Re: Microbes do combinatorial communication

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Apr 2014, at 10:13, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote:

Just to contain the enthusiasm within rational levels:

There is no comunism neither comunitarism at all. It is a fight
between groups of clones that try to exploit one another (see below).
The clones are comunists (because are clones, like the social
insects).

Even the analogy between social insects and communism seems flawed  
to me, because social insects operate without central control. A  
find communism more akin to how humans design machines. Social  
insects are anarco-syndicalists, maybe :)


OK, social insects can have central control, although most using swarm  
approach to AI might argue the contrary, but I don't think we can say  
that for the "social amoebas", which are hardly "social" in the insect  
way.
I didn't expect my casual remark to be taken so seriously though (this  
is not a serious remark either).


Bruno







However the phenomenon is fascinating.


From http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6815/abs/408965a0.html

...If aggregating cells come from multiple clones, there should be
selection for clones to exploit other clones by contributing less than
their proportional share to the sterile stalk. Here we use
microsatellite markers to show that different clones collected from a
field population readily mix to form chimaeras. Half of the chimaeric
mixtures show a clear cheater and victim. Thus, unlike the clonal and
highly cooperative development of most multicellular organisms, the
development of D. discoideum is partly competitive, with conflicts of
interests among cells. These conflicts complicate the use of D.
discoideum as a model for some aspects of development, but they make
it highly attractive as a model system for social evolution.

2014-04-25 9:10 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 25 Apr 2014, at 07:39, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>> Does scientific research back the claims made in this article?
>
>
> Yes. Social amoeba are unicellular (capitalist) in good time, and
> become communist in hard time. May be we should learn from them.
>
> I say yes but there are some details which I have not the time to
> verify, of course. Notably the elimination of the cheater mutant.  
That

> is quite plausible though. The Dictyostelium discoideum is a quite
> fascinating organism, or should we say colony of organisms?
> The communication means here are still very rudimentary, though,  
and I

> don't think there are evidence for the "double word" communication
> mentioned in the thread.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>> Samiya
>>
>> Amoebic Morality 

>>
>>
>> Dictyostelium discoideum composite photo, Copyright © M.J.  
Grimson &

>> R.L. Blanton; Biological Sciences Electron Microscopy Laboratory,
>> Texas Tech University
>> Once food had been plentiful, but no longer. In the early days of
>> the colony, the amoebas had feasted on a rich supply of bacteria.
>> But as the generations passed and the population swelled, they had
>> hunted out their food supply. Now starvation threatens. Their  
home--

>> a scrap of deer dung which once provided all their needs-- has
>> become a trap which they must escape if they are to survive. At
>> last, one amoeba sends out a cry for help.
>>
>> The starving amoeba begins to emit a chemical signal in the form of
>> cyclic adenosine monophosphate, or cAMP. Nearby individuals sprout
>> new pseudopods and crawl toward the source. They also begin to give
>> off cAMP themselves, amplifying the call until the signal spreads  
to

>> the far reaches of the colony. Amoebas cannot concurrently detect
>> and produce cAMP, so they alternate, and the cells trace out
>> intricate spiral patterns as they surge forward in waves.
>>
>> The amoebas pile on top of one another in growing numbers until so
>> many of them have joined the heap that this pile of microscopic
>> single-celled organisms becomes visible to the naked eye. At first
>> their behavior might seem odd; to gather together in the face of
>> starvation surely ought to end in cannibalism or death. Not so, for
>> they are capable of an extraordinary and rare transformation. The
>> amoebas set aside their lives as individuals and join ranks to form
>> a new multicellular entity. Not all the amoebas will survive this
>> cooperative venture, however. Some will sacrifice themselves to  
help

>> the rest find a new life elsewhere.
>>
>> These astonishing creatures are Dictyostelium discoideum, and they
>> are a member of the slime mold family. They are also known as  
social
>> amoebas. Aside from the novelty value of an organism that  
alternates

>> between unicellular and multicellular existence, D. discoideum is
>> highly useful in several areas of research. Among other things,  
this

>> organism offers a stellar opportunity to study cell communication,
>> cell differentiation, and the evolution of altruism.
>>
>> In response to the cAMP distress

Re: Microbes do combinatorial communication

[Alberto G. Corona]

however, the fight between clones means that the amoebas can
chemically detect if the one that is climbing over it is a clone or
not. Even probably it has evolved a way to cheat non clones in order
to climb over them, and a more refined detection has evolved as a
consequence. And a strategy in case the non clone is coming and so on.
For sure the chemicals of this dark side of collaboration is far more
complex than the one involved in the ridiculous claim made in the
first article.

2014-04-26 7:33 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona :
> "Even the analogy between social insects and communism seems flawed to
> me, because social insects operate without central control. A find
> communism more akin to how humans design machines. Social insects are
> anarco-syndicalists, maybe :)"
>
> Or like communism in the final stage of the utopia where there is no
> state and everyone is free from phisical and moral coercion internal
> or external, but everyone magically work like never before for the
> common good . But I do not think that the ants can convert the oceans
> into lemonade:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier
>
> 2014-04-25 10:13 GMT+02:00, Telmo Menezes :
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Alberto G. Corona
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just to contain the enthusiasm within rational levels:
>>>
>>> There is no comunism neither comunitarism at all. It is a fight
>>> between groups of clones that try to exploit one another (see below).
>>> The clones are comunists (because are clones, like the social
>>> insects).
>>>
>>
>> Even the analogy between social insects and communism seems flawed to me,
>> because social insects operate without central control. A find communism
>> more akin to how humans design machines. Social insects are
>> anarco-syndicalists, maybe :)
>>
>>
>>>
>>> However the phenomenon is fascinating.
>>>
>>>
>>> From http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6815/abs/408965a0.html
>>>
>>> ...If aggregating cells come from multiple clones, there should be
>>> selection for clones to exploit other clones by contributing less than
>>> their proportional share to the sterile stalk. Here we use
>>> microsatellite markers to show that different clones collected from a
>>> field population readily mix to form chimaeras. Half of the chimaeric
>>> mixtures show a clear cheater and victim. Thus, unlike the clonal and
>>> highly cooperative development of most multicellular organisms, the
>>> development of D. discoideum is partly competitive, with conflicts of
>>> interests among cells. These conflicts complicate the use of D.
>>> discoideum as a model for some aspects of development, but they make
>>> it highly attractive as a model system for social evolution.
>>>
>>> 2014-04-25 9:10 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal :
>>> >
>>> > On 25 Apr 2014, at 07:39, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Does scientific research back the claims made in this article?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Yes. Social amoeba are unicellular (capitalist) in good time, and
>>> > become communist in hard time. May be we should learn from them.
>>> >
>>> > I say yes but there are some details which I have not the time to
>>> > verify, of course. Notably the elimination of the cheater mutant. That
>>> > is quite plausible though. The Dictyostelium discoideum is a quite
>>> > fascinating organism, or should we say colony of organisms?
>>> > The communication means here are still very rudimentary, though, and I
>>> > don't think there are evidence for the "double word" communication
>>> > mentioned in the thread.
>>> >
>>> > Bruno
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Samiya
>>> >>
>>> >> Amoebic Morality 
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Dictyostelium discoideum composite photo, Copyright © M.J. Grimson &
>>> >> R.L. Blanton; Biological Sciences Electron Microscopy Laboratory,
>>> >> Texas Tech University
>>> >> Once food had been plentiful, but no longer. In the early days of
>>> >> the colony, the amoebas had feasted on a rich supply of bacteria.
>>> >> But as the generations passed and the population swelled, they had
>>> >> hunted out their food supply. Now starvation threatens. Their home--
>>> >> a scrap of deer dung which once provided all their needs-- has
>>> >> become a trap which they must escape if they are to survive. At
>>> >> last, one amoeba sends out a cry for help.
>>> >>
>>> >> The starving amoeba begins to emit a chemical signal in the form of
>>> >> cyclic adenosine monophosphate, or cAMP. Nearby individuals sprout
>>> >> new pseudopods and crawl toward the source. They also begin to give
>>> >> off cAMP themselves, amplifying the call until the signal spreads to
>>> >> the far reaches of the colony. Amoebas cannot concurrently detect
>>> >> and produce cAMP, so they alternate, and the cells trace out
>>> >> intricate spiral patterns as they surge forward in waves.
>>> >>
>>> >> The amoebas pile on top of one another in growing numbers until so
>>> >> many of them have joined the heap that this pile of m

Re: Microbes do combinatorial communication

[Alberto G. Corona]

"Even the analogy between social insects and communism seems flawed to
me, because social insects operate without central control. A find
communism more akin to how humans design machines. Social insects are
anarco-syndicalists, maybe :)"

Or like communism in the final stage of the utopia where there is no
state and everyone is free from phisical and moral coercion internal
or external, but everyone magically work like never before for the
common good . But I do not think that the ants can convert the oceans
into lemonade:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier

2014-04-25 10:13 GMT+02:00, Telmo Menezes :
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Alberto G. Corona
> wrote:
>
>> Just to contain the enthusiasm within rational levels:
>>
>> There is no comunism neither comunitarism at all. It is a fight
>> between groups of clones that try to exploit one another (see below).
>> The clones are comunists (because are clones, like the social
>> insects).
>>
>
> Even the analogy between social insects and communism seems flawed to me,
> because social insects operate without central control. A find communism
> more akin to how humans design machines. Social insects are
> anarco-syndicalists, maybe :)
>
>
>>
>> However the phenomenon is fascinating.
>>
>>
>> From http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6815/abs/408965a0.html
>>
>> ...If aggregating cells come from multiple clones, there should be
>> selection for clones to exploit other clones by contributing less than
>> their proportional share to the sterile stalk. Here we use
>> microsatellite markers to show that different clones collected from a
>> field population readily mix to form chimaeras. Half of the chimaeric
>> mixtures show a clear cheater and victim. Thus, unlike the clonal and
>> highly cooperative development of most multicellular organisms, the
>> development of D. discoideum is partly competitive, with conflicts of
>> interests among cells. These conflicts complicate the use of D.
>> discoideum as a model for some aspects of development, but they make
>> it highly attractive as a model system for social evolution.
>>
>> 2014-04-25 9:10 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal :
>> >
>> > On 25 Apr 2014, at 07:39, Samiya Illias wrote:
>> >
>> >> Does scientific research back the claims made in this article?
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes. Social amoeba are unicellular (capitalist) in good time, and
>> > become communist in hard time. May be we should learn from them.
>> >
>> > I say yes but there are some details which I have not the time to
>> > verify, of course. Notably the elimination of the cheater mutant. That
>> > is quite plausible though. The Dictyostelium discoideum is a quite
>> > fascinating organism, or should we say colony of organisms?
>> > The communication means here are still very rudimentary, though, and I
>> > don't think there are evidence for the "double word" communication
>> > mentioned in the thread.
>> >
>> > Bruno
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Samiya
>> >>
>> >> Amoebic Morality 
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Dictyostelium discoideum composite photo, Copyright © M.J. Grimson &
>> >> R.L. Blanton; Biological Sciences Electron Microscopy Laboratory,
>> >> Texas Tech University
>> >> Once food had been plentiful, but no longer. In the early days of
>> >> the colony, the amoebas had feasted on a rich supply of bacteria.
>> >> But as the generations passed and the population swelled, they had
>> >> hunted out their food supply. Now starvation threatens. Their home--
>> >> a scrap of deer dung which once provided all their needs-- has
>> >> become a trap which they must escape if they are to survive. At
>> >> last, one amoeba sends out a cry for help.
>> >>
>> >> The starving amoeba begins to emit a chemical signal in the form of
>> >> cyclic adenosine monophosphate, or cAMP. Nearby individuals sprout
>> >> new pseudopods and crawl toward the source. They also begin to give
>> >> off cAMP themselves, amplifying the call until the signal spreads to
>> >> the far reaches of the colony. Amoebas cannot concurrently detect
>> >> and produce cAMP, so they alternate, and the cells trace out
>> >> intricate spiral patterns as they surge forward in waves.
>> >>
>> >> The amoebas pile on top of one another in growing numbers until so
>> >> many of them have joined the heap that this pile of microscopic
>> >> single-celled organisms becomes visible to the naked eye. At first
>> >> their behavior might seem odd; to gather together in the face of
>> >> starvation surely ought to end in cannibalism or death. Not so, for
>> >> they are capable of an extraordinary and rare transformation. The
>> >> amoebas set aside their lives as individuals and join ranks to form
>> >> a new multicellular entity. Not all the amoebas will survive this
>> >> cooperative venture, however. Some will sacrifice themselves to help
>> >> the rest find a new life elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >> These astonishing creatures are Dictyostelium discoideum, and they

Re: Microbes do combinatorial communication

[Telmo Menezes]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

> Just to contain the enthusiasm within rational levels:
>
> There is no comunism neither comunitarism at all. It is a fight
> between groups of clones that try to exploit one another (see below).
> The clones are comunists (because are clones, like the social
> insects).
>

Even the analogy between social insects and communism seems flawed to me,
because social insects operate without central control. A find communism
more akin to how humans design machines. Social insects are
anarco-syndicalists, maybe :)


>
> However the phenomenon is fascinating.
>
>
> From http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6815/abs/408965a0.html
>
> ...If aggregating cells come from multiple clones, there should be
> selection for clones to exploit other clones by contributing less than
> their proportional share to the sterile stalk. Here we use
> microsatellite markers to show that different clones collected from a
> field population readily mix to form chimaeras. Half of the chimaeric
> mixtures show a clear cheater and victim. Thus, unlike the clonal and
> highly cooperative development of most multicellular organisms, the
> development of D. discoideum is partly competitive, with conflicts of
> interests among cells. These conflicts complicate the use of D.
> discoideum as a model for some aspects of development, but they make
> it highly attractive as a model system for social evolution.
>
> 2014-04-25 9:10 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal :
> >
> > On 25 Apr 2014, at 07:39, Samiya Illias wrote:
> >
> >> Does scientific research back the claims made in this article?
> >
> >
> > Yes. Social amoeba are unicellular (capitalist) in good time, and
> > become communist in hard time. May be we should learn from them.
> >
> > I say yes but there are some details which I have not the time to
> > verify, of course. Notably the elimination of the cheater mutant. That
> > is quite plausible though. The Dictyostelium discoideum is a quite
> > fascinating organism, or should we say colony of organisms?
> > The communication means here are still very rudimentary, though, and I
> > don't think there are evidence for the "double word" communication
> > mentioned in the thread.
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Samiya
> >>
> >> Amoebic Morality 
> >>
> >>
> >> Dictyostelium discoideum composite photo, Copyright © M.J. Grimson &
> >> R.L. Blanton; Biological Sciences Electron Microscopy Laboratory,
> >> Texas Tech University
> >> Once food had been plentiful, but no longer. In the early days of
> >> the colony, the amoebas had feasted on a rich supply of bacteria.
> >> But as the generations passed and the population swelled, they had
> >> hunted out their food supply. Now starvation threatens. Their home--
> >> a scrap of deer dung which once provided all their needs-- has
> >> become a trap which they must escape if they are to survive. At
> >> last, one amoeba sends out a cry for help.
> >>
> >> The starving amoeba begins to emit a chemical signal in the form of
> >> cyclic adenosine monophosphate, or cAMP. Nearby individuals sprout
> >> new pseudopods and crawl toward the source. They also begin to give
> >> off cAMP themselves, amplifying the call until the signal spreads to
> >> the far reaches of the colony. Amoebas cannot concurrently detect
> >> and produce cAMP, so they alternate, and the cells trace out
> >> intricate spiral patterns as they surge forward in waves.
> >>
> >> The amoebas pile on top of one another in growing numbers until so
> >> many of them have joined the heap that this pile of microscopic
> >> single-celled organisms becomes visible to the naked eye. At first
> >> their behavior might seem odd; to gather together in the face of
> >> starvation surely ought to end in cannibalism or death. Not so, for
> >> they are capable of an extraordinary and rare transformation. The
> >> amoebas set aside their lives as individuals and join ranks to form
> >> a new multicellular entity. Not all the amoebas will survive this
> >> cooperative venture, however. Some will sacrifice themselves to help
> >> the rest find a new life elsewhere.
> >>
> >> These astonishing creatures are Dictyostelium discoideum, and they
> >> are a member of the slime mold family. They are also known as social
> >> amoebas. Aside from the novelty value of an organism that alternates
> >> between unicellular and multicellular existence, D. discoideum is
> >> highly useful in several areas of research. Among other things, this
> >> organism offers a stellar opportunity to study cell communication,
> >> cell differentiation, and the evolution of altruism.
> >>
> >> In response to the cAMP distress call, up to one hundred thousand of
> >> the amoebas assemble. They first form a tower, which eventually
> >> topples over into an oblong blob about two millimeters long. The
> >> identical amoebas within this pseudoplasmodium-- or slug-- begin to
> >> di

Re: Microbes do combinatorial communication

[Alberto G. Corona]

It gives hints about the emergence of multicelular organisms. The next
step is to detect and kill non clones (that can have genes that codify
exploitative behaviours). These non clones will be renamed
"infections" or "cancer". The following step is further specialization
and tissues.

The evolution of this behaviour from non social bacterias can be
retrodicted using evolutionary theory: first, the idividualist
bacteria go alone to the light to the hguest point in order to be
transported by the wind. In the process, they climb one over another.
The bottom ones die, but since the upper ones are their clones, both
win. the upper ones and get transported, the bottom ones die.

2014-04-25 9:26 GMT+02:00, Alberto G. Corona :
> Just to contain the enthusiasm within rational levels:
>
> There is no comunism neither comunitarism at all. It is a fight
> between groups of clones that try to exploit one another (see below).
> The clones are comunists (because are clones, like the social
> insects).
>
> However the phenomenon is fascinating.
>
>
> From http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6815/abs/408965a0.html
>
> ...If aggregating cells come from multiple clones, there should be
> selection for clones to exploit other clones by contributing less than
> their proportional share to the sterile stalk. Here we use
> microsatellite markers to show that different clones collected from a
> field population readily mix to form chimaeras. Half of the chimaeric
> mixtures show a clear cheater and victim. Thus, unlike the clonal and
> highly cooperative development of most multicellular organisms, the
> development of D. discoideum is partly competitive, with conflicts of
> interests among cells. These conflicts complicate the use of D.
> discoideum as a model for some aspects of development, but they make
> it highly attractive as a model system for social evolution.
>
> 2014-04-25 9:10 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal :
>>
>> On 25 Apr 2014, at 07:39, Samiya Illias wrote:
>>
>>> Does scientific research back the claims made in this article?
>>
>>
>> Yes. Social amoeba are unicellular (capitalist) in good time, and
>> become communist in hard time. May be we should learn from them.
>>
>> I say yes but there are some details which I have not the time to
>> verify, of course. Notably the elimination of the cheater mutant. That
>> is quite plausible though. The Dictyostelium discoideum is a quite
>> fascinating organism, or should we say colony of organisms?
>> The communication means here are still very rudimentary, though, and I
>> don't think there are evidence for the "double word" communication
>> mentioned in the thread.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Samiya
>>>
>>> Amoebic Morality 
>>>
>>>
>>> Dictyostelium discoideum composite photo, Copyright © M.J. Grimson &
>>> R.L. Blanton; Biological Sciences Electron Microscopy Laboratory,
>>> Texas Tech University
>>> Once food had been plentiful, but no longer. In the early days of
>>> the colony, the amoebas had feasted on a rich supply of bacteria.
>>> But as the generations passed and the population swelled, they had
>>> hunted out their food supply. Now starvation threatens. Their home--
>>> a scrap of deer dung which once provided all their needs-- has
>>> become a trap which they must escape if they are to survive. At
>>> last, one amoeba sends out a cry for help.
>>>
>>> The starving amoeba begins to emit a chemical signal in the form of
>>> cyclic adenosine monophosphate, or cAMP. Nearby individuals sprout
>>> new pseudopods and crawl toward the source. They also begin to give
>>> off cAMP themselves, amplifying the call until the signal spreads to
>>> the far reaches of the colony. Amoebas cannot concurrently detect
>>> and produce cAMP, so they alternate, and the cells trace out
>>> intricate spiral patterns as they surge forward in waves.
>>>
>>> The amoebas pile on top of one another in growing numbers until so
>>> many of them have joined the heap that this pile of microscopic
>>> single-celled organisms becomes visible to the naked eye. At first
>>> their behavior might seem odd; to gather together in the face of
>>> starvation surely ought to end in cannibalism or death. Not so, for
>>> they are capable of an extraordinary and rare transformation. The
>>> amoebas set aside their lives as individuals and join ranks to form
>>> a new multicellular entity. Not all the amoebas will survive this
>>> cooperative venture, however. Some will sacrifice themselves to help
>>> the rest find a new life elsewhere.
>>>
>>> These astonishing creatures are Dictyostelium discoideum, and they
>>> are a member of the slime mold family. They are also known as social
>>> amoebas. Aside from the novelty value of an organism that alternates
>>> between unicellular and multicellular existence, D. discoideum is
>>> highly useful in several areas of research. Among other things, this
>>> organism offers a stellar opportunity to study cell commun

Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Apr 2014, at 19:18, 'Chris de Morsella '  
via Everything List wrote:





From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com 
] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal

Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 8:23 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: cannabis, cancer and mechanism, and climate.


On 22 Apr 2014, at 05:27, 'Chris de Morsella  
' via Everything List wrote:



At some level, there is only that, which is personally  
experienced... each has to know God on their own, by their own way,  
in their own heart. No one can - beyond, perhaps pointing out the  
way to some extent -- teach or lead anyone down this path. A  
spiritual quest is quintessentially a personal quest.


>>Yes, truth is in our head, and with comp, it means we can also  
search it "in the head" of any (reasonable) machine.


Agreed... assuming we are reasonable machines though J but what if we  
are insane machines - for the sake of discussion - wouldn't this  
effect the outcome of our studying our heads and how we perceive our  
machines as operating and the reductionist first principles we  
derive from our search for a fundamental basis for memory, conscious  
thought, awareness, self-awareness, etc?



Certainly. We can only hope to be correct/sane, or at least that by  
introspection we can access to the part of us which is correct.
Of course, to derive physics, we can limit ourselves to Platonist,  
correct, self-introspective machine.





I guess the point I am trying to make is that we only have a single  
sample - our own experiential stream of consciousness - and what we  
can infer about other entities by communicating with those that can  
communicate and studying the behavior of others.
Perhaps this is enough to give us a basis on which to formulate a  
generalized hypothesis - as I believe you seek to do.


I think we can start from the "generalized hypothesis". If the  
"doctor" has chosen the right substitution level, the "correctness"  
will be reduce to the arithmetical correctness, so as long as you  
don't believe that 0=1, there should be no problem.


The arithmetical hypostases are really coming from the study of the  
ideally correct machines, for the purpose of explaining constructively  
the belief in a physical universe, and the ideal "theology" of the  
machine. But when a machine is embedded in a long computation, it will  
develop a non-monotonic layer, and other logic (more like relevance  
logic) are at play. I don't think they play a role in physics, but  
they do play a big role in the everyday concrete lives.







>>Spiritual quest is personal, but yet, might concern everybody.


Very true... and it might also be said that the growth of one is the  
growth of all.. as the suffering of one is the suffering of all, but  
I have no proof of this statement LOL


Some buddhist said that it is enough that one man is enlightened for  
all men being enlightened, and some bodhisattva said that the  
genuine bodhisattva will go to heaven only after every one has.
Of course this leads to some problems in case there are two  
bodhisattvas, but buddhism is not afraid of those little technical  
difficulties. It can even cultivate them, to help people not taking  
them too much literally, like with the zen koans.


>>Spiritual quest is personal, but the result are often described as  
"anti-personal", like "killing the ego", "merging with the one",  
"becoming god", "realizing the unity/unicity of consciousness", etc.


Perhaps... though I believe that is not the best perspective. It is  
not so much about "killing the ego" - I would argue -- as was  
famously said during the early days of the psychedelic movement --  
(which is a kind of egotistical thing to do ); rather I have  
come to feel it is about understanding the "ego" and it's place.


I agree very much. I could show you many link in entheogen forum where  
I defend that idea. I often explain that the difficulty of the path is  
that not only you have to "kill the ego", but you have to resurrect it  
for the "coming back in the village", which is the most difficult  
thing to do on the path.


In the hypostases, the little ego *is* played by the beweisbar box  
([]p). It is the rationalist, with all his personal 3p memories, and  
it is the one who really do the entire job, as all the other  
hypostases are defined by it.


Yes, the real deep wiseness, the real killing of the ego has to go as  
far as even abandoning the idea of killing the ego, which has to be  
respected, and only, in practice, lead it to find something like its  
"right place". If not illumination becomes equivalent with dying,  
which will limit the communication and the teaching (by examples).





Seeing what its role is in existence and what its purpose is and why  
we have these self-important egos, and what these entities are, how  
they operate etc.


The ego is your body, including the 3p memories. It is the one I call  
sometimes the

Re: Microbes do combinatorial communication

[Alberto G. Corona]

Just to contain the enthusiasm within rational levels:

There is no comunism neither comunitarism at all. It is a fight
between groups of clones that try to exploit one another (see below).
The clones are comunists (because are clones, like the social
insects).

However the phenomenon is fascinating.


>From http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6815/abs/408965a0.html

...If aggregating cells come from multiple clones, there should be
selection for clones to exploit other clones by contributing less than
their proportional share to the sterile stalk. Here we use
microsatellite markers to show that different clones collected from a
field population readily mix to form chimaeras. Half of the chimaeric
mixtures show a clear cheater and victim. Thus, unlike the clonal and
highly cooperative development of most multicellular organisms, the
development of D. discoideum is partly competitive, with conflicts of
interests among cells. These conflicts complicate the use of D.
discoideum as a model for some aspects of development, but they make
it highly attractive as a model system for social evolution.

2014-04-25 9:10 GMT+02:00, Bruno Marchal :
>
> On 25 Apr 2014, at 07:39, Samiya Illias wrote:
>
>> Does scientific research back the claims made in this article?
>
>
> Yes. Social amoeba are unicellular (capitalist) in good time, and
> become communist in hard time. May be we should learn from them.
>
> I say yes but there are some details which I have not the time to
> verify, of course. Notably the elimination of the cheater mutant. That
> is quite plausible though. The Dictyostelium discoideum is a quite
> fascinating organism, or should we say colony of organisms?
> The communication means here are still very rudimentary, though, and I
> don't think there are evidence for the "double word" communication
> mentioned in the thread.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>> Samiya
>>
>> Amoebic Morality 
>>
>>
>> Dictyostelium discoideum composite photo, Copyright © M.J. Grimson &
>> R.L. Blanton; Biological Sciences Electron Microscopy Laboratory,
>> Texas Tech University
>> Once food had been plentiful, but no longer. In the early days of
>> the colony, the amoebas had feasted on a rich supply of bacteria.
>> But as the generations passed and the population swelled, they had
>> hunted out their food supply. Now starvation threatens. Their home--
>> a scrap of deer dung which once provided all their needs-- has
>> become a trap which they must escape if they are to survive. At
>> last, one amoeba sends out a cry for help.
>>
>> The starving amoeba begins to emit a chemical signal in the form of
>> cyclic adenosine monophosphate, or cAMP. Nearby individuals sprout
>> new pseudopods and crawl toward the source. They also begin to give
>> off cAMP themselves, amplifying the call until the signal spreads to
>> the far reaches of the colony. Amoebas cannot concurrently detect
>> and produce cAMP, so they alternate, and the cells trace out
>> intricate spiral patterns as they surge forward in waves.
>>
>> The amoebas pile on top of one another in growing numbers until so
>> many of them have joined the heap that this pile of microscopic
>> single-celled organisms becomes visible to the naked eye. At first
>> their behavior might seem odd; to gather together in the face of
>> starvation surely ought to end in cannibalism or death. Not so, for
>> they are capable of an extraordinary and rare transformation. The
>> amoebas set aside their lives as individuals and join ranks to form
>> a new multicellular entity. Not all the amoebas will survive this
>> cooperative venture, however. Some will sacrifice themselves to help
>> the rest find a new life elsewhere.
>>
>> These astonishing creatures are Dictyostelium discoideum, and they
>> are a member of the slime mold family. They are also known as social
>> amoebas. Aside from the novelty value of an organism that alternates
>> between unicellular and multicellular existence, D. discoideum is
>> highly useful in several areas of research. Among other things, this
>> organism offers a stellar opportunity to study cell communication,
>> cell differentiation, and the evolution of altruism.
>>
>> In response to the cAMP distress call, up to one hundred thousand of
>> the amoebas assemble. They first form a tower, which eventually
>> topples over into an oblong blob about two millimeters long. The
>> identical amoebas within this pseudoplasmodium-- or slug-- begin to
>> differentiate and take on specialized roles.
>>
>> The slug begins to seek out light, leaving a slimy trail behind.
>> Some of the amoebas take on the difficult role of sentinel, or
>> immune-like functions. They circulate through the slug, hunting for
>> pathogens. If they find any, they will engulf them in a process
>> similar to the feeding behavior they once displayed when in solitary
>> form. The pseudoplasmodium periodically sloughs off the sentinels--
>> and any pathogens th

Re: Microbes do combinatorial communication

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Apr 2014, at 07:39, Samiya Illias wrote:


Does scientific research back the claims made in this article?



Yes. Social amoeba are unicellular (capitalist) in good time, and  
become communist in hard time. May be we should learn from them.


I say yes but there are some details which I have not the time to  
verify, of course. Notably the elimination of the cheater mutant. That  
is quite plausible though. The Dictyostelium discoideum is a quite  
fascinating organism, or should we say colony of organisms?
The communication means here are still very rudimentary, though, and I  
don't think there are evidence for the "double word" communication  
mentioned in the thread.


Bruno





Samiya

Amoebic Morality 


Dictyostelium discoideum composite photo, Copyright © M.J. Grimson &  
R.L. Blanton; Biological Sciences Electron Microscopy Laboratory,  
Texas Tech University
Once food had been plentiful, but no longer. In the early days of  
the colony, the amoebas had feasted on a rich supply of bacteria.  
But as the generations passed and the population swelled, they had  
hunted out their food supply. Now starvation threatens. Their home--  
a scrap of deer dung which once provided all their needs-- has  
become a trap which they must escape if they are to survive. At  
last, one amoeba sends out a cry for help.


The starving amoeba begins to emit a chemical signal in the form of  
cyclic adenosine monophosphate, or cAMP. Nearby individuals sprout  
new pseudopods and crawl toward the source. They also begin to give  
off cAMP themselves, amplifying the call until the signal spreads to  
the far reaches of the colony. Amoebas cannot concurrently detect  
and produce cAMP, so they alternate, and the cells trace out  
intricate spiral patterns as they surge forward in waves.


The amoebas pile on top of one another in growing numbers until so  
many of them have joined the heap that this pile of microscopic  
single-celled organisms becomes visible to the naked eye. At first  
their behavior might seem odd; to gather together in the face of  
starvation surely ought to end in cannibalism or death. Not so, for  
they are capable of an extraordinary and rare transformation. The  
amoebas set aside their lives as individuals and join ranks to form  
a new multicellular entity. Not all the amoebas will survive this  
cooperative venture, however. Some will sacrifice themselves to help  
the rest find a new life elsewhere.


These astonishing creatures are Dictyostelium discoideum, and they  
are a member of the slime mold family. They are also known as social  
amoebas. Aside from the novelty value of an organism that alternates  
between unicellular and multicellular existence, D. discoideum is  
highly useful in several areas of research. Among other things, this  
organism offers a stellar opportunity to study cell communication,  
cell differentiation, and the evolution of altruism.


In response to the cAMP distress call, up to one hundred thousand of  
the amoebas assemble. They first form a tower, which eventually  
topples over into an oblong blob about two millimeters long. The  
identical amoebas within this pseudoplasmodium-- or slug-- begin to  
differentiate and take on specialized roles.


The slug begins to seek out light, leaving a slimy trail behind.  
Some of the amoebas take on the difficult role of sentinel, or  
immune-like functions. They circulate through the slug, hunting for  
pathogens. If they find any, they will engulf them in a process  
similar to the feeding behavior they once displayed when in solitary  
form. The pseudoplasmodium periodically sloughs off the sentinels--  
and any pathogens they have engulfed-- and abandons them in the  
trail of slime. More cells will then be tapped to fill their place.




Dictyostelium discoideum slug
Once the slug finds a suitably sunny location, the unlucky cells at  
the "head" of the slug form a stalk for the others to climb. These  
cells--which make up roughly a fifth of the total population--will  
sacrifice themselves in order to provide a path up for their comrades.


The remaining cells then climb the stalk and collect on its tip,  
eventually resulting in a structure resembling a ping-pong ball  
balanced on top of a floppy wire. This formation is known as a  
"fruiting body." They then form spores, which are carried away by  
wind or passing animals or insects. Once carried to a suitable  
location, the amoebas emerge from spore form and begin the cycle  
again.


So long as all the amoebas which make up the slug are related, this  
impressive display of self-sacrifice on the part of the stalk cells  
makes sense. Though they will perish in the act of creating the  
stalk, they will pass along their genetic legacy via their kin. In  
fact, when the amoebas reproduce by division, they create an ever- 
increasing pool of genetically identical clones. These clones suffer  
no g