Consciousness link to evolution

[clapstyx]

Is anyone able to confirm if reseach has been done on the causal link between increases in consciousness driven by realisational experiences and and physical changes of an evolutionary kind? Ive been altering the depth of thinking of a lot of species in the district where I live and (although this does sound ridiculous) the Turkeys are taking on new plumage which seems to be unique to what anyone in my area has seen or heard of before.

 

Presuming that it is true, and at this point I'm keeping an open mind until I can get clarification either way, I would explain it this way. The animals and birds around where I live and I try to outsmart each others stupidity. Its sort of a game we make up as we go but its sort of like a battle of the sexes. At the moment I'm thinking that the Turkeys have come up with this as a kind a "match this one and top it if you can" challenge to all the other animals (including horses and cattle) and my theory is that their consciousness has gotten so deep that they have connected with some sort of DNA control centre that can be activated in relation to a survival challenge. We play this way often everyday..but without a mortal element.

 

The awkward bit is that because there are now so many different species in on the game consciousness expansion via realisation has gon into self expansion..so its like if I go away for a couple of days and come back its like "Oh my god look what they are doing now..those hens have got the cat stuck up the tree and the dogs are trying to swim under water..because they keep surpassing their limitations as their strength of consciousness grows. Its like they safely have that freedom to cross their personal thresh-holds.

 

Any info on this sort of thing that is out there I would be very interested especially if there is knowledge from indigenous records

 

I'll try to keep a regular post here

[InfiniteNow]

At the moment I'm thinking that the Turkeys have come up with this as a kind a "match this one and top it if you can" challenge to all the other animals (including horses and cattle) and my theory is that their consciousness has gotten so deep that they have connected with some sort of DNA control centre that can be activated in relation to a survival challenge.

AFAIK, there is no mechanism by which consciousness alone can alter the DNA of the organism having those conscious thoughts. For example, merely thinking about your skin color won't change it. Merely having a conscious desire for a third arm won't cause one to grow. Merely having a conscious desire not to need to breath oxygen will not make that happen.

 

There is no mechanism by which consciousness alone can alter the DNA of the organism having those conscious thoughts.

[HydrogenBond]

Consciousness may not be able to change the DNA, but it can cause some changes within the genetic expression of the existing DNA. For example, I can use my imagination to think about my favorite food. With a good imagination, I can almost taste it and make myself hungry. The feeling of hunger can be traced to certain chemicals of the brain and the body. These chemicals, in turn, can be traced to genes on the DNA. These genes were not very active, until I started to think about food. But when I used the mind, the genes became more active, to create mRNA, which made protein, which made me hungry. Now I am in motion needing to eat.

 

Although the mind and brain can't make new genes, it should also be able to use the imagination to induce genes, that are there, but may be dormant and not appear to be there. For example, children are entering puberty earlier. Typically these transition genes are there, but will remain dormant until a certain time. If the mind and brain was convincing itself they were old enough to date, and do other adult things, the brain may cooperate and active the genes earlier.

 

I would not be able to change my hair color, if there is only one gene in my DNA for that purpose. But if humans had evolved multi-genetic parameters for variable color, like a chameleon, I should be able to use any of those genes.The lizard uses a sensory feedback loop for the proper camouflage tone. But if the lizard had will-power, he could use his imagination to generate a contrary color as long as the contrary color is in the genes.

 

He could turn on the green color, when it should be red, since there are genes for the color green. With will power and imagination, he just has to remember, what it felt like when he was green, and then close his eyes (avoid the sensory loop) and pretend the background is green. It is the same as making oneself hungry, with imaginary food, that is not even directly entering the sensory systems. It is based on memory of a time, when external sensory completed the hunger loop. I just recreate that in my mind. It won't be as effective as natural, but will tweak the DNA. The lizard may not be able to get bright green for a red background, but maybe greenish-red for example. To the untrained eye this would look like a genetic mutation.

[InfiniteNow]

HydrogenBond - That's simply not true, nor valid.

[HydrogenBond]

The debate between nature and nurture says the same thing. One needs the genetic capacity to do something, but if this genetic capacity is not nurtured, it can falls short of full potential. On the other hand, if I have a limited genetic capacity, but work really hard, I can still achieve better than expected by genetics. The reason for this is the mind, boosts or silences existing genes, with social nurture helping this mind connection to DNA. The mind effect on DNA is why we have the debate, which is which?

 

I am not saying we can tweak any gene and/or focus specific tweaks on the DNA in areas that are normally packed and silent. At least not consciously. The conscious mind has a limit. The placebo effect is where some can alter the DNA for healthful gains, using nothing. There should be zero placebo effect if the mind couldn't do this.

[Larv]

Is anyone able to confirm if reseach has been done on the causal link between increases in consciousness driven by realisational experiences and and physical changes of an evolutionary kind? Ive been altering the depth of thinking of a lot of species in the district where I live and (although this does sound ridiculous) the Turkeys are taking on new plumage which seems to be unique to what anyone in my area has seen or heard of before...

clapstyx, what you are suggesting here would violate the the central dogma of molecular biology:

 

The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid.

[Cedars]

Ive been altering the depth of thinking of a lot of species in the district where I live and (although this does sound ridiculous) the Turkeys are taking on new plumage which seems to be unique to what anyone in my area has seen or heard of before.

 

At the moment I'm thinking that the Turkeys have come up with this as a kind a "match this one and top it if you can" challenge to all the other animals (including horses and cattle) and my theory is that their consciousness has gotten so deep that they have connected with some sort of DNA control centre that can be activated in relation to a survival challenge. We play this way often everyday..but without a mortal element.

 

Because you mentioned birds, I am curious about the turkey reference. What exactly are you seeing in plumage change? Are these wild or domestic?

[HydrogenBond]

The mind or brain can't directly impact the DNA, but it can do so indirectly by taking advantage of related natural processes. For example, it is possible to use the mind/brain to make some cells replicate. We can't do this with all cells, but we can with some. Say we took two twins with close DNA. One twin doesn't do anything, so we have a control. The other twin will use their will power, and train to become a marathon runner. The latter will increase the number of circulatory cells within the legs.

 

The other twin, will do the opposite. He will train to become a Sumo wrestler. He will use his willpower to increase the number of fat cells, i.e, will cell replication. In both cases, the DNA acting on its own might stay in the middle. The mind extends the range of these types of cells, by replicating them using the natural cause and effect that is already in the DNA.

[freeztar]

The mind or brain can't directly impact the DNA, but it can do so indirectly by taking advantage of related natural processes. For example, it is possible to use the mind/brain to make some cells replicate. We can't do this with all cells, but we can with some. Say we took two twins with close DNA. One twin doesn't do anything, so we have a control. The other twin will use their will power, and train to become a marathon runner. The latter will increase the number of circulatory cells within the legs.

 

The other twin, will do the opposite. He will train to become a Sumo wrestler. He will use his willpower to increase the number of fat cells, i.e, will cell replication. In both cases, the DNA acting on its own might stay in the middle. The mind extends the range of these types of cells, by replicating them using the natural cause and effect that is already in the DNA.

 

What references can you provide for this?

[HydrogenBond]

I can never understand why the obvious needs a study for support. I would suggest collecting first hand data instead of second hand. This could be an artifact of empirical science. Let me give an analogy to contrast empirical science with reason.

 

Say one is a golfer and has this slice to the left. Even if we knew nothing of the physics of flight or of the golf swing, we can create a correlation of swing versus slice. If I slice 30 feet, on the an average to the left, at 200 yards, based on statistical data, the correlation and some good common sense, tells me to aim 30 feet to right of my target and swing. I will hit the spot. This can be quite functional even without knowing the physics. This might look state of the art since it works.

 

If could look inside the black box of the slice and learn about the cause and effect behind the physics of slicing, there are more options open to hit the target. I can do what the empiricists figured out, which would make them happier. Or I can try to adjust the parameters of my swing, to neutralize the slice, so I can aim true. If I aim true, and I hit the target, the empirical would be confused. This would be considered an act of chaos sort of like a lottery win that might happen every now and then.

 

Let me give a different example. Say we look at a wild animal like a lion in the wild. We will assume he is a product of Darwin, evolution and genetics. To keep these genetics and evolutionary characteristics, we will take one of its best cubs, at birth and raise it in a zoo. This will not its change its nature (DNA), but it will change its nurture. Or the mind/brain connection to its genetics.

 

If we raised it to an adult, in the controlled environment and then placed it back into the wild, the altered mind/brain characteristics and related genetics will look like a mutation has occurred within this particular lion. We will be sneaky and not give the other group of scientists the background of what we did.

 

We will then ask then to take DNA samples of parent and cub, to compare (won't tell them this either). They will find this is a close genetic match. What has changed is the 3-D orientation of the same genes.

[freeztar]

I can never understand why the obvious needs a study for support.

 

As a science forum, it is required that everyone support their claims. Even if it is an idea that is obvious to you, it may not be obvious to others. If someone asks you to support a claim, you should do so, per the site rules (rule #1).

 

Now, can you please support your claim, or else retract it?

 

The reason I ask is because I'm unaware of the types of DNA interaction you describe, other than Lamarckism, but even that was generational.

 

In short, one can not will their genes to change. Nurture has nothing to do with it.

I can not will myself to start becoming darker or lighter skinned much the same as I can not will myself to be fat (Biologically speaking).

 

If I'm wrong about this, then I'll need to see some *very convincing* evidence to sway me.

[HydrogenBond]

Let me try to present a thought experiment, which could be run in the future. To begin, we start with a new litter of puppies. From that litter we will chose the best pup and make a clone of him. Now we have two pups with the same DNA. I only cloned to make it clear we are talking about the exact same DNA for both, to avoid knit picking that can bog down the discussion away from the logical conclusion.

 

The first pup we will call D1, and the second pup we will call D2. D1 will be given a nice home with the best science diet, a nice big yard to run, and some children to keep it engaged with training and activities. With D2, we will be very slack, bordering on dog abuse. D2 will be let loose, with only marginal help when it is young. It has to learn to completely fend for itself for food, shelter, etc.

 

After 2 years we bring D1 and D2 back together in the same fenced area. We won't tell what we did, during the first two years, to the experts. instead we will present them as two dogs we found. We will ask the experts to compare the two dogs (without DNA analysis) and infer if there are any genetic differences between the two. We will let them use the assumption the DNA is responsible for these differences.

 

After inspection, D1 is larger/muscular and much healthier looking. He has a shiny thick coat. D2 is a little smaller, leaner with less muscular build. D2 also has a ratty looking fur coat all due to its harder life and lack of good food. D1 seems more poised to the close inspection, while D2 seems more skittish due to lack of human contact. But the experts don't know that background either. D2, although ratty looking, appears to have a better immune system because his situation resulted in more exposure and exercise for the immune system. He had more opportunity to sample a wider range of exposure, including several injury recoveries, schooling his immune system into college.

 

After the assessment, the logical conclusion (without the background; sort of like Darwin had) would be these two dogs have many genetic similarities, but there are also many genetic differences based on first hand inspection and inference. After their report, we tell them to conduct a DNA test from their saliva. To their astonishment, this test shows the same DNA right down to the smallest level of genes.

 

The DNA comparison, from the saliva, I will call the linear DNA comparison, which is the same for both dog clones. Where the physical difference occur, will lie within the 3-D DNA, i.e, differentiated linear DNA. This 3-D expression includes a time dimension associated with the time average use of particular genes, which builds up a protein differentiation or capacitance.

 

If only the linear DNA ran everything, the two dogs could never be different no matter what we did. But if the linear DNA is the same, the logical way to explain the differences is within the 3-D differentiation of the linear DNA. In the case of the two dogs, this was created by external potentials and pressures acting on the linear DNA. The DNA responds with proteins. The proteins needed to minimize the stress collect within the cells, helping to maintain the 3-D DNA.

 

Early Darwinism, up to modern linear DNA comparisons, was like the scientists in our experiment, where they could only compare the superficial. If D1 stumbled into a good feeding ground and D2 didn't, D1 would be lumped into selective advantage due to linear DNA. It would not be due to linear DNA. The better feeding grounds would alter the 3-D DNA presentation of the linear DNA. It is still genetic based but not linear DNA.

 

Nature is connected to the linear DNA and its default 3-D DNA. Nurture can't alter the linear DNA, but it can tweak the 3-D DNA. This will create 3-D genetic differences even with the same linear DNA. Theoretically, this can include genes that are not 3-D active by default, but are part of the linear DNA; rainy and sunny day genes.

[freeztar]

HB,

 

You are using terms that don't make any sense to me such as "3-D differentiation of the linear DNA".

 

You must support such claims, per site rules.

[HydrogenBond]

I often forget this is not a development site, where you brain storm and build new things from scratch. It is more of an archive site of what has been done. But I keeping trying to teach development science skills. Data outside the box is always thin so you need to adapt using other things at your disposal.

 

Let me better explain 1-D and 3-D DNA. All the cells in the human body have the same DNA. But each differentiated cell will only makes use of part of the DNA. All the cells have the same linear DNA. While each differentiated cells has a unique 3-D DNA that is made from the linear DNA.

 

If we compare a brain cell and a blood cell, they are so different, but will show the same linear DNA. Their 3-D DNA is different and accounts for all the protein differences which make them look and function in very different ways. It would not be easy to isolate the 3-D DNA of an active cell, although one might be able to infer it from the protein content. If environmental stress created a certain redundant need, this will be reflected in the protein content and also the 3-D DNA. The linear DNA stays the same.

 

The two dog example, by showing superficial differences, implies protein content differences created by the environment. The linear DNA has not changed, but there should be 3-D DNA differences. Again it may be hard to freeze the DNA and compare sequences in 3-D space. Nobody has this data. But that does not mean you have to stick your head and a hole and wait for the data. This is outside the box. Eventually the box will get bigger.

 

Stem cells start with a given linear DNA that is very pliable for 3-D DNA differentiation. But we need to add external potential (we input chemicals) to mold in 3-D. But we can only mold based on what is in the DNA.

 

Consciousness has an impact on the physical and chemical potentials the body has to deal with. That, in turn, can impact the linear DNA, such as conscious exposure to too much UV. But it mostly impacts the DNA at the 3-D level. Sometimes the 3-D becomes something slightly new, opening new or even old genetic capability, dormant in the linear DNA.

 

This is off topic, but what would a human cell look like where the 3-D DNA is designed to make use of all the linear DNA? Theoretically, it would a utility cell able to do anything in the body. They would be like foreman in a factory (body) able to run any machine as a temporary fill in. There is a small hole in the heart, the utility cells becomes a functional patch. The lungs need help, they goes there to take over the load. The immune system is being overwhelmed here come the utility cells like the cavalry.

[freeztar]

HB,

 

Your use of the 1D and 3D is misleading as it is commonly meant as 1 dimensional and 3 dimensional. DNA is not 1 dimensional. All DNA is 3 dimensional. I think the term you are looking for is "gene". Specialized cells do not use all the DNA, just certain genes.

 

Another problem I see is your insistence that consciousness can alter DNA, especially without reproduction. I'm not aware of any evidence that this is possible. If you can find some evidence in support of this, then I would like to see it. Otherwise, I will continue to assume you are making stuff up that has no basis in reality. Consider this a warning that you must support your claims per site rules. Failure to follow this rule will result in infractions which can limit your ability to make posts here.

 

Hypography is a discussion forum. It's ok to brainstorm ideas, but you must make it abundantly clear that that is the purpose of your post. Your claims still need to be supported though. How did you come to the idea? If it is an idea that came to you and has zero connection to real world evidence, then the biology forum is not the correct place for such posts.

[Larv]

freeztar, maybe he is saying that human consciousness has evolved to such a high degree that it now enables humans to manipulate the DNA molecule, which is true.

[HydrogenBond]

Let me speculate from a different angle. Most of the cells of the body have nerve type tissue nearby. Nervous tissue is smart tissue, designed for input and/or output and transmission of signals. It seems very likely the brain has a good 3-D image of the body, in real time, down to the individual cells. This image might not include the inside of the cells, but would be expected to see at least the external membrane. This will be a reflection of a differentiated 3-D genetic shape.

 

The branching of nervous tissue is actually a good design for information gathering at many levels at the same time. At the local level, the smallest nerve endings see the individual cells. As these endings combine in a branching junction, that junction sees the same cells in the context of a grouping. These junctions continue all the way to entire body systems. The increasing size might be like a larger and larger broadband wire where more and more information, from all levels, can run simultaneously, to give a real time 3-D image, at many levels. A body system can be running well, but there is a disturbance in quadrant 2, sector 7, aisle 3, locker 2, cell 7.

 

Although the theoretical capacity for collecting all this sensory data is awesome, it makes little sense, unless the brain does something with this information. I would also speculate that there is 2-way communication, to help to control the cells. Or at least control down to a certain level of 3-D image (larger bulk image).

 

For example, some animals breed during certain seasons. This could be triggered by sensory input, into the brain, such as the length of day. The brain uses this environmental trigger to mediate triggers to get the body ready. The male animals might use the sense of smell, which is mediated via the brain, to trigger their own cycle.

 

Another good example, are certain fish that grow to the size of their container. The brain sees the parameters of the container and regulates growth of the entire body system, so there is a balance between sensory input and physical size. It will grow or shrink implicit of control down to the DNA.

 

Consciousness plays a very important role in maintaining the body. If we took away consciousness, the body system can't function for very long. (we can give a drug to knock out the animal to see if this is true). The body will continue to function but it will slowly deteriorate without conscious interaction for food and water. The brain might receive feedback, but nobody is listening.

 

The brain also appears to be able to extrapolate the feedback system into the future, beyond the real time 3-D image. This would be reflected in using consciousness to gather food, even before real time need, such as bears. The brain anticipates need based on historical data, to get ahead of the real time 3-D body image; what it will need over time and not just in real time.

 

Such behavior also seems to indicate the brain might also extrapolate the real time 3-D image for future system optimizations. The animal might have the urge to try a new food that will give it selective advantage in the future. This new food is better for body systems leading to further optimizations. Humans separating from the apes, may have been due to a better extrapolation of a similar 3-D image at the transition point, where the DNA is very close. Consciousness would have got involved in the extrapolation impulse, separating the species.

 

Here is the analogy for consciousness and evolution. We have a large machine like a backhoe. It has certain (genetic) capabilities based on the integration of its system components. It can never be used to drag race. But it can be used to dig, lift, push and pull. The operator (brain) who has used this device in various ways, might extrapolate new uses based on experience, but always stays within the capabilities. The better he can extrapolate, the more new uses he can create. But some of these new uses may over burden certain components. So he will have to place certain practical limits based on feedback he gets from the machine. If he is also a good mechanic, i.e., feedforward, he might reinforce those weaknesses, so he can add even more functionality.

 

Where human consciousness comes is, would be analogous to the novice son of the man, who doesn't know the machine that well; he is no mechanic. He may decide to drag race and red line the engine to get more speed. Dad might yell at him and try to pull the plug, to prevent too much damage. In this case, the novice has changed the machine, but in a negative way because his connection to the 3-D image, is only at the largest level and not at the cell level. He can feel self inflicted pain, but not deeper damage.

 

The dad may realize, boys will be boys and will continue to experiment, even if he lacks common sense of the machine's limits at deeper levels. The best way might be to put a governor on the engine to prevent further damage, so when dad is not there to regulate him, his machine is safe. Humans don't have the vitality of an ape, because we would red line too often. We don't have awareness of the microscopic feedback damage, that would add up. It is easier to shut off the capability. But also, dad may learn a few things from his son's antics, who finds new clever ways to use the backhoe. This is where human consciousness, pushes the feedback system forward.