• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Advancing Technology/Singularity Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
gourimoko said:
So, let me go through some of the stuff we discussed regarding your questions.

Just so you know, the person I'm talking to is a research scientist, she's a Molecular Biologist and a PhD. She teaches here in L.A. and does research on genetics and genetic diseases and uses CRISPR literally every day. I'm obviously paraphrasing, and, while I generally understand the broadstrokes here; much of what was said is exceptionally technical (this is not my field), so I may be missing some detail (actually, I know I'm missing a great deal of detail).

Alright so:

"Just how large of a scale can it work on?"

So, apparently, CRISPR could, theoretically, work on most of an entire orgasm. The degree to which one can replace DNA/RNA depends on the "vector" being used and the targets of the virus you're using. We'll get to this in the next question.

"If an adult has the gene that makes them susceptible to Alzheimer’s presumably a quite large percentage of brain cells would have to be revised. Is it capable of that kind of coverage."

So.. here's the rub.. she has an extensive amount of research in this exact disease.. the problem with Alzheimer's or any disease of the brain is that, if you could identify a single gene that could be replaced to help the patient, the problem remains as to how do you apply this vector across the entire organ? Neurons do not replicate in the same fashion as other cells, and while you can use "lentiviral vector" gene therapy (iirc) this would get you minimal coverage in an organ like the brain, composed of neurons that are persistent.

We talked about the possibility of using different viral types as a possible work around. I suggested the potential to use viral encephalitis, she thought meningitis might be possible; but she stated that there are viruses that do infect the brain but the relationships and use to carry vectors for CRISPR haven't been sufficiently researched -- she said, oddly enough, that HSV-1 was one such virus and is being research as having a causative link with Alzheimers.

"If I heard right, One talk I saw said it can be used to deactivate HIV that has already infected a cell. For this to be effective you presumably would need complete coverage. Is that possible?"

It's possible.

The problem here is that, HIV is present throughout the body, so, even if you could do something like this, the cell could simply become reinfected. HIV is an exceptionally complex problem and using CRISPR as a cure would probably mean finding a human or primate mutation that allows for natural immunity and using CRISPR to apply the mutation to the patient -- rather than, as you say here, attacking the virus itself.

"If these things are possbible, then it should be possible to dramatically eliminate a vast number of diseases with genetic factors. For example a number of genes have been linked to increased risk of breast cancer. And the post cancer treatment for people with those genes can be brutal."

All of these things are possible (although apparently, treating the brain is seemingly quite difficult).

However, part of the problem with cancers is that, they are complex and there can be dozens to even hundreds of causes. Many people think that there is a cancer gene, but that isn't generally the case; especially with breast cancer. The most basic explanation for many cancers is that cell reproduction fails to end correctly and you end up with a run-away situation of malignant tissues in the body.

Simply put, CRISPR could be used for breast cancer, but, it would entail finding some "vector" that would make a woman less susceptible to tumor formation to begin with. That might be possible with extensive genetic research, but we're not there yet apparently. The other alternative is using CRISPR to attack cancer cells directly; effectively curing the cancer in place. There is research being done on both fronts, but funding and resources are always a determining factor.

...

If you have any other questions, just let me know.
Click to expand...

The mutation for immunity does exist in Nordic people with incidences occurring in 3-5% of population in Norway.

They should start there be interviewing naked Norwegians and Swedes.
 
King Stannis said:
The mutation for immunity does exist in Nordic people with incidences occurring in 3-5% of population in Norway.

They should start there be interviewing naked Norwegians and Swedes.
Click to expand...

I volunteer for this...
 
KI4MVP said:
Here's a really long (and really interesting) article on aging research

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/silicon-valleys-quest-to-live-forever
Click to expand...

The artificial neuron... that's the key..

The first researcher to develop a neuron that can replace a biological one, in place ... that's really it. That's the transhumanist singularity in a nutshell.

It's really so simple .. but still so elusively complex. Engineering an artificial cell, just that one cell, could mean achieving virtual immortality... Kinda fucked up we spend our resources on so much bullshit but not on things like this.
 
gourimoko said:
Kinda fucked up we spend our resources on so much bullshit but not on things like this.
Click to expand...

Isn't it, though. Our priorities as a species can be so messed up sometimes.

Established energy companies have a vested interest to fight against renewable energy
Established pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest to fight against actual cures for the chronic diseases they sell recurring treatments for.
If a potential cure/treatment is too cheap, there is no way to raise the money it takes to get the cure/treatment approved, never mind the great value and cost savings it brings to our society.


Also, here's an interesting clip from the article.

I met with Kurzweil at Google, where he is a director of engineering, but he emphasized that he was speaking in his private capacity as a futurist. Though a few days short of his sixty-ninth birthday, he looked much younger. After discovering, in his thirties, that he had Type 2 diabetes, he changed his life style radically and began taking supplements. He swallows some ninety pills a day, including metformin; Basis; a coenzyme called Q10, for muscle strength; and phosphatidylcholine, to keep his skin supple. “How does it look?” he asked me, plucking at his forearm. “Supple!” I said.

Kurzweil thinks of such efforts, which attempt to slow aging by using current technology, as Bridge One to indefinite longevity. But he also subscribes to the belief that the body is essentially a computer made up of overwritable data and updatable apps. Therefore, we’ll soon be in the midst of a biotech revolution, which will offer personally tailored immune therapies for cancer as well as organs grown from our own DNA. This is Bridge Two, which he believes will bring us to longevity escape velocity within about fifteen years. “I’m actually a little more optimistic than Aubrey,” he said. Bridge Three, which he expects us to cross by the two-thousand-thirties, is nanobots—blood-cell-size devices that will roam the body and the brain, cleaning up all the damage that de Grey wants to fix with medical interventions. “I used to call it the killer app of health technology,” Kurzweil said, “but that’s not a good name.”

When we cross Bridge Four, those same nanobots will connect our brains to a neocortical annex in the cloud, and our intelligence will quickly expand a billionfold. Once that transformation happens, in 2045, the Singularity occurs and we become like gods. “For a time, we’ll be a hybrid of biological and nonbiological thinking, but, as the cloud keeps doubling, the nonbiological intelligence will predominate,” Kurzweil said. “And it will be anachronistic, then, to have one body.” He raised his arms slightly and squinted at them, a carpenter troubled by a burl in the wood.​
 
gourimoko said:
Kinda fucked up we spend our resources on so much bullshit but not on things like this.
Click to expand...

Also to your point, it's kind of depressing how much time people spend on the trump scandal thread and how little response/interest this thread gets.

Ultimately the stuff in this thread is vastly more important and will have many orders of magnitude more impact on humanity than anything being discussed in that other thread.

We live in the most interesting technology time in human history. So many massive breakthroughs are either happening now or are within our reach. I just scratched the surface with the OP to get a discussion going.
 
Last edited:
KI4MVP said:
Also to your point, it's kind of depressing how much time people spend on the trump scandal thread and how little response/interest this thread gets.

Ultimately the stuff in this thread is vastly more important and will have many orders of magnitude more impact on humanity than anything being discussed in that other thread.

We live in the most interesting technology time in human history. So many massive breakthroughs are either happening now or are within our reach. I just scratched the surface with the OP to get a discussion going.
Click to expand...

Some of us enjoy reading the content of this thread and learning about these topics, but feel we have little if anything intelligent to add. Then again that doesn't stop people in political threads. :chuckle:
 
Hydroponic3385 said:
Some of us enjoy reading the content of this thread and learning about these topics, but feel we have little if anything intelligent to add. Then again that doesn't stop people in political threads. :chuckle:
Click to expand...

Ask some questions or watch some TED talks and post something you see that you find interesting. There are so many fascinating ideas covered in TED talks.
 
Back to my first post, the first video in that post is an idea that I'm finding increasingly intersting is the idea that human intelligence + AI can be more powerful than either alone, even in cases where the computer already outperforms human intelligence or where the human outperformed the computer.

I've come across this idea multiple times since I watched that video in the OP.

A great example is driving. There are quite a few cars on the road today capable of level 2 autonomous driving. The computer can drive (in certain conditions) with the human is the backup. There are situation where the person handles something the AI misses and other situations where the AI handles something the person misses. The net result is a safer drive than is possible without the AI or without the human.
 
New Study Links Human Consciousness to a Law That Governs the Universe

Human Entropy
Our species has long agonized over the concept of human consciousness. What exactly causes it, and why did we evolve to experience consciousness? Now, a new study has uncovered a clue in the hunt for answers, and it reveals that the human brain might have more in common with the universe than we could have imagined.

According to a team of researchers from France and Canada, our brains might produce consciousness as something of a side effect of increasing entropy, a process that has been taking place throughout the universe since the Big Bang.

7lfdRjw.jpg


Their study has been accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review E.

The concept of entropy is famously confusing, and the definition has evolved over time. Essentially, entropy is a thermodynamic property that refers to the degree of disorder or randomness in a system. It can be summed up as the description of a system’s progression from order to disorder.

The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy can only remain constant or increase within a closed system — a system cannot move from high entropy to low entropy without outside interference. A common example that demonstrates entropy is an ice cube melting — the cube is in a state of low entropy, but as it melts and disorder grows, entropy increases.

Many physicists think that the universe itself is in a constant state of increasing entropy. When the Big Bang occurred, the universe was in a state of low entropy, and as it continues to gradually spread out, it is growing into a higher entropy system. Based on this new study, our brain may be undergoing something similar, and consciousness happens to be a side effect of the process.

The Brain and Disorder
To see how the concept of entropy could be applied to the human brain, the researchers analyzed the amount of order in our brains while we’re conscious compared to when we’re not. They did this by modeling the networks of neurons in the brains of nine participants, seven of whom had epilepsy.

They looked at whether or not neurons were oscillating in phase with one another as this could tell them if the brain cells were linked. They compared observations from when patients were awake, when they were asleep, and when patients with epilepsy were having seizures.

The researchers found that the participants’ brains displayed higher entropy when fully conscious. “We find a surprisingly simple result: normal wakeful states are characterized by the greatest number of possible configurations of interactions between brain networks, representing highest entropy values,” the team wrote in the study.

This finding prompted the researchers to suggest that consciousness might be a side effect of a system working to maximize information exchange. In other words, human consciousness emerges due to increasing entropy.

While the team’s theory is exciting and will likely lead to further research exploring a potential link between human consciousness and entropy, it is far from conclusive. The study’s sample size was exceptionally small, so they’ll need to replicate their results on larger groups and different types of brain states. Still, it provides a fascinating explanation for human consciousness and may be the clue that eventually helps us fully understand the strange phenomenon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top