jimmydasaint

He actually takes into account pre-stress caused by osmosis as a passive mechanism contributing to the cellular architecture. However, the research owes much to the work of Buckminster Fuller. If Ingber's work has merit then it is ground-breaking in its scope. We are talking about contributions towards cellular differentiation, developmental biology and also to the genesis of tumours. I have also looked up one of his publications which seems to implicate 'extracellular matrix elasticity' and this is amazing! It suggests that gene expression is also controlled by the mechanical actions of the extracellular environment. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19242469?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I wanted to define it as simply as possible as: 'consciousness independent of the body/brain' but I am willing to go along with a definition from the dictionary: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMB_en-GBGB307GB307&defl=en&q=define:soul&ei=8A8GSrP7OsOfjAfQxtjnBA&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title The problem is that the word immaterial militates against objective research. For that reason, I posted an analogous experience where the consciousness appears to leave the body. However, there are questions against the rigorous nature of the research because so much of the 'evidence' is anecdotal. I would propose that the 'soul' would still maintain some sensibility including the senses and some memory. This is the tough one and I cannot think of an answer so I don't want to be glib response. I have to think about this one. I think the standard response would be that the brain is a mediator of the soul's actions, and that damage to the brain causes the soul to be faulty at controlling the body - deus ex machina in the loose sense of the phrase. However, this response takes us away from a methodology and is presented without proof. So, we appear to be back to the initial position, do the experiences of people which can be explained if a consciousness left the body constitute enough evidence for further research, or do we dismiss it as a fantasy?

Professor Ingber of Harvard Medical School seems to refer to art and architecture in his cellular tensegrity model. http://web1.tch.harvard.edu/research/ingber/Tensegrity.html Ultimately, it may suggest that nuclear and cellular gene expression is changed due to the architectural configuration and the environment of the cell. I just want to suggest a discussion on whether his findings are artefact or fact (excuse me for the pun in advance), or has he gone too far in stressing the architectural beauty of the cell and ignored the biological complexities of the cellular milieu? on flexible-puckering surface - rounded nucleus on rigid surface - flattened nucleus http://www.bio.miami.edu/~cmallery/255/255chem/tensegritymodel.htm#2

I would like to think of it as an independent consciousness. If we think of consciousness as being independent of the body somehow then I suppose it can be loosely defined as a 'soul.' It would be interesting to put it into a scientific framework, but I think no mainstream journal would accept the findings. Hence, I have mentioned that cameras should be trained on the subject throughout the experiment.

I take on board some of the points made earlier. However, I think there are people who claim that their consciousness actually leaves their bodies, retaining their senses. All I suggested was a possible experiment to show if this was a realistic phenomenon. However, it is better to do this experiment with methodical and sceptical scientists. I have found this extract but it is a dubious source: The experimental subject then correctly identified the number. However, the subject could have cheated and could have been coached: http://www.near-death.com/tart.html

I think this statement is quite strong and should be qualified by the phrase: 'until evidence comes to light.' I think it would be difficult for someone to imagine that there were sub-atomic particles until further evidence came to light. However, it does take me back to the O.P. If this thought experiment could actually be performed, and was successful, would you believe that there was a consciousness independent of the body, or would you believe that there was room for further investigation?

My 'get up and go' has just got up and went (Aerosmith)

I am just a simple minded man but is it possible for true randomness to select the Laws of Physics, setting them to finely tuned limits, e.g. the force of gravity or the speed of light?

I agree that the immaterial is untestable. However, is the immaterial then automatically categorised as unreal? The senses still categorise and analyse data from other sources which act like extensions to the senses. For example, an electrophoresis gel or a spectrum analyser still provide an 'image' of reality to the senses. I must state that I believe in God but that I also favour God setting the switch for evolution, so to speak. I am quite open minded in this respect. However, if you see the scenario I proposed Mokele, would you then be prepared to think again about the scientific paradigm?

Cameron, thank you for the answer. It is good to have a free imagination - sometimes the best ideas come from the most lateral of ideas. I am also thinking of carbon dioxide being pumped deep underground into underground aquifers. I think it is called sequestration, and it seems to be a simple and reasonably efficient solution. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=79496888400 Keep on coming up with ideas man.

Freedom is the ability to think without fetters, to speak without fear and to criticise without repression. OR There should be a cure for the human condition that we all share - apathy!

The soul, ego, independent consciousness is a central tenet of most religions. However, Science cannot allow for the belief of an independent consciousness that survives death. If I am correct, the scientific method depends on the senses as the only source of reality. However, to maintain some sense of balance, I think that it is only fair to allow people who are believers in a soul to come up with an experiment. I can only come up with one, as follows, which is a safer alternative to killing the experimental subject: A person, or people, who claim that their consciousness can leave their bodies during sleep, an maintain some vision or hearing, are safely locked in a comfortable room. Cameras are placed in the room and in other rooms around the locked room. Outside the locked room, there is a room with a filing cabinet. On top of the filing cabinet, the researcher places a note with 5 random numbers. The experimental subject is then allowed to sleep and is given the location of the note with the numbers. If the subject can repeat the numbers back on at least 6 different occasions, there is enough 'wierdness' to do further research. Any thoughts...?

Captain, I can still see it as a problem because India, and more importantly China, seem to be unwilling to reduce carbon emissions until they raise their standards of living - and rightly so. We in the West have taken advantage of economic growth for so long that we cannot tell other countries what to do. Thanks for the answer, it takes me off the zero mark for posts.

I don't know how solutions to reduce carbon dioxide are applicable to real life solutions. However, I have just read another potential solution (below) which, to my eyes, seems to be a bit difficult to take out of the laboratory to a large scale. I would also like others, more expert than my self, to please post possible solutions and appropriate references. It may then be possible to suggest three possible real-life solutions by the end. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090416/twl-environment-us-carbon-singapore-1202b49.html

Interesting OP. I think the effects of deficiency are probably quite pronounced in livestock, e.g. http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-DA/Magnesium_Deficiency.pdf but I wonder how pronounced an effect would be on humans, due to a short-term deficiency of vitamins or minerals. Note, I said short-term... Almost every doctor I have consulted has mentioned that we get the required dosage of minerals and vitamins from a well balanced diet. However, it is quite easy to switch from a well-balanced diet to a starch, protein and sugar dominated diet. At the same time, every alternative doctor I have consulted insists that people are short of some mineral or vitamin. To be honest, I am confused about the issue.

Thanks for the correction Charon Y. Yes, they use opines for the reasons you mentioned, and they also use sugars for aerobic respiration.

Thanks for the reply but it seems a bit confusing. From the viewpoint of the organisms, it seems that they have been selected to STOP these mobile elements from moving around the genome. I have also heard of gene duplications taking place in order to resist the actions of anti-tumour chemicals during step-wise treatment ( increasing dosages of anti-tumour agents being administered to tumour cells in vitro and gene duplication events taking place at each treatment until the numbers increased with increasing dosage). I would appreciate references. Thanks.

Just a thought - if DNA based transposable elements exist in high enough numbers then should they not cause an increase to the number of mutation events in evolution history, causing a larger variety of genetic mutations than point mutations which are neutral (or even those point mutations which may be deleterious)? So are transposable elements Nature's acceleration pedal for mutation prior to selection? Any views? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon

dab33r - You need to read up on the following: DNA Replication (Semi Conservative method); http://www3.interscience.wiley.com:8100/legacy/college/boyer/0471661791/animations/replication/replication.swf Transcription http://www-class.unl.edu/biochem/gp2/m_biology/animation/gene/gene_a2.html Translation. http://www.johnkyrk.com/DNAtranslation.html Then come back.

From the old text Cameron PS: It looks like the Agrobacterium uses opines and other carbohydrate sources to perform respiration and gives out carbon dioxide. Remember that parts of a tree that do not get sunlight, like roots also give out carbon dioxide and take in oxygen. If the leaves are damaged then the photosynthesis is seriously affected.

I must admit that I find that people use these words interchangeably and I am not trying to be pedantic but I just wondered when people get confused about the words: "loose" and "lose"? This is not the same as the words "practice" and "practise" which are pronounced in the same way. Any other examples where folks get a bit "discombobulated?" Oh hell! I'm competing with a Thread about sex...I guess I'll just return to the "Pedantic Review"

I think I read about the chances of an identical person being born in the region of 10 to the power of 30. So if you wait long enough and have all the DNA patterns stored on enough ID chips as a comparison - you never know....?

Anyway... I thought that matter had a wave-particle duality about them which means that one way of looking at a plant or animal is to look at trillions of waves choosing to stay associated with each other through bonds etc...In my view, waves carry energy so can we see each other as just energy?