|
Hi John,
It's hot here, too.
I have to tell you that, in my opinion, you have misunderstood just
about everything I've said, relating to the discussion at
hand. I have never been hold hostage by
the "cell" model. Nor have I (unlike you, I might add) drawn
any "final conclusions". I don't know if you've ever watched any of the original
Saturday Night Live shows, but... you're doing the equivalent of going
on and on about "violins on television". However, to make
something productive out of your rant:
The discussion is about senescence, or aging--AND death...
which are both hallmarks of living systems. The discussion is,
further, about whether or not these phenomena are generated at the
cellular level even in a multicellular organism. It's clear that single celled
organisms experience the same two phenomena, and that individual cells in
multicellular organisms exhibit similar patterns, as well. The questions Jerry
has been asking have to do, it seems to me, with whether or not the progression
of senescence at the level of individual cells might be a useful model for
comparison and investigation of the same progression at the organismal
level, and vice versa.
Senescence is a subject that Robert Rosen did quite a bit of
work in, over his career. Since aging and death are part of life and
living, these phenomena are very much the province of biology.
He had very definite opinions about the causal basis of it: It has to
do with the nature of Anticipation and anticipatory system control. In his view,
senescence is a consequence of the interaction between the
"internal predictive models" and the behavior of the actual contexts that the
models are supposedly referring to. Specifically-- they begin to
bifurcate from one another, as he put it. The contexts which are
represented in such internal models have not been studied by very many
people but logic suggests that they must, at the very least, include the
internal "self" context and the external (non-self) "environmental" context
as well as aspects of how the two interact with each other over cycles of
time.
My interpretation of how Robert Rosen's work may apply to
Jerry's question is this: If we agree that each cell in a
multicellular organism must have the same set of contextual models, then the
"self" model (even at the cellular level) is going to be that of a multicellular
organism. In other words, individual body cells would not have the same "self"
behavioral entailments as single-celled organisms would. I'm not sure how
this would impact the use of a body cell's patterns as a model for the
patterns of the whole organism, but I tend to think that it would be better
to construct such a model based on single-celled organisms
and their aging/death patterns. At least in that case, the "self" context
would be analogous.
Incidentally, it is worth noting that all organisms seem to
have more than their own individuality encoded as "self"-- there's
clearly a species aspect to the definition of "self." This is
more visible in organism species which are dependent on sexual reproduction
because each gender clearly has the other encoded into it as
well. What this means is that if a species has two genders, any
individual organism isn't really "whole".
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 4:59
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] cell split and
death
Jerry and Judith:
could you raise your views from the
"cell" model which
depicts a bag made of membrane molecules, some
goo
inside with ingredients (some of them!) are involved
in already
discovered "chemistry" and act out some
well defined (similarly already
discovered) actions on
other "cells" or similar?
We set those boundary
conditions and squeeze part of
the (still unknowable) so called "life
process" into
the inside of such phantasms.
I got news from you - (I
believe in the spirit and not
within the learned and applied biological
science of
RR) which contemporary as it may be - is obsolete for
us) -
the living atom called cell is part of the TOTAL
and interacting/inter
effecting (with) them all. The
"scientific" reductionistic analysis boiled
down the
procedures into cell-life and synthesized from that
fiction the
"organizational" life.
The process Jerry detailed is "senescence"
(see: Stan
Salthe) and is representative in all 'biology'. The
suicidal
'cells' are observed in psoriasis, mostly on
the surface of the skin.
Since I am not a biologist, I wonder: Jerry's "split"
of cells refers
to mitosis or to some proliferation
where only as an end result can a split
recognized.
Lots of ingredients (including what you may call
energy) -
known or still undiscovered - pass the cell
membranes, which may be
semipermeable, but do not at
all "close off" a plenum. It is so easy to
draw final
conclusions on a part of a complexity with limited
view into
only limited aspects (and limited
conclusions). It may be good for a Nobel
prize, but it
is far from the unattainable accuracy.
Politicians
can play smart in subjects they have no
idea about, for so called
scientists it is
dis-allowable in the topic they regard as their own.
I accept talking about 'cells', 'energy', 'mass',
even
consciousness and mind, but get irritated when final
conclusions
are drawn and their further consequences
regarded as the sole 'truth' by
self-smart pretension.
It is 96F and even through the A/C it gets
to me.
My apologies
John M
--- Jerry Zhu <***> wrote:
>
When cells divide they are no longer there only
> becomes new
ones. Parents cells do not die. They
> become childern cells
themselves. I think cells
> split
> at later age. Age is
measured by energy level
> stored
> in cells. My estimate is
that cells die at early
> stage in similar way babies die. They can not
make
> it
> into adults. This proposition can be observed
>
experimentally. There might be research being done
> showing when
cells disintegrate. To my estimates,
> energy plays important role
in the process.
>
> Jerry
>
> --- Judith
Rosen <***>
wrote:
>
> > There have been a lot of experiments into this.
Do
> a
> > google search on
> > Hayflick: He was able
to show that most cells will
> > only divide a set
> >
number of times, and then they disintegrate.
> >
> >
However, that's not the same as the programmed
> cell
> > death
that I
> > posted stuff on a few weeks ago, whereby certain
>
> cells initiate
> > suicide processes as part of normal
"healthy"
> > functioning of the
> > organism. The fact
that organisms actually have
> such
> > a capability is
> > what amazes me.
> >
> > Judith
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From:
Jerry Zhu
> > To: ***
>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 8:09 PM
>
> Subject: [ROSEN] cell split and death
> >
>
>
> > I was wondering if anyone has thought about
what
> i
> > am
> > thinking.
> >
> > Any observation has been done on the
ballance
> > between
> > cell split and cell
death and how such ballance
> is
> >
maintained?
> >
> > If cells go through stages
such as infancy,
> youth,
> > middle and senior
age, at what stages do cells
> > die?
> >
>
> Jerry Zhu
> >
> >
> >
|