TED Community » Anuraag Reddy

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Conquering the Self, Aesthetics of Beauty, Leadership, Prototyping, Simulating Business Games and Models, World Issues and Policy Making.

An idea worth spreading

Our state of being, The Consciousness or Awareness is a manifestation of the mind. The mind is the information stored in the brain in the form of a model of the universe in relativity to the self. The mind and the physical brain are inseparable as the mind is nothing but the information stored and the brain is the physical medium which supports it. And so the Mind-Matter Duality. The mind is the hysterical residue of everything, and change of information in this system is awareness as we know it. We are connected to the world around us and the people around us more by the information we carry as our minds.

Talk to me about

The Process of Invention, Nature of Awareness, Organizational Behavior, Evolutionary Psychology and Happiness.

People don't know that I'm good at

Observing, Introspecting and Adapting.

My TED Story

Its the Preamble.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +4.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +2

  A reply on Talk: Brian Greene: Is our universe the only universe?

  Apr 29 2012: Sir, when we say chance, we are still speaking of a possibility. It may be rare to get a Royal Flush in Poker (1 in 650,000 Hands) but you still consider it.
  
  even if there are billions(10 ^ 9 atoms) in a cell and for them to have arranged themselves in the right order in (3 dimensions) * 10 primary elements). Would be say 1 in 10 ^ ((9*3) + 1) or 10^28 chance for living cell to have formed.
  
  considering the surface area of the earth (510,072,000 km2) * 10 ^ 6 m2 * 10 ^6 uMs and for volume 10^6uMs and say 2 billion years since earth has been hospitable. and every second the atoms are in a new combination. 31 556 926 seconds per year.
  
  There were 3.16 * 10 ^ 36 combinations for atoms to have existed on earth, so there were close to a 10 ^ 8 or more than a 100 million times that something that resembled life formed since our planet became hospitable. Only a few needed to reproduce, be able to evolve to reach life as we know it today.
  
  My math may be theoretically wrong but it still has 100 million more chances to be true, it is irrefutable that the probabilities laid on earth are overwhelming to support that life could have simply formed from a primordial soup given the right conditions.
  
  Trying to prove Darwin or Einsteins legacies wrong based on what they believed or their contemporary assumptions is baseless as they were catalysts to the evolution of such theoretical thinking. Their theories have made much progress since then and have received much supporting evidence. Some of their assumptions may have been wrong but they and countless others after them have been right. I still can't believe there exists a geneticist who cannot fathom evolution, what a pretentious academic life that is.
  
  And please don't bring god into the equation.

• A reply on Conversation: Why evolution could never solve aging?

  Dec 8 2011: You seem to be in favor of the Antagonistic pleiotropy theory: Late-acting deleterious genes may even be favored by selection and be actively accumulated in populations if they have any beneficial effects early in life.
  
  A likely possibility and well arrived at. :)

• A reply on Conversation: Why evolution could never solve aging?

  Dec 8 2011: This is another socioeconomic selection trend that is well observed, definitely interesting and something new to this conversation.
  
  There is also a tendency for son's of rich, successful older men having sons who have better chances of mating themselves.
  
  Both should definitely be leading to longer lives at least among st humans.

• A reply on Conversation: Why evolution could never solve aging?

  Dec 4 2011: I would keep myself as far away from this argument as possible but there is one rational man out here that I can entertain. They are all just theories whether religious or scientific, each plausible to a different mind but at least we can look back and say we have found a missing link from the dark ages.
  A lexicon acquired from brushing through a scientific manual doesn't make these people a formidable opposition to science or progressive thinking. So do think twice before you commit to entertaining their arguments.

• A comment on Conversation: Why evolution could never solve aging?

  Dec 2 2011: These are some sensible theories widely accepted by the Scientific Community that I stumbled upon while browsing. Although that is what this conversation arrived at independently, thanks to all the incredible contributions. Cheers! :)
  
  Mutation accumulation theory: From the evolutionary perspective, aging is an inevitable result of the declining force of natural selection with age. For example, a mutant gene that kills young children will be strongly selected against (will not be passed to the next generation) while a lethal mutation with effects confined to people over the age of 80 will experience no selection because people with this mutation will have already passed it to their offspring by that age. Over successive generations, late-acting deleterious mutations will accumulate, leading to an increase in mortality rates late in life.
  
  Antagonistic pleiotropy theory: Late-acting deleterious genes may even be favored by selection and be actively accumulated in populations if they have any beneficial effects early in life.
  
  ‎"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." ~ Einstien
  
  A Good Read:
  http://longevity-science.org/Evolution.htm

• A reply on Conversation: Why evolution could never solve aging?

  Nov 30 2011: evolution doesn't occur in a vacuum, there is change. There are environmental changes and other species evolving around them but lets consider this, there are ecological niches which undergo little change and species which are occupying them.
  
  Here is some empirical data supporting my hypothesis: cited from Wikipedia
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_life_span#In_other_animals
  
  The differences in life span between species demonstrate the role of genetics in determining maximum life span ("rate of aging"). The records (in years) are these:
  for common house mouse, 4[10]
  for Norway rat 7[citation needed]
  for dogs, 29, in Australia (See List of oldest dogs)[citation needed]
  for cats, 38[citation needed]
  for polar bears, 42[11] (Debby)
  for horses, 62
  for common chimpanzees, 71.4[12]
  for Asian elephants, 86[13]
  
  The longest-lived vertebrates have been variously described as
  Macaws (A parrot that can live up to 80-100 years in captivity)
  koi (A Japanese species of fish, 200+ years, though generally not exceeding 25) Hanako was reportedly 226 years old upon her death.[14][15]
  Greenland Sharks (A species of shark native to the North Atlantic, believed to be about 200 years)
  tortoises (Galápagos tortoise) (190 years)[16]
  tuataras (a New Zealand reptile species, 100-200+ years[17])
  eels, the so called Brantevik eel (Swedish: Branteviksålen) is thought to have lived in a water well in southern Sweden since 1859, which makes it over 150 years old.[18]
  whales (Bowhead Whale) (Balaena mysticetus about 200 years)
  
  If you observe closely, it is those species that are living fossils like the Galapagos turtles, tuataras that have the longest lifespans whose ecological niches have changed little over millions of years.
  
  or
  
  Even a species influence on an environment both to change and adapt seems to have a significant influence on ones longevity. Both humans and elephants are the longest living mammals.

• A reply on Conversation: Why evolution could never solve aging?

  Nov 23 2011: I do agree that the affect of age on child-rearing is a significant advantage that proliferated through the population and developed species that adapted such an ability. This is a trait that is advantageous to unique species in unique situations.
  
  How would you explain the Galapagos turtle? I believe it is one of the longest living vertebrate yet abandons its eggs. It could also be that it is an isolated or rare occurence as well.
  
  A theory must be simple and able to explain everything but there can be few exceptions which should be explained by other superimposed factors. It must hold true for a majority of populations, measurable by controlling for other traits which affect the same characteristic.
  
  Is it possible that species started growing older long before they developed the behavior of grand-parenting? Uniquely Humans and Elephants are species which have barely any competition and adapt their environment and so have to face less adaptive pressures.
  
  Although there are other similarities as well, we have acquired learning so a longer learning period is definitely a benefit. But the greater apes have them too but have little impact on their environment and so have to face adaptive pressures. :)

• A reply on Conversation: Why evolution could never solve aging?

  Nov 23 2011: Hey Brett!
  I believe this post has received less credit than it deserves, so I would like to bring more attention to it. I will read further about "Pleiotropy."
  
  It is possible that organisms must be trading off longevity to be more competitive in their sexual prime, so they could leave more copies of themselves. All traits were selected for having their advantage, but later in the course of evolution when such traits become more common in the population, competition drove such traits to be expressed around the time of mating, even if it was self-mutilating in the long run.
  
  Like they say it is better to burst like a cracker than burn like a candle. Reproductive impact mattered more.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Why evolution could never solve aging?

  Nov 23 2011: There is an economic advantage within our species to live longer. If my parents live longer, stay mentally young to educate themselves and acquire more money, I am more likely to find better suitors and mate more often. But this may apply only to humans and may already be a socio-economic trend.
  
  But such a trend would continue as I may have a genetic disposition to do so!

• A reply on Conversation: Why evolution could never solve aging?

  Nov 23 2011: This looks like an evolutionary dead-end, I can't reply to Brett but Go Evill! lol
  
  I side with you, as evolution doesn't have a foresight, nothing evolves for the good of the species, it is individual fitness that matters and there must be a reason for the development of senescence and its efficacy as a trait.
  
  Males can continue to mate until death, the child bearing/rearing hypothesis only applies to human females.