amts

Do you mean that it is the OH group on psilocin that binds with the receptor? There probably are many other compounds with an OH group and another backbone, and they are not supposed to bind with 5HT2a.

The OH group is ~0.62% of the whole molecule, so there are way more molecule positions in space in which the OH group will be facing away from the receptor, so the active compound will not react.

Yep, get yourself a bs job first while implicitly getting yourself stroke, cancer and diabetes from it to pay for utilities and a few gallons of water per month and only then do great work.

Seems like psilocin is dephosphorylated psilocybin. But the main working indole structure with the side chain is preserved. So for a cell to get an extra phosphate rich in energy while producing psilocin for the host should be a bonus.

The general rationale seems rather feasible, given the application of the SSRI antidepressant fluvoxamine [1] to reduce severity of COIVD infection, as James Kirkland on STEM talk from the link below mentioned that senescence also may be induced by infections.

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6...

Yep, they show it's not a senolytic, but I'd like to see an experimental human group (preferably with a dopamine transporter allele making them more prone to placebo-like responses) being given psilocybin and told that it is a senolytic.

"Psilocybin treatment led to a dose-dependent decrease in cell cycle arrest markers (p21, p16, and p53) and an increase in markers of DNA replication (phosphorylated-Retinoblastoma protein; pRB) and proliferation (PCNA), as compared to vehicle-treated cells". They don't say it IS carcinogenic. At least this statement favors taking psilocybin after fasting/senolytics/autophagy induction.

"may mediate SIRT1-dependent pathways which impact cellular senescence". So if senescence is delayed by it and during this period SIRTs are activated, it may be anti-cancerous.

>>Surely there are downsides (cancer, ...)

Me doesn't quite understand the rationale behind this widely used argument. Ok, senescent cells emerge as a mechanism to ward off cancer. They are basically semi-cancerous cells with an arrested cell division cycle ("zombies"). The goal of cancer therapies is to eliminate cancer cells. So what's wrong with the elimination of senescent cells? (especially if you get new stem cells differentiating into new healthy tissue in place of senescent ones or let the surrounding healthy tissue to proliferate there)

State of senescence in cells can also be caused by mechanical stress [1], this is the basis of senescent cell formation in osteoarthritis etc. So maybe psilocybin is somehow generalizing.

[1]. https://www.ihmc.us/stemtalk/episode-122/ (47:30)

>>Evolution doesn't seem to optimize for longer lifespans.

Not quite true (if not weighting high on optimization). There are multiple species which are outliers by lifespan in their niches: whales, hydras, etc. Even within rodent family there is a wide range of lifespans typical for a species - from ~2 years for a mouse to ~30 years for a naked mole rat.

There are regenerative species with incredibly messy genomes which are biologically immortal. So relying on evolution as a main explanatory principle is not comprehensive enough (especially given that you can't currently reverse engineer much of the evolution subjects).

~"Part of an answer to a question lies in the definition of the question" (c) some famous physicist.

James Fadiman also conducted research on microdosing aiding problem solutions.

Were mRNA COVID vaccines expensive? Not like 100s of $. And there is mRNA platform developed by some European researches for controlled expression of the reprogramming genes. And in animal studies there were almost no adverse effects when this biotech was applied partially and in a time-controlled manner.

The only caveat may be types of tissues with rapid cell exchange or which already regenerate well, as the liver, for example. But it should be possible to bypass this by proper design of the treatment.

There is nothing related to "insulting or condescending".

>>You seem to

Is backed by experimental neuroscience research (not as much by "logical arguments") and it is obviously not = to "you are".

The fact that at the 3d comment of yours you're still mostly preoccupied with your self rather than the maximally objective discussion of topic at the url, only provides more proof to my assumption above and diminishes the informational value of your comments with regard to the topic.

Does Altos Labs applies anything like that? Seems like not a lot. And yet morphoceuticals.com achieves ~5x more in mice than Sinclair's epigenetic reprogramming with OSK genes, as apart from just the tissue of an optic nerve they regenerate the whole limb in mice and frogs while operating only on the surface of membranes with morphoceuticals and not messing with the genome directly.

Why morphoceuticals.com doesn't receive enough investments to start studies on non-human primates?

The anti-aging effects of rapamycin support the opposite of "pervasive accumulation of entropy" theory - which is that aging is a distorted development program, rather than random accumulation of entropy.

The definition of "random" implies by default that lack of information or knowledge on the object in question is primarily due to cognitive (and hence measurement) limitations of its users, rather than something being 100% objectively ingrained in reality.

>>The essay seems to be predicated on the mistaken notion at the time that the electron has no mass

Have you ever observed that an insulated copper conductor or a diode constantly conducting electrons in one direction would loose mass?

>>the time axis is slightly special: it's counted as imaginary (see Minkowski space: the distance contracts along the time axis)

Can you elaborate on this or provide more context/reading links.

There was a woman at True North fasting clinic with a 4th stage leukemia and she was cured by a ~20 days (or more) water-only fasting there (as it was mentioned in interviews on youtube with Alan Goldhammer, the founder of the clinic).

This psychedelics pioneer at John's Hopkins should rather focus on electrical theory of cancer (which may be neutralized by restoring electrical connections of cancer cells with their surroundings via ion channel modulators - morphoceuticals) rather than on these psychological pseudofarts.

You are making a typical overgeneralisation (or lack of consciousness) error thinking about "afterlife" as if it were any other object you're used to think of, thus making half of the question ill-formulated.

>>How does it "failed" for you ?

It generated ~0.01% of what was intended. The task is take an object from one type of images and insert it instead of another object from another thematic category of images. It tried to insert some very few elements of the first object alongside that another object, but not instead of it (didn't fully replaced it). And in one 3D render it inserted a graphical symbolic representation of this first object, rather than the object itself.

>>If there is little or no source data on a topic (as would be the case with my very specific questions on a rarely used processor) LLMs are (presently?) unable to detect that they are responding to a topic with limited contextual information and tailor their responses accordingly, and instead confidently provide utter nonsense.

That's interesting, what features of LLM/ChatGPT architecture are likely to drive this?

That's funny, there was a thread in HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34868374) regarding how folks are stopping their inborn "prediction machines" for a while in various ways to rather reliably get an insight afterwards into problems they're solving. So 'we' might be doing it also and might be not.

But I was curious whether it is just predicting the next bit, because I'd like a more or less knowledgeable opinion to quote elsewhere.

Is it all that it does is essentially just predicting the next bit depending on the training data?

"Each hour 430 quintillion Joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth. That's 430 with 18 zeroes after it. In comparison, the total amount of energy that all humans use in a year is 410 quintillion Joules." [1]

"The 70 percent of solar energy the Earth absorbs per year equals roughly 3.85 million exajoules. In other words, the amount of solar energy hitting the earth in one hour is more than enough to power the world for one year." [2]

"The total solar power hitting Earth is about 173,000 terawatts, or 1.73×10^17 joules per second. That’s roughly equivalent to the energy of 41 Megatons of TNT exploding… every second. It’s hard for us to comprehend how much energy a joule is (or even what energy is in the first place). But energy can be converted into mass, and we do understand what mass is." [3]

Thus, equatorial and semi-equatorial regions should be energy magnats of the world and be able to get nitrogen, phosphorus, water, etc for their food from thin air and sand. Yet, the relevant world has still to feed the majority of these regions, including the solar tech etc.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-potential-of-sol...

[2] https://www.ucdavis.edu/climate/definitions/how-is-solar-pow...

[3] https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-from-the-Sun-hits-the-...

> Prove that your anti-aging drug effectively and safely treats osteoporosis in the elderly. The FDA will approve it.

There are chemoterapies etc for cancer treatment approved by FDA (and its analogs in other relevant countries), which kill a ton of healthy cells along the way, and why is it considered safe? And there are many other approved drugs with severe adverse effects, why are they considered safe? While the only adverse effect for Yamanaka factors is cancer, which manifests with a long enough (month(s)) treatment to reverse cells the whole way back to pluripotency. And when Yamanaka genes are applied for a short time (~2 weeks), there are literally no adverse effects in mice.

By waiting for osteoporosis to manifest to have an approved reason to begin an approved treatment, you violate the Hippocrates oath, which states that prevention is better than a subsequent cure.

Pubmed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=grounding%20earthing) provides a dozen of studies with benefits of grounding, including cardiovascular, so there should be something to it. And I saw at least 2 more of them, where patients were beneficially grounded via a "neutral" electrical line in the wall socket. There are Direct Current Stimulation treatments to promote bone regeneration as well as for the brain and muscle and they minimally work. With grounding the type of energy may be a bit different, because Earth is a non-point source.

The zero ground potential is just a reference point of common agreement, it is zero in the context of electrical circuits, in comparison with known and controlled voltages of electrical components. But the ground itself is not zero: if you put the 2 voltmeter probes in the ground, you can observe rare random voltage fluctuations.

The Earth can be thought of as an anode, and the Sun - as a cathode. But the Earth as an electron source is obviously different than a van de Graaff generator, hence possible differences in current it produces.

You won't be able "to run around charged for weeks", because as soon as you contact a conductive surface or +charge careers, you drain the accumulated surface electrons.

> Increasing entropy in a system can be avoided with an external energy source.

There was a study probably cited by Sinclair in his Lifespan book with mice genetically engineered to have 0.5-1 degree less than normal body temperature. And they lived like ~30% or more longer.

Such hypergeneralised physical thought inevitably leads to necrology in the end-point measurements, rather than biology.

A study in primates/human glaucoma patients is underway (~next 2 years).

Randomized clinical trials are not as golden a standard as they seem and methodologically they are designed for human cattle, who do not choose what to consume and do not care to read a Wikipedia page or more about the drug they're taking or its target receptors they have, let alone any research on it. Thus, in an instruction label for an approved drug you'll see dozens of adverse effects, established in randomized clinical trials, yet close to zero information about the probability of you personally being affected by these adverse effects.

Likewise, there are ~thousands of "biohackers" taking the safe metformin off-label, for "anti-aging" purposes. And any interested individual can choose an experimental treatment, taking all the risks etc.

As per Hippocrates Oath [1]: 1) I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: 2) I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required 3) I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

How would you ensure a physician is employing the best of their ability? By their brain oxygenation level? Or dopamine receptors occupancy in prefrontal "executive" cortex? Thus ~90% of physicians regularly violate at least 2) and 3) statements of the oath, by not offering the possible experimental treatments in relevant sets&settings.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

Was it a Lenovo ThinkPad or another Lenovo product line? I have a cheapest HP laptop with crappy plastic casing for ~5 years plugged in, and its current battery capacity is only 96,2% from 100% after 5 years.

A battery may have a limited number of charging-recharging cycles. So depleting the charge obviously decreases this number, and thus battery life.

Lenovo ThinkPads also have been known for their good batteries.

You imply as if some stupid Windows 10 pre-installed on this laptop would perform some complex "learning" activity on the battery. Why a Li-ion battery sensor needs "to learn" how to measure the battery output, if its main function is just to register the already existing battery output?

If I have constant access to AC power, should I deplete the battery just for the sake of this odd battery saving recommendation?

Battery is not mentioned in the user replaceable units. But it should be relatively easy to remove and insert or replace a battery on a thinkpad E14?