thing is that clone rights and AI rights would vary from place to place too... human rights do now, why not artificial ones ?

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there would be such a thing. The unprogrammed unit represents a clone that had been left unfinished yet had matured to a certain point "in the tube" so to speak. It would also represent an android capable of storing human thought-patterns that had no real programs of its own. If the human thought matrix of memory could be reduced to individual chemical and electrical signals then they could be utelized to overwrite either one. I like to think that use of androids for this function could be utelized by those that could not afford it on a debt basis for a term of service. That way even families without a lot of financial means could still have thier own robot grandpa. It would also be quite usefull as the android frame would be much more durable and utilitarian. This concept of artificial brain mapping, however, would be much further off than a transplant. Simply putting the brain into a new frame. A lot of the same mapping procedures would be involved but I think the human brain would be quite expensive to replicate ergo it would be much more affordable for a full cybernetic conversion than for a full android conversion. The only drawback is with a cyborg conversion you have to keep the brain alive. To put a mind into an android would insinuate that the memory was mapped during transfer, i.e. there would be a copy somewhere. Of course if this copy was not updated on a regular basis it would be of the same mind as the one mapped before the procedure. I can just see it now yes Mr. corp president this is the fivth time we've put you in a new body you just haven't downloaded any of the memories you've had over the last hundred and fifty years. All we know is you have a bad habit of getting dismantled in the bad part of town. Oh and the corp went bankrupt twenty years ago you actually owe us a heafty sum for the operation this time. We've arranged for you to have a job doing cunstruction work on Mars. You have a day to get your affairs in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are over 200 billion neurons in the average human brain of 10,000 different types. With between 5000 and 200,000 possible synaptic connections for each of those neuron types, it means there are more possible connexions for transmission of chemical signals in the human brain than there are stars in the universe... not the galaxy, the universe...

Once you have established that kind of network potential, you have to add the 10,000 billion glia for support and maintenance duties; to control them and make sure they do not destroy the wrong neurons, and then you have a system set up to receive the actual information of motor control, memory and self awareness.... just to start...

Brain mapping or recording a 'human thought matrix' would be a very tall order indeed...

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to have a clone! I would call him Mini-me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are over 200 billion neurons in the average human brain of 10,000 different types. With between 5000 and 200,000 possible synaptic connections for each of those neuron types, it means there are more possible connexions for transmission of chemical signals in the human brain than there are stars in the universe... not the galaxy, the universe...

Once you have established that kind of network potential, you have to add the 10,000 billion glia for support and maintenance duties; to control them and make sure they do not destroy the wrong neurons, and then you have a system set up to receive the actual information of motor control, memory and self awareness.... just to start...

Brain mapping or recording a 'human thought matrix' would be a very tall order indeed...

F

No argument there I am only using it as a probable possible. Not to mention I think were still discovering neurotransmitters at the moment, I think were just over thirty if I could remember where I heard that I'd drop a link. It might have been somewhere in the super brain yoga thread....Steel trap aint what it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Atomicus,

I agree with the basic principal that our bodies are designed to last a lot longer than we think. Much of my thinking alignes with the channeled Kryon information. Essentially the key to long life and physical well being is in our DNA. How we live our life, use the mind and the heart to elevate our percetual reality, has a lot to do with this.

One scientific encouragement for these principlas is advocated by Bruce Lipton.

http://www.brucelipton.com/

His research with the biology of belief is truly fasinating.

John

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a lovely article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF are you talking about. This is total BS. I want proof not BS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.