Saturday, October 18, 2014
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Monkey caloric restriction study shows big benefit; contradicts earlier study...The study of 76 rhesus monkeys, reported Monday in Nature Communications, was performed at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center in Madison. When they were 7 to 14 years of age, the monkeys began eating a diet reduced in calories by 30 percent. The comparison monkeys, which ate as much as they wanted, had an increased risk of disease 2.9 times that of the calorie-restricted group, and a threefold increased risk of death."We think our study is important because it means the biology we have seen in lower organisms is germane to primates," says Richard Weindruch, a professor of medicine at the School of Medicine and Public Health, and one of the founders of the UW study. "We continue to believe that mechanisms that combat aging in caloric restriction will offer a lead into drugs or other treatments to slow the onset of disease and death."...Weindruch also points to some results from the NIA that seem to contradict the "no significant result" analysis. Twenty monkeys entered the NIA study as mature adults, 10 in the test group and 10 in the control group, and five of these (four test monkeys and one control monkey) lived at least 40 years. "Heretofore, there was never a monkey that we are aware of that was reported to live beyond 40 years," Weindruch says. "Hence, the conclusion that caloric restriction is ineffective in their study does not make sense to me and my colleagues."...-link
Calorie restriction seems to be showing noticeable benefits on primates.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
while I'm not sure if the measurements are reflective of increases throughout, say stem cells, it has been claimed that a vegetarian diet combined with even modest low intensity exercise can increase the length of telomeres in humans by a noticeable amount.
I've heard that some doses of melatonin are able to reverse thymic involution in nonhuman animals.
Regards natural substances, we have to remember that some can interact with regulatory proteins and alter gene expression.
For example I believe that CR is at least in part probably an artefact of metabolic regulatory networks and not a primarily evolved survival mechanism, it works up to around 65% restriction in some animals but requires optimal nutrition unlikely in any natural environment at that level of restriction. If you can mess directly with the signaling pathways there's no telling what the limits are, as you wouldn't be bound by minimum survival necessary caloric intake limits, and multiple substances are emerging that appear to affect the signalling directly such as nicotinamide riboside, and the various partial cr-mimetics(resveratrol, fisetin, pterostilbene,etc). There's also probable dietary means of also activating these signaling pathways such as low methionine diets, which can be combined with the substances and probably yield additive effect.
The telomere study wasn't large but iirc, it took measures after five years, which should give time for changes to accumulate, between comparison groups and had noticeable differences
"The group that made the lifestyle changes experienced a “significant” increase in telomere length of approximately 10 percent. Further, the more people changed their behavior by adhering to the recommended lifestyle program, the more dramatic their improvements in telomere length, the scientists learned.
By contrast, the men in the control group who were not asked to alter their lifestyle had measurably shorter telomeres – nearly 3 percent shorter – when the five-year study ended. Telomere length usually decreases over time."-http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2013/09/108886/lifestyle-changes-may-lengthen-telomeres-measure-cell-aging
"I believe CR is an evolved mechanism for population regulation. Think of it as aging extra fast when there is a temporary plentitude of food, so overpopulation is a risk. The idea that CR life extension only works with optimal nutrition has become part of the biological lore, but it has never really been tested. At the very least, there are big exceptions, as when insufficient protein and methionine help to ENHANCE life extension from CR."
While I don't remember the source I've also heard it must be gradually undertaken or else no lifespan benefits are seen if it is introduced all of a sudden in adult organisms, in nature it seems sudden famine is more likely. Also it seems to work up to about 65% in some animals, even if we were to assume no supplementation is necessary in more mild calorie restriction, it is unlikely there wouldn't be serious malnutrition at such extreme levels, yet it keeps on working past what would seem like natural environment nutrient limits.
Regards methionine, iirc, it's believed to be one of the key signals of nutrient availability which is used by the mechanisms of cr, but it cannot be reduced beyond a certain point without severe side effects.
As for testing malnutrition CR I would imagine you consider CR not effective in humans or else some of the poorest on earth would be breaking records, which they're not and would serve as a test if it is effective in humans.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
[quote]Most people imagine that shortly after the first human level AGI is created an SAI is destined to emerge shortly there after, one that is absolutely unfathomable to our puny little meat brains. When the truth is our brains could put Watson to utter shame (assuming they had a way to assimilate the data rapidly) if they were redesigned and optimized for a such narrow task..[/quote]
While difficult, comparative genetics can show the modifications from simpler mammals like rodents, to primates to humans, and even among humans the differences bestowing greater intellect. It remains an open question how straightforward the modifications are, is there a clear path or if they're highly specialized and totally unique with each leap in capacity. If it turns out that in general there has been a straightforward route of modifications to the neural wiring and computing algorithms employed in animals as their intelligence increases, then it will be possible to extrapolate the design choices forward to their theoretical limits.
[quote]If you speed up a monkey 100 fold, that monkey will just do monkey things 100x faster. I don't see why it should be all that different for humans.[/quote]
Given 100xspeed up a human could master countless fields of science, with the plasticity of a child he could easily attain human native performance in countless languages, and with enhanced memory he could have encyclopedic knowledge of all he masters. A monkey is a sublinguistic entity and thus limited in what it can endeavour, discover and accomplish, a human is not bound by such limitations.
[quote]Trying to turn a digital computer into a brain, though, that is an entirely different prospect. I would compare it to trying to modify a candle through step by step alterations (each stage of which functions well enough to be useful) until you have an electric light bulb. One can obviously make trivial similarities between candles and light bulbs (both provide illumination) just as one can with computers and brains (both process information) but the differences in design principles are so profound there really can be no evolution of one into the other.[/quote]
The difference is that it is assumed what the brain is performing is computation, if it is then like flight happens with planes without turning them into birds, a different architecture that is universal can also perform the same computation, because algorithms are substrate independent. Of course if it is doing some spooky or magical thing that is not computation then it can only be approximated.
That is when you go into the camps of those who say physics is computable, including quantum physics, and not even quantum computers are more powerful than traditional turing machines albeit faster at certain tasks, and those who say physics is not computable. Even in the case of physics not being computable, it is said that it is not possible to physically build a computer that surpasses a turing class computer, so the brain would have to not be a computer at all or if so it would need to be some manner of hypercomputer or such claims would have to be flawed.
[quote]The difference between the the most idiotic of our species and our most accomplished has little if anything to do with the speed with which the brain "computes". Instead it has everything to do with the integrated models that are physically instanced within each particular brain.[/quote]
Both white matter quality and grey matter volume have been linked to iq. White matter increases speed, but within a simulation it is possible for the communication to appear to occur instantaneously for the simulated entity. As for increased grey matter, Increasing the number of elements is also trivial, and in a few decades we may have countless exabytes allowing for countless number of elements.
There are other variations such as the size of various divisions within the brain, in sensory areas making those with less allotment more suceptible to illusions in said modality. There are also countless variations in many parts of the system at a molecular level, making some more prone to hostility, with worse or better memory, more faithful, easier to get addicted, etc
Monday, June 2, 2014
"The Republican ideals nowadays have no reality, alternate or otherwise, that make any sense at all. You can't limit/reduce education funding, limit/reduce access to healthcare, limit/reduce access to WELFARE, vote against the minimum wage increase, protect huge corporations with law loopholes, and then tell people to deal with it and feign that you actually care about the American people. You're cutting-off every facet of reasonable aid to them, one by one."-Funkymunkey, neogaf
"... If I ended up divorced and jobless I would be dead within a year of being unemployed, because no matter how much I save up now (I'm saving around 60% of my paycheck right now) I'm still fucked by medical bills. I'd have to crash at a friend's place because I have no family, and there is no way can I expect any of them to foot the cost of my health care.
I have two auto immune diseases, one genetic which it caused the second, that will kill me if I don't treat it daily. This means I can't even live out of my fucking car (which is bought and paid for) and shower in a fucking 24hour Fitness to struggle and get by. With health care costing what it does now, think I can manage to survive taking shitty jobs that pay dirt?
So if I lose my job (and I even have a four year degree) and can't find another within a year do I deserve to die? I don't even have any fucking dependents either and I still wouldn't be able to keep myself alive on minimum wage. But fuck me, I guess my DNA didn't pull on its bootstraps hard enough.
Many people have it significantly worse then you do but we should just watch them slowly work themselves to death because no one wants to pay employees livable wages, despite the fact the jobs they do are necessary for society to function. Fuck you, I have mine." -Alchemy, neogaf
A nice quote on a minimum wage thread over at neogaf.