TruffleGnocchi
Member
A collection of videos of Michael Levin, his website, some of the statements he made or takeaways, off the top of my head.
Bioelectricity according to Michael Levin and his research team: (he did say this was studied before him, he doesn't claim it as his own afaik)
- Genes do not code what to make and how to make it. They do code the materials to make it.
- Cells grow and differentiate to form a specific thing, and stop when that thing is completed. Says that genes do not contain this information.
- Structure is encoded in the collective bioelectrical state of cells.
- Memories do not require brain cells
- A highly regenerative worm learns some behaviour, gets its head completely cut off, then grows a new brain, and regains learned behaviour even thou new brain was not present when behaviour was learned.
- Brain might be an information processing organ (isnt saying memories do not get stored in brain cells I think, as well as in other cells)
- Single cell organisms display memory and multi-function behaviour one could think would need multiple cell types / tissues to achieve.
- Single cells, display intelligence
- Single cells, taken from frog skin, display memory and goal behaviour.
- Single cells, taken from frog skin, in a dish, reorganise by themselves into something, and display multicellular behaviour (swimming around the dish, collecting other skin cells into skin cell piles)
- Cells can use different biological mechanism to achieve the same result. Example he gave was cells creating a tube, using different mechanisms, some involved multiple cells grouping to form a tube, one was a single cell, wrapping around itself to create a tube. Suggesting the desired outcome is encoded in bioelectrical state, and cells can use different molecular and genetic mechanisms to achieve that. Different signalling molecules, different genetic expression, used by the cells to achieve the state encoded in bioelectricity. Suggesting single cells are intelligent.
- By imaging the electrical activity of tissue, they observed that before a tumor was formed, electrical communication stopped or drastically reduced, in the area that later became tumorous. Suggesting cancer or at least some cancer, involves the disruption of communication between cells. Essentially the cancer cells detaching from the collective and becoming their own thing, like a new self a new organism if I understood correctly. Potentially if communication is reestablished, cells might get incorporated back into the individual, and stop being cancerous, doing things in accordance of the collective of the whole body again.
(in support of this theory: here Carlos Galicia mentions how when cancer cells are injected into an embryo, the embryo just takes over the cancer cells and incorporates it into itself, making them not cancerous anymore and part of the embryo: Carlos Galicia | Embryogenesis-Inspired Rejuvenation @ Longevity Frontiers Workshop 2023 )
- Full limb and organ regeneration is possible, if we knew how to do it.
- They successfully regenerated a whole leg that was previously amputated in a frog, by putting a jar like "biodome" on the amputated end, on the wound. Inside the "biodome" was fluid (water I assume), progesterone, ion channel modulating compound, and some other things. Another fascinating thing that goes in line with the rest of his theory, is that the "biodome" was only applied for 24H or for some short period of time, later it was removed, and the new leg kept growing until completion in subsequent weeks, without any new molecules or stimulus applied by them. Suggesting that all it took was for a specific signal to be sent to the cells that instructed them to grow a new leg, and the growing continued without the presence of the signalling molecules. He said next they will attempt this or did already by now, to regenerate an adult mouse leg. (I got excited about progesterone after seeing this, but then I saw that progesterone uniquely controls some functions in frogs if I remember correctly, might not have the same exact effect in other animals.)
- Cells or the cell collective already possess the intelligence to make stuff and regenerate stuff, therefore micromanaging every signalling molecule and gene expression is not required. Cells need to be instructed on what to do, and the signalling molecules, gene expression and other details are handled by the cells themselves.
Michael Levin's youtube channel
Twitter
Website
Tufts university (where their lab is at)
Anti-peat alert:
PUFA accumulation, did not prevent the frog's leg from growing when right signal was given. Also if assuming frog had low PUFA to begin with, why do their legs not regenerate without the treatment. So that cannot be reason. I'm not saying PUFA is not harmful or that it does not accumulate and cause disease, but maybe it suggests, if the right signal or goal is communicated to the cells, they could clear the PUFA. That PUFA is allowed to accumulate I think must be downstream from cause of aging. By downstream I mean maybe organ or other dysfunction comes, and in that dysfunction PUFA can accumulate and cause more havoc (replace PUFA with other bad things that are problematic for adults but not young organisms, they will not age any faster if they chug a bottle of seed oil, they will get messed up acutely while the toxin is present, when the toxin clears they will recover. Depending on what stage/state the organism is in, embryo vs baby vs kid vs young adult,..). Therefore labelling PUFA accumulation as one of the primary causes of aging I think is incorrect and a more appropriate way to label it would be a primary or major cause of disease (if you exclude aging, whatever aging is). Even if PUFA accumulates from the sperm to embryo to baby, which I don't know how because then it would kill the organism before birth, or even right after sperm meets the egg since it is only 1-2 cells big, I still think that given the right molecular or electrical signals or other interventions, the cells will clear the PUFA. The issue being upstream from the PUFA accumulation.
I think his views go in line with the idea that genes are not all they are advertised to be (like they are everything there is) and other things in RP's view that go against the mainstream theories or lies in some cases that are pushed as fact in the 21st century.
-
Bioelectricity according to Michael Levin and his research team: (he did say this was studied before him, he doesn't claim it as his own afaik)
- Genes do not code what to make and how to make it. They do code the materials to make it.
- Cells grow and differentiate to form a specific thing, and stop when that thing is completed. Says that genes do not contain this information.
- Structure is encoded in the collective bioelectrical state of cells.
- Memories do not require brain cells
- A highly regenerative worm learns some behaviour, gets its head completely cut off, then grows a new brain, and regains learned behaviour even thou new brain was not present when behaviour was learned.
- Brain might be an information processing organ (isnt saying memories do not get stored in brain cells I think, as well as in other cells)
- Single cell organisms display memory and multi-function behaviour one could think would need multiple cell types / tissues to achieve.
- Single cells, display intelligence
- Single cells, taken from frog skin, display memory and goal behaviour.
- Single cells, taken from frog skin, in a dish, reorganise by themselves into something, and display multicellular behaviour (swimming around the dish, collecting other skin cells into skin cell piles)
- Cells can use different biological mechanism to achieve the same result. Example he gave was cells creating a tube, using different mechanisms, some involved multiple cells grouping to form a tube, one was a single cell, wrapping around itself to create a tube. Suggesting the desired outcome is encoded in bioelectrical state, and cells can use different molecular and genetic mechanisms to achieve that. Different signalling molecules, different genetic expression, used by the cells to achieve the state encoded in bioelectricity. Suggesting single cells are intelligent.
- By imaging the electrical activity of tissue, they observed that before a tumor was formed, electrical communication stopped or drastically reduced, in the area that later became tumorous. Suggesting cancer or at least some cancer, involves the disruption of communication between cells. Essentially the cancer cells detaching from the collective and becoming their own thing, like a new self a new organism if I understood correctly. Potentially if communication is reestablished, cells might get incorporated back into the individual, and stop being cancerous, doing things in accordance of the collective of the whole body again.
(in support of this theory: here Carlos Galicia mentions how when cancer cells are injected into an embryo, the embryo just takes over the cancer cells and incorporates it into itself, making them not cancerous anymore and part of the embryo: Carlos Galicia | Embryogenesis-Inspired Rejuvenation @ Longevity Frontiers Workshop 2023 )
- Full limb and organ regeneration is possible, if we knew how to do it.
- They successfully regenerated a whole leg that was previously amputated in a frog, by putting a jar like "biodome" on the amputated end, on the wound. Inside the "biodome" was fluid (water I assume), progesterone, ion channel modulating compound, and some other things. Another fascinating thing that goes in line with the rest of his theory, is that the "biodome" was only applied for 24H or for some short period of time, later it was removed, and the new leg kept growing until completion in subsequent weeks, without any new molecules or stimulus applied by them. Suggesting that all it took was for a specific signal to be sent to the cells that instructed them to grow a new leg, and the growing continued without the presence of the signalling molecules. He said next they will attempt this or did already by now, to regenerate an adult mouse leg. (I got excited about progesterone after seeing this, but then I saw that progesterone uniquely controls some functions in frogs if I remember correctly, might not have the same exact effect in other animals.)
- Cells or the cell collective already possess the intelligence to make stuff and regenerate stuff, therefore micromanaging every signalling molecule and gene expression is not required. Cells need to be instructed on what to do, and the signalling molecules, gene expression and other details are handled by the cells themselves.
Michael Levin's youtube channel
Website
Tufts university (where their lab is at)
Anti-peat alert:
PUFA accumulation, did not prevent the frog's leg from growing when right signal was given. Also if assuming frog had low PUFA to begin with, why do their legs not regenerate without the treatment. So that cannot be reason. I'm not saying PUFA is not harmful or that it does not accumulate and cause disease, but maybe it suggests, if the right signal or goal is communicated to the cells, they could clear the PUFA. That PUFA is allowed to accumulate I think must be downstream from cause of aging. By downstream I mean maybe organ or other dysfunction comes, and in that dysfunction PUFA can accumulate and cause more havoc (replace PUFA with other bad things that are problematic for adults but not young organisms, they will not age any faster if they chug a bottle of seed oil, they will get messed up acutely while the toxin is present, when the toxin clears they will recover. Depending on what stage/state the organism is in, embryo vs baby vs kid vs young adult,..). Therefore labelling PUFA accumulation as one of the primary causes of aging I think is incorrect and a more appropriate way to label it would be a primary or major cause of disease (if you exclude aging, whatever aging is). Even if PUFA accumulates from the sperm to embryo to baby, which I don't know how because then it would kill the organism before birth, or even right after sperm meets the egg since it is only 1-2 cells big, I still think that given the right molecular or electrical signals or other interventions, the cells will clear the PUFA. The issue being upstream from the PUFA accumulation.
I think his views go in line with the idea that genes are not all they are advertised to be (like they are everything there is) and other things in RP's view that go against the mainstream theories or lies in some cases that are pushed as fact in the 21st century.
-
Last edited:
