Archive for maio 21st, 2013

EyeWire: Grande Projeto para Conhecer o Cerebro onde Voce pode Participar e Ajudar Enquanto Joga

terça-feira, maio 21st, 2013

Um grupo de cientistas que ambiciona mapear todas as conexões entre as células do cérebro humano criou uma ferramenta diferente para tentar atingir seu objetivo: um videogame. Ao colorir fotografias feitas por um microscópio, jogadores ajudam pesquisadores a construir imagens do cérebro em 3D…

Para brasileiros, um bom texto introdutorio em portugues pode ser visto aqui:

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ciencia/2013/05/1274984-jogo-on-line-ajuda-cientistas-a-fazer-mapa-do-cerebro.shtml

Como o cerebro ( alem da luz e auto-consciencia) esta sendo o fenomeno natural mais focalizado pelas pesquisas da Matrix/DNA, faremos o possivel para seguir e aprender tudo neste website:

 http://eyewire.org/

E o forum em: http://forum.eyewire.org/

Minha inscricao: http://forum.eyewire.org/profile/thematrixdna

Eyewire Forums: Ameaca da Robotica e Inteligencia Artificial – Estudo do Cerebro

terça-feira, maio 21st, 2013

Eyewire Forums

Discussing the “bigger picture?

http://forum.eyewire.org/discussion/comment/2268#Comment_2268

Comentario postado:

thematrixdna  5:09PM  QuoteEditFlag

Posts: 1
backupelk : ” One way that I look at it is this; we can only truthfully judge the universe…”
We loose when we believe in any truthfully judgement. Nobody can have a truthfully judgement about things in this Universe, due Godel’s theorem: Nobody can know the truth of a system existing inside that system. Yours judgement here is a sample, when you says: “if we can observe nothing more than the components of the brain, it follows that the phenomenon of the mind must exist as a function of that structure.”
 Which is the brain’s structure of my friend Abdullah that produced the muslim faith as part of his mind? Noone: this part of his mind was imposed by an invisible external system, called organized religion. Allways any object (including the brain) is affected by forces coming from the hierarchy of systems, where there are systems that we are not seeing. Brain alone is not enough for mind understanding.
blissdish : I think that AI will be dangerous because it can uses our brain and its power for decisions for taking the actions favorable to AI. It works in feed-back. Since our natural sensors can not perceive directly the micro and macro dimensions, we created the electro-mechanic brain with own sensors, which can perceives it. So, our informations about these dimensions are being driven and selected by the mechanic tentacles of electro-mechanic brain. As a result, our world vision is based on an electromechanic universe, and I think that the biological brain should see a different universe, having a different world view. Since we take decisions based on the worldview, and our worldview is not ours, we will acting being used by AI. Do you understand?.

Abiogeneses e Bioquimica: A busca pelo Universo tunelado para a Vida. Material a Pesquisar

terça-feira, maio 21st, 2013

Nautillus Magazine

Goodbye Copernicus, Hello Universe

http://nautil.us/issue/1/what-makes-you-so-special/goodbye-copernicus-hello-universe

– Varios importantes links no post abaixo para ler:

Avatar
Torbjörn Larsson • 17 days ago

And that’s how you frame an issue on a new site!

But moving on to the details, I differ a bit on the view of the many potential pathways that could lead from chemical evolution to biological evolution. “Selection bias”, likelihoods, would be front and center. For example, there are thermodynamic reasons why RNA could have been favored as the first genetic material, if that was what happened. [“Statistical Physics of Self-Replication”, England, TBP; “Thermodynamic Basis for the Emergence of Genomes”, Woo et al, PLOS Comp. Biol. 2012.]

That is where I think Spiegel and Turner fails. As I remember my problem at the time was that they had to posit different pathways on different locales in order to make the result less constrained. Eg a failure to find life on Mars would be due solely to the pathway.

But for the same reason we should expect evolution, differential reproduction, to be a universal process among life because it promotes the most successful populations by its very nature, we should expect a successful pathway to life to be dominant. The recent find of earliest, even metamorphic, BIFs of Isua @ 3.8 Ga bp as likely result of anoxygenic photosynthesis pushes life within 1 Ga from Earth formation. [ http://www.sciencedirect.com/s… ] That is early enough to find our pathway, likely alkaline hydrothermal vent biochemistry by homology with early autotroph metabolism as per Lane and Martin, easy so likely generic.

Small nitpick which do not detract from environmental theory/selection bias (aka various “Anthropic Principles”): “Without all these ducks lined up in a row, there would be no carbon.”

Not all carbon is synthesized by the resonant pathway. This even seems to have been a problem, since too easy direct three-body formation at low temperatures would have been inconsistent with astronomical observations. Luckily it is sufficiently low in production. [http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.2136… ]

I don’t know if this alternative pathway production rate is too low to prohibit more massive element formation in all kinds of potential universes where the resonant process is suppressed or vanished.

And while I looked for the non-resonant process reference which I had misplaced, I found an article that could be of interest re the apparent selection bias in carbon production. It seems it is not too fine-tuned, the excited state could vary with a factor 3 in energy excess. [http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/… ]

–  – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

PESQUISA:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X1200711X – (Artigo nao lido: precisa subscricao)

Biological Fe oxidation controlled deposition of banded iron formation in the ca. 3770 Ma Isua Supracrustal Belt (West Greenland) – 

Abstract

The redox balance of the Archean atmosphere–ocean system is among the most significant uncertainties in our understanding of the earliest history of Earth’s surface zone. Most workers agree that oxygen did not constitute a significant proportion of the atmosphere until after ca. 2.45 Ga, after the Great Oxidation Event, but there is less agreement on when O2 production began, and how this may have been consumed by reduced species such as Fe(II) in the oceans. The Fe redox cycle through time has been traced using banded iron formations (BIFs), and Fe isotopes are increasingly used to constrain the conditions of Earth’s paleoenvironments, including the pathways of formation of BIFs. Iron isotope analyses of BIFs from the 3.7 to 3.8 Ga Isua Supracrustal Belt (ISB), obtained by micro-sampling of magnetite-rich layers and conventional analysis, as well as by in situ femtosecond laser ablation (fs-LA-ICP-MS), indicate a consistently narrow range of non-zero δ56Fe values. Analysis of magnetite by fs-LA-ICP-MS allows for precise and accurate micron-scale analyses without the problems of orientation effects that are associated with secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) analyses. Magnetite δ56Fe values range from +0.4‰ to +1.1‰ among different bands, but within individual layers magnetite grains are mostly homogeneous. Although these BIFs have been metamorphosed to amphibolite-facies, the metamorphism can neither explain the range in Fe isotope compositions across bands, nor that between hand samples. The isotopic compositions therefore reflect “primary”, low-temperature sedimentary values. The positive δ56Fe values measured from the ISB magnetites are best explained by deposition of Fe(III)-oxides produced by partial oxidation of Fe(II)-rich ocean water. A dispersion/reaction model, which accounts for rates of hydrothermal Fe(II)aq input, rates of oxidation, and rates of Fe(OH)3 settling suggests exceptionally low O2 contents, <0.001% of modern O2contents in the photic zone. Such low levels suggest an anoxygenic pathway is more likely, and the data can be well modeled by anoxygenic photosynthetic Fe(II) oxidation. Comparison of the Fe isotope data from the Isua BIFs with those from the 2.5 Ga BIFs from the Hamersley and Transvaal basins (Australia and South Africa, respectively) suggests a striking difference in Fe sources and pathways. The 2.5 Ga magnetite facies BIFs of Australia and South Africa have δ56Fe values that range from −1.2‰ to +1.2‰ over small scales, and are on average close to 0‰, which is significantly lower than those reported here from the Isua BIFs. The wide range in Fe isotope compositions for the Hamersley and Transvaal BIFs, in concert with C and O isotope data, have been interpreted to reflect bacterial dissimilatory Fe(III) reduction (DIR). The absence of low δ56Fe values in the Isua BIFs, as well as the lack of fine-scale isotopic heterogeneity, may indicate formation prior to widespread DIR.


Highlights

► Analysis by fs-laser-ablation allows for precise and accurate micron-scale analyses. ► Iron isotope analyses of BIFs from Isua indicate a narrow range of positive δ56Fe values. ► Narrow range of positive magnetite δ56Fe values reflect primary sedimentary values. ► Positive δ56Fe values best explained by anoxygenic photosynthetic Fe(II) oxidation. ► Iron in Isua BIFs has a different source and pathway than that of 2.5 Ga BIFs.

Guerra Entre Cosmovisoes: O Fisico Caleb Sharf x Matrix/DNA

terça-feira, maio 21st, 2013

Nautilus Magazine

http://nautil.us/issue/1/what-makes-you-so-special/goodbye-copernicus-hello-universe

Goodbye Copernicus – What makes You So Special

Comentario postado por mim:

TheMatrixDNA • 36 minutes ago

The author is forgetting relativity, which suggests that differente observers of a unique object, located at different point in time space, should have different interpretations. He says that ” At the hands of astronomy and cosmology, we seem to have been reduced to near nothingness”. It seems for him, an observer based in Astronomy, Physics and Mathematics, not for me, an observer based in Biology and Systemology. His theory is based solely on the skeleton of the Universe (the structure of galaxies), my theory is based on the soft meat that covers the skeleton, the biological organization of galaxies.

Our problem initial is: was this Universe produced by a previous design ( I am not saying “designer” and not “intelligent”) or not, merelly or randomly from nothing? If there is a previous design, certainly the shape at the top of evolution, ( consciousness  must be significant. If not, everything from nothing, will be forever, nothing. My method is suggesting that we are like genes building our future shape as pure and unique consciousness.

Since that the author exposed the evidences that supports his theory, I have the right to do it, although have no space here for 1% of my evidences. My method began with seven years isolated at the heart of Amazon jungle studying systems and its connections (biosphere, Earth, Solar system, Milk Way), applying the old method of comparative anatomy among all systems – living and non-living – searching evolutionary links, as the link between cosmological and biological evolution.

If an intelligent being smaller than an atom living inside human skeleton, his natural sensors and artificial sensors ( scientific tools), which are merely extension of his natural sensors, will see his ” Universe” finishing at the limits of the skeleton. He never will see the soft meet, the organs, even the mind. The effects of these things will be called ” dark matter or dark energy”. But comparative anatomy makes the investigation in reverse way, from top to botton, starting at the final product – neurology, biology – and the student will be an observer strongly affected by biological interpretation of the skeleton and the Physics observed by Mr. Caleb.

Only a unique sample of same evidence under different interpretation: The Big Bang.

The Theory is strong supported ( cosmic radiation, expansion, etc.) for both observers. My method also arrived to biologically organizing quarks, went further seeing the vacuum plenty of vibrations of ” dark” light waves as the code for life’s cycles and the source of these emanations of light was a big Big Bang. But while Mr Lawrence Klauss saw everything from nothing, and after that, a small high condensed atom, my method suggests a different thing after and beyond the Big Bang. The salvage Nature in Amazon always suggested to me: Nature does not play dices with her creatures. The chaos saw in biosphere is product of order, see the sky”. And I never saw this Universe making magics, taking something out from nothing. So, the complexity here is merely the convergence of spread informations existing at the Big Bang. The Universe only do things that he has information for. He creates things by the same process that he was created. Then, my specific type of observer plus skepticism about magics, made me see that my own body was made throught a bigbang. The first initial moment of a human body – one top evolutionary product here and now – begins when a small spermatozoon “explodes” inside a big ovule. And all sequential shapes ( morula, blastulae, recapitulates the sequential shapes of the Universe (atomic nebulae, mass of galaxies…). But my method leads me further: you can see at my website, the graphic of electromagnetic spectrum, how natural light wave has the same shape of a universal Matrix that is the actual biological DNA. It is scientific falsiable or testable: the works of DNA inside the nucleus emits the biological counterpart of cosmic radiation. This Universe is a cosmic egg (or the fossil of our ancestors) where is occurring a natural process of genetic reproduction of the system that was before the Big Bang. This is falsiable, universes from nothing is not scientific testable.

Ok, I would like to debate here detail by detail each evidence has the two sides. It is interpretations against interpretations, since that the evidences are known by both sides. But I would like that the other side always brings on the table, a natural known parameter for supporting each Math formula or another thing used as links among the data. Like here, my known parameter for interpretation of Big Bang is embryology. I don’t know where the other side will find a natural parameter for their “nothing”, and for ” a microscopic atom able to grow to the size of the Universe” , etc.