GENIUS FORUMS

Is it possible for information to be carried by material other than DNA? Could adaptation occur besides chance mutations?

Perhaps there is a mind cycle, where the mind/consciousness being composed of a different variety of material (perhaps information), is recycled and passed on to the next generation.

Perhaps this is the reason that an animals have an idea of its natural environment right at birth. Similarly human babies come with innate ideas and tendencies which are the result of the recycled consciousness.

Similar ideas perhaps underlie the doctrine of rebirth, perhaps the consciousness inhabiting you today has been recycled from countless species and had various experiences that created its inherent (ie at birth) tendencies.

That all seems like pretty empty and wild speculation to me. What motivates you to make it?

maestro wrote:Is it possible for information to be carried by material other than DNA?

Yes, such as books, and the internet, etc.

Could adaptation occur besides chance mutations?

Yes, the adaptations can be consciously forced, such as in genetically modified crops, or selective breeding.

Perhaps there is a mind cycle, where the mind/consciousness being composed of a different variety of material (perhaps information), is recycled and passed on to the next generation.

If there is, then it doesn't work very well, since nobody can remember their past lives.

maestro: Could adaptation occur besides chance mutations?

Kevin Solway: Yes, the adaptations can be consciously forced, such as in genetically modified crops, or selective breeding.

Or they could be hard-wired in by design. Sooner or later a keen mind such as Kevin's will grasp this idea, and he'll wonder what he was thinking all those years. That brute nature should spontaneously of its own accord spawn life is not as absurd an idea as the idea that mankind would be the penultimate adaptation to its harshness and vagaries. The ratio of maladaptive mutations to adaptive mutations would be so enormous that every species should be exhibiting maladaptive mutations in every generation all the time. Because natural scientists do not very often see new species of any complexity appear.

I know that Kevin et al think people like me do not have the mental capacity to envision the grand truth of evolution, which is that it is simply what nature does. But the truth is I can envision it this way, I have always been able to envision it this way. It is an intellectual cul-de-sac.

brokenhead wrote:Or they could be hard-wired in by design.

Certainly they could be, it's just that we haven't found any evidence that they are.

The ratio of maladaptive mutations to adaptive mutations would be so enormous that every species should be exhibiting maladaptive mutations in every generation all the time.

They do. Are you aware of how many conceptions end up failing, because of mutations - many of which never even reach the stage of implantation in the uterine wall - and the woman never even knowing that she is pregnant?

Because natural scientists do not very often see new species of any complexity appear.

In evolutionary time, human beings have only been around for a microsecond.

maestro wrote:Perhaps there is a mind cycle, where the mind/consciousness being composed of a different variety of material (perhaps information), is recycled and passed on to the next generation.

Kevin:If there is, then it doesn't work very well, since nobody can remember their past lives.

We could talk of memes here. But one quibble I have over memes is that the meaning of the concepts that seem to copy themselves from one human vehicle to another, is supposedly being copied correctly by generally faultless concept-creating wiring. It implies that the data is somehow meaningful apart from how it is conceived by each individual.

What in fact happens is that each individual uses their own conceptual framework to interpret 'new' ideas, such that a meme is not actually being copied, but some idea is being reconstructed anew for each individual.

It is possible though, that memetics is a valid idea for unconscious individuals - herdlike things - that run on the same animal proclivities.

If this is off-topic, pardon me.

Kevin Solway wrote:

maestro wrote:Perhaps there is a mind cycle, where the mind/consciousness being composed of a different variety of material (perhaps information), is recycled and passed on to the next generation.

If there is, then it doesn't work very well, since nobody can remember their past lives.

It's possible that the mechanism usually erases or suppresses the genetic memory as it would likely clash with the demands of learning in the new life. It might only function subconsciously, only triggered when the situation demands it or something is broken.

While it's hard to prove where the common intuitive and spontaneous types knowledge all come from, the anecdotal cases of savant syndrome are interesting, to say the least. How can a five year old compose complete world class symphonies or pick up classical instruments and play at master level, or uneducated folks perform advanced mathematical calculations out of the top of their head?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:While it's hard to prove where the common intuitive and spontaneous types knowledge all come from, the anecdotal cases of savant syndrome are interesting, to say the least. How can a five year old compose complete world class symphonies or pick up classical instruments and play at master level, or uneducated folks perform advanced mathematical calculations out of the top of their head?

The human brain is very good at pattern recognition. Mathematics is largely about pattern recognition, and music is closely related to it. Some people are naturally better at this than others.

Those who can perform highly complex mathematical calculations in their head are actually using "tricks" to do so. They're not doing brute-force calculations like a computer might do. That's not to diminish their ability though. But they have their ability through the natural ability of the brain to do pattern-recognition.

At least, that's the way I see it. There might be a better explanation.

Jason wrote:That all seems like pretty empty and wild speculation to me. What motivates you to make it?

The purpose of this speculation is to show that rebirth can be logically plausible. That current scientific explanation of evolution may not be its only mechanism.

Diebert:

While it's hard to prove where the common intuitive and spontaneous types knowledge all come from, the anecdotal cases of savant syndrome are interesting, to say the least.

That is interesting because for a skill to become intuitive/natural requires a lot of practice. In fact animals are born with so many intuitive skills, much more complex than music. Does the DNA carry enough information to load these skills in the brain?

Kevin Solway wrote: If there is, then it doesn't work very well, since nobody can remember their past lives.

Perhaps the memories do not carry survival value, or even hinder it, thereby a mechanism has evolved to suppress those or perhaps they are volatile and get destroyed in the cycle.

The volatility hypothesis is plausible because even skills learnt in childhood and not used are not forgotten, or even phobias from childhood remain embedded intuitively, while the actual content of memories fades over time.

brokenhead:Or they could be hard-wired in by design.

Kevin Solway:Certainly they could be, it's just that we haven't found any evidence that they are.

In other words, we haven't found any evidence, so there's no point in accepting it.

brokenhead: Because natural scientists do not very often see new species of any complexity appear.

Kevin: In evolutionary time, human beings have only been around for a microsecond.

In other words, we haven't found any evidence, but we should accept it anyway.

You see my problem.

Kevin Solway wrote:

maestro wrote:Perhaps there is a mind cycle, where the mind/consciousness being composed of a different variety of material (perhaps information), is recycled and passed on to the next generation.

If there is, then it doesn't work very well, since nobody can remember their past lives.

Diebert has replied better than I could have:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's possible that the mechanism usually erases or suppresses the genetic memory as it would likely clash with the demands of learning in the new life. It might only function subconsciously, only triggered when the situation demands it or something is broken.

While it's hard to prove where the common intuitive and spontaneous types knowledge all come from, the anecdotal cases of savant syndrome are interesting, to say the least. How can a five year old compose complete world class symphonies or pick up classical instruments and play at master level, or uneducated folks perform advanced mathematical calculations out of the top of their head?

In other words, Kevin, the system could be working perfectly via one's subconscious aspects informing the conscious mind and one's actions. Yes, one's various strengths and weaknesses -- one's talents, phobias, addictions, and predilections -- can be explained in other ways, but unless proven, this doesn't preclude the possibility of actual rebirth.

And, your statement that "nobody can remember their past lives" is just plain silly.

maestro wrote: That is interesting because for a skill to become intuitive/natural requires a lot of practice. In fact animals are born with so many intuitive skills, much more complex than music. Does the DNA carry enough information to load these skills in the brain?

Certain skills, like understanding the complex beauty of music or the feelings how to resonate with an instrument, or to 'see' through a mathematical problem - might be not that related to practice as we currently think. Most of the practice might be designed to connect us back again to a mindset where we can make these highly intuitive shortcuts, to prepare us by repetition and increasing difficulty, to familiarize ourselves again with what at some level is breathtakingly easy to accomplish if we just got the essentials in place.

As for DNA being able to contain enough information in the sense of precise digits: not likely when using the mathematics of information theory. Perhaps a few places could contain names and numbers, who knows. But such exact data only becomes information if we can relate them to a context, which wouldn't be stored with it. Fuzzy information like behavioral patterns and protocols, preferences etc, would be easier to store. Chaos theory has already shown how simple formulas with a few changing parameters can generate complex patterns and shapes - as if by magic.

Because of this many proponents of former-life memories suggest all macro-events in the universe somehow are stored and distributed somewhere at quantum-level, with no restriction to the body. Even if so, the retrieval and reconstruction of data would become so immensely complex that it's hard to imagine where to start examining this mechanism. Therefore it's the realm of religion and belief; impossible to negate but no reason at all to assume.

Brokenhead wrote:In other words, we haven't found any evidence, but we should accept it anyway.

We have indeed found oodles of evidence of evolution and speciation. But we tend not to see it happen in complex organisms (which have longer lifespans) in real time, for the very good reason that we haven't been around very long.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Certain skills, like understanding the complex beauty of music or the feelings how to resonate with an instrument, or to 'see' through a mathematical problem - might be not that related to practice as we currently think.

I had in mind more mundane "skills" (for example a fawn), how to process visual data, fear of the tiger, running in complex patterns to dodge it.

Most of the practice might be designed to connect us back again to a mindset where we can make these highly intuitive shortcuts, to prepare us by repetition and increasing difficulty, to familiarize ourselves again with what at some level is breathtakingly easy to accomplish if we just got the essentials in place.

The breathtakingly easy part only happens when the skill has become intuitive. For example swimming may be breathtakingly easy for Phelps, or tennis for Federer. But this ease comes with practice. The skill of processing visual data and running is so complex, and a fawn knows it at birth.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Therefore it's the realm of religion and belief; impossible to negate but no reason at all to assume.

Why this hasty banishing to the irredeemable dungeon of religion and belief.

Carl G wrote:the system could be working perfectly via one's subconscious aspects informing the conscious mind and one's actions. Yes, one's various strengths and weaknesses -- one's talents, phobias, addictions, and predilections -- can be explained in other ways, but unless proven, this doesn't preclude the possibility of actual rebirth.

And, your statement that "nobody can remember their past lives" is just plain silly.

I don't see why. I think it would be a great survival advantage if we could all remember our past lives - especially for the more intelligent among us. Of course, the more stupid people would prefer to forget their lives as much as possible.

There could indeed be information transferred by some, as yet unknown mechanism. But since it is still unknown, we don't know anything about it. And I haven't seen any great reason to convince me that such a mechanism is there.

maestro: Perhaps there is a mind cycle, where the mind/consciousness being composed of a different variety of material (perhaps information), is recycled and passed on to the next generation.

Kevin: If there is, then it doesn't work very well, since nobody can remember their past lives.

But maestro’s musings have only affirmed the nature of existing science, not raised a question about it and, therefore, past lives.

If the proposition is that information is recycled and passed on to the next generation, isn’t that already the exact proposition addressed by DNA, genetics, epigenetics (cellular memory/program), natural selection, etc., based on concrete evidence?

Why this distinction and how does one coherently abstract the question of remembering past lives out of it?

If remembering past information comprises the full qualification for “past life,” then remembering what I ate yesterday (“information”) means I remember a past life.

Clearly, however, this is not what we are talking about, here. We are talking about remembering a whole other existence—body and all—distinct from yet somehow connected to (affecting, information-wise, ain this case) the present self-existence, just as we might be talking about experiencing a whole other person we encounter in the present moment distinct from yet connected to the present self-existence. “I was Cleopatra, that’s why [information]…” “John is a pig, that’s why [information]…”

The difference between a past personal other and a present other is that, in the former case, self and other are separated by time and, in the latter, self and other are separated not by time but by space. Thus, whereas the effect of a past personal other on a present self is always unconscious and, thus, literally placed outside of now, the effect of a present other is necessarily within the now. Therefore, the only thing to be proven with the notion of “past lives,” without getting rid of all physical bodies in the attempt to prove something in particular (like, literal rebirth), is that time itself, when it comes to identity, is the greatest lie; the greatest barrier; the unfathomable distance—viz, the great Unconsciousness.

What effect/s would be incontrovertible evidence that I am the reincarnation of Karl Marx, Pythagoras, a dairymaid, a garden snail and Attila the Hun? If I can perform particular functions or recall certain things attributable to only one of hundreds of possible past existences, like Cleopatra, for instance, would I have to find, say, the reincarnated Michael* Anthony to prove it? Whose memory and memoirs qualify as credible (and why), in this regard?

And who could possibly predict what self-form those combined identities might take in any given present, and what would determine which identity predominantly reincarnates at any given now?

[*Edit: I mean "Mark." Clearly, I am not Cleopatra...or, perhaps I mixed his first name up with some other lover from another past life?]

Kevin Solway wrote:

Carl G wrote:the system could be working perfectly via one's subconscious aspects informing the conscious mind and one's actions. Yes, one's various strengths and weaknesses -- one's talents, phobias, addictions, and predilections -- can be explained in other ways, but unless proven, this doesn't preclude the possibility of actual rebirth.

And, your statement that "nobody can remember their past lives" is just plain silly.

I don't see why. I think it would be a great survival advantage if we could all remember our past lives - especially for the more intelligent among us. Of course, the more stupid people would prefer to forget their lives as much as possible.

There could indeed be information transferred by some, as yet unknown mechanism. But since it is still unknown, we don't know anything about it. And I haven't seen any great reason to convince me that such a mechanism is there.

It is silly because some people do remember their past lives. They have the experience of what are called flashbacks. I'm not saying there aren't other explanations for these phenomena, but in a rebirth system it is entirely possible that these experiences occur, according to the needs, one might say, of the psyche; they are triggered, and then surface in consciousness, as mechanism to help a person resolve an issue, or as you might put it, absolve a particular delusion they might have.

I'll add that sometimes remembrance comes not a full-on flashback (a direct experience of being in another time and body) but as an intuitive feeling -- a one time or reoccurring background, like a distant memory. Or it can come as a deja vu, a sudden sensation of being in this exact situation in another place and time. These can be triggered by sights, smells, tastes, sounds or even thoughts or emotions, often in combination.

If brought to the fore and consciously mentated in the context of the present, these 'memories' can certainly be usefully employed in helping an individual overcome current psychological obstacles and to jettison what is sometimes referred to as old baggage.

Carl G wrote:It is silly because some people do remember their past lives. They have the experience of what are called flashbacks. I'm not saying there aren't other explanations for these phenomena . . .

So the experience may not have anything at all to do with "past lives" as such.

I'll add that sometimes remembrance comes not a full-on flashback (a direct experience of being in another time and body) but as an intuitive feeling

I can certainly relate to "intuitive feelings", but I think it's a bit of a jump to go from there to "past lives".

deja vu

"Classical" deja vu is now well understood as a quirk of the way the brain functions.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Carl G wrote:It is silly because some people do remember their past lives. They have the experience of what are called flashbacks. I'm not saying there aren't other explanations for these phenomena . . .

So the experience may not have anything at all to do with "past lives" as such.

Correct. Or, it may.

I'll add that sometimes remembrance comes not a full-on flashback (a direct experience of being in another time and body) but as an intuitive feeling

I can certainly relate to "intuitive feelings", but I think it's a bit of a jump to go from there to "past lives".

Jump as it may be, past lives is one possible explanation, plausible as any other so far as I know and not something to discount out of hand.

A few comments on the topic -

Technology helps to mature consciousness over time because the greatest and most advanced ideas are stored in various forms and passed on to the next generation. A meme can be stored in books or hard drives for decades. Even our entertainment is advancing due to this affect.

Technology acts as a permanent, yet ever advancing satellite memory for consciousness.

For instance: compare comedies such as The Three Stooges or I Love Lucy to sitcoms such as Family Guy or Seinfeld. There is quite a difference in the intelligence and thought put into the humor. And as television moves onto the Internet through sites like You Tube, we should see more and more intellectual influence, as individuals can find knowledge at any time from any computer.

So the quality of the collective consciousness is definitely improved by the degree to which there is technological freedom. For instance: People living in western secular nations probably have higher numbers of intelligent intellectuals than those living in poverty stricken dictatorships that control the flow of information available to the people.

Leyla Shen wrote:maestro’s musings

I like the sound of that.

Leyla Shen wrote:If the proposition is that information is recycled and passed on to the next generation, isn’t that already the exact proposition addressed by DNA, genetics, epigenetics (cellular memory/program), natural selection, etc., based on concrete evidence?

The problem with that paradigm is that the adaptations learnt in an animal's lifetime are lost forever. Advances in species come through chance mutations. A mechanism that allows the learnt skills to be retained in some manner would be very advantageous to evolution.

maestro wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Certain skills, like understanding the complex beauty of music or the feelings how to resonate with an instrument, or to 'see' through a mathematical problem - might be not that related to practice as we currently think.

I had in mind more mundane "skills" (for example a fawn), how to process visual data, fear of the tiger, running in complex patterns to dodge it.

Oh well, like Leyla, I don't see how this relates to vast storage of particular, verifiable information needed to talk about a 'past life identity'. What you're suggesting looks to me like common biology textbook stuff.

The breathtakingly easy part only happens when the skill has become intuitive. For example swimming may be breathtakingly easy for Phelps, or tennis for Federer. But this ease comes with practice. The skill of processing visual data and running is so complex, and a fawn knows it at birth.

Perhaps it's not as complex then! A fawn is a rather specialized creature by the way, it's developed to be able to do a lot of things at birth for survival purposes. Phelps secret is the rather unusual shape of his body that enables him to go faster than anyone else, under water at least.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Therefore it's the realm of religion and belief; impossible to negate but no reason at all to assume.

Why this hasty banishing to the irredeemable dungeon of religion and belief.

The only thing I meant to say was that it just remains one of the many possible ideas out there. It can redeem itself fairly easy when it will allow itself for closer scrutiny. This is hard because this has to do with human beings and their private lives. One cannot turn that into a laboratory without becoming too intrusive. Perhaps there's a way around that when technology would be able to create laboratory conditions without turning a human into a lab animal.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:A few comments on the topic -

Technology helps to mature consciousness over time because the greatest and most advanced ideas are stored in various forms and passed on to the next generation. A meme can be stored in books or hard drives for decades. Even our entertainment is advancing due to this affect.

Technology acts as a permanent, yet ever advancing satellite memory for consciousness.

For instance: compare comedies such as The Three Stooges or I Love Lucy to sitcoms such as Family Guy or Seinfeld. There is quite a difference in the intelligence and thought put into the humor. And as television moves onto the Internet through sites like You Tube, we should see more and more intellectual influence, as individuals can find knowledge at any time from any computer.

So the quality of the collective consciousness is definitely improved by the degree to which there is technological freedom. For instance: People living in western secular nations probably have higher numbers of intelligent intellectuals than those living in poverty stricken dictatorships that control the flow of information available to the people.

That's a laughable premise. I think you're full of shit. Your example of television comedy is ludicrous and fucked. You compare physical comedy to intellectual comedy examples as if it shows a trend. I could just as well say that the golden age of sitcoms is past, that today we have the worst ever. But it wouldn't make a case, either. I say television is not adding anything to consciousness. I say TV in general is rotting the minds of the populace, or at the least it is programming to become more and more sheep-like.

And what is "technological freedom," exactly. Is that freedom to buy an I-pod? Give me a break. You speak of poverty stricken dictatorships controlling the flow of info. Gosh, last time I looked that was exactly what the U.S. media does; look at the selective pablum dished out nightly on televised newscasts and in print nationwide. You'll probably say it's not like that in Canada. I bet it is.

The Great Hope of Technology is an altar upon which you worship, and I dare say it remains one of your biggest delusions. Technology has no direct effect -- the word is not affect -- on consciousness in people.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:For instance: compare comedies such as The Three Stooges or I Love Lucy to sitcoms such as Family Guy or Seinfeld. There is quite a difference in the intelligence and thought put into the humor. And as television moves onto the Internet through sites like You Tube, we should see more and more intellectual influence, as individuals can find knowledge at any time from any computer.

That's basically the thesis of Everything Bad Is Good For You.