Any arbitrary complex chemical reaction system perceives itself as life, from its viewpoint

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by mjs, Mar 14, 2015.

  1. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    So your point is that there are chemical reactions occurring in our bodies? That is true. Are we done then?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. mjs Registered Member

    Messages:
    38
    1)If life is just some chemical reactions, then in fact it will behave as a chemical automaton underneath it all, because it’s a series of chemical reactions. Foods and microbes of the gut are the first substrates and excretions are the last products. If living beings really are chemical automatons, then the outcome of the resulting reactions and the phentype can be influenced by specific combinations of food and microbes. For everyone there will be a certain diet able to make the reactions of its body to remain unchanged, or even better to shift to a previous condition. To me, this is the ultimate fate of scientific progress. To map each persons list of chemical reactions and intervene accordingly. Either directly r from the beginning of the chain, ie the food.

    Although not exactly at this direction, a new initiative is approaching this concept already. It is called Longevity cookbook. It is more about scientific research than gastronomy. You can check this out and you can even contribute to this project that is a run by a group of California- based scientists I think.


    2) And in a theory of life as a system of complex chemical reactions near the surface of earth, it is obvious that life in the land and life in the sea is the same system, with reciprocal interactions, as they theoretically both belong in the same system of reactions. However, most of the communication (if there exists one), must be carried out by bacteria, phytoplangton and other small organisms in general. Recently a new way of interaction was found, that wasn’t expected. Scientists demonstrated that microbes in seawater controls the chemistry of sea spray that is ejected into the atmosphere. The study was published recently in ACS Central Science.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Life is a series of extremely complicated electro-chemical reactions and we are not automatons.
    This is true. Extreme examples are eating salmonella bacteria can kill the organism. Eating a Amanita Ocreata mushroom will also ruin your whole afternoon.
    Huh?

    Yes, in general a healthy diet will help you to live a longer life than unhealthy diet.

    I would agree that the chemistry of life is more or less the same for all life.

    What the hell is that suppose to mean?

    Are you talking about the study that showed that if bacteria did not consume decaying phytoplankton that some of the organic molecules from the decaying phytoplankton can go airborne from the surface of the ocean? That does not seem particularly revealing or surprising.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Life, as we know, occurs in water, with all those millions of reactions occurring within water. If we change the solvent, to anything else, very little, if any of these reactions will continue. Life stops and a few sputter reactions may still occur. You need the organics, but the organic alone, without water, don't work. This observation implies water is part of the process.

    The reason why water is so needed, can be understood with the basic system of water and oil. These can be mixed if we add energy, but left alone they will separate. The reason for this is water forms hydrogen bonds and can lower its energy by binding to other water molecules, much more than it can, by binding to oil molecules. To lower energy, the water separates from the oil and the oil being left behind starts to bind with itself. Oil is not really all that phobic of water, as much as water is phobic of oil. Water can hydrogen bonds to oil and this can be good for the oil, but this is not good for water. Water runs the show and tends to separate and isolate other things. Other solvents don't segregate as much from organics.

    The net result is, all organics, including polar organics, face a similar problem within water, more so than with any other solvent. Water still prefers to segregate itself, even if the organic molecule can form hydrogen bond, because water can form four hydrogen bonds with other water. This is still better than just one or two. The two helixes of the DNA can both hydrogen bond to water, but water prefers to exclude these to themselves.

    The net effect are the organics of life tend to get segregated into pockets, by the water, such as enzymes and organelles. These become like little beads of oil scattered all over the cell. The water's need to separate places things under tension. This is useful since this tension is part of the potential needed for reactions.

    Water is a very crowded place, due to hydrogen bonding. It is not an ideal solvent to move it. When thing move in water, water has to be displaced. Picture trying to walk to the stage, from back, in a crowded open concert. It is very slow going, unless you can find a seam of people in motion, and flow in that stream.

    Water coordinates these seams and does so because it can change volume by shifting between two hydrogen bonding states. Water expands by 10% when it freezes, due to the hydrogen bonding shifting. If you need room to move, water can get skinny to make room. It can even get fatter to put on the squeeze; reset enzymes.

    Although water is a crowded place, the hydrogen proton connected to water are quite mobile and are the fastest things in water by a factor of 10. If you need to get things ready, hydrogen is already in motion; Speedy Gonzales. The pH effect is connected to this mobile hydrogen in water. The ionic currents in neurons are slow compared to the hydrogen, because they have to tow water, while hydrogen can move by itself.
     
  8. mjs Registered Member

    Messages:
    38
    Chemical reactions and Aging

    If the phenotype of an organism is the sum of its chemical reactions, one thing is obvious. That these reactions become different as we age. However, we don’t know whether the initial reactions are programmed to change and lead to the latter ones, or the transition is a result of other events. In other words, is it possible to maintain the same composition of reactions for a long time, thus preventing changes in phenotype, thus preventing further aging?

    Answer: In the case our reactions are programmed to change, then things are more complicated. However, in the case that the reactions can be maintained as they are, then it can happen. And below is a possible way to achieve it.

    The most important thing is to prevent changes. This can be achieved by providing a certain amount, composition and pace of initial substrates to the reacting system in the form of food. We are only interested in maintaining the system unchanged. We don’t care about the composition of this system, as long as it remains unchanged. This means that any diet that repeats itself every day,( that is providing everyday the same nutrients, in the same manner without any deviations in the routine) can cause the maximum of phenotype preserving in an organism, providing that the diet is viable and supplies all essential elements for life.

    Question: Is there any existing evidence that this theory can work in reality?

    Answer: A possible evidence can be the fact that the long term maintenance of the same weight (which is achieved by relatively stable food habits) pose an anti-aging effect. On the contrary, frequent changes in body weight accelerate aging.

    Additionaly, anyone that tries to lose weight with the help of a specific nutrition, knows that even if he is very compliant to the perfect diet, he must periodically eat something else so as to further make changes in his body, because the body gets used to the diet and resists to further loss. It seems that eating the same food both in quality and quantity tend to cause stabilization of our body’s composition.
     
  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    The Phenotype is not the sum of it's chemical reactions.

    The Phenotype is controlled by the organisms Genes and the environment.

    Eating healthy is important to a healthy long life. It will not stop aging and if you eat a perfect diet you could die at 40 or 90, but no matter what you eat the chances of living past 120 is about 1 in a 1,000,000,000.

    Again this is not magic if you eat healthy you can on average probably gain a few years of life.

    We all are going to age, we are going to become feeble and we are going to die, unless we are unlucky and we die early. In my opinion is the best we can hope for is to take care of ourselves so that the feeble stage is as short as possible.
     
  10. mjs Registered Member

    Messages:
    38
    Everything is impossible until you see it happen. Life is a natural phenomenon, and as such, it obeys to natural laws. This means that trying to find ways to extend lifespan is justified. There must be a way to do it...



    If you can add some few years, how can you make these "few" years to become increasingly more? I quess after years of research this interval would be constantly increasing.
    Additionally, you won't have to wait 150 years to see if a possible intervention works on humans.
    Athough not definite, there are indirect ways (e.g. gene expression patterns) to estimate the aging related outcome of an intervention, without having to wait 120 years. An example is here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150610131728.htm
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Is it possible for you to write in 1 or 2 lines what the point of this thread is? It seems to be lurching this way and that with no direction or point.
    Are you trying to say if we eat the perfect food we won't age or something?
     
  12. mjs Registered Member

    Messages:
    38
    Exactly!! But not only this. Chemical reactions of living beings behind all, are just common systems of chemical reactions with all the proprerties of common chemical reactions.

    Under this scope, although food can have an influence, due to the complexity, only complex food regulations can have significant effects. Additionally, a steady diet can cause a more steady body composition (compared to other diets) with all that this means for the aging process….And this is easily testable, for instance in rodents, in which expression of aging-related molecular pathways can be compared between different diet groups....

    In conclusion, research on the longevity effects of nutrients should change from “does the consumption of this x vitamin pose anti-aging effects?” to “constantly modify a known anti-aging diet to seek for a better one and let the evidence quide you towards the optimum diet”.



    Life as chemical reactions, diet and human disease

    Cancer

    If a living organism is a sum of chemical reactions, then tumor cells are also a group of chemical reactions with specific by largely unknown properties. What is known however is that the reactions of the tumor have deviated from normal metabolism. Tumors are characterized by cells that are rapidly replicating. Hence, chemical reactions of the tumors are turned into “fast forward” mode. The rapid use of glucose in cancer is the basis of a powerful diagnostic test called PET scan, as tumor cells selectively uptake the tracer.

    What causes the shift into unusual metabolisms is a hot topic in cancer research nowadays.

    Over the last decades, scientists have found a lot with respect to molecular pathways linked to cancer. They have also managed to analyze cancer genomes rapidly and in great detail, with the help of next generation sequencing. However, results from targeting these pathways with drugs has proven to be relatively disappointing, mainly due to a significant amount of cross-talks between pathways.

    Currently there is enthusiasm for immunotherapies (that can extend life for some months in some selected cases), but the next best thing is the study of cancer metabolomics. More and more scientists discover metabolic disruptions that are oncogenic. Metabolic disruptions and the speed of tumor chemical reactions can be exploited from scientists to develop novel treatments.

    Additionally, complex metabolic disruptions are found also in other multi-cause chronic diseases such as atherosclerosis, autoimmune diseases etc. Most of these conditions are age related. Seems that metabolic disruptions due to aging are hidden behind these age related diseases. It is something like a whack a mole game.
     
  13. mjs Registered Member

    Messages:
    38
    The concept that caloric restriction without malnutrition can increase longevity is known for many decades. As a result, numerous studies had been performed, in order to study the effect of nutrition in healthy lifespan. A thorough analysis of all the studies strongly supports the concept of living beings as complex systems of chemical reactions. I will explain:

    First of all, what happens in a complex system of chemical reactions? Without providing initial substrates for reactions (food), then the existing system will reach an equilibrium state and die. If insufficient amount of food is provided (malnutrition), then equilibrium will be eventually be reached at some point, as well. If sufficient amount of initial substrates are provided, then the reactions will happen normally. If you provide some additional substrates, this will neither be of a benefit for the system, but it will be an extra stress, nor the pace of the reactions will increase. On the contrary, it will have a negative impact on the chemical reactions.

    Now, why existing evidence support this is the case?

    a)The fact that nutrition affects longevity points to a mechanistic system .

    b)The differential effects of caloric restriction on different organisms are dependent on the composition of the reactions of each organism. Caloric restriction effect is not universal.

    c)Everytime there is a lowering in metabolic rate, there is an increase in lifespan…Slower reactions last for more…simple as that.

    d)This cannot be satisfactorily explained by a reduction in the production of reactive oxygen molecules as the culprit of this phenomenon per se, as some studies provide contradictory results.

    e)Some studies in insects has shown that the relative proportion of nutrients (e.g. proteins/carbohydrates) is what plays the most decisive role, not caloric restriction.

    f)Caloric restriction(CR) only produces longevity if it counteracts a significant metabolic imbalance. Animals under CR were compared to ad-libitum controls, that usually become overweight and obese. CR increases lifespan only in animals that become obese while on ad libitum diet. On the contrary, weight stability was an indicator that animals were receiving an optimal diet, so as to reach the longest lifespan possible.


    For further study, I propose this article as well as some of its cited references …

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891584914002317
     
  14. mjs Registered Member

    Messages:
    38
    According to the common viewpoint, life is an open system that interacts with external energy. The mainstream viewpoint is that this causes a decrease in its entropy, enabling life to emerge on the first place and to sustain itself, thus avoiding chemical chaos. In return, the system releases entropy to its surroundings so that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is not violated.


    The common view that the origin of life is characterized by accumulation of order, as order means lower entropy.


    However, the term order can be very subjective, as an object non involved in life such as a rolling stone can say that it sees no order or no meaning in living systems’ chemical reactions. Just chaotic chemistry. So lets just leave order on the side and calculate entropy changes directly.


    Does the entropy in living systems actually increase or decrease? If it increases, is it doing so in a pattern that suggests an arbitrary system? Although I am not a physicist I will welcome suggestions on how to calculate changes in the entropy of life over time.


    Here are some simple approaches: Forgive me for any mistakes…

    1)Does the life-associated heat production increase or decrease over time and how? Can life-associated changes in temperature be calculated?

    2)Since chemical systems with higher entropy are characterized by increased gas production, does a life-associated gas production increase over time? In a system of decreasing entropy, one would expect a declining life-associated gas production…

    Any ideas

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    No. I like most people stopped reading your posts long ago because they are nothing more absurd pseudoscience.
     
    exchemist and Kristoffer like this.
  16. mjs Registered Member

    Messages:
    38
    1)Even if no one agrees with me, it doesn't mean i am wrong!

    2)The fact you disagree with something does not make it pseudoscience. Any opinion, no matter how outrageous sounds to you, can be considered scientific as long as it can be scientifically tested and falsified...
     
  17. mjs Registered Member

    Messages:
    38
    Entropy in life: Increase vs decrease


    Question: If we let alone a cell in an isolated box, the result will eventually be a chemical mixture and not the organized cell. The final disordered mixture is more entropic than the the organized cell. Doesn’t this prove that lowering entropy is a hallmark of life and every organism spends an amount of energy to increase its order??


    Answer: Not necessarily. The story of any individual living being actually is a journey towards gradual decay into disordered chemistry. In the beginning it’s a zygote in which so much information is disclosed about future events, patterns, etc in a very small space. So we can say that a zygote has less entropy compared to later stages. This entropy gradually increases as we become infants, childs, teenagers, adults, etc, because less and less information is carried over time…

    A simple cell in isolation will indeed decay quickly, but don’t forget that cells never exist in isolation, and higher organisms are much more complex and they interact with external energy. So the fact that they don’t instantly decay doesn’t necessarily mean that they use energy to decrease their entropy. Never underestimate our inability to fully comprehend the value of huge numbers.

    I will explain:

    Lets assume that a human body everyday degrades towards a higher entropic state. Lets assume for this reason, that after each day, the body loses, lets say 100 thousand of chemical reactions. Suppose we have an 80 years old man. He has lived 29200 days. This means that he has lost nearly 3 billion reactions during his lifetime. If the total amount of chemical reactions he has is, lets say 1 trillion, then after 80 years he will be composed of 997 billion reactions, which means virtually still 1 trillion. So the impact of the whole process on the chemical reaction count will be almost negligible.

    Of course, if we stop giving him food, he will degrade faster, but this is an example how can life can be compatible with a gradual loss of entropy.





    Question: Isn’t a cell is much more ordered than its components?


    Answer: A cell is much more ordered than its components, but what you forget is that a cell never exists in isolation. It owes its existence and its properties to the fact that it belongs into a more generalized phenomenon that is called life, which is an open system and interacts with external energy.

    Imagine you have a flask with water that is heated with fire. The molecules of water will start speeding randomly toward various directions. Virtually, what you are doing here with the cell argument is ignoring the fire and the majority of other water molecules and focusing only on subset of 2 specific molecules. These molecules will be perceived as gaining speed without an obvious reason, thus seeming to decrease entropy, as well as other known laws is such a way that it has to be characterized as an independent phenomenon that has to be studied….




    Question: Isn’t glucose and oxygen more ordered than CO2 and water?

    Answer: In order to build a house, you take the bricks and put them together. But you don’t build a cell in that way. A cell or a living being is the way it is because of the other living beings, ie because of the existence of what we call life on earth. Cells or living beings never exist in isolation.


    Question: Isn’t it difficult to measure changes in order in particular organisms or cells?

    Answer: Yes, but if life as a whole is a sum of entropy decreasing entities, then the entropy of the whole system will be decreasing accordingly over time. In this case, the total amount of entropic releases in the environment will be changing over time accordingly. I think this can be measurable....
     
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    True, you are wrong because your ideas are demonstrably incorrect.

    Your ideas can be tested and falsified. So they are wrong.
     
  19. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    It is really simple, all life increases the entropy of the universe. Life takes energy from the environment to grow and direct chemical processes. Life does not use the energy that it obtains from the environment with 100% efficiency - entropy increases. Really, really simple and straight forward.
     
  20. mjs Registered Member

    Messages:
    38
    1) I am glad you agree that my arguments are in the range of "testable and falsifiable" and thus our discussion is not in the range of pseudoscience.
    2) Please provide me the the link of an article you are referring to.
     
  21. mjs Registered Member

    Messages:
    38
    What about life's own entropy? Is there such a thing as "life as a whole"? If yes, what are its entropic changes over time?
     
  22. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,320
    "Any" isn't the case. A randomly selected, specific instance of complex organization (especially when minus a brain-like component) will not commonly, functionally entail an *understanding* of itself in extrospective / introspective contexts. Anymore than tornadic activity is a feature of all instances of weather. In addition, static structures and propagating environmental energies -- which we can usefully construe generically as "information" -- actually lack inherent meaning or a "prior to processing by a system" knowledge significance. So there would not even be a ready-made, objective model or perspective to be absorbed by a passive chemical system when stimulated by such affairs (much less having its own personal attribution of itself to a category of "life"). [*understanding* = memory dependent interpretation / recognition, analysis / synthesis, new concept / category generation, etc]

    Alternative-wise (that is, deviating from standard materialism), it's not entirely clear that a panpsychic cosmos with a mechanism-skirting consciousness would necessarily exhibit ideational stances in every micro- and macro- region of itself (atoms, bacteria, meteors, clouds, tables, etc). Though full-blown "mind" seems etymologically implied by the term, panpsychism has been often evoked to merely refer to ubiquitous experiential or qualitative occurrences outrunning cognition.

    To stray yet farther from contemporary rote, with immaterialism: In his later works, George Berkeley clarified that "God" did not actually "perceive" the vast parts of the world unobserved by lesser minds in the same way as humans (by sense or passion). Rather they were "perceived" / maintained in some abstract way more along the line of the ancient Greeks' intellectual version of reality. However, even in that ontological doctrine, an empirical brainless organization of complex interactions -- as well as a simple rocks -- would (independent of our perceptions of them as material phenomena) subsist in God's non-phenomenal apprehension of them, rather than have their own personal conceptions of themselves.

    So switching to some of the alternative metaphysical subsets which pre-20th century naturalism once flexibly permitted itself would still not necessarily yield "ANY arbitrary complex chemical reaction system perceives itself as life, from its viewpoint...". The emphasis, again, on what "any" implies: A larger, unwarranted membership.
     
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    No, it is still pseudo-science.
    I am not referring to any article.
     

Share This Page