Next Generation Emulation banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
NextGenerationGaymulation
Joined
·
2,775 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I doubt anyone else looks upon it the way I do :S, When you're dead, let's say your body is burned, but even if it's not this reasoning will work.

When you burn most of your body will be converted to gas form and fly away with the air. However not all of your DNA chains will be separated, this means there's a a chance ( even if it's ) 1/(10^(99999999999999999!^9999999999999!) that they may somehow get togheter again. However chances are much larger that parts of them makes there way into a human through eating rise or food, and when it can be part of their childrens DNA the chance for this is small ( but it would explain people having memory of being another person in a earlier life, wouldn't it?, I mean there's some people that one can be almost certain do remmember some other persons earlier life )

So to the persons afraid of death, maybe it'll be atleast a little comfort knowing that as long as the earth exist ( and even if it's destroyed but it'd certainly make the chances even worse ) you might come to exist within someone elses mind, and you can be certain THAT whatever happens you'll always be around in some sort of form.

The last part can be proven easily by science, as for the other stuff, well I doubt anyone could prove me wrong.

I know you'll all think I'm crazy now, but after all it'll not matter in the form I have in a million years.
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
8,882 Posts
DNA degenerates very quickly, but that's besides the point.

Your genes do not store any memory - not a single thing. If you canibalized someone (thus eating of all of his DNA contained in his memories) you'll not absorb a single part of the eaten individual.

When you eat beef, you don't get any of the cow's memories, right? Or when you eat a tomato you don't get slightly red because of the tomato's genes :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
WTF? So are you saying that whenever I eat dna, it becomes part of my own dna somehow? That's just ludicrous. Science has never proved anything like that.
 

·
<font color="#990000"><b>Lurking</b></font>
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
The covalent bonds between the double stranded helix structure of the DNA would probably break if you consider the amout of heat you need to combust human body ( which is around 200 C IIRC),..could be wrong though. Moreover, I don't remember coming across a reference which states the DNA posses memories. What we know now is that DNA is reponsible for defining each person's characteristics, and is reponsible of defining the offspring characterstics ( along with it's sex ) after the sperm and ovum fuse.


Yours,
-Elly
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
8,882 Posts
DNA CANNOT possess memories. DNA DO NOT change over time, except for random mutations (which are then passed on to offspring).

Anyway, the phosphodiester bonds of the DNA molecule are strong bonds, but specific genetic information is quickly lost (random bases are knocked off quickly) - the best identifiers in this case are tandem DNA repeats. But as I've said before, this is besides the point.

DNA cannot transmit information between living organisms by ingestion - this is preposterous. And DNA cannot store memories or specific personality traits (DNA is more like a recipe of an organism, and less like a blueprint).
 

·
NextGenerationGaymulation
Joined
·
2,775 Posts
Discussion Starter #6 (Edited)
there's always a small change that part of the genetic information can stay togheter one way or another. But I should not have mentioned DNA in the first place, it was simply a way of explaning the principle. ( Besides with todays science it's possible to manipulate DNA in diffrent ways and preserve it aswell, so in the right environment it's very possible for it to be preserved upon death aswell )

Consider the structure of your memories ( we don't know exactly how the brain works ) but if the bonds here are stronger they could very well be hard to separate.
As for the cow, I doubt the cow has the same memory structure as a human.

Also given the % chance I gave for it to happen, notice that I by no means saying that if you eat something it would happen only that there's an extremly SMALL chance of it happening to your child ( after all part of what we eat are transfered to them, for example eating pills to get small will improve the chances of your child to turn lesbian/gay so what we eat affect how they are for sure (there're many other studies on this subject))
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
483 Posts
:rotflmao:

Without bothering to correct your ridiculous grasp of the details, let me just say that you are completely confusing the scale of the respective operating systems.
Memory is biochemically encoded at the larger cellular level (neurons), not at the genetic scale.
The same is true of your example of food ingestion, which you then broadly relate to a poor analogy of birth defects: FYI, not all ingested chemical substances are mutative agents!


OT:
I've never understood the premise of Mr. Sinister from the XMEN. It really isn't that hard to forensically retrieve DNA samples.:p
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
8,882 Posts
ChankastRules said:
there's always a small change that part of the genetic information can stay togheter one way or another. But I should not have mentioned DNA in the first place, it was simply a way of explaning the principle. ( Besides with todays science it's possible to manipulate DNA in diffrent ways and preserve it aswell, so in the right environment it's very possible for it to be preserved upon death aswell )
Whether the DNA in our bodies is preserved or not after death is irrelevant. Genes are useless if they don’t express themselves, and they need fully functional cellular machinery to do that. As I’ve remarked, you eat whole strands of DNA all day (after all, all living organisms in Earth’s biosphere share the same underlying genetic code).

ChankastRules said:
Consider the structure of your memories ( we don't know exactly how the brain works ) but if the bonds here are stronger they could very well be hard to separate.
We don’t have a perfect model yet, but we’re getting closer to it. Memories are formed at the neuronal level, we’re sure of it (recent evidence has suggested that it needs an ensemble of neurons, rather than single neurons, but the basic argument still applies). Memory is a function of neuronal organization (including synaptic configuration). We’ve already figured out this much. So, there’s no way memories could reconstruct themselves once your brain decays (and it happens quickly – neurons die quickly without oxygen). Brain death, once it occurs, is irreversible. Not even mature molecular nanotechnology would be able to undo the damage (it can, in principle, restore the individual to life, but it cannot give back lost memories).

ChankastRules said:
As for the cow, I doubt the cow has the same memory structure as a human.
You’re assuming too much. Considering that cows are mammals too, I would suspect a similar mechanism for memory formation. Granted that long-term memory storage will be a very different thing (our brains are different, after all), but don’t expect a widely diverging memory formation mechanism between members of the same class (mammal is a class, belonging to the chordate phylum).

ChankastRules said:
Also given the % chance I gave for it to happen, notice that I by no means saying that if you eat something it would happen only that there's an extremly SMALL chance of it happening to your child ( after all part of what we eat are transfered to them, for example eating pills to get small will improve the chances of your child to turn lesbian/gay so what we eat affect how they are for sure (there're many other studies on this subject))
Part of what the mother eats can affect (the keyword here is “affect” not “transmit”) the embryo during gestation. Teratogenic substances, for instance, can cause deformities in the embryo, especially during the early stages of gestation. Several drugs can also affect the fetus negatively (thalidomide, anyone?). This is not to say that the ingested food is imprinting something onto the DNA of the embryo/fetus – the change is only at the phenotypic level, not the genomic level (that is, if you were to clone a child born without arms due to thalidomide use, the clone would grow up to be a normal child). Such changes are all somatic changes, nothing more.
Changes at the genomic level in the infant are always of a random nature, and in most cases they’re harmful (in the few remaining cases they’re neutral). DNA mutation due to radiation is one such example.

But all of this is beside the point as well. Memories cannot be transmitted through eating the flesh of the deceased. The cannibals of primitive tribes like to think this way, but we’re enlightened people of the information age, aren’t we?
You wouldn’t be able to absorb someone else’s memories (not even an infinitesimal part of them) even if you ate their whole brain, raw, just after they died. The process of eating would destroy any remaining neuronal connections, not to mention the neurons themselves. That’s why I’m telling you that the whole idea is absurd.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
177 Posts
Aye bolt is right DNA doesnt store memory. BUt I see where your getting at with the DNA floating around.... if you want to go into that you could assume that sneezing on a pregnant women during the early stages of her pregancy might have a chance of recieving a part of your own dna.. I personally dont think so but its a thought.
 

·
NextGenerationGaymulation
Joined
·
2,775 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Ohhh, well I guess my theory needs some polishing before it is done. You've all made very good points.

On the other hand Boltzman this leads me to a intressing question you are saying what the mother eats can affect the embryo, and what I said was that her eating diet pills can make the child become gay/lebsian ( there's many more example of certain effects that are the same depending on what the mother is eating ), is this not a state of mind?, this would mean that there are ways to affect the mind by what you eat? ( or that all the research and investigations in this area are void, and invain )

It's possible to implant computer chips acting as neurons to affect your brain, so obviusly it most be possible to manipulate this structure in different ways, and even a way to electronical transfer neurons?, also neurons can be recreated in your brain ( unlike what we thought a couple of years ago) the questions are many, how are they recreated?, and wouldn't it be possible for someone else to recreate them?

BTW, I know I haven't put much attention to many details, but this is something I want to discuss, however I'm pressed for time during my finals :) still I find this discussion very intressing.
 

·
<font color="#990000"><b>Lurking</b></font>
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Your so called "theory" ignored the knowledge we have atm. It's like speculating if cows can fly to the moon or not when we know that the force of gravity will pull down the cow as soon as it jumps ( hehe ; I've yet to see a jumping cow though,....unless it was mad :p :D )

ChankastRules said:
what the mother eats can affect the embryo, and what I said was that her eating diet pills can make the child become gay/lebsian
Homosexuality genetic traits and influences are still researched ( not that I believe homosexuality is a encoded into our genes from the first place...). This is the first time I see such statement. But generally speaking, such chemical alteration usually fall into mutation.

Computer chip transplants? There was once when they attached an electronic "eye" linked to the brain of a blind person through a small hole in his head. Result : He was able to see a "blurry,distorted" image. I don't see why computer chips can't be implemented, but not at our current level of knowledge. I don't see them replacing our nervous system either, I see them as a means to aid the handicaped. Though, we have cell stem research which can supply us with "human spare parts" once deemed successful ( and I personally favour that. The only thing holding it back is the means of research, which is a subject of ethical issues...lets not get into it ).

PS : ChankastRules ; you've got my vote for the nutter of year awards :p

Yours,
-Elly
 

·
NextGenerationGaymulation
Joined
·
2,775 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Acctually, it's possible to do what a remote control / game control can do with a implant directly into your brain.

As for me being a nutter :( :( I don't think anyone have a better scientific explanation compared to my theory about why people can remmmeber stuff that other people have known. Anyway just regard me the way people though of ( Max Planck ) ( yes he was a physics person ( he's the founder of the quantum physics infact which in itself is crazy :) ) and everyone though he was crazy. For example with the quantum physics theory material things can go right through walls without being affected at all ( which they can :), and it sure sounds crazy. I have a EXAM on thinga like this for gods sake so if I'm crazy blaim him!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
ChankastRules said:
Ohhh, well I guess my theory needs some polishing before it is done.
Sorry to say this, but your theory doesn't need polishing. It needs to be thrown out the window because it is just plain wrong. And even though Boltzmann gave you concrete evidence and reasons for it being completely wrong, I don't need a vast knowledge of dna and neural functions to realize how laughable your theory is.

ChankastRules said:
As for me being a nutter I don't think anyone have a better scientific explanation compared to my theory about why people can remmmeber stuff that other people have known.
Since when have people remembered things that other people have known? This has never happened to me or anyone I know. Nor have I heard of this happening at all. The only thing I know that is even remotely related to this is reincarnation, which there is no solid evidence for in the first place.
 

·
NextGenerationGaymulation
Joined
·
2,775 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Oh, rest assured my theory will be back and much improved ( with links supporting each of my claims, unfortunatly this will have to wait until after my exams )

Meanwhile here are some crazy but true stuff to consider:
We move with an "FPS" good news for all gaming people :) it goes up to several million "frames per second", but our movement is not continues ( read any book on quantum physics to see for yourself )
Things can be at two places at the same time ( read any book about quantum physics )

Lastly boys can be pregnant ( I'm sure some of you know about the boy who carried another boy inside him until he was seven years old, and the other boy was still alive )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
ChankastRules said:
Oh, rest assured my theory will be back and much improved ( with links supporting each of my claims, unfortunatly this will have to wait until after my exams )

Meanwhile here are some crazy but true stuff to consider:
We move with an "FPS" good news for all gaming people :) it goes up to several million "frames per second", but our movement is not continues ( read any book on quantum physics to see for yourself )
Things can be at two places at the same time ( read any book about quantum physics )

Lastly boys can be pregnant ( I'm sure some of you know about the boy who carried another boy inside him until he was seven years old, and the other boy was still alive )
Can you say birth defect? The boy wasn't pregnant, by any rational definition of the word. More than likely, the two children didn't develop properly while in the womb, so part or all of the body of one of the kids was attached to the other one.
 

·
Crotally Tazy
Joined
·
4,582 Posts
ChankastRules said:
I don't think anyone have a better scientific explanation compared to my theory about why people can remmmeber stuff that other people have known.

I think it would be more convincing if you uttered something about Delta or Theta waves for cases as such. :D
 

·
NextGenerationGaymulation
Joined
·
2,775 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Acctually in my improved theory I will supply mathematical formulas :)
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
8,882 Posts
ChankastRules said:
Ohhh, well I guess my theory needs some polishing before it is done. You've all made very good points.
No offense man, but you've no "theory" at all. At best you have an hypothesis, and I've already shown it to be false.

ChankastRules said:
On the other hand Boltzman this leads me to a intressing question you are saying what the mother eats can affect the embryo, and what I said was that her eating diet pills can make the child become gay/lebsian ( there's many more example of certain effects that are the same depending on what the mother is eating ), is this not a state of mind?, this would mean that there are ways to affect the mind by what you eat? ( or that all the research and investigations in this area are void, and invain )
Excuse, but I've never heard about diet pills making children become gays/lesbians.
I do believe that homossexualism has a genetic origin, but that's a long way from diet pills taken during pregnancy. If you could provide me some links your story would be more believable.
Anyway, I've already explained what the potential effects of the mother's eating habits on the embryo.

ChankastRules said:
It's possible to implant computer chips acting as neurons to affect your brain, so obviusly it most be possible to manipulate this structure in different ways, and even a way to electronical transfer neurons?, also neurons can be recreated in your brain ( unlike what we thought a couple of years ago) the questions are many, how are they recreated?, and wouldn't it be possible for someone else to recreate them?
So what? Computer chips can replicate our brain structure, but what is the relevance of this to our present discussion. If I eat a computer chip, I'll not absorb it into my system, even if it [the chip] were emulating a neural network.
I'll say it again: kill someone and eat their brain and you'll not get a single scrap of memory.

ChankastRules said:
Meanwhile here are some crazy but true stuff to consider:
We move with an "FPS" good news for all gaming people :) it goes up to several million "frames per second", but our movement is not continues ( read any book on quantum physics to see for yourself )
Things can be at two places at the same time ( read any book about quantum physics )
And your point is?
Are you just trying to astonish (and confuse, I presume) us with ideas from quantum physics?
Rest assured that I've read several books on quantum physics, and I'm very familiar with most of it's effects.
We know that energy levels are not continuous at the microscopical, but vary in discrete quantities which are directly proportional to Planck's constant (h), but so what? What's the relevance of this to the current discussion?

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Schroedinger's quantum wave function are nothing new, either. And they've nothing to do with the present discussion as well.

ChankastRules said:
As for me being a nutter :( :( I don't think anyone have a better scientific explanation compared to my theory about why people can remmmeber stuff that other people have known. Anyway just regard me the way people though of ( Max Planck ) ( yes he was a physics person ( he's the founder of the quantum physics infact which in itself is crazy :) ) and everyone though he was crazy. For example with the quantum physics theory material things can go right through walls without being affected at all ( which they can :), and it sure sounds crazy. I have a EXAM on thinga like this for gods sake so if I'm crazy blaim him!!!!!!
Max Planck was a very respected man. He was not called "crazy" as you suggest. His ideas about discrete units of energy ("quanta") were well-received, because the alternative (the ultraviolet catastrophe of Rayleigh-Jeans) was even more unpalatable.

And quantum physics is not "crazy". It's counterintuitive, but it's extremely well-supported by the data. I can only call a theory "crazy" if it's both counterituitive and unsupported by the data.

BTW, quantum tunnelling on macroscopical objects would be very, very, very, very improbable. Just do the math.

No ofense again, but don't try to compare yourself to Max Planck (or Albert Einstein, or any other famous scientist). Planck provided us with a very coherent theory with an undeniable math component. You've only provided some scientifically illiterate (such as suggesting that memory could be stored in DNA) vain speculations. Comparing yourself to Planck only makes you look more like a crackpot. (Look at Alex Chiu , for instance. He compares himself to Einstein and Tesla in order to justify his wacky ideas. And you're not doing any better.)
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top