Viser arkivet for stikkord vitenskap

Lobbyering for foryngelse-vitenskap.

E-post sendt til helse- og omsorgsdepartementet 25 mars 2013.

Emne: Sens foundation sitt satsingsområde.

Hei. Sens.org har fått ny nettside som forklarer hva de gjør svært godt for ikke-initierte i fagene de bruker. Spesifikt feks disse to: http://sens.org/research/aging-as-weve-known-it og http://sens.org/research/aging-as-weve-known-it/the-path-to-a-new-medicine
I og med at vi bruker 139 milliarder på helse og omsorg må det Sens Foundation gjør være en fundamental del av statsbudsjettet. Og også en grunnleggende del av helse- og omsorgsdepartementet i de neste hundre år. Sitat: “Scientific developments in the last few decades have laid the foundation for a new class of medicines: rejuvenation biotechnologies. Rejuvenation biotechnologies are targeted therapies that apply the principles of regenerative medicine across the entire scope of the damage of aging. In other words, instead of merely slowing down the accumulation of aging damage in our tissues, rejuvenation biotechnologies will remove, repair, or replace the damaged cellular and molecular machinery. This means that with every round of therapy, a person’s eyes, hearts, arteries, and bones will not just suffer less ongoing degradation of their structures, but will actually become more youthful and healthy in their structure and function, as the fine cellular and molecular order of these and other tissues are progressively restored to their youthful integrity.” Sitat slutt. Uten denne form for helse- og omsorg er det en matematisk sikkerhet at vi vil til slutt ha mindre BNP enn helse- og omsorgsutgiftene vil være, fordi vi blir stadig bedre å holde folk levende uten å reparere det underliggende problemet som Sens forsøker å delvis reparere. I gen-terapier i mus og en rekke andre arter har man sett økning i levetid på tosifret antall prosent med svært lite kostnader. Så selv la oss si 1:100 forhold mellom foryngelse-teknologi (noen må finne opp et bedre ord for det) og resten av helse- og omsorgsbudsjettet, vil over to-tre tiår gi mye mer effekt enn å øke resten av helse- og omsorgsbudjsettet med 1/100.

Vi må selvfølgelig ha andre ting også, smi på alle jern, frukt og mindre kjøtt, mer trening osv, men uten foryngelse-medisiner (dvs økelse i Healthspan) vil pensjonsalderen måtte forbli der den er samtidig som at folk kun vil leve lengre og lengre forbi pensjonsalderen. Og det vil effektivt bety slutten på velferden og det relativt lave skattenivået vi nyter i Norge.
Healthspan = Tiden man kan forvente å leve i så god helse som mulig. Øker man den, som foryngelses-medisiner vil gjøre, så vil man effektivt leve lengre i arbeidsfør tilstand, i så god helse at man ikke vil ha lyst å pensjonere seg før flere år senere enn i dag. Uten foryngelses-medisiner vil vår helse ved dagens pensjonsalder være lik, men vi vil kunne overleve lengre enn i dag i for dårlig helse til å arbeide.

Det er også en slags ukultur i verden å anta foryngelses-medisiner vil føre til overpopulasjon og en haug andre dårlig gjennomtenkte argumenter, men overpopulasjon forhindres med å produsere færre unger, ikke med å la være å forhindre dødsfall.

Det burde anses som uetisk å produsere unger og sløse penger på vei og alt vi vil ha “fordi vi er et rikt land” så lenge vi ikke satser på foryngelses-vitenskap.

Mvh,
Ronny Hugo Hansen Warelius.
@ronnyhugo

Did you get good ingredients to do great things?

Nothing ever comes from nothing. No invention is invented without most of its ingredients allready being invented. James Watt did not start the age of the steam engine, he merely tried to repair a steam engine made by Thomas Newcomen and stumbled upon a way to make it more effecient. The first artificial fertilizer was a failed attemt at making artificial diamonds, the first artificial dye was a failed attemt at making artificial quinine, todays strong steel was first made in glass furnaces, the electric spark was first used to find “bad air” because bad air was at the time what people thought malaria came from (“mal aria” is italian for “bad air”) and the perfume-spray is where the car manufacturers got their fuel injection system.
How then, can we expect that we will continue to make alot of new inventions and world-saving technologies when everyone get the same education, the same information, the same ingredients for making something new, did you invent something? Did any of your classmates? Did anyone in your school invent something? Did they add to scientific knowledge? Did any of you solve a problem? Did any of you figure out how to live a little bit longer? And if they invented something or added to scientific knowledge, did they need the information they got in school to invent that thing or to figure out that bit of scientific knowledge? And if they did use something they learned in school, did they only need a tiny bit of information from a single class in a single semester or did they need all of it? And when the people that decided what to teach in school looked through all the information, and obviously didn’t see ingredients that together could be put together to invent something world-saving or game-changing bit of scientific knowledge or technological invention (they didn’t invent something or publish a scientific paper based on what they decided schools should teach), how can we expect it will make others that learn this information invent something great? If the people that decide what schools should teach never gets an epiphany, never invents something new and never adds to scientific knowledge or scientific culture, based on what they decide schools should teach, then they obviously haven’t chosen the right information and way to teach.

School, all the way from the beginning, to the doctorate level, should be filled with good ingredients for invention, scientific progress, abstract questioning and cultural growth. There are those things we need to know to function in the world, like to add and multiply and to read and write, but when have you ever seen someone invent something because they remembered how to write a word or because they remembered what the name of a bird or cloud-formation is? When did you see someone figure out something new about the universe because they remembered when Napoleon fought a battle or figured out food supply was a military problem? When did you last see a physicist invent a new formula of mathematics that explains something about the universe, because he or she remembered how to solve an equation just by following the guidelines of how to solve a certain formula and not actually understanding the mathematics?

So how can we figure out what to teach, how to teach, so we get the true potential from education? I haven’t got a clue, yet. But be aware, however we teach the kids it better be good, because it is todays kids that will take care of you when you are old and if they lack a large enough perspective of time they’ll probably just dig a hole and toss old people into it not knowing they themselves will go there before their time. Can’t say I find it conceptually much different from what the previous generations has done to the future generations through pollution and all the rest of the shortsighted ideas that work extremely well, for just a while. I for one is extremely disapointed that you have spent all this money in ways that do not make us live longer, just because so many of you believe you’ll live forever after you die (did you not also teach us that one chicken in ones hands is better than ten hens on the roof?!).
But this blogpost is long enough, be glad old people; that it is seemingly impossible to travel back in time, if it wasn’t impossible we’d all be in big trouble.

Free will, a color.

Conservation of energy is the biggest problem to free will as it is traditionally thought about.
Conservation of energy mean that if you are floating around in space, then to move something has to act as a force upon you. Something has to hit you, or you has to throw some weight out into space, or you just stay still or go wherever gravity pulls you. And every human in existence will probably agree that a stone in space can’t control its own direction, and that it therefore has no free will. But the problem comes when it comes to humans and also to some extent animals and smaller living things.
I find very few who don’t insist that humans have free will. Almost everyone thinks we have free will.
So why this distinct difference in how we perceive humans and stones? I propose that it is in a way a “color” like sense. We separate between different frequencies of light as colors, we separate between different frequencies of air-pressure (sound) as different tones, and we separate between different amounts of saltiness, sourness, bitterness, sweetness and “umami” as different tastes, etc. I propose that free will, is a way for us to distinguish between two types of objects in the savannas of Africa. Mostly to separate between humans and inanimate objects and plants, but probably also to some extent to separate between inanimate objects and plants and animals. But there will be a clear distinction between humans and animals in how we perceive them, and an even greater distinction between how we perceive humans and inanimate objects/plants. Some may have slight variation in degree of this.
I also propose that animals and fish and perhaps more species, have this sense as well. It is probably connected to how they recognize which species they should mingle with (they can’t check in a mirror) and which species they are sexually attracted to.
The sense makes us act differently towards humans as to other species. For example, we treat criminals as free will having entities, not victims or patients. Yet we might easily see that a dog barked because he was scared, not because he is a social deviant. We even treat children to a large extent as free will enjoying entities, and whenever they do something we consider wrong many times, we may see them as social deviants instead of simply seeing them as the victim of the wrong situation or wrong influence from adults.

So what is this color identifying? It is identifying the possibility of the existence of one of three things:
1. A possible candidate of the opposite sex that allows procreation.
2. A possible team-player that increases ones own chances of survival and procreation (for males this is usually males, for females this is usually females).
3. A possible competitor for reproduction with candidates of the opposite sex (for hetero males this is other males, for hetero females this is other females).
(I didn’t include LBGT to this, its 05:42 in the morning after an all-nighter of work so its too complicated for me to write out)
If you have a parrot saying to someone that the parrot wants to kick someone’s face in, its going be the funniest thing ever. It is a benign violation. But if a human says it, it is going to trigger different pathways in the brain, because it is registered as coming from a “willpower” colored entity. Then the brain determines if this is an indication of 1, 2 or 3, and the person reacts accordingly to what type of behavior the brain determines it is.

This is sort of how I hypothesize it working:
free will is a motor-neuron effect we can break on purpose if we make lights turn on a few milliseconds to quick after you press the button. if the delay between the button being pressed by your finger, and the light turning on, is too short, then you get the overwhelming feeling that the light turned on by itself, because the feeling of pressing the button has not yet gone through all the necessary processes for the body to expect a result (the light turning on).
The body sort of works in cycles:
Wait for sensory change
process sensory change
act
wait for sensory change
process sensory change
act
wait for sensory change
If the time between the act and the activation of the sensory change input mechanism is too short, it breaks down. Then you might act, and then have sensory change before the brain is expecting it, and then it gives the extreme feeling that the sensory change was not caused by you. This is essentially where some versions of scizophrenia fit in, thoughts that aren’t your own, are then thoughts that you simply aren’t being told about in time to expect them.
Various other effects can also happen by messing this free will loop up. You can be unable to act (lame), unable to realize you are unable to act (you then make up some story about why you didn’t move your arm), unable to sense (blind, and then blind on all the other senses), unable to sense being unable to sense (blindsight I think its called, the person is actually blind but thinks he/she can see. Same with hearing, i bet, and other senses, being convinced he can taste, but not being able to, and so forth). And also of course being able to act, but unable to recognize act as ones own, and unable to recognize that one is unable to recognize ones act as ones own. This naturally leads to clumsiness to some degree, since we don’t have to have total blindness, lameness, etc, we can have various degrees of it I’m sure. And then it only is apparent that we can only partially recognize our acts as our own, when it becomes really apparent.
Also, various forms of autism is easily fitted into this hypothetical model, since they can be unable to see the “free will color”, and therefore don’t find any more reason to look at faces than we do looking at rocks. There is also no limit to which part of their brain can be sending signals that arrive late, due to various small faults in the brain-tissue that slow down or even stop the signals going between these “act – wait for sensory change – process sensory change” brain tissues.
Aspergers also fit into autism, with this model.