Longevity technology

what works on everything? plants, yeast, people?

is there anything about being a perennial plant, as compared to an annual plant that could have a genetic coevolution at humans, like vasular plants of a certain kind of vascularity are perennials, and multicentruy lifespan ones have a particular kind of
vasculature.

are any ion transport channels conserved between plants and people. I read about 1/5 of genes are actually the same, so the entire suite of “most optimal at plants” at that 20% could be compared withthe human version, then those 20% of shared genes
could be optimized based on the most longevity and capability beneficial plant versions of those genes; also there is the engineering approach as well. Like, say, plants use only 1/3 as much ATP to transfer a glucose across a cytomembrane, just going
for the plant genes might not function, but the way the better transport channel actually physicochemically works, and computer simulations of the proteins itismade outof could provide a place for humans to create a new gene based on the physical
chemistry of the transport channel.

Molecular biology generalizables, repeatable forms, and things (feeling unclueful, but like: things) such as a alpha helices, twisty ladders, beta sheets, barrels, and things that look kind of like like notebookpaper iris flourishes are, as likely almost
any genetic engineer knows, tunable (9% longer, 3% more curve), adjustable (twice as tall), taxonomically findable (5000 different beta sheets and where to find them, and the nucleic acid sequences that make them, and the ribosomes/ER/golgi structure
that build them) at a lookup catalog for any particular organism; so like, find the 20% of genes shared with plants, see what has better engineering, then use the databases (catalogs)

So, there is a way to make things at a cyte I just read about, “n contrast, non-proteinogenic amino acids are amino acids that are either not incorporated into proteins (like GABA, L-DOPA, or triiodothyronine), misincorporated in place of a genetically
encoded amino acid, or not produced directly and in isolation by standard cellular machinery (like hydroxyproline). The latter often results from post-translational modification of proteins. Some non-proteinogenic amino acids are incorporated into
nonribosomal peptides which are synthesized by non-ribosomal peptide synthetases.” So as a longevity technology there are a whole bunch of cytochemicals and cytoproteins called nonproteinogenic amino acids that are not make by the ribosome, and some
of them might have longevity, wellness, healthspan and youthful phenotype effects; is there a way to cause these nonproteogenic amino acids to be at teenage amounts, locations, and production as a response to various body and cyto triggers? The
cytomechanisms that do that teenage amountness, or most strongly support the production of, or are like the rate-limiting step at, the production of nonproteinogenic amino acids could be longevity drug mechanisms.

Also, noting these are nonproteinogenic, it is possible that their production is vaugely associated with amounts of enzymes and substrates floating around in the cytoplasm, as compared with frequency of transcription of a codon sequence at a nucleus and
a ribosome, so that suggests that as compared with a genetic source, nonproteogenic amino acids have a much more fluid, completely computationally different dynamic and modellable sourcing and residable areas; So, they could look at the nonproteogenic
math models that describe actual chemicals at supercentanarians and prepubertal children and find out if they are like 7% different of 300% different, and then come up with approaches to bring the supercentanarian nonproteinogenic chemistry to be like
that of the prepubertal children, This could be based on endogenous production of more, less, or molecularly different nonproteinogenic amino acids; making the repairs or improvements durable, gene therapy or gene optimization at the germline could be
used to affect the nonproteinogenic amino acids. This could possibly be based on the gene based production of things like enzymes and prechemicals (substrates) at, or with, the genes that code ribosome-made proteinogenic amino acid sequences to make
things like enzymes. Compared with gene therapy to make more things like enzymes and substrates, as a longevity technology supplements, probiotic secretions, or possibly at some things, depot injections could make the supercentenarians and anyone older
than a prepubertal child’s quantitative measurements to be those of a prepubertal child.

As a longevity drug source, I think a computer program could just screen the multiply interconnected: [protein and chemical and protein effect each other] network diagrams I have seen, then make a list of the ones with the largest variability, the
largest mass of actual chemicals produced, the particular rate limiting step chemicals and the biggest differences between chemical amounts at supercentenarians and prepubertal children, and then from those lists make a new list of differenter, bigger,
most and least supply assurability, and possibly if any of them are essential to like 2 or 11 different simulataneous mostly unrelated processes, making them kind of like having effect multipliers. So then you get a list of nongenetic nonproteinforming
amino acids where anomolies are possibly repairable with supplementation (or gene therapy on things like enzymes, or enzyme substrate production) and the repair of those anomolies can be quantitatively measured as to if they have a longevity, wellness,
healthspan, as well as phenotypic youthfulness of the organism, such as a human effect.

Also, finding the rate limiting step, when either a nonproteinforming amino acid is either being produced, or when a nonproteinforming amino acid is the actual rate limiting step of another cytological or tissue or body activity, finds things where more
or less of it could have a wellness, math-system and actual physiological resilience, and then those might effect healthspan and longevity. (and so what?)

Some longevity things: So with histonation, acetylation and methylation, are there any pathway chemicals that come from nonproteinforming amino acid chemistry and availability as a rate limiting step? If there are, then supplementing that
nonproteinforming amino acid could produce a rate change, and a new amount, of histonation, acetylation, decaetylation, or methylation. I previously thought of these histonation/acetylation/methylation things as gene driven and now think that rate
limiting nonproteinformin amino acids (production of which could also be gene driven) could steer their actual longevity wellness healthspan youthful phenotype effects. Similarly, using the same thinking algorithm, as a longevity technology are there
any things in the AMPK (metformin, CR) mTOR (rapamycin) that are rate determined from a nonproteinforming amino acid? Then more, less, or a different version of that nonproteinforming amino acid would be a longevity drug that amplifies metformin or
rapamycin’s effect or even alone similarly amplifies the longevity effects of an endongenous chemical process; also a new version of the nonproteinogenic amino acid could have twice, half or an order of magnitude different AMPK, mTOR, or histone
effects. Sort of like if a person said, “look GABA” and then another researcher said. “like phenibut cuold be an amino acid that takes pathway locations and actions” and if they were swapped there would be a bunch of organism changes.

So, an informed person could just look up longevity genes, then find any nonproteinogenic amino acids at their pathways, then suggest new, different nonproteinogenic amino acids, or synthetic chemicals that would change the amount of activity of those
longevity genes at causing longevity with the purpose of increasing longevity;

I read people looked at the mitochondrial genome, mtDNA, to find longevity and energetics technology avenues; are there any essential or rate limiting nonproteinogenic amino acids active at functioning mitochondria? If there are then supplementing those,
or otherwise modifying the amount that gets produced could have an effect on mitochondrial energy production, ATP availability, and possibly a calorie restriction, AMPK workalike that is without reference to the actual amount of food concerned.

putting drugs on either the brain side or body side of blood brain barrier: hydroxyproline is a zwitterion, and I read those stay out of the blood brain barrier, the thing is noopept, Pro-Gly concentrates at places like, but maybe different than, the
frontal lobes and hippocampus, so even though it has a proline it passes the blood brain barrier.

entertainment value: like there could be a list of all the proton conductor-like things at the body, and all the proton-turned assemblies, and it would just be groovy to be aware of. Like, if you give a person lithium supplements does their proton
mechanical work effects like go triple strength? Also, someone who knows could say something like, “well, last thing you heard these were really H3O+, so actually much larger than a hydrogen atom, but they still physically move around.

Longevity technology:
so, after a person makes alist of all the nonproteinogenic amino acids, and the amount they are different between a supercentenarian and a prepubescent child, thay could make a supplement that brings the supercentenarian to the prepubertal child’s
nonproteinformingaminoacid amount; This might be extremely liposomal to get to the gi tract without digestion, so it might be a bunch like a a milkshake or a flavorless beauty topical emulsion. Another possibility is genetically engineering a probiotic
to make sufficient GI tract absorbable nonproteinforming amino acids to cause amounts at supercentenarians to rise to those of prepubertal children.

It is at least theoretically possible to find the nonproteinogenic amino acids that there are more of at a supercentanarian than a prepubertal child and stimulate enzymes, which are made of protein, and can be increased with gene therapy, to change the
extra amount of nonproteinforming amino acids into something different or otherwise reduce their amount to be the identical amount a prepubertal child has.

I think I wrote about this previously, but it has to do with using psychology tests and software tests to find things and areas where beneficial change is most likely to suceed with the most frequently applied amount of effort, which is a little
different than the least effort. It might actually be the near the middle of a normal distribution amount of effort, or perhaps the amount of effort 10 out of 11 users are likely to voluntarily and spontaneously, or with planning, utilize and measurably
exhibit beneficial participation and action behavior at.

The software has you open your social networking page in a side tab, quantifies and correlates and predicts what it thinks is your personality, and then does you good. Most likely it does you, and others, good before it asks you for further tests or
sample making participation, and possibly for most persons the analysis of the person’s online content will have sufficient predictive validity to have the software do the person, and other people good.

So it is different than the least effort, although the least effort that causes beneficial enhancement option will also be available to all software users, although as a way the math definitions go, 10 out of 11 will go for the most mathematically “
normal” projected amount of effort. Notably, the least effort to produce a beneficial and benevolent action with durable ethical value might actually sometimes be more effective at causing purposed benevolent utilitarian well being t the largest
number of people that builds behavior of durable beneficial effect; for example, clicking on the most awesome thing at amazon.com, which has been quantitatively measured and verified as, compared with the software, causing 300% more utilitarian
benevolent durable well being at the software user,other humans, and those other humans they have kind feelings for, is actually easier than using the software if your financial data is already at Amazon.

It might be really awesome to see if there is a way to make something authentically beneficial and action causing that is actually more wonderful than the most wonderful thing online, if you knew what it is. Going with the idea that it is possible to
know what that thing is, is there a software guidable group of most successful accomplished voluntary actions at causing benevolent and wonderful simultaneous utilitarian benefit, that is actually more optimal than clicking at the most optimal item, or
even experience (you can likely click on “volunteer to teach overseas at____” vacation at amazon). So software that does people good, effectively, through their own voluntary actions, is complemented or logically related to the actual thing of the
most optimal thing to geton amazon.

Then after the computer processes the person’s social media, and modules measure things like social connectedness to how many friends and with what kind of “emotional and congitive tonal stance” they interact with each other at on social media, the
person might then take the software quizzes that the software generates a bunch of action item containing and motivating webpages, perhaps cartoon illustrated, or with “Do this and click here to get one of your amazon dollars back! (you know, the ones
you put aside so we could offer you rewards for doing and reading!)” that are about things the person is algorithmically modellably most likely to succeed at,

so basically the software might figure out, among people like this one would this person and others benefit moreormost from:
more, or also better, friends or romance
predictability, material compensation, or more enjoyable voluntary employment physiologically adjustable beneficial things like doubled lifespan, genetically optimized children, things that cause the person to feel at their 99.9th percentile of bodily well being, usefulness and enjoyment

A style of thinking that might be called a narrative that causes greater happiness, optimism, actual opportunity, action sourced feelings of capability, capability to not only pleasantly value change, also to change material and interpersonal observables,
value, ignore, work around, or change society or also near-field groups that frequently have spontaneously generated microcultures or conformable behavior trends, as well as measurably feel benevolent and be action based benevolent towards others

and some other simultaneously utilitarian benevolent things.

The things the software suggests are not only the highest likelihood of actually being accomplished, both from that person’s computer modellable amount of predicted sustained, remembered application of purpose as well as algorithmic representation of
the projected effects of early, mid and after activity enjoyment as well as any interpersonal social factors that bolster effective action.

So, what does the software actually suggest people do? Well, the software scans all the social network material it can find, or about 700-1 billion human’s production of text, comes up with something like 2 personality concentrations or clusters per
big 5 personality test item, giving each person either a 25 different 5 letter personality designation or the much more predictive and beneficial treatment of the psychology measurements as smooth continuous data using math formulas, or if the benefits
of a digital and analog representation are compared, and some prefer a digital representation, perhaps 512 or 1024 bytes of resolution derivable from analyzing social network postings and images, and video body language at each of the 5 big factors, or,
better, a “non taxonomic” psychology test where like the MMPI they just came up with hundreds of questions, then found out what people, with what pre-existing happiness, capability, well being and kindness answered which way, then gave different
parts of a group the repeatedly recalibrated test that amplified, promoted and retained the most predictive questions, to come up with a predictive psychology test; So, the software builds a non pre-taxonomified measurement test that is re-verifiable on
other data samples test, based on social networking and various electronic, phone and video content, and where possible, all the content at the links emanating from a person’s social networking or other internet posts.

Software analysis of social networking, phone and video content (as well as test values) causes a personality characterization thing that the advising software utilizes, based on analog math or a digital form of individual personality and personality
group description, which could be described as a math space or data space which as a math or data space is larger than 99.99999th percentile of group predictability, or a math space or data space of1024 bytes, optimally whichever is larger. Noting that
1024 bytes, being sort of like 2^8100 is sufficient to give much more than a quadrillion persons perhaps more than a quadrillion discernable different values of amount or form, at about a quadrillion different measured personality dimensions or
beneficial activities; it is possible that the 1024 bytes to describe a measured personality and predict it, as a group provides much higher resolution and richer opportunity and nuance of consideration, new opportunity, and advice than the 99.99999th
percentile predictability math or data space measures. Another valued data represention space option besides 1024 bytes or 99.99999th percentile accuracy at finding and predicting enjoyability, actual action, and benevolent simultaneneous utilitarian
benefit is the amount of bytes to represent the entire brain, or optimally the brain and body of a living person, which is also a beneficial and valued amount of data to represent and predict a human, that is a person, a member of a group of people. At
the time I write this it is not, to my awareness known if 3d or 4d fields describing an unobserved electron, at a plurality of atoms is near, or orders of magnitude too large a grain size to describe, computationally model and predict actions and
perceptions at a living brain, and predict or simulate thoughts, feelings, and other brain-based content and effects at a human brain; grasping at things I have heard of, and thinking that there will be better conceptual forms and even nouns at higher
measurement system resolutions, it is possible that a quark level description that includes all possible interactions at an area larger than a lightcone, or from a possible perspective, the size of lightcone that a human perceives: like, if I notice
things 100 ms at a time, then my personal lightcone of things I could look around at and think had presence, processable meaning, or possible effect might be all the things at about a 15,000 mile radius (100 ms lightcone) from my eyes. The size of the
grain of a simulation that can predict brain experience, content, is researched and possibly applied at transhumanism and transhumanist technology; predictions, simulations, models, or algorithmic optimizations of humans that is persons, that is members
of a group of people, utilizing all the atoms and fields, or with higher resolution data and measurements, around the brain create a nearer to predictive and benevolent utilitarian acted upon advising software function that prompts and fosters enjoyable
voluntary utilization of software that does a person, as well as people, good.

So there is this thing, a representation of a personality, and it has high repeatability of measurement outcome, and is also validated as to its effectiveness when people use software based on it: the people being advised experience computer based
content, which could be text, browser based web, or something like educational software, that is quantifiably measured at a previous sample as causing the highest amount of actual success at benevolent durably beneficial utilitarian action;

Optimally, the computer is high functioning enough to write the motivation to action things the person reads, hears or views as computer generated moving images, and the comprehendable followable, and quantitively measured as followed instructions, that
are also enjoyed following while utilizing, instructions. The computer finds possible actions that do people good, that they will actually usually do and enjoy, and succeed at accomplishing, building even greater action capabilities. The software
generates custom instructions, and also sends users texts and phone vocalizations, along with computer screen content, perhaps at various times to algorithmically move a beneficial voluntary human-purposed outcome into being.

There is also the crowdsourced human built, software appraised, module approach to creating software that people voluntarily use that does them and others some simultaneously utilitarian good. Consider the 20,000 things most people frequently do. Also
consider that among these 20,000 things perhaps over 10,000 already have books written about them, and reviews of the books have isolated some with 4 or more stars. Now noting that fluent enjoyable writing, numerically popular emotional and cognitive
tone, and sufficient fun or amplitude of feeling has occured such that a person actually voluntarily writes a review,
Are the book reviews of any value? Possibly. One approach is to use a neural network like deep learning AI to measure the nearness or distance of the cognitive and emotional style of the reviewer compared with that of the software user being advised
and make that a part of predicting if a book review with actual domain specific content on how to have good actions with enjoyable utilitarian benevolent success at one of the 20,000 things that people do, topics is at a neural-network highly predictive
of simultanous realized utilitarian benefit and enjoyability, then the 4/5 or 5/5 rating could cause the content at amazon to be at software or a crowdsourced voluntarily human composed module, be a part of the module or software composing interactions,
these build and guide the voluntary actions the software enables people to voluntarily, and enjoyably, do.

Notably though, there might be a thing like a Pareto 80/20 like effect where 10% of the software development effort, with crowdsourcing the production of voluntary participation modules, perhaps at each of the 20,000 things people most frequently do,
causes development at an order of magnitude less dependence on the individual drive of persons at the software company and much less financial resource pooling, and with 10 times faster appearance and utilization at society from more rapid development.

So, what might the software actually do?
sort of like a bird or tree identification guide, the software could do a binary (or case statement) taxonomic tree of all behaviors, with 20,000 of the things people most frequently do, which as 20,000 things can be made into a database that could run
on a 2019 AD desktop PC as the 1.1 form of the open source module library. If a human module writer feels like making something new tothe database like: writing, “order a free hugs shirt online, then wear it every monday for three months” They have
contributed; it is possible that modules might be constructed from templates where something like a mad-libs form is populated. What: Free hugs: personal contact:10-20 times per hour, public space action, private space action, $9 outlay, percent of
interaction or conversation that advisee originates: 95%, advisee conversation branch opportunities or new activity branch opportunities generated per hour: 20; then as people actually use the software and do the advised actions, the “free hugs shirt�
� activity gets better characterized and it is possible that something like a neural network does something like deep learning and if there are a few hundred or thousand people that have tried the “free hugs shirt” advice that the deep learning model
is able to increase accuracy of predicting which advised persons will do it, cause simultaneous utilitarian benefit, like doing it, experience and utilize beneficial opportunity branches that are beneficialto all the persons at the branch, voluntarily
repeat the experience, and write about it using positive language at social media. So that might be what happens when a person writes a “free hugs shirt” module,

The 10,000 or 20,000 things people do most frequently, ordered on utilitarian benefit, benevolence, enjoyment, and generated well being at others is a thing that could provide voluntary beneficial advice with a quantified highlikelihood of causing an
actual beneficial action;

There could also be some sort of algorithm that figures out the math of 1 million people doing a module, each with a 10% chance of success, where the benefit is 20 times higher than something 90% of people will complete that has only 5% of the other
items benefit, as supported with actual utilization measurements, this permits the suggestion of the highly beneficial 10% success activity, noting that the activity can have its action prompting statement modified such that it “feels successful” 90%
of the time, while at a different measure of its utility is achieved 10% of the time, but the projected benefit to the entire considered area of human beings or existence is 20 times larger than an activity module with 90% achievement and 90% “feeling
of success”. So part of the thing the module builders and programmers would do is work out a kind of automata theory or light pleasant “behavioral economics” of combining some n of feelable, useful action outcomes with other variables that do a
systematic algorithmic valuation of a state space that includes “feels good, just as good as goal achievement even if action outcome is absent” and a three or more variable version that can determine optimality when things like “feels good, is good,
is easy, has 90th percentile or larger sized beneficial effect and is 90% likely to be actually achieved” are placed at some kind of data representation and compared with things like “feels good, is good, has 95th percentile or larger sized
beneficial effect and is 80% likely to be actually achieved”. the software just uses the data representation of the persons personality, and at 1.1 version just sorts through the 20,000 things people do as well as any new person or software written
advice modules.

The things to do are likely, perhaps mathematically related to the kinds of things the programmer, module editor, or even crowdsource content providers are able to think of, it is possible some formula will value what people that are similar to the
personality profile of the voluntarily active, beneficially active software user thinks are beneficial things to do; notably an ethical person, either the programmer or a person clicking [] and sliding ———[]— at the control panel, as well as
crowdsource module builders, would even think of things that they think are beneficial to do, and introduce those to the software user. Also, having it be reconfigurable makes it so that if some person more authentically benevolent, beneficial and
ethical than the programmer occurs the simultaneous utilitarian and well-being value of the software, using the software, and the occurence of actual beneficial actions go up.


MWI technology

Rather than just 512 or 1024 bytes to represent a personality such that it can be benefically advised at a way that is quantitatively measured as enjoyably prompting of actual voluntary action with high likelihood of producing actual benefit to the
advised person and simultaneous utilitarian benefit to a plurality of persons, the software can utilize a data representation, like analog equations or digital represention such that the number of representative bytes encompasses 99.99999th percentile
predictability of the suggested behaviors causing simultaneous utilitarian benefit and enjoyment when acted on, and 99.99999th percentile predictive ability of what the actual human will actually do, notably, this what the human will actually do measure
could be other than an individual prediction, but the ability to predict what a group of persons with a similar personality characterization actually do as a distribution. So, it is possible the software might only have 99.999th percentile at predicting
what an individual will do, but at one billion users with a mathematically similar or with high taxonomic similarity, a math-represented and feature resolvable personality form description or data representation, with 99.99999 percentile behavioral
prediction at one variable is the resolution of the personality characterization and test form, group, type, or more optimistically, analog math statement of, personality. Notably this is very improveable as if 9 completely unrelated uncorrelated
personality variables are predicted the prediction has something kind of near a 1:1 chance of getting all 9 predictions right simultaneously. The software might use predictive accuracy to converge on advised actions that have simultaneous utilitarian
benefit, are enjoyable, emotively pleasant, or even fun, cause more opportunity, cause neutral or greater physiological well being, cause beneficial capability increase at the advised person from guiding practice at a cognition, emotion, or knowledge
span (you beneficially think more, beneficially feel more, or beneficially learn new stuff, or all three), have durability of utilitarian benefit, the action, as well as, or, its effect causes those unknown to the advised to have heightened durable
increases in well being, Beauty and beneficial aesthetic feeling and experience occur, it heightens well being and prospective well being at friendships, romance, and possibly those the person sees as part of project based activities, known during
2019AD as co-workers. So that is 9 things, from a personality representation at 99.99999th percentile if those 9 things were independent variables, although I do not have a functional ability to use the math that accurately describes the system, it
might be the software has a 1:1 likelihood of predicting the effects of all 9 simultaneous software generated benefits from acting and following the advice the software produces, which, beneficially, is constructed and described at a such a way that
humans usually voluntarily utilize and do actions based on the software’s advice.


[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)