The Brain system of memory is familar to most of us, and although our
understanding of how memory works is primitive understanding.

Then there is the DNA which is its own memory system in that it
faithfully
can recopy its own self molecule in mitosis.

Now we discuss a third memory system. I suppose I am the discoverer of
this
memory system and it is similar to the memory system of a computer.
A computer memory system involves switches and whether those switches
are
open or closed or in terms of mathematics whether a switch is 0 or 1.
And so, to a computer most everything such as a text or picture is
representable by a large number of 0s and 1s. Those 0s and 1s is a
memory
system and the computer obeys in sequence those 0s and 1s. Now let us
look at an animal body. It has a vast number of hydrogen bonds. The DNA
and RNA and messenger RNA all have hydrogen bonds. So also does every
protein molecule of the animal body has hydrogen bonds. Biologists have
often claimed that the purpose of a protein molecule is governed by its
shape or geometry and the shape of a protein molecule (you guessed it)
is determined by hydrogen-bonds.

Now how many switches does the IBM Deep Blue computer contain?
I would guess that the human body as far as hydrogen-bonds is concerned
contains vastly more hydrogen-bonds than does the IBM computer contain
in switches. And thus the human body would have more "memory and
sequencing potential" than IBM Deep Blue. Not to mention that the human
body has a Brain for memory and DNA for memory.

I envision that every hydrogen-bond in the human body is like a computer

switch that is either open or closed. Either a 0 value or a 1 value. And

that when one cell communicates with another cell it is via these
hydrogen
bonds.
And that when a protein molecule has some job to perform it is via the
hydrogen bonds that 2 protein molecules tell one another what to perform

next.

Now, it is possible that the Brain System is somehow connected or hooked
up
to the hydrogen-bonds of every protein and every DNA inside an animal.

And it is possible that every DNA molecule inside an animal is in some
state
of constant communication with hydrogen-bonds. Suppose for example the
body wants to tell a particular cell to do something. How would the body

tell that cell to do something? One way is for the Brain to send a
signal to
that cell which the signal is translated into opening and closing of
several

hydrogen bonds. Another way is for the DNA inside that cell to send
messenger RNA to open and close several hydrogen-bond switches. Or a
combination of brain signal plus DNA signal to open or close some
hydrogen-bond switches.

Can someone tell me if plants have as many hydrogen-bonds as do animals
and whether plant molecules surface is determined by hydrogen-bonds?
----

Now the question arises as how can hydrogen bonds of a protein molecule
or of nucleic acids have an on & off switch? How can hydrogen bonds
be like a computer memory or microprocessor. Without protein collisions
and interactions based upon protein geometry (and hence hydrogen-bonds)
the biology of animals would shut down and the animal cease to function.

So how can an animal hydrogen bond have both an on & off switch? Bob
Bruner spoke of depolarization of membrane concerning the Dolly sheep
clone of Scotland and there is the example of chemical solution in the
Hawaii
mice clones. Do hydrogen bonds have an on & off switch with regards to
polarity? If they do, then how does one molecule read the hydrogen bond
polarity of another molecule and ultimately act on that information.

The animals of sponges of the ocean are some of the simplist animals
alive.
They are a collection of cells and when minced the cells begin to
regroup into
a new single sponge. I suspect this entire communication between cells
is due to hydrogen-bond information.

I suspect that the DNA of an animal has the genetic code but that it is
the hydrogen bonds of the newly born organism that sequences the events
of growth and I suspect it is the hydrogen bonds that plays the crucial
role in
specialization of each cell of the body. I suspect that it is
hydrogen-bonds
that is the essential cell to cell communication network of all animals.

I do not know whether hydrogen bonds plays such a critical role in
plants.
My guess is that hydrogen-bond communication is more important in plants

than animals simply because plants do not have brain structure for added

dimension of communication-memory system.

Now I wonder if the actual memory of past events is some form of
hydrogen
bonds in cells of the brain. That our memory of a picture for instance
is some sequence of hydrogen bonds just as a picture on a computer is a
sequence of 0s and 1s.

You don't actually believe this do you?

r

--
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered...My life is my own."

"I am not a number.  I am a free man."
No. 6

These facts are known to be true:
(1) there is intercellular communication
(2) there is protein to protein communication
(3) there is communcation of bio-molecules that cannot be
attributed to brain or nucleic acid communication

By process of elimination it appears that animal and plant bodies have a
form of communication that is here-to-for mostly unknown and
undiscovered.

Which is more plausible-- that the electronic computer should be more
complex and complicated than the hydrogen-bonds of a animal? Or,
that the progression of life already discovered the computer by
incorporating the main features of the computer in the Hydrogen-Bonding
of all plants and animals.

It is more plausible that the BioWorld already discovered and incorporated

the computer into its body-design.

Let us put the question in another way. If life has progressed for 3
billion
years on Earth and there was a chance for life to make Hydrogen Bonds
as a elaborate living computer inside of every animal and plant. Would
not "life" grab at that opportunity? When life comes upon an opportunity,
it usually seizes that opportunity and takes full advantage of it.

So, that, way back when life was one celled microrganisms. Long before
sponges ever existed. And none of these one celled creatures lived in
colonies. Long before colonies of cells ever organized. Then comes a time
when cells begin to live in colonies. And how would one celled creatures
communicate with other one celled creatures. Would life just have
bypassed the great opportunity to use *hydrogen-bonds* as a means of
communicating? To turn each hydrogen-bond into a yes-no switch, and
into a computer system. That as each protein molecule that interacts with
other protein molecules can talk to one another via hydrogen-bond
switches.

When you think about, the more reasonable choice is to believe that life
invented the computer long before humans ever assembled computers in the
20th century. That life invented a Hydrogen-Bond-switchboard computer
for which most signals of life are carried out. And that animals have not
only
brains to communicate and communicate via DNA/RNA, but that the main
system of communication of all animals and plants is via its
hydrogen-bond-
network-system.

So, it is more plausible that the body of plants and animals is a
hydrogen-bond-computer system

PH Z

Bob Bruner referred to March 1995 Scientific American article titled
"The Genetic Basis of Cancer" by Cavenee and White. Last night I read
that article, and sorry to say it was not the article I had read some 5 years

ago. I remember reading some article about the details of "innate cellular
clocks". How a cell has a built in clock telling the cell when it is proper
time to divide. A detailed article talking about atoms as gatekeepers and
thus with the ability to "keep time". This Scientific American article is
perhaps a hundred fold more general than the specifics of how atoms
can make a cellular clock.

Now you say tap water has no memory compared to IBM computer.
Reading that article by Cavenee and White on page 74 it says "The normal
versions of the pirated and activated genes-- now called proto-oncogenes--
carry codes specifying the composition of proteins that encourage cells to
replicate."

Now what could these codes be on the very most simple level. Not the
level of generality of Cavenee and White but on the level of molecules
and even atoms. I want a "Molecular Basis of Cancer" and not what
Cavenee and White in their article are discussing a lofty and remote
generality level.

Almost every piece of biology reported in science magazines and journals
involves intercellular communication. In the Cavenee and White article from
pages 72-79, it is not far reading to when you come upon intercellular
communication for on page 74, and I quote: "These growth-promoting genes come
in many varieties. Some specify the amino acid sequences of receptors that
protrude from the cell surface and bind to molecules known as growth factors.
When bound by such factors, receptors issue an intracellular signal that
ultimately causes  cells to replicate.. Others of the genes code for proteins
that lie inside the cell and govern the propagation of the intracellular
growth signal. Still others encode proteins that control cell division. "

Almost any biology report in medicine ends up talking about how cells
communicate with each other. A huge unknown  and gray area of biology.
We fobb it off by saying simply "intercellular or intracellular signals".

What would be the actual chemical basis for such a communication network?

The simpliest would be all the Hydrogen Bonds of the human body. All of them
put together constitute the on or off switch of a IBM computer.

How does skin tell an animal that something is crawling on it or come in
contact? The answer is that some receptor such as a hair follicle is
disturbed. This disturbance eventually sends a signal to the brain.

Can we see each hydrogen-bond as a hair follicle? Probably not. Can we
see the body having a central processor that keeps tabs of every
hydrogen-bond within the body? Probably not. Can we see each hydrogen-bond as
a on or off switch. Probably yes, but what is the details of that switch and
how would that switch signal two proteins that have collided and interacted?

If we can see how a hydrogen bond is a on and off switch, then we can
perhaps find a "central processor" that keeps tabs over all the hydrogen
bonds.

Animals communicate via brains and via DNA instructions. But animals
are more complex than these two forms of communication suggesting that
at least a 3rd network of communication goes on in animal bodies. Hydrogen
bonds are the first interaction that occurs when 2 molecules collide in the
body. Thus, it would be prudent to investigate whether all of the Hydrogen
Bonds of a animal or plant is the memory bank and communication network of
that creature.

Discover  23(4) 67 (2002)
Archie-Poo is a publicly despised Usenet crank.

Pull the troll's plug.

He was "Ludwig Plutonium" when he started posting in 1993; previously
he was "Ludwig van Ludvig" and before that "Ludwig Hansen" [adopted
name] and "Ludwig Poehlmann" [birth name].  When he posted about a
run-in with some cops it was clear that the "legal" name changes he
effected weren't effective, because the cops looked him up as "Ludwig
Hansen".  He is also struts as "The King Of Science And Logic," a
title he awarded himself.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

So, I propose that Hydrogen-Bonds form a communication network system
in every living creature. These hydrogen-bonds are similar to the on/off
switches that comprise an IBM computer. A computer is mostly those
large number of electronic switches.

If I were the creator of life, how would I engineer life such that it works as
we see it working? I would engineer a brain in animals. I would engineer
DNA and other nucleic acids to have memory and able to copy and reproduce. But
is my work finished with these two systems? I think not.
I think I should need at least a third vast system of communication. That
links cells to other cells and molecules to other molecules. How best can
I achieve that engineering. I suspect via Hydrogen-Bonds as tiny switches.

But I am not finished with constructing life by engineering (1) nucleic
acids (2) Brain (3) Hydrgoen Bonds as a gigantic internal computer system.

I need something even more. I need a 4th communication network. And to
those who have followed my thoughts and discourse for the past decade about the
Atom Totality theory and its Superdeterminism byproduct of the
Bell Inequality with Aspect Experimental proof would know what this 4th
network is. The 4th network makes each individual lifeform as a radio
antennae receiver. Sort of like a fancy radio-dish-telescope receiving
signals and "orders" from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality telling what
that organism or cell or molecule is going to do next.

So, if I were the Creator Engineer (which I am not) of all Life, how many
systems of communication would I have to construct in life? Most every
biologist now a days believes life is equipped with 2 and only 2 forms of
communication network-- (1) Nucleic Acids and (2) Brain. But I believe
those 2 make for a tremendous gap. A gap in what life actually does and
has the capability of doing. Thus, I believe a bare minimum of Communication
network that all life possesses is these four:

(1) nucleic acids (DNA)
(2) brain
(3) hydrogen-bonds as a computer switch network inside the body
(4) each living organism is connected to the Nucleus of the Atom
Totality via photons shot from the Nucleus into each body and
those photons instructing the body to whatever actions it commits
next.

If Life had only items of DNA and brains as communication network,
I think life would cease and become inanimate and rock-like. Life
displays more than what DNA and brain can provide. Life needs to be
hooked up completely with all of its internal-molecules and to provide
such an internal hookup would mean that the hydrogen-bonds of
organisms acts as one big internal computer system. But still, to my
mind those 3 are not enough and that we finally need a 4th network
which is the photons shot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality
into creatures telling them their every next action or thought.

              In regards to your below post Archimedes and interesting
referenced site, I affirm your interests are very large and spread out.
You must be just filled with unending amazement at the universe at
large. I found your connection of era improved power systems such as the
waterwheel to the rise of Roman power interesting. But concerning the
subject cited below you forget about free determination. Atom totality
theory and Superdeterminisum would apparently defeat nature's self
determinism and puppetize biological life forms. Cells marching to the
orders of one by rigid set form patterns, which do not permit dynamic
transformation, diversity, or adaptively, the very thing you propose
which would result in innate or non self governing mobility such as
rocks. Blaming or self imposing rigid limits on a master atom without
permission for possibility of dynamic or self determined change, a
denial of reality of promise of diversity of evolving cosmos and
biological life forms themselves. Shells, limits, locks, switches,
dimensions, for physical forms set the perimeters but not full varied
potential. Basic Hydrogen atom connection to more complex system
relation is self evident via bond attraction. However repulsion is also
a part of atom reality which permits therefore change of direction and
atom self particle multi existence, length autonomy, or closeness. If
all particles were mono polar or uni directional no diversity would be
possible since they would be all marching to the same frequency. It is
nature's gift of the reality of uniform multiple frequencies which
permit us to proceed to the beat of a different drummer. A dynamic self
determinant nature that permits self limits especially on the
possibilities of a mind or makes it free and God like.

Another observation Archimedes, may I humbly suggest you drop your
science subject site Alien pulsar connection without evidence, for it
reduces your credibility and places you on the crank network. Brilliant
research can be made void by illusion based non factual reaching for
recognition or effect. And your proposed proof of God as 231 Pu is
different from Mr. Hammond's POG premise of G = g_uv. However, in
reference to both, Nature or Supreme is not a product of the sum but an
infinite process. Infinite God, Supreme, Deity, equates to infinite
natural process. The understanding of which is uniform and equivalent in
conformity to natural law which permits and reflects choice of self
determinacy.

           the nightbat

A huge pile of shit does not bespeak a stable of thoroughbreds.
Propinquity is not causality.

Discover  23(4) 67 (2002)
Archie-Poo is a publicly despised Usenet crank.  Pull the troll's
plug.

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is.  I mean
rock-hard stupid.  Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid.  Surface
of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid.  Stupid
so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
different sensorium of stupid.  Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
Meta-stupid.  Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
own Schwarzschild radius.  Black hole stupid.  Stupid gotten so dense
and massive that no intellect can escape.  Singularity stupid.
Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
emits stupid/year.  Quasar stupid.  Nothing else in the universe can
be this stupid.  Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it.  Archie-Poo
is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
a grand unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid.  Archie-poo is stooopid.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

So, what if the world was 100% superdeterministic. Would it make any
difference to anyone anywhere anytime? No. It would be a self realization
fact. Just finding out what the future holds for each and every one of us
should be enough of a reward.

Saying it in different words. In order for existence some building block
has to build the Universe and the Universe has to be one of those building blocks
itself. You cannot have 2 or more entities as building blocks, just
one entity. And that one entity is Atoms.

For those that hate Superdeterminism let me ask you a question. If Free-Will
exists and since the element 115 has never been nucleosynthesized. And
suppose Darmstadt nucleosynthesized Element 115 tomorrow. Can 115 have
some degree of free-will, some characteristics different from 115
nucleosynthesized in Dubna and different from 115 nucleosynthesized in
Berkeley? Would Element 115 created and possessing a degree of free-will
be better than 115 having preset and predetermined conditions?

I suppose the underlying difference between a world with Free-Will compared to a
world with Superdeterminism is that a world with Free-Will
has no control. And a world without control can never come into existence.
To exist is to have control. Atoms exist because they are in control. Things
like science laws and patterns are forms of control.

So it looks as though it comes down to the question of whether you want something to
exist or you want nothing. If you want something to exist
you need a building block and the whole is one of these building blocks.
Existence is control. If you want nothing and no universe then you have
no building blocks and no control.

So, it maybe the case that your precise Free-Will exists only in a Empty
Universe. A nonexistent universe.

So, now, how can the hydrogen-bonds inside a living organism be a vast
number of switches that are either open or closed and representing
either 0 or 1?

Here I have to ask a question about hydrogen bonds in organisms. Are the
bonds usually come in pairs such as water molecules come in H2 to a single
oxygen. If the hydrogen-bonds of proteins and nucleic acid usually come in
pairs, then it would be easier to visualize how these pair of hydrogen bonds
act as a switch.

And when two proteins collide, they obviously collide by one hydrogen
on one protein to a second hydrogen on the other protein. The surface of
proteins is hydrogen bonds (if we are permitted to say that a protein has
a surface.)

It is not too difficult to find out if and how hydrogen-bonds are like
computer switches. What is more difficult is how an organism would
have a microprocessor to organize, coordinate and keep track of
all of these hydrogen-bond signals.

Perhaps one of the best reasons that all animals require sleep is to
sort of speak "reboot" their internal computer network of hydrogen-bonds.
Such that the brain and DNA can operate efficiently with the
hydrogen-bond-computer.

So basically all you say is not new to me!
PH Z

Well, one way that all of the Hydrogen-Bonds-of-an-Organism is one large
computer system is for there to be a coding of either yes or no, or 0 or 1,
or open switch or closed switch. So if every hydrogen-bond inside of
Louis was either an open switch or a closed switch.

And then the processor of this information is the DNA or RNA sequence.
That the "standing order" is to execute orders only with molecules that have
a "closed switch" and to ignore molecules with an open switch.

Perhaps that is why animals need sleep in that they re-boot this
Hydrogen-Bond-Computer of the animal so that protein synthesis can be
carried out.

For Hydrogen-Bonds of a entire organism to be a large-computer system
would necessitate that the Bonds each have at least a 0 or 1 coding. And
if it has this coding, for the body to be able to recognize and respond to
the coding-- microprocessor function. So the DNA/RNA recognizes that
a 1 code means to go ahead and a 0 code to "stop". Such that when 2
protein molecules collide and interact and both have 1 codes then they
go ahead and do whatever they do. But if one of them has a 0 code then
a stop of their actions results.

In this way, Louis is governed by his DNA which pretty much rules over
every individual cell. And Louis is governed by his brain which rules over
his whole body and how it perceives the outside world. But, finally, Louis
is governed by his Hydrogen-Bond-System of every hydrogen-bond
in his body acting as one big computer. This Hydrogen Bond System
rules over most every communication between cells. The Hydrogen Bond
System can be influenced by the brain and by DNA.

The big trouble with biological science and medicine, the big gap, is that
there is no science for cell to cell communication. Every piece of science
literature sloffs it off by saying something like "intercellular signals"
or intercellular communication. But what is this intercellular communication?
Are we to read science journals in year 3002 or 4002 and still have biology
science call this vast field of knowledge as "intercellular communication".

Are we to stay primitive about how cells communicate for two thousand more
years? Hydrogen Bonds which every nucleic acid possess and which every
protein molecule possess. In fact, most every molecule in the body contains
hydrogen bonds. And these bonds are what comprise the "surface" of that
molecule if I can be given the liberty of saying that a molecule has a "surface".

And since there is no denying that intercellular communication exists. No
biologists denies that cells communicate. So how do they communicate?
And since Hydrogen Bonds are everywhere in biology. Does it not make
rational sense that these bonds form some sort of vast network computer system? And
that intercellular communication is probably some form of
Hydrogen Bond Interaction.

PH Z

And it is an old idea that the collection of proteins serves as a
computational device to determine metabolite flows, etc.

bob