Psycho

Link That papers abstract starts by saying the ribosomes are soluble (therefore if free in the cell must be part of the cytosol) Link On page 4 Fig 1. shows the constituents of the cytoplasm to scale including ribosomes (it is described under the figure if you can't work out what the hell is going on in it )

I'm not surprised you are confused to be honest, even multiple wikipedia pages which link to each other say different things. The correct answer is that the cytosol consists of 70% water, hydrophilic proteins that aren't organelle bound, ions (K+ Na+ ect.) and polar macromolecules. The cytoplasm consists of the cytosol, cellular organelles (apparently excluding the nucleus, not sure if that is true though) and non-polar substances in suspension as well as starch, glycogen and lipid droplets. This means that free ribosomes and contained within the cytosol with is part of the cytoplasm.

I realised today that I spend about 6 hours a week on a train doing nothing, so I was just wondering if anyone listened to any good podcasts that I could download and listen to on my travels. I think it would be best if everyone could categorise them into what subject they are normally on (biology, physics, pop science etc.) as well as how detailed or advanced you would rate them and of course how good they are and why they like them.

You might want to look up the difference between cytoplasm and cytosol, as I think you are fundamentally confused as to what the definition of cytoplasm is.

Protein structures form alpha helices that could be described as a coil spring, don't know if you could really apply it in any engineering sense though.

1) Turn both the liquid and weight amounts to Moles then times by avogadro's number before dividing the number of arsenic molecules by the number of water ones and changing to the correct units.

Do you know if there is anyway to download it as an MP3? You only seem to be able to stream it. Edit: Found it - Link

I'm not saying it isn't brought on by something however that phenomenon probably occurs in childhood and its importance is over-extrapolated by the brain, which is unlikely to occur in a mature mind. A more familiar example would be somebody eating food and then becoming sick they therefore blame the food on the sickness even if they know it wasn't the cause, this is a defence mechanism to stop you doing it again however the wrong entity can be attributed the wrong characteristics, in the case of BIID it would be becoming an amputee and that being a good or attractive ideal. What would probably occur in a brain transplant is that the person wouldn't be able to handle looking in the mirror and seeing a stranger looking back at them, therefore they would lose all form of identity, everyone they have ever met wouldn't recognise them and without a lot of counselling consistent exposure to this could cause a person to form the opinion that they aren't really who they think they are or never were that person.

That isn't what I said, I said the cause of BIID hasn't been ascertained, it could be entirely neurological or entirely psychological or both could have relevant effects. Also neurological differences cause psychological disorders, not the other way round, the only reason most psychological disorders can't be treated through pharmaceuticals is due to the complex chemistry and complex nature of the brain creating a situation where there are to many variables to be control or aren't understood at the molecular level. The interesting thing about BIID is that traditional psychological therapies don't seem to have any effect, superficially implying it has an underlying structural basis. A good source BIID is unlikely to be a problem if you changed bodies as it has been shown to be present from childhood/adolescence though an underlying cause has not been found, there is no reason to concluded that a person who acquired a new body would find it "more complete" if part of it was removed unless they have had these feeling before hand. From the article there seems to be no encompassing reasoning for wanting it removed, some are fascinated by amputation, some sexual aroused, some want the perfect body, but at no point would any of these reasonings substantiate due to a change of body.

I briefly read about this in a newspaper a couple of weeks ago, I am not terrible surprised that some of the so hated drugs by the government aren't that bad after all considering, the presumptions were based on little to no evidence and purely on the fact that they can't easily be taxed. Ironically it seems that the most open group of people are the ones who would take magic mushrooms, where as the ones who won't are the ones who most need to, the real question is are those types of people draw to the idea of it or is their personality created by the experience of eating them.

It is most like in the right parietal lobe as your source; which you obviously still haven't read; states, however you seem to be assuming that everyone who is diagnosed with the disorder has the same problem. This isn't necessarily the case due to psychological categorisation being based physiological symptoms rather than underlying physiological dysfunction.

The neurological basis for decision making has always interested me, for the fundamental reason that how can you actively make any decision if it is all up to the chemistry in your brain, surely at some level it the conclusion you end up with is just fate based on the "chemical balance" of your brain at the time of the decision. This has been shown to be true in many cases; mood and environment effect peoples decisions, soft chairs have been shown to increase peoples leniency in negotiations, thoughts of disgust and therefore dislike have been superimposed by the brain over whole scenarios even if the subject knew of the artificial cause and it was nothing in the scenario. Other ideas that have been shown to effect the decision making processes are in everyday life are prejudices such as if someone is black or white, male or female, tall or short, these have been shown in studies that people stick to their own groups, interviewers who grew up and associate mainly with white people will preferentially pick a white person over a black person who are equally qualified in an interview situation even if they don't realise they are doing it. This is even the case with the names of the people with applications with stereotypically sounding black names (Tyrone, Fianzo) getting less responses from companies then the exact same CV with a stereotypically white name (James, Ben). This doesn't make them racist it is just how evolution has set are brains up to go with what we know. Most people don't even realise they do it and when psychological studies have shown they do they are offended by the assertion and deny it. Myself, I have done one of these Implicit Association Tests and you can pretty much work out what it is going to say before you do it, where I grew up is mainly white, my school was mainly white (95%), my university was mainly white, I am going to subconsciously pick a white person over a black one and that's what the result said, unsurprising. However, that will effect my decision making in my life as anyone you meet and don't know you attribute qualities to them of what you do know about people who look like them, whether these qualities are right or wrong (about the person or the group in general) and this applies to any variable you can think of not just race. First impression of people have been shown to be made very quickly, before you could even consciously say what your impression was and are nearly entirely based on a bias based on your experiences and these aren't just experiences you have had in the first person; these can also be based off things you have watched on TV or read in the newspaper (whether or not they are true or ever happened). Some decisions of course are made by "you" and not "your brain", these are the ones that are based on stimuli responses such as whether or not you are hungry, thirsty or tired. But even these can be manipulated, by mood or physical activity etc., for instance if your blood is flowing to your muscles due to exertion you won't feel hungry as your gastric blow flow is restricted so even these are manipulated by other factors. Then of course there are the decisions you have no control over what so ever such as iris dilation and sweating, they just happen when they are needed and lets all be thankful for it. I suppose my real question is how much of our decisions is based in our brain, on our physiological state (hunger, tiredness), on our environmental surroundings (music, the seat you are on) and on our prejudices (what we think we know)? Studies have also shown that while using brain scanners researches viewing real time data of subjects can predict whether a subject will choose left or right on a computer screen 5 seconds before they do it, this is even before the subject consciously knows which one they are going to pick, yet the brain has already chosen. But is the chemistry known to a molecular level, or even a physiological level yet?

Yes, but the exact causes of many neurological disorders are unknown, that doesn't mean anyone is suggesting it isn't due to the brain.

Your own source contradicts you.

I doubt this would be a problem assuming a health viable brain was created, the people who suffer with that are brain damaged in a certain area. People have been shown to naturally adapt when holding tools and for all intense and purposes see them as extensions of there arms, hence they don't hit them accidentally against things because they are aware of how far there "artificial extremity" now reaches. One major problem would be accepting your new appearance if you changed bodies, this is a problem when people get partial or whole face transplants and extensive psychological testing and counselling is given before the procedure to ascertain whether the patient will be able to cope with the change.

Taking your definition of intelligence, most animal species wouldn't be classed as having it, when was the last time you saw a dog, having abstract thoughts, planning and reasoning. What they mean by an intelligent immune system is having cells with a very specific nature so they only bind to one type of thing and not any other, like locks and keys, only one key will work in a certain lock, if the key had naturally adapted to fit that lock it (rather than being designed to) it could be said to be intelligent. However, in the case of immune cells they do not evolve to fit "locks" (Pathogen associated molecular patterns/antigen) there are just so many different types of "key" (antibodys) that by coincidence one happens to fit, this "key" type (antibody) is then duplicated many times once it is found to be needed by the organism and binds to the foreign material (locks) the keys then attach to immune cells allowing them to swallow it up and destroyed with the lock (a bacteria or virus). What the marketing of their products claim they do is enhance your immune system, when really if you have a healthy balanced diet your immune system is already running at full capacity so can't be enhanced.

While I agree this is probably true that the systems will never be developed it is always nice to dream and when you get bored of that work out a work around to get a similar outcome. For example researches have stripped the cells off of a trachea of a donor to just leave its cartilage scaffold they have then grown the patients stems cells onto the cartilage creating a new trachea which won't be immunologically rejected by the host. In this case all you have to do is print the cartilage scaffold rather than get a donor one and you can grow the rest of the cells in vitro.

Surely you have missed the fundamental point that if he can predict anything, why would you need to ask anything, you would already know the answer, not to mention being the greatest gambler in history. That is dismising the point that if you can't use your memory how could would you know something has happen, if you can't remember something for all intents and purposes it might as well not happen assuming the consequences of the actions aren't obvious.

It humans symmetry of the face is deemed to be more attractive which has been shown in studies, I don't know if this also applies in the animal kingdom, or whether attractiveness is even considered by some species but it's a thought.

I really don't think you are going to be able help if when you here the term "smart autoimmune cells" your mind pertains to the idea that they can think. I just looked at 4Life's website and primarily what they are selling are vitamin tablets in a fancy bottle, nothing more nothing less, if you take a multivitamin you will do just as well, however in most people who have a balanced diet multivitamins are pointless as you already gain all the vitamins you need within your diet whilst them also being absorbed far more effectively in this manner, which just means you end up with expensive urine taking extras. The only real reason to take extra vitamins is if you are pregnant or happen to be anaemic. Athletes also tend to take extra supplements but these aren't normally essential and are more to get over the effects of the physical exertion they have put themselves under. Which product were you looking at specifically which made the claim of creating "intelligent lymphocytes"? (which it won't do)

This hypothesis now sounds similar to the fundamental principals of the aktins diet which removes almost all carbohydrates from the diet, there is no essential need for carbohydrates they can all be produced from fats and proteins via various cellular pathways. The real question is do you have any proposed system to stop the metabolism of external carbohydrate?

Maybe 25 years ago you should have started by producing empirical reproducible data proving telepathy works. Then...done something else for the next 23 years when the results showed a random distribution formed by chance.

Surely with the advent of 3D printing this could form a basis for the printing of extremely complex structures in the future such as arteries and axons which in theory if the printing and scanning technology is complex enough should be perfect replicas of the original. This doesn't really seem unfeasible in the near future. The structures could be printed in a sterile environment from real scans, forgetting the immunological problems that would occur with even the smallest molecular defect for the moment, it should be workable in the future for fair simple structures, especially if a repeating units are its main feature. The main problem comes when inserting these structures into a human where damage, infection, rejection can all occur in or after the surgery. Given that this is the case; if a molecule scanning process could be created that could perfectly copy all the molecules and structures of the body as a whole and then print this in a sterile environment this could be avoided due to the person being completed "in one go" per se. Now I understand this is in no way possible now and would cause myocardial infarction in an ethics board, but the basis of the technology is appearing, to print simple structures, I assume this technology will move forward to more complex items but will most likely falter at some point, but lets say it never reaches that point however it does become possible to print whole complex organs and surgery techniques advance enough to allow insertion of these. The real question is; if you could molecularly print a brain with an error rate of 0 and insert it in a younger clone of yourself (to remove immunological problems) would that be the same person as the original? I ask this because it has been shown that bacterial inoculation of the intestine in mice increases levels of anxiety over sterile control mice and tumours producing hormones can change behavioural traits. So does the brain really control everything or does it just regulate the systems and respond too their feedback and if these systems were altered (such as your brain or copied brain in a different body) would you really be the same person any more, is your personality just a function of the emotional perceptions of your brain to its surroundings or is it also effected by physical changes within the whole body. Most would say both are true but no one currently really knows to what proportion each effect is relevant. This point becomes even more pertinent when you take into account "random" mutations that occur and the differences in these between you and a clone, for instance, you "grow" yourself a 20 year old clone in some form of stasis (No idea how that would work) to have your brain inserted into, but you in your original body started to smoke at 16, say you smoked 10 cigarettes a day, given that research has show that you can one mutation per cell in your lungs occurs per 15 cigarettes you smoke, this would lead to the original you having 973 more mutations in your lungs at the same age than the clone you are inserting it into, that is not even mentioning the genetic differences that would occur of putting your brain in someone else's body if it were immunologically viable. Just some idea to think about, while completely forgetting the fact we are talking about taking your brain out.

It isn't so much the personality influencing the position, it is more the mood and mindset of that person that does it. The same processes occur when awake all the time you change your stance and posture depending on the people you meet and you can watch people change their movements while agreeing and disagreeing with statements made. Who says you still don't give body language signals when you are lying down, not to mention how would people know they have lost control over their movements when most don't even know how to interpret body language, if anything lying down would cause a new patient to feel exposed and close up their responses.

The process of gluconeogenesis start within the mitochondria, oxloacetate is reduced to malate using NADH which is turned to NAD+ In this case Oxloacetate --> Malate = Reduction NADH --> NAD+ = Oxidation These could be said to be coupled reactions because they happen at the same time for the same purpose and as you can see though the main substrate is being reduced (Oxloacetate) a secondary substrate (NADH) is also being oxidised creating enzymatically coupled redox reaction. The Malate is then transported out of the mitochondrion and the reverse happens Malate --> Oxloacetate = Oxidation NAD+ --> NADH = Reduction This happens within the cytoplasm rather than in the mitochondrial matrix, this occurs due to there not being a transport protein across the mitochondrial membrane for malate. This process also moves a reducing agent NADH out of the mitochondria and into the cell cytoplasm where it can be used to reduce other (non-mitochondrial based) reactions as well as supplying NAD+ to the mitochondria.