Re: Senescence: Cells, ageing and cancer.

[Jerry Zhu <***>]

Hi Judith,

I just read that cancer cells divide too fast that
confirm my thought.  The birth rate is faster than
death rate. My view on this is extension of Pattee's
semantic closure.  The change of material aspects
(caused by noise) changes the symbol aspects that
control the divide and death. Energy level is the
important part of symbol espects.  I am not a
biologist neither I devote my time on it.  It catches
my curiosity.  I think today's science is not
philosophical and much efforts are dirctionless.  I am
working on a phiolosohy paper once done I can put it
online and share.


Jerry

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

> Jerry Z. wrote: Senescence of cell and senescence of
> organism are
> related?
> 
> Of course it's related! How could it not be related?
> We're talking 
> about parts of the same living organism. But how
> it's related and what 
> effects those relations create-- that's where the
> work has to be done. 
> I agree with you that aging isn't simply a case of
> all body cells 
> getting old. If it's the interface of the body with
> the encoded 
> information that the body's "internal predictive
> models" are based on, 
> then this would manifest itself as a global failure
> of the system 
> without any clear-cut local reason. Or, as a general
> weakening of the 
> system in its entirety, with a corresponding
> enhanced vulnerability to 
> all sorts of natural hazards of life. Every
> compensatory measure the 
> system generated would require a rebalance of all
> other relations 
> affected, and when this begins to happen often
> enough and fast enough, 
> the rebalance would never be completed before new
> ones arose. So the 
> system enters a phase of constant imbalance, which
> is not a good place 
> to be.
> 
> Cancer cells have all sorts of unique properties,
> unlike the body 
> cells they were supposedly borne from. For example,
> they seem to have 
> an entirely different sense of "self"; they've
> somehow reverted (or 
> evolved) to the individual sense that a new organism
> would have. How 
> to survive in the hostile environment in which they
> "evolved", how to 
> exploit all opportunities which exist in that
> environment, and how to 
> live, grow, and reproduce. There is no
> "intelligence" to it; it's all 
> encoded behavior and goes with the territory of
> being an anticipatory 
> system.
> 
> Body cells of a multicellular organism don't have an
> individual sense 
> of self, they have a "we" instead of an "I". So, a
> suicide protocol of 
> individual cells isn't really suicide-- not to the
> "self" that the 
> cells recognize. The "we" continues and that's the
> imperative all 
> individual body cells operate from. Cancer cells
> have an "I". They 
> have their own agenda and their own drive to live
> and survive, as well 
> as their own means for doing so. As RR described it;
> they are too 
> adaptive in the individual sense and will ultimately
> kill the host, 
> which they experience as "the environment". But
> their timeline is 
> different from our experience of time. They have
> endless generations 
> worth of time before confronted with the end. I have
> said before that 
> no organism has any notion of "sustainability"
> encoded into it. That's 
> not part of anticipation. The human mind, as far as
> I can see, is the 
> only anticipatory system that even considers a
> concept like that. Our 
> bodies surely don't.
> 
> But that doesn't explain aging. Cancer is a whole
> other phenomenon. 
> Even infants can develop cancer. There have actually
> been cases in 
> utero! But, like all complex systems, the way cancer
> develops from a 
> healthy body is a different process from the way
> cancer behaves once 
> it has come into being. I don't see how medical
> science can ever 
> really understand the nature of something like
> cancer without 
> considering the anticipatory aspects. And I suspect
> the same will be 
> true about aging, as well. So, Jerry.... are you
> going to be the one 
> who develops a breakthrough???
> 
> Judith
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Jerry Zhu
>   To: ***
>   Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 6:03 PM
>   Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Senescence: Cells, ageing and
> cancer.
> 
> 
>   Senescence of cell and senescence of organism are
>   related?  As Judith said that cells die even
> before
>   baby was born.  So the aging of cells is not
> related
>   to the aging of the person. Or it is not that
> cells
>   are old and die.  Too me cancer cells divide
> faster
>   than cell death. It goes against that cells are
> old
>   and can not divide.
> 
>   Thanks
> 
>   Jerry
> 
> 
>   --- Rodrigo Peláez <***> wrote:
> 
>   > The following appears in the last number of
> NATURE.
>   > It could be of interest
>   > to the list.
>   >
>   >
>   > This week in Nature four groups show, with
> striking
>   > in vivo evidence, that
>   > oncogene-induced cellular senescence represents
> a
>   > safety mechanism to
>   > suppress tumor progression. The identification
> of
>   > senescence as a defining
>   > feature of premalignant tumors could prove
> valuable
>   > in the diagnosis and
>   > prognosis of cancer. This web focus
>   >
>  
>
<http://info.nature.com/cgi-bin24/DM/y/hUTa0HWIry0Dn0kIh0EQ>
>   >  brings
>   > together key publications on senescence and
> cancer
>   > including primary
>   > research papers, News & Views and a review
> article.
>   >
>   > Is growing old a good thing? As cells mature
> they
>   > naturally stop dividing
>   > and enter a period called senescence. But
> cellular
>   > senescence can also be
>   > induced prematurely by certain oncogenes
> involved in
>   > cancer development.
>   > Four papers in Nature show that, as previously
>   > suggested by in vitro
>   > studies, oncogene-induced cellular senescence
>   > represents a safety mechanism
>   > to suppress tumour progression in vivo. Cellular
>   > senescence also plays a key
>   > role in ageing. In this web focus, Nature brings
>   > together articles on
>   > senescence and cancer with key publications in
>   > ageing research, including
>   > primary research papers, News & Views and a
> review
>   > article.
>   >
>   >
>   >
>  
>
<http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/senescence/index.html>
>   >
>  
>
http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/senescence/index.html
>   >
>   > Rodrigo
>   >
>   > PS: In my post about entropy-syntropy and the
> work
>   > of Luigi Fantappie, I
>   > make a mistake in the conjugate of the verb To
>   > Admire. I write "I admired
>   > very much the work of Robert Rosen". Of course
> what
>   > I want to mean was: I
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com