Slashdot Mirror


Mitochondria and the Prevention of Death

H_Fisher writes "Research into mitochondria — small structures within a cell that have their own DNA — suggests that they may be a cause of cellular death, according to Newsweek. The article The Science of Death: Reviving the Dead reports on people who have recovered from sudden death due to cardiac arrest through the use of medically induced hypothermia. The cooling process may help stop the death of brain and heart cells initiated by the mitochondria once they are deprived of oxygen. The article goes on to probe delicately at the question of where a person's personality 'is' between death and later revival, and describes several ongoing scientific studies of near-death experiences."

58 of 453 comments (clear)

  1. It's not exactly mysterious. by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Funny

    A person's personality goes off to Digg when they are Mostly Dead.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by JonathanR · · Score: 2, Funny

      Netcraft confirms it.

    2. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fuck off you redneck piece of shit. Murdering animals for sport is reprehensible. I don't want to see your bullshit on slashdot anymore.

      Ah. Do you trot out the same eloquent sensibilities for people who buy a new pair of leather shoes at some point before their last pair wears out? Oh, that's fashion - that's different, I guess. And what sport is it, exactly, that you think I'm practicing? Personally, I eat the birds and other animals that I personally go out looking for and bring home to the kitchen. And for each one I cook, that's one chemical-filled, agro-biz-raised taste-free farm animal I'm NOT eating. Do you eat the worms that are sliced in half while the soy plants for your tofurkey are being cultivated? Do you stand underneath the spinning blades of a nice, Green-friendly power generating windmill and eat the birds and bats that are beaten to death and fall to the ground so that some electrons can make your Wii glow and amuse you? What? I'm being presumptuous about your habits? Huh. It's almost like I don't know you, or something. Sort of like you're spouting a bunch of condescending crap that serves only to illustrate your own ignorance, bigotry, and malice. Which is fine, and you won't see me scolding you about where you can do it. Not to be confused with your take on things. I'm so glad that you're here to serve as thought police and to be the mind-reading arbitor of activities about which you - clearly - know nothing, but about which you none the less have formed a complex, nuanced, fully contemplated opinion. I mean, how else could you arrive at such a compelling, informed, and audience-changing bit of rhetoric? It's freakin' GENIUS, man. Wow. You've worn me out, and now I need to eat some protein. What do you recommend? Chicken? No thanks. Wild pheasant is far, far healthier.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by ozphx · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mod parent: +5 Hippy Ownage

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    4. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      personally my game hunting weapon of choice is a stick of dynamite. i sneak up on my prey and insert it quickly and silently into it's anus then light it.

      the skill is in lighting it without them knowing.

    5. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by ChameleonDave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For all this stuff about creatures being hurt for non-meat purposes to be a good way of criticising vegetarians, you'd have to argue several other points first:

      If you want to talk about electricity production, you'll have to prove that vegetarians use significantly more electricity than omnivores. You are unlikely to be able to do this.

      If you want to talk about grain production, you'll have to prove that the extra grain which is directly consumed by a vegetarian significantly outweighs the large amounts of grain fed to livestock, and all other damage done to tiny animals by the livestock industry. This will be very tricky.

      If you manage to prove the last point, you'll also have to make a good argument for (a) the accidental harm done to worms and suchlike outweighing (b) a lifetime of captivity followed by bloody slaughter inflicted on higher creatures. Since it is likely that both you and the other person both agree that priority ought to be given to higher creatures (humans before chimps, chimps before hamsters, hamsters before bacteria...), it would probably be pointless to try to make the argument.

      Of course, you are unlikely to be interested in any of this. Stuff like "being presumptuous about your habits" leads me to believe that you are making these arguments about worms and bats totally disingenuously. You are not looking for the least harmful way of living, but simply throwing a tantrum because someone has said something that challenges your way of living.

    6. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are not looking for the least harmful way of living, but simply throwing a tantrum because someone has said something that challenges your way of living.

      Um, no. You're trying WAY too hard. I'm using a touch of rhetorical satire to point out that most people who elect to insert feigned outrage into a conversation are usually gigantic, annoying hypocrits.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by ChameleonDave · · Score: 2

      Wrong. The fact is that you cause the deaths of animals. If not by eating them, then by consuming products that attribute to their death

      You mean "contribute".

      Persons A and B walk through a crowd. A bumps into one other person on the way. B bumps into a hundred people on the way. A says to B, "You're just carelessly ramming into people. Stop it and have some respect." B replies, "You bump into people as well; if not deliberately, then by being in the crowd, which contributes to a bump occurring."

      Person B is of course a total wanker who, in order to justify wanton harm, uses the fact that person A cannot reduce the harm he causes to zero.

      If you live on the grid you are just as guilty of murder as the rest of us.

      By that logic I could kill anyone, not only because of the animals but a fortiori because humans are killed by shocks from the grid.

      So STFU...

      That's what it comes down to. It's not a debate; it's you needing people to shut up, because anything that challenges how you live traumatises you.

    8. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by Hucko · · Score: 2, Funny

      Um, that would make it difficult for him to argue with you.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    9. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      My monitor is fuzzy, did you say "when she's a sheep" or "asleep"?

    10. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Um, no....
      Sorry, I don't read "arguments" that begin with "um".


      I was so tempted just to reply "I don't read 'arguments' that begin with 'um' *or* 'sorry'" - but I decided that it was only slightly wittier than either of the originals, and witty they were not.

      I find it hilarious that an article mentioning (focused on is too strong - despite the title it was about 4 paragraphs) an extremely low level process (ie possible mitochondrial-related rapid apoptosis of neurons after oxygen short-term deprivation as a leading cause of death in cardiac arrest) has resulted in some moronic moral battle between "keep what you kill" and "meat is murder".

      Your argument is stupidly off-topic for this article. So, here are two fun trains of thought to get you guys back on track:

      1) Your mitochondria, after millions of years, have not realized that we can usually revive the rest of your body after 10 minutes of cardiac arrest. Don't we wish they could figure that out. Maybe we could rise above other base "evolutionary" traits as well and learn to be more ethical to other living beings. Meat is murder!

      2) Your mitochondria, after millions of years, are the result of an amazing evolutionary process likely descended from symbiotic prokaryotes that now constitute the major energy-producing components of our bodies. Thanks to said little helpers and many other evolutionary advantages, we can enjoy a higher standard of living, often grow over 6' tall with the plentiful supply of meat and dairy, and even entertain the luxury of pondering ethics and morality on slashdot. Meat, it's what's for dinner!

      Pick your pseudo-religious viewpoint, and go at it!

    11. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by ChameleonDave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      FYI. Surely that should be for your information, since you're the one whose error was pointed out.

      That is where your logic fails. You make the jump that assuming that being a little wrong makes it ok to be a lot wrong and vice versa.

      You seem to have made some error there, because I am arguing (and not assuming) that being a little wrong (doing a small amount of unavoidable harm) does not make it OK to be a lot wrong (do a large amount of avoidable harm on top of that). My opponents are arguing the opposite.

      I'm not justifying my eating habits, I don't need to.

      This is part of the problem. You make an assumption that because we're talking about something as dear to you as the very food you eat, then you get to do as much harm as you like without needing to justify it. But you do need to justify it, as much as any action that has an impact on others.

      I'm simply pointing out the vegetarians are full of shit regarding "meat is murder".

      Not pointing out, but asserting without proof.

      "Meat is murder" is a rather concise slogan, and it is disingenuous to treat it as a full argument. If someone said "Nike is slavery", you would presumably understand that the sloganeer wants to raise your awareness of child exploitation in specific factories, and is not saying that by boycotting one company you can have zero involvement with all exploitation.

      Wrong is wrong. Don't bitch about someone that kills 1,000 people if you kill even 1 person yourself.

      Nope, you're totally wrong there. There are shades of wrong. This is elementary. People die all the time, and it is generally at least partially caused by someone else. The fumes from the cars you have driven in your lifetime may have done cumulative medical harm equal to the death of one person, but that doesn't mean that you cannot say that genocide is wrong.

      You are trying to set up an analogy in which person A does harm which is totally unacceptable, and person B does the same thing a thousandfold, whilst you sit back obviously not murdering anyone, able to take the moral high ground. But that is a wildly inappropriate set-up. To be appropriate, you need to specifically place yourself correctly. You are in the same group as person B, with his thousand human kills under his belt. And you are attempting to gain moral high ground over person A. It's just absurd.

      ...owning up to your guilt just like the rest of us

      That's comical in either its cluelessness or its dishonesty. Owning up to guilt is characteristic of meat-eaters, is it? No, never having seriously reflected on the harm done to animals is characteristic of meat-eaters, in a society where it is the norm to eat meat. Reflecting deeply on these issues and concluding that a behavioural change is necessary to minimise suffering is characteristic of vegetarians and vegans, in a society where a conscious decision is required in order not to eat meat.

      This is quite obvious, but it is more convenient for you to latch on to a single slogan (and how about "guilt-free grill" to add grist to your mill?) and justify your thousand kills on the basis of it.

    12. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by phoenix321 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why exactly should YOU be allowed to post on Slashdot in your freetime while others are sweating and toiling night and day just to have some bread on their tables?

      Why exactly am I allowed to own a car while others can't even afford a pair of shoes?

      I think the best solution is to take away all personal property and rights, so everyone has the same level. After all, it worked so incredibly well in Cuba, the USSR and the rest of the eastern bloc. I mean, everyone was so happy to be there!

      To cite a personal song favorite of mine:
      "to grind the mountains to the level of the valleys
        to cut the trees to the level of the grass
        to asphalt the land in the name of equality"

      Never talk about why should anyone be allowed to do X, because that's none of our business. Talk about - and reason - why anyone should NOT be allowed to do X - and "equality" or "morals" have no grounds in that discussion, the only thing you can ever use as an argument is

      "Does person A's activity X harm the freedom of others more, than it would harm to forbid A and everyone else this activity?"

      Laws in free countries should be a black-list of forbidden activities, not a whitelist, a closed enumeration of what's acceptable and what's not.

    13. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by SteelFist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hunting, cleaning, butchering, and cooking all in one step? Nice -- can't get any better than that! Might I recommend putting some salt and pepper on the dynamite as well to add seasoning?

    14. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by camperdave · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hunting, cleaning, butchering, and cooking all in one step?

      Yes, indeed. Although it does lend a different meaning to the phrase "Hunter-Gatherer".

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by nickname225 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I highly recommend "Power, Sex, Suicide - Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" by Nick Lane. It is literally on of the most fascinating books I have ever read. Right up there with "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.

    16. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm just wondering - why should you be allowed to eat healthy wild pheasants, while others have to stick to farm raised chicken?

      First, I'm not "allowed" to, rather - I pay a lot of money to be able to. Most states have very high licensing fees and taxes that they extract from people who apply to hunt in their states, and which they take during the purchase of everything from ammunition to pocket knives and mosquito repellent sold in sporting goods stores. In my state, the fees collected from the DNR's licensing of hunters and the taxes collected when they spend the fortune that they do on equipment and services is one of the primary sources of revenue used to fund wildlife management, wardens, and more.

      There are virtually no wild pheasant in my state. None of them are native to the U.S. Such populations as have taken up residence in the States were brought over from Asia specifically to raise as food... and they thrive in certain areas. South Dakota, for example, is now home to untold millions of birds, and the few precious weeks of the pheasant season there is one of the biggest parts of their local economy, with hunters traveling from all over the country to enjoy the scenery, the challenge, and to fill their coolers with that wonderful meat. The state governs the limits that each hunter can take, and use reporting mechanisms to keep an eye on the bird population and the terrain that supports them. You're right that our huge population could not subsist entirely on non-domesticated critter meat.

      That being said... back here in my own state, we have a crushing over population of whitetail deer. It's a real problem. There are more deer on the eastern seaboard now than there were 500 years ago. Way more. Their natural predators are all but gone, and every suburban house with a line of woods behind it is just setting up another breeding habitat for more Bambis. The micro-range/density problems results in all sorts of disease and line-breeding genetic problems, and the huge population per acre tends to exacerbate problems with Lyme Disease, etc. The solution is more hunting. Things are way out of balance, and even a lot Just Love The Animals types are realizing that they'd rather see the herds thinned out with a swift shot from a talented hunter than see an animal dying from a broken back on the side of the road (with who knows what risk to the person driving the car that hit it).

      In 2006, hunters in my state provided hundreds of thousands of meals to homeless shelters and other organizations that feed people who don't get enough quality protein. If I had my way and could take 15 or 20 deer per season, I'd probably end up keeping mostly loin and roasting meat, and the remaining several hundred pounds of lean, healthy meat would make fantastic sausage or stew for a LOT of hungry mouths. The problem? The very places where the deer are so overrunning the local terrain are the spots that, because of concerns for sensitive suburbanites, hunting isn't allowed. In some cases, that's a safety issue. In others, it's just poor judgement. Either way, the deer population continues to grow out of control, and the situation is dangerous and unhealthy for them and us. We could re-introduce wolves and more coyotes, but that doesn't go over too well with the soccer moms, either.

      Incidentally: the wild turkey was hunted almost to extinction in the US, mostly during the Great Depression - strictly as a source of food for people out of work. And they are indeed good eating. The same modern state game agencies that us hunters fund have managed that species back into true abundance (arguably, again, over-abundance in some places). But no one is allowed to just go out and hunt them... you have to pay the state. Which makes for pretty expensive meals, by the pound. But when I'm out in the woods (picking up trash, narking on poachers, reporting things I see to the game management people, etc) I'm more than happy to take all of that overhead in stride. Hunters, through their actions and thei

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    17. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since there is no "trying" going on here, this can only be interpreted as a schoolboyish way of implying that he is cool and relaxed, whereas I am dorkily getting overexciting and having to use my full brainpower to respond to his points.

      Which is exactly what's happening. He wrote a snarky paragraph to own a troll, and you're treating it like a thesis.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:It's not exactly mysterious. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  2. Space Travel by jshriverWVU · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I dont see this as a fountain of youth. This research could be very useful for long distant space travel. Especially as we are pondering going to Mars. I wonder how well this could be coupled with cryogenics.

    1. Re:Space Travel by ozphx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok I know this is slashdot and so my audience is fairly limited, but:

      Have you ever been going at it so hard you fell off? Can you see yourself thrusting away and then losing grip on your partners sweat soaked body. Can you imagine the frustration of seeing her slowly drift away just out of reach?

      Down on earth we have gravity. In space the only thing that will halt your flying man-juice is some undoubtably important computer a hundred meters away on the other side of the station.

      Can you imagine floating gracefully in the middle of the room, hearing your roommate at the door, and the futile (yet hilarious) running in air as you try to retrieve your pants?

      Earth: Wet spot on covers.
      Space: Volume of small droplets.

      I think I've said enough. Keep your pants on Armstrong ;)

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
  3. Thanks, but... by Icarus1919 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't want to troll, but I prefer not to get my science from MSNBC and other mainstream media sources.

    1. Re:Thanks, but... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I prefer not to get my science from MSNBC and other mainstream media sources.

      Yeah. The info about cryogenic treatment for resuscitation was fine, but conflating that with cryonics was off-base, and bringing in near-death experiences was just dumb. There's nothing supernatural about such experiences, take the right drugs and you can have them yourself.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  4. Obliq quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Palpatine: Did you ever hear the Tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise?
    Anakin Skywalker: No.
    Palpatine: I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith, so powerful and so wise he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create life... He had such a knowledge of the dark side he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying.
    Anakin Skywalker: He could actually save people from death?
    Palpatine: The Dark Side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural.
    Anakin Skywalker: What happened to him?
    Palpatine: He became so powerful the only thing he was afraid of was...losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, then his apprentice killed him in his sleep. It's ironic; he could save others from death, but not himself.
    Anakin Skywalker: Is it possible to learn this power?
    Palpatine: Not from a Jedi.

    1. Re:Obliq quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall be meta-modded higher than you can possibly imagine.

    2. Re:Obliq quote by fractoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      *waves hand* These are not the midichlorians you are looking for.

      Move along.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  5. Brilliant by joe_bruin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So what they're saying is that the Mitochondria, the organelles that use oxygen to generate ATP (the primary source of chemical energy in your body), cause death when they no longer get oxygen? I hope the Nobel prize committee is listening.

    1. Re:Brilliant by RatPh!nk · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are totally correct, we have known about them forever. There are however, apoptotic pathways that do not directly involve mitochondria in the same central way cytochrome C/cardiolipin/caspase cascades do. So again, "death" is much, much more complicated. Cheers

      --
      Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
  6. CRYONICS by cryophan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most importanly, as this article alludes to, this new approach valdiates some of the science surrounding cryonics. As far as I can tell, cryonics is the only possible way for any of us to get our selves and our memories to the distant future where we can live superlong lives, or maybe even forever.

    1. Re:CRYONICS by misleb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or you could just get to the future only to find that you have to be genetically engineered from birth to live that superlong life and end up looking like as fool as you age, all alone with no friends or family, while everyone else is holding at 19 and partying all the time. But I guess I'm a pessimist sometimes. :-)

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    2. Re:CRYONICS by fbjon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Most importanly, as this article alludes to, this new approach valdiates some of the science surrounding cryonics. As far as I can tell, cryonics is the only possible way for any of us to get our selves and our memories to the distant future where we can live superlong lives, or maybe even forever. Hey, that sounds like a great idea! Let's freeze all of humanity and wait for science to progress.
      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    3. Re:CRYONICS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes, but wouldn't inducing hypothermia to your mitochondria result in severe hypochondria?

      ( ducks )

  7. Ob. Princess Bride by PresidentEnder · · Score: 5, Funny

    Miracle Max: See, there's a big difference between mostly dead, and all dead. Now, mostly dead: he's slightly alive. All dead, well, with all dead, there's usually only one thing that you can do.
    Inigo: What's that?
    Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.

    --
    I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
  8. From the article by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Funny

    On Napoleon's Russian campaign, his surgeon general noticed that wounded infantrymen, left on the snowy ground to recover, had better survival rates than officers who stayed warm near the campfire. On Napolean's Russian campaign, wounded, left on the snowy ground......I think I'd rather die.

    --
    Looking to trade in for a newer girlfriend? Now there's a place!!
    --
    Qxe4
  9. Been there, done that. by RiffRafff · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was diagnosed with "sick sinus syndrome." Well, not until I had basically died a few times. The electrical impulses that cause the heart to fire, ceased. I flat-lined, and was essentially "dead." The first few times (twice at home, 2 or 3 times at the hospital) I came back on my own. There was no "where am I?" questions upon regaining consciousness; I knew where I was, and I knew _something_ had happened, but I didn't know what. It wasn't until the last "episode," after they had attached a heart monitor with the little sticky-pads that the doctors actually knew, for sure, that I was flat-lining. They immediately ran a catheter up my groin, into my heart, and attached to an external pace-maker. A day later they implanted a pace-maker. Now, almost three years later, the pace-maker's computer says it has never "paced." In other words, I haven't really needed it. :-/

    My point is this: when I was "dead," I never "left my body," I never saw myself and the doctors in the hospital from "above," I never experienced anything. It was like a light-switch was simply flipped. I was just gone. No angels, no bright light, nothing. So. My advice, for what it's worth, is that you should do whatever you need to do. Whatever you need to accomplish. If my experience is any indication, there is no second chance. Do it now. Don't expect anything else after you're gone. When you're gone, you're gone. There appears to be nothing else. And while that may not be what you wanted to hear, that was my reality.

    Don't live your life in fear of death, but don't take anything for granted, either. As Warren Zevon said, "enjoy every sandwich."

    (Of course, Zevon also said, "I think I made a tactical error by not going to the doctor earlier." So don't do that.)

    --
    "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    1. Re:Been there, done that. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I never saw myself and the doctors in the hospital from above...

      Well, I did. 11 years old, skull fracture from little league game (I was pitching, before the hard hat rule (which I was told I instigated)). No pre-knowledge or exposure to such states, or even the concept of mortality -- never a church goer. Genuine OOB perception, howling winds, players gathered around my supine body, sound of my dad calling me back (he was the team's manager). Followed by aphasia, surgery, long recovery.

      Nothing has ever been really spookey since. Meh, it's life. Do the next thing.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    2. Re:Been there, done that. by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It sounds like you weren't dead in any medical or scientific sense, just that your heart had stopped. There's been debate, probably since the dawn of humanity, as to when you can say someone is actually dead. There's always been problems of 'dead' people waking up, unless you actually practice cremation or draining the blood -- that's why we do it. There was a contest of sorts to make a medical definition of death back in the 1700s or 1800s -- the actual point where you could never come back. The guy who won proposed that putrefaction (when the body is actually rotting) was the only scientifically valid definition. I think the current medical definition is no heartbeat and no electrical activity in the brain.

      Anyway, I'll hijack this thread to talk about my own information about where the 'personality' is during a clinical death experience. I don't think it 'is' anywhere. It's like asking where windows is when your computer is off. Going through a coma or medical death is like rebooting the part of your brain that generates your personality. If you read about Hindu and Buddhist meditation, and also the experience of serious hallucinogen users, they talk about an experience called 'ego death'. It's where you still perceive everything you normally would, except there is no "I". The subjective perspective completely evaporates. You see yourself as objectively as you would the person sitting next to you, not attached to your desires or fears. Even though you can still perceive your own thoughts and internal body states, you still don't have the sensation of an "I" or a soul who is experiencing it. Your sense of ownership, or things belonging to 'you', including your own body and thoughts, just is gone. It's called the 'unseen seer' in Hinduism, or the invisible eyeball by the transcendentalist Americans of the 1800s.

      There is a part of our brain that generates this sense of self, the "I", and it can get shut down just like any other part of the brain, through bodily trauma, meditation, or drugs.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    3. Re:Been there, done that. by fractoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the cloning paradox where a perfect clone is still different from its original because it did not experience the same experiences. Well it ain't a perfect clone then, innit?

      That's like saying that building an identical computer out of identical parts will never be running the same programs as the one that you cloned. Well, sure it won't, unless you stick in a clone of the old one's hard disk and RAM contents, at which point it WILL. The philosophical problems come in with the fact that a perfect-to-the-neuron-level clone of you WILL be yourself again. And so, if you're still around, will you! Just ask Dudley Bose. :P
      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    4. Re:Been there, done that. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, I'm not sure. How could I be? Yes there was massive trauma, but the entire experience was rather coherent and, as it turned out, consistent with considerable of the material I read on the subject since (many years since -- at 10 I read about cars and baseball, not metaphysics). I'm just not entirely certain that the trauma could explain such a consistent view of the proceedings -- I would have thought that if it were assembled from fragmented, aphashic disassociations caused by blunt trauma it would have looked more like a broken-mirror sort of thing. But it wasn't, it was like being in a flowing, gentle, painless 3D movie made up on the spot. None of my prior imaginings were anything like it, it was totally new. When the experience was over, I was fully conscious and aware, in my body -- just totally aphasic, with my attempts at speech turning into fragmented and inappropriate phraseology. I remember trying to say "I'm okay Dad" and having it come out "Teacup on the door is fraying" or some such. The only thing I could say coherently until after the surgery was to the doctor, "Can I go to sleep now?" I was adrenaline-awake until that point. So, despite the fun I'd have at myself by saying it was true OOB or simply an elegant synthesis put together by my meat server under stress, I don't know, and may never know the truth. But an honest self-appraisal puts it very firmly in the "undecided" basket, not one way or the other. I am sure, however, that we don't know everything about the subject of death yet, or the persistence that software image we call "consciousness" yet. It did provide me with a strong set of questions, though, but I've bored you all enough.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  10. Just to deconfuse things by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Programmed cell death (apoptosis) is normally considered a good thing. Cell death is the front line against Viruses, toxins, and other pathogens. When a cell is hopelessly invaded it will immediately try to kill itself or be told to kill itself by it's neighbors? Why? Well first single cells by themselves don't have much defense against stuff so when the jig is up there's no point in trying to live on. An inveded cell is a danger to it's neighbors since the virus will use it's machinery to replicate. Thus it's a mutually assured destruction strategy. And the first thing most bugs do on entering a host is attack the signals for apoptosis. Indeed Cancer is dangerous because it's immortal.

    Thus it's interesting to find a way to override perhaps the most important response shared by cells in the body.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Just to deconfuse things by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      Cancer is immortal because the tumor cells have lost their chromosomal integrity; some of them are missing parts of chromosome arms that have the genes for triggering apoptosis. Part of an arm of chromosome 3 in particular seems to confer certain superpowers of cancer on cells that lose it; without it the cells can't recognize intercellular signals, but in general these genes do not aid cancer cells in their competition with one another. So as the population starts to evolve as a gene pool of individuals with distinct genotypes (variations on your original) that compete with each other to dominate the tumor, the cells that survive are the ones that lose the ability to control themselves for the greater good of the entire population (i.e. you).

      If taken care of, cancer cell populations can easily be kept alive for decades. HeLa cells were first cultured from a cervical tumor in a patient named Henrietta Lacks. There must be tons of HeLa cells in labs all over the world; all together they probably weigh hundreds of times as much as Henrietta ever did.

  11. Nonsense by John+Hasler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > The article goes on to probe delicately at the question of where a person's personality
    > 'is' between death and later revival...

    Do they also discuss the color of zero or how wide is up?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Nonsense by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do they also discuss the color of zero or how wide is up? Black and pretty damn wide!

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Black and pretty damn wide!

      Er... what exactly are we talking about here?

  12. It is profoundly mysterious by tylersoze · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Starting with the hypothesis that consciousness is purely a physical thing (i.e. the atoms and electric signals firing in your brain, and there is no soul or wonky business like that)--a hypothesis that I happen to agree with. It is a *profoundly* mysterious question if it would, in fact, be the same "you" inside if your brain were switched off for a while and then turned back on. Suppose in the time you were shut off, it were possible to make an exact copy of yourself, down to the atomic level, and then both copies were turned back on. Which one is "you"? Obviously both of you would think you were the original since you share the exact same memories.

    It's one of those questions that seem unanswerable. Personally I feel it has something to do with the continuity of brain activity. You interrupt that, and whatever that "spark" is ceases to be, and if the brain is turned back on, it would be a different "you". Which is why I'd never take a transporter ride and think actual working cryonics would be pointless since I would never experience waking back up, it would be a different consciousness, albeit one that thinks everything went just fine. If ever underwent either, I would assume the "me" that woke back up would have some lingering doubts. :)

    One of the many philosophical papers on this: http://www.benbest.com/philo/doubles.html

    1. Re:It is profoundly mysterious by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is a *profoundly* mysterious question if it would, in fact, be the same "you" inside if your brain were switched off for a while and then turned back on. In the East, they have been dealing with this question for thousands of years. A Hindu might answer, yes, of course you would be the same person. This 'switching off' happens every night when you are in deep, dreamless sleep. Yet you still wake up and are the same person the next morning. This is one of the basis for their argument for cosmic consciousness, or the 'godhead' or super-soul.

      If you don't buy that this happens at night, you can make a good argument that this certainly does happen during a coma, when there is little to no electrical activity in the brain. Alternatively, you can anesthetize certain parts of the brain, and also cause the personality to disappear.

      It's one of those questions that seem unanswerable. Personally I feel it has something to do with the continuity of brain activity. You interrupt that, and whatever that "spark" is ceases to be, and if the brain is turned back on, it would be a different "you". The eastern philosophies argue that all phenomena, from electrical activity in the brain, to the existence of rocks, are chaotic, always in flux. In other words, you are a different 'you' for every moment of your existence. It's like saying, "I was once an 8-year-old boy, but now I'm a thirty-year-old man." Well, wait a minute -- isn't there only one you? How can you be both an boy and a man? The answer is that 'you' are a continuation of a series, a phenomenon, like the flame of a candle, or a river. The flame is never the same flame from one moment to the next, nor does a river ever have the same water or same banks, at any moment. Yet will still perceive it as the continuity of the same 'thing'.

      The idea of the 'you' as a fixed, permanent thing, seems to be an idea that traces back to Greek philosophy. They were always looking for unchanging, eternal, fixed, stable 'things'. And it really breaks down when we try to apply that to the self or consciousness. Eastern philosophy seems more advanced in this respect -- it says there are no things, only processes or phenomena that are *always* changing.
      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:It is profoundly mysterious by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which one is "you"?...It's one of those questions that seem unanswerable.

      Which is often an indication of bad assumptions.

      Which is "you" after the duplication? First we ought to ask, is there a "you" before the duplication?

      Look closely. What is this "you"? "Your" body? That's not the same from moment to moment, atoms entering and leaving with every breath. "Your" thoughts? Just as changing and fluid. "Your" memories? But "you" are making new ones and forgetting old ones each day.

      Go down to a stream and sit on the rocks. Perhaps you'll see a spot where whirlpools form for a bit, a knot of water that under the conditions takes on a perceptible form for a few seconds, then melts away as conditions change. Then, a little later, in the same spot, another whirlpool forms.

      Is it the same whirlpool?

      The question isn't meaningful. "Same" here is a construction of mind, a mere question of our agreements about language, not denotative of any truth about the world.

      "You" are just a character in the story being told by your brain.

      One story about Zen Master Bankei says that he was very scared of death as a child. When he had his great enlightenment, he realized that "he" could never die, because "he" had never been born. Now that's liberation!

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    3. Re:It is profoundly mysterious by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "you" is just something your brain does. Asking where you go when your brain turns off is like asking where the spinning goes when the motor turns off.

    4. Re:It is profoundly mysterious by roamzero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seems pretty straightforward to me. If we accept the hypothesis that consciousness is an illusion, there's not *really* a "you" to begin with. "You" are a process that your brain runs while it is active. So, when you restart your brain, your "you" process would run again like normal. If you duplicate your brain completely, there would be two "you"s running. Perhaps, but I think it's also a matter of perspective, you have to put yourself in the shoes of effected person. Whether this maintains the 'illusion', I dont know. Say your brain were duplicated while under, when you wake up which eyes would you be looking through? There is no direct connection between the two brains, so it would be impossible to be "looking" through 2 sets of eyes. My though is that each individual is like a singleton, and when destroyed, the question of reviving that "singleton" fully (you "wake up" from your perspective) or ending up with a clone that is different (you don't "wake up" from your perspective, a new singleton is made with your memories), is truly the mystery. It's basically a "first-hand" paradox. It's something that seemingly only you yourself could test. Otherwise, from a third-person perspective, it impossible to tell whether there is a continuation of the "original" you or something else. Maybe someday science will reveal a way to truly test this aspect of the universe, but for now I guess it sits in the realm of philosophy.
    5. Re:It is profoundly mysterious by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the actual 'you' dies every second ( or whatever the smallest amount of time that effects your brain is ) and is replaced by an imposter who happens to have all your memories.

      I can't see how else you know who you are if you have no memories you can use to tell you who you are. If you begin to behave entirely differently to the way you normally do people still think you're the same person just behaving weirdly but if you had ( for some reason ) a sudden complete change of memories people who be more likely to think of you as someone else.

    6. Re:It is profoundly mysterious by kwikrick · · Score: 4, Informative

      Another nice analogue: your body is not the same body it was 15 years ago. You think of it as the same body, only grown a bit (in length or width, depending on your age). But in fact all of the atoms that made up your body 20 years ago have all been replaced by other atoms. Our body is not really a static object, it's more like a very slow wave.

      (I read it like this in Richared Dawkin's The God Desulion, but he got it somewhere else again, can't remember where)

      The mind, conscience, personality, is perhaps a similar phenomenon. It's not a thing that can be pointed out somewhere in our brain, but it's a recurring pattern of thoughts and actions, emerging from the mechanics of our brain and the experiences therein.

      --
      assignment != equality != identity
  13. Mitochondria and Mutant Monkeys by UrktheTurk · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've known that mitochondria cause cell death ever since I played Parasite Eve. Of course, the immediate cause of cell death was the fireball that the 3 tailed rat just threw at you.

  14. I'm going to get railed by the mods for this... by jadin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But this is precisely what the bible teaches about death. [note: no one is required to read this]

    Dead cannot think:
    Psalms 146:4 His breath goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
    Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

    It also says the soul dies at death:
    Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinning, it shall die.
    Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

    Therefore the soul cannot think either. Aka no out of body experiences. Please note I'm not discussing heaven etc, just the state of the dead/soul.

    Hammer me down mods! [flamesuit="on"]

  15. Cryonics and your brain in a robot body by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some interesting thought experiments regarding consciousness are these:

    Suppose that, one day, we develop the technology required to scan and emulate the human brain with total precision. Now, this means that we can shove your head into the scanner, and presto, some amount of time later, we have a computer running a simulation of your brain. It's pretty clear that your consciousness stays in the same place, especially if anesthesia is not required for the scanning process. Yet there is a copy of your brain running on that computer. From its perspective, does it have the same sort of consciousness that you still do?

    Suppose that instead of just scanning your brain to make a copy, we instead put you under, scan your brain, start the simulation running, and kill your old body. We wake up your simulated brain. What happens to your consciousness? Have you achieved a mortality unencumbered by the failure of your biological body by doing this? From the perspective of your simulated brain, did you fall asleep and wake up running on the computer? What about from the perspective of your now dead physical body?

    Suppose that instead of scanning your brain, we can replace a portion of your brain with equivalent nanotech. For all purposes, this nanotech behaves exactly as your old neurons behave. The nanotech can be implanted gradually, neuron by neuron, on the fly - as each neuron is replaced and killed, the nanotech neuron takes its place and picks up exactly where the old neuron left off. So, we perform this procedure on you, and ultimately, your brain is replaced with its nanotech equivalent. What happens to your consciousness in this process? Is this sort of gradual process necessary for your consciousness to survive the transition from your old wetware to your new hardware?

    Is your consciousness an expression of a dynamical state - perhaps even including state variables we haven't detected yet - in your brain that must be preserved in order to survive any such transition, or do your memories suffice to keep your perception of consciousness continuous, even if most of that dynamical state is temporarily lost?

  16. Trek by giminy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think I saw this on star trek once...

    --
    The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
  17. Re:easy question by robably · · Score: 2, Interesting

    or where any "personality" goes when it's sleeping.
    No, because when you are sleeping there is still electrical activity in the brain - "a succession of mental states continually re-created in our brains, even during sleep" as the article says.

    This is asking the question of where "you" go when the power to your brain is switched off. It seems probable to me that - as neurons and the connections between them are modified, weakened, or strengthened by the signals that pass through them - when power is restored to the brain it has to move through these unique pathways and your consciousness is restarted based on the saved state.
  18. Mitochondria *may* be a cause of cellular death? by tzot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why did I have the impression this is a well established fact? In addition, mitochondria not signalling the cell to die is the main reason that cancer cells don't die. It's many months now that research into dichloroacetate (DCA), which has been used for other purposes too, causes cancer-cell mitochondria to resume their operation and cause the cells to eventually die. See an example of a similar report.

    --
    I speak England very best
  19. Re:easy question by AndersOSU · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tell you what, get back to me when we figure out how to create an AI capable of passing a Turing Test.

    Seriously, this isn't an out of hand dismissal. To say that the brain, or consciousness is somehow like a computer is, to me, more of a stretch than espousing an afterlife, or a soul.

    Now I know that slashdot isn't likely to agree with me, and normally I'm loath to invoke a god-of-the-gaps, but if and when the time comes that we can fabricate intelligence in a box, we're going to have some serious rethinking of philosophy to do. Until then, I really do think that the burden to produce evidence lies with the mind-is-a-computer crowd, i.e. to me the mind looks a lot more unlike a computer than like it.

    My major concern, how do we know that consciousness as we know it doesn't depend on some yet unknown quantum effects or isn't somehow governed by Godel's incompleteness theorem? In other words, is the brain deterministic? If the brain is deterministic then don't concepts of right and wrong go out the window?