TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A Revolution in Biology?

298 点作者 pr337h4m12 个月前

23 条评论

robwwilliams12 个月前
Michael Levin is coming close to the positions of both Humberto Maturana (autopoiesis) and of Nick Lane (proton pumping).<p>Autopoiesis is not an easy set of concepts but one of the ideas is that details of structure are much less important that preservation of relationships that allow an entity to replenish its own constituents. Planarian are damn adaptable, but this is hardly news.<p>Nick Lane emphasizes that DNA is subsidiary to bioenergetics and “proton pumping” across membranes. His recent book “Transformer” focuses on the Kreb’s cycle and mitochondria as the crux of life (and autopoiesis, although he does not use this term).<p>Lane is extremely readable. Maturana is almost inscrutable.<p>I enjoined the target article, but am not comfortable boiling down development to “bioelectrics”. A complementary perspective but I do not think this will get us farther than good old developmental molecular biology.
评论 #40633693 未加载
评论 #40633974 未加载
zer0gravity12 个月前
I have created a simulation of how a tree can be grown from a programmable cellular automata. Each cell executes some operations, including replication, based on the surrounding conditions and its age&#x2F;iteration. More complex organisms can be grown with this technique.<p>You can play too with it here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;acionescu.github.io&#x2F;digitalfire&#x2F;WebContent&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;acionescu.github.io&#x2F;digitalfire&#x2F;WebContent&#x2F;</a>
评论 #40632831 未加载
mcswell12 个月前
Hidden in footnote 5 is a significant fact about the two-headed planaria (flatworms) that produce two-headed offspring: they reproduce not by laying eggs, but by fission. In other words, this physiological trait is not passed through the genes (if it were, that would be a rather astounding Lamarckian fact).<p>Planaria in general reproduce sexually (with eggs and sperm) and asexually (by splitting).
评论 #40631574 未加载
LarsDu8812 个月前
The language in the article is a bit overhyped. There are multiple examples of gradients being involved in pattern formation. It&#x27;s just that electrical potentials are a bit of a newer area of study.<p>There&#x27;s the chemical gradient based on WNT signaling in fruitfly development, the SHH (sonic hedgehog) chemical gradient in limb pattern formation and body planning asymmetry. There&#x27;s even auxin signaling in plant development.<p>Heck, one of Alan Turing&#x27;s (yes, THAT Turing) most famous papers from the 50s described reaction-diffusion mechanisms for pattern formation.<p>Basically for evolution to invent some kind of reproducible pattern of something, you need to start with a gradient of something and tie that to gene transcription.<p>In the fruit fly example it&#x27;s a chemical trigger that reaches the nucleus via wnt signaling. In the flatworm example, it&#x27;s a membrane polarization gradient that drives the gradient rather than a chemical one.<p>I&#x27;d imagine the patterns you can create from electrical depolarization are simpler than the ones you can get from chemicals interacting as you lose many of the interesting interactions you get from reaction-diffusion
评论 #40630326 未加载
评论 #40643083 未加载
评论 #40632699 未加载
dang12 个月前
Related. Others?<p><i>Computational Boundary of a Self: Bioelectricity and Scale-Free Cognition (2019)</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39244333">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39244333</a> - Feb 2024 (1 comment)<p><i>Brains are not required to think or solve problems – simple cells can do it</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39127028">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=39127028</a> - Jan 2024 (396 comments)<p><i>Bioelectricity, Biobots, and the Future of Biology [video]</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=38423588">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=38423588</a> - Nov 2023 (1 comment)<p><i>How bioelectricity could regrow limbs and organs</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=38027587">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=38027587</a> - Oct 2023 (100 comments)<p><i>M. Levin – Bioelectrical signals reveal, induce, and normalize cancer [video]</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37140965">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=37140965</a> - Aug 2023 (1 comment)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36912245">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36912245</a> (July 2023)<p><i>Aging as a morphostasis defect: a developmental bioelectricity perspective</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36264719">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36264719</a> - June 2023 (1 comment)<p><i>Bioelectric networks: cognitive evolutionary scaling from physiology to mind</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36009513">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36009513</a> - May 2023 (1 comment)<p><i>Bioelectric networks: from body intelligence to regenerative medicine</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=35763121">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=35763121</a> - April 2023 (1 comment)<p><i>Non-neural, developmental bioelectricity as a precursor for cognition</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33902641">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33902641</a> - Dec 2022 (1 comment)<p><i>Michael Levin: Intelligence Beyond the Brain (networked daptive morphogenesis~)</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33217070">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=33217070</a> - Oct 2022 (1 comment)<p><i>Plasticity without genetic change – Michael Levin [video]</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=32119375">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=32119375</a> - July 2022 (1 comment)<p><i>Mike Levin on using bioelectricity to study how cells form (2019)</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27819791">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27819791</a> - July 2021 (21 comments)<p><i>Persuading the Body to Regenerate Its Limbs</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27062477">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27062477</a> - May 2021 (69 comments)<p><i>The Link Between Bioelectricity and Consciousness</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=26435281">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=26435281</a> - March 2021 (1 comment)<p><i>Growing Neural Cellular Automata: A Differentiable Model of Morphogenesis</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22300376">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22300376</a> - Feb 2020 (46 comments)<p><i>What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=18736698">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=18736698</a> - Dec 2018 (16 comments)<p><i>Brainless Embryos Suggest Bioelectricity Guides Growth</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=16589702">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=16589702</a> - March 2018 (35 comments)<p><i>Memory in the Flesh: Can memories survive outside the brain?</i> - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9226391">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9226391</a> - March 2015 (12 comments)
评论 #40628176 未加载
评论 #40627230 未加载
评论 #40637831 未加载
RivieraKid12 个月前
It&#x27;s incredible that the information necessary to create a human is just about 750 MB uncompressed. For example the very specific shape of the scapula bone or fear of spiders...
评论 #40627798 未加载
评论 #40630376 未加载
评论 #40627313 未加载
评论 #40635154 未加载
评论 #40627457 未加载
评论 #40627390 未加载
评论 #40634834 未加载
评论 #40635592 未加载
评论 #40631570 未加载
评论 #40633898 未加载
评论 #40627885 未加载
kettleballroll12 个月前
As an aside<p>&gt; His work has been featured everywhere from Scientific American to the Lex Fridman podcast and The New Yorker.<p>This is a weird way to posit someone&#x27;s scientific achievements. Had they said eg Lancet, Nature and Science -- ok, clearly someone publishing in those venues is a scientific heavyweight. But being featured in pop-science, a famous podcast and a general audience magazine only tells me how well someone can explain&#x2F;sell their research, but doesn&#x27;t actually say anything about the strength of that research.
评论 #40630740 未加载
dash212 个月前
&gt; They’ve done things like getting frogs to develop extra limbs, and getting them to develop an eye in their gut, or an eye in their tail that they can actually see out of.<p>I have two contradictory reactions to this. 1. &quot;Isn&#x27;t science amazing!&quot; 2. &quot;Poor froggy, how horrible.&quot;
评论 #40628386 未加载
Anduia12 个月前
Really bad title. Here is a better one:<p>Bioelectric Signals Guide Body Development and Regeneration
swamp4012 个月前
He used human tracheal cells, not lung cells.<p>&quot;Because they are one of the few tissues in the body that have motile cilia.&quot;[0]<p>So they can move around.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;drmichaellevin&#x2F;status&#x2F;1730428052847370556" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;drmichaellevin&#x2F;status&#x2F;173042805284737055...</a>
schappim12 个月前
This “Fractal Intelligence” stuff feels super Wolfram-like. Just as Wolfram argues that simple rules in cellular automata can create complex, intelligent patterns, Levin’s bioelectric networks show how cells and organs have their own built-in smarts and adaptability. Both are about how simple, foundational principles lead to sophisticated behaviour, challenging the old deterministic ways of thinking. It’s basically a fresh take on how complexity and intelligence arise, and could really shake up how we understand biology and systems in general.
评论 #40632527 未加载
pvaldes12 个月前
&gt; studying cancer as a “dissociative identity disorder” of cell groups,<p>&gt; finding that ant colonies succumb to “visual illusions”<p>&gt; had created biobots from frog skin cells<p>&gt; and then created human biobots from lung tissue that can heal damaged neurons.<p>Oh man, the entire article is a train wreck. Theranos level. I don&#x27;t even know how to start.<p>I wouldn&#x27;t advise to put your money on this. Not without a lot of safety measures.
spacetimeuser512 个月前
With such apparent speed and quality of research thought we will never have anatomical compiler, let alone electroceutocals and anthrobots, on a routine basis at least in the next couple of hundreds of years.
danielmarkbruce12 个月前
It&#x27;s surprising that the main thrust of this is surprising. Do biologists not tend to think about electromagnetic force and it&#x27;s implications?
评论 #40626962 未加载
评论 #40627555 未加载
评论 #40627144 未加载
fngjdflmdflg12 个月前
&gt;the impact of Levin’s work is a shift away from genes as the only determinant of structure<p>Nobody was making the claim that genes are the only determinant of structure though. A trivial example is the mother&#x27;s hormones affecting her child&#x27;s development in utero. To cause a shift away from genes would require showing that the bioelectric network is not itself caused by genetic factors. Otherwise while it may be useful as a tool to develop treatments for developmental diseases it does not change that genes are the ultimate cause of the bioelectric network itself (except as when directly manipulated by scientists).<p>Quoting Levin himself:<p>&gt;Evolution was using bioelectric signaling long before neurons and muscles appeared, to solve the problem of creating and repairing complex bodies.[0]<p>It sounds like to me from this quote that bioelectric networks are not something outside of genetics but just another important biological system.<p>It&#x27;s hard to pin down what the author is really getting at in the first place. For example these two lines:<p>&gt;genes are great, and they do contain much of the necessary information for building our bodies. But they don’t contain all of it &gt;[...] &gt;Levin’s point is that genes are like machine code, and modern-day programmers never think about machine code—they think about higher-level software constructs like objects, modules, and applications.<p>Yet machine code really is what is being executed by the computer. Nobody would say that the computer is really running c++, for example, or that c++ is a new &quot;determinant of structure&quot; of the program. It is completely subsumed by machine code.<p>The author is the entire time equating a set of instructions (the genome) to a biological system (the &quot;bioelectric network&quot;). However it does not make sense to equate these things in the way the author has done it (at least not without a lot more elaboration). The genes do not really <i>do</i> anything except get copied and transcribed into mRNA while the bioelectric network clearly is doing something. So it really seems more like the author should be comparing proteins with the bioelectric network. But I think here the problem becomes much more obvious – there is no other way besides proteins for biological organisms to do work. So it is obvious that the bioelectric network is somehow formed by the work of proteins, and the proteins are themselves caused by genes. The human body has within it many systems: the circulatory system, the respiratory system, the endocrine system, the nervous system, the muscular system etc. These all exist at &quot;higher levels of abstraction&quot; than genes and some of them, like the endocrine system, play a role in development. But it wouldn&#x27;t make sense to say that these system are &quot;in competition&quot; with the genome. Even though we can use the circulatory system to transport a drug to the body that changes the structure of the body.<p>Another major difference is that genetics are continually showing their influence because the body is continually creating proteins from the genome. It sounds from the article that this bioelectric network is really only relevant at the developmental stage (if I am wrong here then I feel the article should have made that more explicit).<p>Ultimately I feel the article is arguing a bit against a strawman of &quot;genes as the only determinant of structure&quot; and is also making too vague of a claim about genes having a new competitor, so to speak.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;link.springer.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;10.1007&#x2F;s10071-023-01780-3" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;link.springer.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;10.1007&#x2F;s10071-023-01780-3</a>
prog_112 个月前
levins work is great, except that afaik it hasnt been reproduced outside of his lab
fullstackchris12 个月前
Way out of my wheelhouse but after reading this it leads me to believe &quot;heal machines&quot; like in elysium and other scifi movies may not be that much scifi after all.... block an ion channel here, send a signal there... poof, your arm is back!
hcmgr12 个月前
website blocked in my country :(
koolala12 个月前
wearing a tail?
webnrrd2k12 个月前
I&#x27;m about 55 now, and if I was high school or college age again, this is what I&#x27;d study. There is huge potential in future biological developments.
评论 #40627012 未加载
jononomo12 个月前
As a biologist, how do you account for the existence of life?
评论 #40648329 未加载
评论 #40627736 未加载
briffid12 个月前
The most interesting for me is the offspring, reproducing a different structure with the same genes. I think mathematically this could be the missing link in evolution, where random gene modifications are just not probable enough to drive evolution. 3 billion DNA pairs cannot evolve randomly, there is not enough time and matter in the universe to randomly try successful generations of life forms. However, bioelectric might be a much much more straightforward and fast way of driving evolution instead of randomly mutating DNA.
评论 #40627323 未加载
评论 #40627070 未加载
评论 #40627087 未加载
评论 #40628732 未加载
评论 #40627084 未加载
评论 #40627040 未加载
lo_zamoyski12 个月前
The first observation is that DNA, on its own, is useless. It has no causal power. It doesn&#x27;t generate or explain life or cells. You need an existing cell, an existing organism, to make use of the DNA, as it were. Of course, without DNA, the cell cannot proceed. So this mutual dependence tells you that they&#x27;re a package deal, and neither can be reduced to the other.<p>The second is that you really cannot get away from telos. The ostensible banishment of telos is not a scientific conclusion, but a metaphysical choice, and one that is incoherent. Telos isn&#x27;t will or desire or planning or intent per se, though these are examples. Telos is what explains why an effect follows from a cause, and does so with regularity. That striking a match (efficient cause) results in fire (effect) is a question of telos, of the match being ordered toward the effect of fire, effected and actualized by striking. The match obviously is not planning to produce fire, it doesn&#x27;t will it or want it. But it is causally ordered toward that end or effect. Otherwise, you could not explain why striking it actualizes this potential for fire. You could not make sense of any phenomena, why striking a match results in fire instead of, say, nothing or the appearance of an elephant or whatever.<p>Biology is no different, but here we can speak of higher order telos. And as biology progresses, the more difficult it is to maintain the crude mechanistic view of life reaching back to the 17th century, that is, one modeled on the machine metaphor. Living things, <i>strictly speaking</i>, are not machines. They&#x27;re integral wholes, not accidental arrangements.
评论 #40629772 未加载