spacetimeuser5

yea, maybe. Just checked after posted the post. How many scammers are there on HN and YC Startup School?

I will be selling my property anyway, during the next 2 years, or so. So thus I can return the loan anyways.

My bank in LT requires proof of income, and my income is lower than minimum, because I am a student of CS so far only. And i do not need 6 month or more to return it, I may return in a month.

He could have tried injecting senolytics into the weared disks to remove senescent inflammatory phenotypes, as there is some research in senolytics (dasatinib+quercetin) improving arthritic knee joints by removal of senescent inflammatory cells which allows the new cartilage to grow.

Reduced skeletal muscle tone during sleep is pretty much established. If you find out, that there remains some increased muscle tone which correlates with insomnia or reduces the efficiency of PTAS, you could target it. Though you're already targeting it indirectly via delta waves.

That's ok. There just seem to be no explicit mentioning of that, that individual differences in real-time will be taken into account, just some textbook style description. Have you considered regulating skeletal muscle tone?

There is no information on what do they actually measure in every individual. Without some real-time feedback it seems somewhat not enough basis to deliver the treatment to the intended target. (But if they're hiring...)

P.S. The website design is also imho a bit wacky.

If 40 times a second is 40 Hz, than this frequency is pretty high for a deep sleep (in humans), 40Hz would mean some intense pattern recognition/focused attention.

In parallel with Darwin also try more recent advancements,like Don Hoffman's "The case against reality", where they prove that the probability that evolution will equip an organism to see the true reality is Zero.

100x was a demo, not an actual number. But please explain how does intracellular content with DNA, RNA, proteins, structural organoids and all of these metabolic constituents [0] is supposed to be the density of water. You want the cells in an endotelium of a blood vessel to float, allow the blood to get into the wall of the vessel and get hematomas and hemmorhages?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metabolic_Metro_Map.svg

>>how is the intracellular space denser than the extracellular?

Gemini: ``` Yes, the intracellular space is denser than the extracellular space:

Here's why:

    Packing: Cells are packed with molecules like proteins, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids. These molecules take up a significant amount of space within the cell, leaving little room for just water.
    Solutes: The intracellular space contains a higher concentration of dissolved molecules (solutes) compared to the extracellular space. This contributes to a higher density.
    Extracellular Matrix: The extracellular space, on the other hand, contains a looser network of connective tissues and fluids like interstitial fluid. This allows for more space between molecules, resulting in a lower density.

```

>>Still, trying to really figure out what the 'intention' was all those billions of years ago is hard

With this logic you'll need another billion of years to randomly figure it out. I'd rather focus on how/efficiently does such position contribute to a specific current experimental methodology or results.

All the empirical examples you mentioned pertain to the extracellullar space. So is this stochastic modelling also true in the intracellular space, which is like 100x times denser structurally, biochemically and bioelectrically (given that all biochemistry is effectively a type of electrical process involving very refined transfer/manipulations of charge densities), and allows to explain how do hundreds or thousands of biochemical reaction inside cells happen as required without interfering with each other?

Evolution also "tries" to save energy anywhere possible, so spending energy on the synthesis of endogenous ligands, which eventually will be discarded, seems a bit redundant. There is also a theorem in evolutionary game theory, that probability that natural selection will allow an organism to see reality as it is (=the truth) is exactly zero, as it's enough to make it just "good enough". I was arguing about that with Gemini, and it agreed with me. My point is that "evolution" is just a tool (like ChatGPT) with it's own instrumentally limited pool of empirical data (80% of which was also obtained from macroscopic enough observations rather than reverse engineering or experimentation) to build upon.

I actually want to apply one EE concept, which has some experimental basis. The reason why I am digging this, is that I am searching for some possible explanations of a couple of dozens of experimental studies in bioelectrics/magnetics I found. (though won't discuss in depth on a public forum)

Yea, that's correct. Though I may probably omit proteins and large moelcules, requiring transport vesicles and any specific transport mechanisms.

Stochasticity sounds like there has been performed some theoretical modelling to infer this. But does it imply that there would be some tiny % of any ligand molecules - endogenous or exogenous - which would just by chance get "an empty run" and didn't bind to their receptors (though structurally they're fine ligands with high affinity) and would be removed via waste removal systems? Is there any experimental evidence for this, like some study using radiolabelled high affinity ligand molecules to see what % of them gets into "an empty run"?

The mean free path seems sort of sensible in the extracellular space, though it still seems that the variables affecting mean free path (large amounts of receptors and binding thingys, the very small spaces, and the temperature) may be not enough. But wouldn't mean free path be near zero inside cells, where every nanometer should be occupied by some other biochemical pathway/reaction or bioelectric activity?

>>Neither you nor I will see biology as a mature science.

I personally wouldn't care a lot about proving anything to anybody in some absolute sense, but first of all to prove instrumentally and make stuff work for myself at least. I think that any biology student with the descent understanding should have some mini lab for personalized medicine (as e.g. Sinclair mentioned that his recent research on using 6 chemical compounds for OSK epigenetic reprogramming (rather than bulky viral vectors) can be done by any biology student).

I read one neurosurgeon (developing a theory of quantum biology) tell that mitochondria can develop voltage potentials comparable to a lightning bolt. Then searched a bit in PubMed and found something like still up to a couple of hundreds or a hundred milliVolts.

But I was curious, what do you think about the ways by which ligands find their receptors inside or outside cells in a dense bioelectrical and biochemical environment (as described here [0]). When I asked on stackexchange, they gave me a link about gradients and concentrations, but my question was about the very beginning of ligand's effect when it needs to find and activate at least one receptor. And no receptors seem to be able to "sense" a piece of space with a ligand's concentration, as they need direct binding of a ligand, but before this how does a ligand find a way to the receptor?

This may differ whether its a small or large molecule ligand, but my ligands of interest are ions (Ca/Mg, Na, K ,Cl; Li), peptides, anticancer drugs with metallocomplexes, ion channel drugs and similar drugs.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35854316

That's been reiterated by Levin at almost every presentation. Maybe he's overgeneralizing or there's actually a lack of specific experimental context or reference to a specific study. Maybe "anatomy" is a bit too broad of a term, and the thing inferred is some overall macroscopic patterning, so can't say definitely "untrue", as I haven't yet dedicated time to delve into specific articles and been just consuming lectures/presentations.

But I remember he was mentioning some study in left/right asymmetry in DevBio, where they've shown that it's cell potentials/bioelectric signalling and not genes that determine the left/right asymmetry in embryos.

>>When we say voltage gradient, think the traditional ions and the like. But also think of the voltage gradient that a protein can have too, with binding pockets and stuff. Think voltage gradients that are held in place by lipid rafts on the membrane too. Think also the osmotic potential that ion concentration will have, not just the raw total voltage of a voltmeter. There are a lot of components, and therefore gradients, that make up the voltage potential.

It seems that both Claude and you use "voltage gradient" and "ion gradient" interchangeably, which may be not technically correct enough. In electrical engineering voltage = potential = charge difference btw 2 points = the driving force that drives a current to "flow" from a point of bigger potential to a lesser one (typically). Thus it is voltage (or a field) that will drive an ion or any charge gradient.

At least in a specific experimental context and with specific animal models. When they mixed the embryos of a frog and an axolotl, there were no genes in their genome which could predict whether a "frogolotl" will have legs.

When in 18xx FDA or its precursor was being formed, its goal was to confine various "bioelectrical woo" present in medicine and biology at that time. And back then there was Rife's microscope, for example, which was able to accurately image living cells. Yet no-one tried to account for the cumulative damage/adverse effects done by FDA approved treatments in comparison with a potential or actual damage done by such "woo".

With such apparent speed and quality of research thought we will never have anatomical compiler, let alone electroceutocals and anthrobots, on a routine basis at least in the next couple of hundreds of years.

>>The bioelectric network is itself an expression of the genes involved in development.

Yes, you may need genes to express the proteins of ion channels and gap junctions, but there is no anatomy coded by genes, no genes code for how many limbs will a biosystem have (as reiterated by Levin). And it is this level of resolution that actually mattered for years before the launch of molecular biology and medicine.

>>It’s not a separate magical force.

Indeed, it sort of (suppose - by up to 70%) is. If the fine structure constant, which defines the strength of the interaction between a charge and an electric field, were 4% less or more than its current value, the current world and biosphere wouldn't exist. So far physics can't explain why the fine structure constant has this exact value (~1/137, which is also unique that it is a dimenionless constant). (I'm not inferring anything, just presenting raw data).

[flagged]

I am not advocating for anything, just exercising my English and typing skills. But you can try measuring more parameters in every person, integrate various findings from science and plan experiment design more carefully. I have heard about only one startup using AI to facilitate RCTs. A more optimal option is of course suicide, as the more of these RCT researchers will be out of the game, the more newer and more flexible brains will come in.

>>And in the case of the self-transforming machine elves we very clearly have a compatible alternate hypothesis: they are generated by the brain

And what is the actual evidence for this alternate hypothesis? Please provide the exact description of neuronal circuitry (numbers of neurons, network architectures, interconnectivity patterns, amounts of neurotransmitters used, spike patterns and the resulting EEGs etc) which generates this exact experience. Ask a distinguished professor of neuroscience. Use integrated information theory, emergent properties, quantum collapse in microtubules, whatever currently established paradigm - and provide the exact, 100% comprehensive and full description of the brain state that presumably generates this exact experience, also allowing to differentiate from all other experiences like just "machine elves", "non-self-transforming machine elves" or elves with any other properties. Or just begin with the 100% comprehensive and full description of the brain state/circuitry generating the taste of vanilla, which would be distinctly differentiable from the state/circuitry generating a taste of chocolate or garlic.

And what evidence do you actually have for your position? Your position is tailored to make subjects better taxpayers, rather than understanding how the brain/mind actually works. That's ok, than just assert this, that it is just a position amongst an infinity of other positions, rather than claiming that your position is the ultimate truth.

So someone is experiencing the self-transforming machine elves. Please provide the exact description of neuronal circuitry (numbers of neurons, network architectures, interconnectivity patterns, amounts of neurotransmitters used, spike patterns and the resulting EEGs etc) which generates this exact experience. Ask a distinguished professor of neuroscience. Use integrated information theory, emergent properties, quantum collapse in microtubules, whatever currently established paradigm - and provide the exact, 100% comprehensive and full description of the brain state that presumably generates this exact experience, also allowing to differentiate from all other experiences like just "machine elves", "non-self-transforming machine elves" or elves with any other properties. Or just begin with the 100% comprehensive and full description of the brain state/circuitry generating the taste of vanilla, which would be distinctly differentiable from the state/circuitry generating a taste of chocolate or garlic.

With astronomy, where the data are mainly derived from observations and simulations, no one is spreading alarms that it is not science. While with RCTs - and specifically RCTs in the filed of human cognitive neuroscience and psychedelics - there is all this monkey circus regarding whether placebos or psychedelic experiences are real. In human neuroscience ~80% of data is derived as well from observations and is effectively non-reverse-engineerable, while the hype regarding pseudoscience is much higher.

You buy aspirin in a pharmacy and the drug's instruction label lists tons of adverse effects - this is obviously a seemingly high quality of knowledge resulting from hard work in RCTs. Yet, there's absolutely no information predicting which exact adverse/beneficial effects will manifest in a specific person in a specific state of consciousness - and this is the actual empirical level where RCT derived information should actually matter and where it is ~50% useless (due to lack of context in RCTs themselves).

>>Say it with me, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Let's be honest with it. So someone is experiencing the self-transforming machine elves. Please provide the exact description of neuronal circuitry (numbers of neurons, network architectures, interconnectivity patterns, amounts of neurotransmitters used, spike patterns and the resulting EEGs etc) which generates this exact experience. Ask a distinguished professor of neuroscience. Use integrated information theory, emergent properties, quantum collapse in microtubules, whatever currently established paradigm - and provide the exact, 100% comprehensive and full description of the brain state that presumably generates this exact experience, also allowing to differentiate from all other experiences like just "machine elves", "non-self-transforming machine elves" or elves with any other properties. Or just begin with the 100% comprehensive and full description of the brain state/circuitry generating the taste of vanilla, which would be distinctly differentiable from the state/circuitry generating a taste of chocolate or garlic.

>>People totally blind from birth taking hallucinogens don't see entities

So these people do not trip at all on hallucinogens? Sounds like rather improbable. ~70% of what you call "visual experience" is driven by non-visual cortices, like anterior cingulate, for example. And even before the visual cortex, even on the thalamus level, the thalamus receives up to ~60% of top-down connections from non-visual cortices. You do not need to literally see anything in order to get the information about it. Get your potato, monkey.

>>By striving to cleave the drug’s effects from the context in which it’s given—to a patient by a therapist, both of whom are hoping for healing—blinded studies may fail to capture the full picture.

The amount of monkey types amongst these researchers is spectacular. In the current AI boom, with various RAG and prompt engineering, everyone is striving to maximize context, and no-one would deny that modern AI emulates parts of human mind/brain. And context sensitivity of quantum systems is also pretty much obvious.

Modern astronomy, for example, can pretty much as well challenge the standard of randomized controlled trials: no one uses experimental planets and galaxies to test their null hypotheses. No engineer would strive to falsify the objects they are developing by deliberately designing non-working engines etc. And this is pretty much considered science.

While these "social scientists" are still full of medieval bullshit, so that it is more optimal to commit suicide than use their evidence-skewed medicine, which under the hood by default considers the subjects are either rocks or dead.

Would you think that saving ~5K on property sale taxes in 2 years is not worth it if not saving and selling now would upgrade their tools/workspace?