We are programs: Everything is connected to survival of the species.

[D_Joseba_Guntertwat]

But the brain also happens to be the most mysterious organ of the human body. Science really has nothing on it.

That's true, it's one area we know very little about.

Another itneresting theory I have read, that I really like, and makes alot of sense, is all of our DNA is a memory, and that the genes you pass on are actually memories. THis would mean, yes, your brain is controlling what goes in your sperm/egg. It would sound audacious, except that everything in your body, is controlled by your hormones, which is controlled by your brain.

DNA can be viewed as a sort of genetic memory, but I think you're confusing it with actual memory. Your DNA doesn't change once you're born.

It's part of the mystery of the parts making up the whole, and the whole being made up of parts.... individual neurons, each with their own unique DNA fingerprint.

In time, as technology progresses, we may be able to reconstruct entire brains through the DNA of all the individual neurons. The pace of technology continues to double, and Moores law has yet to stop.

If we could reconstruct entire brains, then we could reconstruct entire memory sets. If we could reconstruct entire memory sets, it brings up some interesting philosphical questions about what exactly is consciousness, and what makes someone exist?

But a reconstructed brain made purely from DNA would miss out on all the real life experiences that go into a person's memory.
I don't know what consciousness is - it's what you have when you haven't drunk enough

 

[D_Joseba_Guntertwat]

That is the way of Western scientific thought.

And just look what that scientific thought has produced - every piece of technology you see around you. We wouldn't even be able to have this discussion if it wasn't for that.

 

[SexyFront]

I am starting to wonder if "100% straight people" and the "natural rules" of biology go hand in hand.

 

[B_New End]

DNA can be viewed as a sort of genetic memory, but I think you're confusing it with actual memory. Your DNA doesn't change once you're born.

It most certainly does. If it didn't, all your sperm would be identical, and all children would be identical, coming form the same DNA.

If DNA didn't change, there would be no cancer.

If DNA didn't change, all neurons would form the same... they don't.

If anything, your DNA has telomeres at the end of every strand, that shrinks every time your DNA divides.

But a reconstructed brain made purely from DNA would miss out on all the real life experiences that go into a person's memory.

What are you but your memories? You have already missed out on what you had to eat 165 days ago for lunch, except for perhaps a few small neurons that formed a synaptic bridges to rememebr the taste, smell, texture, and location.

 

[B_New End]

And just look what that scientific thought has produced - every piece of technology you see around you. We wouldn't even be able to have this discussion if it wasn't for that.

True, but when it dares to tread upon intangibles like consciousness, or time, or eternity, is when I start ot get skeptical. It works within certain bounds... but quantum mechanics are gettign quite confused, and DNA certainly falls under the field of quantum mechanics.

 

[SexyFront]

And just look what that scientific thought has produced - every piece of technology you see around you. We wouldn't even be able to have this discussion if it wasn't for that.

Ha! As if you mean to say that technology is a solely a good thing?! You have to further establish how technology is a good thing for me to respond.

 

[B_New End]

Ha! As if you mean to say that technology is a good thing?!

You mean to say it's a bad thing?

 

[SexyFront]

You mean to say it's a bad thing?

I don't know, is it?

 

[B_New End]

I don't know, is it?

Technology is a good thing, if you want to talk in terms of humanity.

For animals, maybe not, for forests, maybe not, for the universe... universe doesn't care.

 

[D_Joseba_Guntertwat]

It most certainly does. If it didn't, all your sperm would be identical, and all children would be identical, coming form the same DNA.

No, because when you reproduce, have your child's DNA comes from your partner.

If DNA didn't change, there would be no cancer.

Fair point, there are random mutations sometimes. But this is nothing to do with the brain's memory.

If DNA didn't change, all neurons would form the same... they don't.

If anything, your DNA has telomeres at the end of every strand, that shrinks every time your DNA divides.

Formation of neurons is not purely genetic - it depends on the individual's experiences.
Telomeres cause the DNA to shrink within an individual person only, it is thought this is what leads to ageing.

 

[SexyFront]

Technology is a good thing, if you want to talk in terms of humanity.

For animals, maybe not, for forests, maybe not, for the universe... universe doesn't care.

That is the exact answer I would expect from a Western scientific thinker, not merely that it is "right," but there were only two choices to begin with, black or white, right or wrong, one or the other. That is the way of scientific thought. There is no possibility outside "right" or "wrong," and even when you do happen to allow your imagination to wonder outside your man-made, structured thought, you realize there is something other than "right" and "wrong," but that something too, must have an opposite.

 

[B_New End]

No, because when you reproduce, have your child's DNA comes from your partner.

Look, if DNA were identical, than every sibling wrought of the same two parents would be identical.

*crashes gong*

Fair point, there are random mutations sometimes. But this is nothing to do with the brain's memory.

Everything is controleld by hormones. everything. And the brain controls hormone flow.

Formation of neurons is not purely genetic - it depends on the individual's experiences.

This is true. I wasn't arguing otherwise. Liek I said, we are kernal programs that change when we encounter our environment. But is it impossibel ot inmagine that Neuron's DNA changes when a new synaptic bridge is formed?

DNA testes are doen from mitochondria... ebcause mitochondria have a specific funtion (provide power to a cell) and do not change when passed on from the mother.

I'd surmise this could be because ON/OFF is the first code to any living organism, and the first "information" our early, early, early ancestors held.

Telomeres cause the DNA to shrink within an individual person only, it is thought this is what leads to ageing.

Yes... I don't knwo what your point is though... it is clearly DNA changing.

 

[B_New End]

That is the exact answer I would expect from a Western scientific thinker, not merely that it is "right," but there were only two choices to begin with, black or white, right or wrong, one or the other. That is the way of scientific thought. There is not possibility outside "right" or "wrong," and even when you do happen to allow your imagination to wonder outside your man-made, structured thought, you realize there is something other than "right" and "wrong," but that something too, must have an opposite.

What makes you think I am a western scientific thinker? has not many of the things I have said unscientific? Did you miss the part where I said I have read many books on eastern medicine and philosophy?

Most of my theoretical hypothesis come from a book called The Invisible Landscape by Terence and Dennis McKenna... and how about you hop on over to the 2012 thread, to see how "western" I think.

Furthermore, it is not just "right" and "wrong", I used a "perhaps" and I also used from different perspectives.

 

[D_Joseba_Guntertwat]

I have to go to work in a minute, but I suggest you read up on this:
DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[B_New End]

I have to go to work in a minute, but I suggest you read up on this:
DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Don't even patronize me.

 

[B_superlarge]

True, but when it dares to tread upon intangibles like consciousness, or time, or eternity, is when I start ot get skeptical.

Me too. I like to keep the door cracked open to the possibility that other forms of realities may exist of which science can't measure.

Btw SexyFront, did you somehow miss that post?

 

[SexyFront]

Any non-scientific view of the world is just an opinion - although it may be good and interesting, it won't necessarily be right.
Science is often seen as so 'uncool' or 'cold', which is a shame because all it really is is the search for the truth about how things work. Isn't the truth more important than some made up story that makes you feel good?

Science is your "feel good." You get comfort from knowing that man has invented a form of thought that has nice, neat little explanations to every one of your inquiries. Isn't that what feel good is, a fulfillment in knowing that something is getting taken care of for you, something that is getting thought out or done for you already, so you don't have to?! The discussions you are having in this thread are your bed time stories.

Additionally, I have done a lot of thought about the "feel good" you described, the "opinionated." That kind too is a creation of scientific thought. The kind you described is what scientists wrap themselves in when they are not thinking biology of whatever other science they usually concern themselves with. The "feel good" you described is a way of thought, a babysitter, if you will, that is part of science, a way of thinking when you are not thinking whatever it is you scientists consider "science."

 

[B_superlarge]

The discussions you are having in this threat are your bed time stories.

Well no wonder then that I'm feeling so sleepy.

 

[JustAsking]

We are survival programs. Almost everything we say and do is a result of that programming, either directly or indirectly. There are exceptions, and those exceptions are deemed as bad and punishable, or labeled as wierd, in society because our programming indicates it interferes, or has the potential to interfere, with our species survival.

Agree?

SL,
This is a very provocative thread, my friend. I think there are actually three different premises here, all very interesting. The responses have all been interesting, too. That's what I love about this place. Where do you find this kind of conversation on the web with such a wide range of points of view all in one place. As to this:

We are survival programs. Almost everything we say and do is a result of that programming, either directly or indirectly.
​

I think the answer to this is "yes and no". To say we are survival programs is like saying that your computer is just an adding machine. Your statement might be one of naive "reductionism". We have long since abandoned the notion that the behavior and nature of a complex system can be best known by reducing it to its simplest components and understanding them. Some examples:

You won't understand how to use Microsoft Word by studying the individual logic components (AND gates, OR gates, etc) that make up the CPU in your machine.

You won't understand the behavior of an ant colony by studying one ant.

You won't understand the nature of human relationships by studying biology or chemistry.

Scientists figured this out a long time ago, so what I am saying is not unscientific. For example it makes perfect sense to study geology without thinking about the nature of subatomic particles. Please don't think that all science is reductionism.

Although evolution works by selecting for the most successful traits, at some point in human evolution, some of those traits took on a significance of their own. Our reasoning, imagination, and self awareness all evolved to give us an edge over our closest natural competitors, but evolution did that blindly as it does everything else. Once we attained those mental abilities, we build with them a world of our own, with its own rules based on abstractions that are far removed from the original purpose of those traits.

It is wrong to say that we are not still evolving. But its also wrong to think that everything we do culturally, intellectually, and emotionally is done merely to increase our rate of survival.

Thanks for starting such an interesting thread.

​

 

[D_Joseba_Guntertwat]

Don't even patronize me.

Ok. No offence intended. Actually it didn't even explain the things I really wanted to say.
The main points I wanted to make are that firstly, the reason children have different DNA from each other is because it recombines in a random way each time (that's something you should have learned at school).
Also, I admit I was wrong when I said DNA doesn't change over a person's lifetime. It does, but only in a random corruptive way. Basically your idea of memories being transferred to DNA was disproved years ago.