Mrs Zeta

This is true. I used to speak fluent German but have never used it outside school, and now I cannot remember a single word. I never learned Spanish but being fluent in Italian I survived for weeks in Spanish speaking countries with no language problem. If I was more clever and had the time I would learn Russian, Arabic and Mandarin. Also, at risk of appearing ageist, I would say that it is quite difficult to learn a new language if you are of a certain age, even if you are very motivated.

Within their niche, these creatures are more adapted (i.e more 'complex', better able to function in that niche), compared to those that live outside that niche. I refer to complexity in function, which is not necessarily complexity in mere structure. As a clinician, I am referring to humans. We started off as a collection of a few cells, and ended up having the most complex organ in the universe. I have little interest in flies or worms.

Here I am referring to what I see in nature. Whatever the evolutionary theories say, what I see is that nature progresses from simple forms to more complex ones. Intelligence is just a higher level of complexity. I can't understand how people can claim the contrary, maybe I am missing a relevant point?! The problems with overpopulation, pollution etc. have been discussed ad nauseam by others. I don't believe that humanity as a whole will suffer significantly from the problems you mention. Perhaps we could discuss this on another relevant forum.

I agree with the above. In the past few days I attended two meetings where I tried to get some of my ideas across (exactly the same ideas and format). The first was a face to face meeting and it went really well with lots of discussion and understanding ot the concept. The other one was a formal large audience presentation with slides, where no discussion was allowed, and the result was disappointing.

Roughly speaking, the mechanisms that can possibly control aging are opposite to those that cause cancer. For example, loss of telomeres is associated with aging. Artificially lengthening the telomere can make the organism live longer but can also increase the risk of cancer. Cancer cells have long telomeres (or telomeres that don't shorten with time). Or apoptosis: reducing the rate of apoptosis can save functional cells and improve function in aging, however, it can also retain cancerous cells (that would otherwise have been eliminated). Also a relevant reply to Paradox of Vigor: I believe that the natural progress of evolution will inevitably result in extreme lifespans. This will start to happen within the next 50 years. This assertion is based on the concept that nature needs to achieve increased intelligence in a short time. For my detailed comments see http://www.elpistheory.info/page14.htm

This is a known spambot, however it has generated a lot of merry discussion in other forums unrelated to SF, about the spam. For example, the ability of computers to self-correct spelling mistakes (grate vs great) etc

This prof was able to communicate his 'thoughts' to his wife, via a chip placed in their arm (we met only yesterday and he confirmed this). http://www.kevinwarwick.com/Cyborg2.htm (particularly this paragraph: In addition to being able to measure the nerve signals transmitted along the nerve fibres in Professor Wariwck’s left arm, the implant was also able to create artificial sensation by stimluating via individual electrodes within the array. This bi-directional functionality was demonstrated with the aid of Kevin’s wife Irena and a second, less complex implant connecting to her nervous system).

Leaving aside ethical and financial considerations, the growing of human organs is one of the most promising ways to help us replace organs (or tissues) damaged by ageing. In fact, it is one of the ways suggested for achieveing "immortality". Whether it will be done in 'farms' or laboratories, depends on the definition. Do people who undergo IVF collect their egg/sperm from a 'farm'? It sounds dramatic, but what is meant of course is not a farm along the conventional lines, but a scientific, controlled laboratory. I see nothing wrong with that.

Another trick is to avoid using names. I never call anybody by his/her name because I can never remember names (not even relatively close firends). Just smile, look confident and if you must say something call them in generic terms such as 'my friend', 'young man', 'my esteemed colleague' (as in the scenario above),etc.

I have seen a similar text somewhere. Can any of you computer-minded experts tell the rest of us if an artificial intelligence device (already existing) can read this text and make sense of it? And if not, why not?

it is not just ordinary analgesics that can be used. Other drugs such as amitriptyline, gabapentin and similar, together with treatments such as relaxation, mediation, TENS, even acupuncture may help. Of course, serious causes of headache (such as brain tumours) should have been excluded by this stage.

This is not an allergy, it is a viral infection. It is not rare either. I would guess that at least 50% of all people visiting their general doctor have similar symptoms. In general terms, doctors suggest symptomatic treatment with fluids, analgesics, etc. But symptoms frequently return on and off for several weeks.

The stress of bereavement can contribute to myocardial infarction (through for example increased blood pressure, in a previously compromised heart). Other heart-related symptoms such as palpitations, or breathing problems in patients suffering from lung disease, can also contribute to an MI after severe stress/bereavement. Thus the heart 'breaks' i.e. becomes unable to function. But is is also possible to die from a truly broken heart such as heart rapture following a heart attack brought on by stress as above(http://ats.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/full/77/5/1813). In addition, severe stress can increase blood pressure which then may cause the rupture of a pre-existing aortic aneurism, although this is not necessarily heart tissue.

I can't see why anyone would accept eternal punishment. For what reason? I wouldn',t and I would worship this entity.

Some scientists disagree. See http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes/oncosens a page taken from the sens.org website. According to them, people who are destined to live to be many hundreds year old, are already alive today. These people will be able to use biotechnology advances initially, live many years and then take advantage of new technologies when these become available etc etc (the ageing escape velocity concept). I happen not to agree with this approach, but this is another matter.

If my calculations are correct, an 80kg man with an average femoral thickness of 2.8cm, will become a giant weighing 80000 kg with a femur of 2.8 meters in diameter. Although this is a formitable femur, it won't be able to support that weight, and worse so during walking, let alone balance and falls problems (or even circulation problems: his heart will not be able to pump as in normal people and will be prone to very early heart failure). Maybe such giants can exist on the moon...

A lot of basic research on developing treatments for ageing is directed at studying genes and coming up with therapies based on genes. Bioengineering is not only about existing genetic diseases but also about interventions that can positively influence the ageing process itself. Many genetic discoveries have been applied on humans in this respect (for example the discovery of SIRT and sirtuins, have led people to use, say, resveratrol as an antiageing product). It may not be completely effective at present, but it is a start.

Many cases of SHC do not fit the above scenario. Also many cases happened in the past decades when there were no fire retardant materials in common use. A body buring by ordinary means (acohol, oils etc) will a) not burn fully and will leave a lot of remains, b) will create so much heat that will cause extensive damage. So it is still a mystery, although I don't believe there is any 'magic' involved, no extraterrestrials etc.

It is becoming increasingly accepted that mind can affect matter (in the clinical sense). The effects of mental stress on immunity are well known. Positive thinking improves immunity, to the point that it can reduce the impact of cancer at times. See for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21116746, but there are many other studies. It is also becoming clear that the environment (i.e. how the mind sees the world) can have positive effects on the DNA and cause beneficial epigenetic changes. For example, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20332807 I am not aware of any robust, accepted studies showing that the mind can affect matter in the Physics realm, although there have been many parapsychologists who have performed experiments in this respect.

The normal blood viscosity at room temperature is around 10 cP (centipoise). This is about three times higher than that of pure water, reflecting the amount of red blood cells and proteins in the blood. High viscosity is related to polycythaemia, low viscosity to anaemia.

An urban myth is that if you find a coin in the street and you pick it up, you will then notice that you frequently find more coins as if by magic. I tried this once, and although I could hardly find any coins before, after I picked up a small coin I continued finding coins of all denominations almost on a daily basis. It has now been 3 months and this continues. What is the basis of this? There are no people walking in front of me deliberating throwing coins in order for me to find them. It is not just coincidence. One explanation is that after the first coin, the finder becomes more aware or focused and subconsiously scans the pavement for coins. He/she becomes more alert in this respect, almost in a state of 'flow' as described by Czikszentmihalyi (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology). Another explanation is that the finder believes that he finds coins more frequently, but statistically it is still the same amount of coins as previously, only that the person has not noticed them or bothered to bend and pick them up. Any other ideas?

It is the same thing, is it not?

Another thing, even if you know the minimal thickness of the stool, you will still not be able to estimate the amount needed for covering every little spec of the planet. The reason is that in your calculations you need to take into account the fractal dimension of the earth's surface, and it would be impossible to cover each nook and cranny of the planet's surface even in theory. Your measurement becomes unreliable each time you look at the distance between two points on the planet's surface, because of power law similarities. It is the same when you try to calculate the distance between two rocks on the beach. The more accurate you wish to be, the more the distance increases because of the fractal properties of the rocks, sand etc between those two points.

If this is due to the sedentary lifestyle of the TV watcher, then it should also be true for anybody who uses a computer for hours (sedentary activity). Thus we are all at high risk anyway. But meaningful active interaction with the medium (i.e. the computer) should have positive effects on cognition. And for some socially isolated people, watching TV is also beneficial for cognition and mental well-being.

I think you will find that 2012 will come and go, and nothing will change. Doom and gloom predictions were fired in all directions with regards to the year 2000, nothing happened. Ditto, going back to the years 1900, 1800, etc. It is natural to believe that something disastrous will happen, because it puts our everyday, routine life into a better perspective.