Re: Senescence and death as properties of life?

[Jerry Zhu <***>]

Judith's cell's self-reference cognitive mechanism as
possessed by all living systems is one of the two life
processes, cognitive process. The other is material
process.  As the process of scientific activities
includes proposing hypothesis to be tested and
refined, my take on cell death is that they die on the
failure of material process which energy and matter is
exhangable.  My hypothesis is based on sound logic
formulation having foundations based on thermodynamics
and dissipiative structure.  It would take a paper to
illustrate my view clearly.  The popular view of
programmed cell death concept is just against my
sensation on the issue such as the cell being old
enough so the suicide program is initiated.  My
formulation is the opposit that cells die young.   

Here is my question, if any observation has been done
that tracks the cell birth and death. I read that cell
split every seven years. Cell-split is not, in my
view, the parent giving birth a new one. The parent
disappears and two equal childern emerge. I will
consult biologists.

Jerry  

--- Judith Rosen <***> wrote:

> 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 ----- 
>   From: John M
>   To: ***
>   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
> 
=== message truncated ===



                
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs