Do Biological organisms have extra chromosomal source of info?

[questor]

Hallen, if we are to ever answer the questions you ask, it will have to be at the level at which the particular event occurs. in other words is it a macro event, such as lifting a finger, or a molecular event, such as an enzymatic reaction in the Krebs cycle, or a particulate or sub-atomic event, which we know little about. we don't know how people are wired electrically and differentially or how thought itself occurs and is transmitted. until we can get to where the action is, your question must remain for the future.

[hallenrm]

Hallen, if we are to ever answer the questions you ask, it will have to be at the level at which the particular event occurs. in other words is it a macro event, such as lifting a finger, or a molecular event, such as an enzymatic reaction in the Krebs cycle, or a particulate or sub-atomic event, which we know little about. we don't know how people are wired electrically and differentially or how thought itself occurs and is transmitted. until we can get to where the action is, your question must remain for the future.

 

Dear Questor, there is yet another level, then those described by physics and chemistry, it is the personal/social level. This level is above that of the actions of a single organism, or a particular set of molecules.

 

Yes, my question is related to future, and I strongly believe that the target of all scientific enquiry is the future, to probe what unknown today to what can be known tomorrow, because of the intelligent efforts of people today.:eek2:

[Racoon]

Yes, my question is related to future, and I strongly believe that the target of all scientific enquiry is the future, to probe what unknown today to what can be known tomorrow, because of the intelligent efforts of people today.:wave:

 

What kind of tests do you suggest Hallen?

How is this testable?

 

Give us an example of how you propose to explore this with scientific method?

 

We all are curious. :eek2: :eek: :lol:

[hallenrm]

What kind of tests do you suggest Hallen?

How is this testable?

 

Give us an example of how you propose to explore this with scientific method?

 

We all are curious. :eek2: :wave: :eek:

 

Good question and natural too for any scientifically tempered individual:)

 

Well, as the hypothesis indicates, it would take at least twenty five years to test the hypothesis.

 

Here's how!

 

You need a good number of volunteers, equal number of males and females. Wh would volunteer to scientific "indoctrination" prior to the time they copulate. They must be so well indoctrinated, that is, hypnotized by science and technology issues that they cannot escape such thoughts even when they are copulating. The expectant mothers spend a good deal of time listening and reading about science and finally after they deliver they volunteer to stay in an intellectually simulating environment.

 

You can have, another control batch, which will not be follow this regime, but has genomoc profile no less indicative.

 

Wait, till these children grow up and then assess their intellectual growth.

 

Does it sound, reasonable?:lol:

[Vagabond -SC2-]

Sorry to beat the preverbal dead horse but in your hypothesis how do you fit people like George Washington Carver. Who i assume had no or very limited intellectual stimulation as an infant / small child.

 

You might get interesting results and collect a lot more data to sift though by setting up and distributing a post-event survey (containing questions pertaining to one up brining, environment and parents i.e. on parents education, work ethics, activities, rating home life stability and being bullied in school etc the list could be long)

[hallenrm]

Wee, I have been thinking along, and today it occured to me that there is indeed a short term experiment that can validate part of my hypothesis.

 

We all are aware of in vitro fertilization, and also of the fact that many mammals produce a number of ova and sperms at a particular time.

 

Now, if more then one ova produced by an animal are fertilized by sperms (from the same male) at the same time in vitro, and the fertilized eggs develop under controlled different conditions, then, the results of such experiments can indeed indicate the effect of environment etc. on the development of a biological animal.

 

Does it sound, a more plausible experiment? Are there any valid doubts?:confused: :shrug: I am looking forward for replies t6o such questions from the intelligent, well informed hypographers.:)

 

Please do!

[ldsoftwaresteve]

vagabond:

Sorry to beat the preverbal dead horse but in your hypothesis how do you fit people like George Washington Carver. Who i assume had no or very limited intellectual stimulation as an infant / small child.

The assumption that he had very limited intellectual stimulation is not real solid vagabond. Stimulation comes in many forms, sometimes painful, sometimes not. It is our response to the stimulation that makes all the difference. People exposed to the same stimulation draw different conclusions. Some of them are productive, some are destructive, and some refuse to draw any conclusions because they sense that to do so is too dangerous due to a lack of information.

I happen to think that a case could be made for choices related to specific skills being the basis for what we call genius. I suspect that these foundation choices are made at a very young age and become automated to such an extent that we consider them to be genetic or built in and we tend to attribute it to genetics. But the truth just might be that the skillset is developed by the child prior to its having the ability to communicate what it is doing.

I think certain types of stimulation tend to result in a better chance of drawing productive conclusions but people can draw really good conclusions even in horrendous situations.

[Vagabond -SC2-]

That is sort of what I was trying to get at. Just because you talk tech and science to a child does not meant they are going to be a great scientist nor does it mean if you do not they will not.....

[ldsoftwaresteve]

vagabond:

That is sort of what I was trying to get at. Just because you talk tech and science to a child does not meant they are going to be a great scientist nor does it mean if you do not they will not.....

You are absolutely right. I remember reading somewhere/somewhen that Leonardo da Vinci had been put into a closet as a child (probably bull) but he responded by finding fascinating things to do while in there.

If it really is a matter of lucky choices by very young children, then the best we can do is increase the odds of their making those choices. Perhaps the parents of gifted children do that somehow, and I would not be at all surprised if it was accidental.

It would be very hard to identify at what point the change takes place and then to be able to identify the actual 'choice' that was made.

[hallenrm]

Sorry to beat the preverbal dead horse but in your hypothesis how do you fit people like George Washington Carver. Who i assume had no or very limited intellectual stimulation as an infant / small child.

 

A point well taken Vegabond, yesterday I was reading, that 30% of the brain of a person develops during the prenatal stage, the next 30% during the first couple of years after the birth, next thirty till s/he becomes 8-10 years. So the period from conception to the age of eight years is the most crucial for the development of the mind.

 

I cannot right now give you the link, but I do promise that I will post the same as soon as I can find it.

 

Does that help yu regarding your doubts!!:shrug:

[hallenrm]

.............

It is our response to the stimulation that makes all the difference. People exposed to the same stimulation draw different conclusions. Some of them are productive, some are destructive, and some refuse to draw any conclusions because they sense that to do so is too dangerous due to a lack of information.

................

I think certain types of stimulation tend to result in a better chance of drawing productive conclusions but people can draw really good conclusions even in horrendous situations.

 

It was similar thoughts that led me to a initiate a thread "chain-inside-human-mind" a couple of months ago. What I had in mind (and that is evident from my replies, that what is most important is a mind that is receptive. Different kinds of minds have good receptivities of different kind of thoughts. Some minds are more receptive to scientific ideas while others are more to commercial and financial ideas, still others to criminal ideas.

 

I am happy:) , that you seem to be echoing my thoughts ldsoftwaresteve.

 

Should I say thanks too?:shrug: :hyper: :evil:

:hihi:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

hallenrm:

What I had in mind (and that is evident from my replies, that what is most important is a mind that is receptive. Different kinds of minds have good receptivities of different kind of thoughts. Some minds are more receptive to scientific ideas while others are more to commercial and financial ideas, still others to criminal ideas.

 

I am happy , that you seem to be echoing my thoughts ldsoftwaresteve

lol. that does please me. :confused:

I'm of the opinion that we exist to perceive existence. Perception machines, in other words. If that is even partially true, it leads to a connection with morality in that perception is our purpose. That could indicate that all attempts to improve our perception are inherently good and virtuous.

[hallenrm]

Well, here's a link I discovered that gives information on some academic research, almost along my thoughts. I hope you will find it useful

 

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/grobstein.html

 

This link I discovered through a report on a seminar held in October 2005, in New Delhi. The topic of the seminar was "Building the scientific mind"

 

:eek: :evil: :evil:

[hallenrm]

Here is another evidence that is very well documented in scientific research. This usually refereed to as imprinting of ducklings.

 

It has been scientifically demonstrated, that the minds of ducklings can be unmistakeably influenced by various factors at the time of their birth:)

[hallenrm]

That is sort of what I was trying to get at. Just because you talk tech and science to a child does not meant they are going to be a great scientist nor does it mean if you do not they will not.....

 

I agree, any infant can be assumed not to make head or tail of a discussion on science and technology; but somewhere somehow these discussions have an effect on the developing brain, perhaps it picks up certain words during the discussion and retains them to be processed more efficiently further. So when at school the child is exposed to those words again, it is a bit more receptive than the child who was never such exposed.

 

It's all a hypothesis, some random thoughts, which I believe someone someday will pickup and be more sucessful in making them acceptable to the scientific community of the day:)

[ldsoftwaresteve]

I think a child picks up on the interest and enthusiasm shown by the adults it comes in contact with. If the adults have fun doing that, well, there must be something to it.

I always read to my kids when they were little. The Chonicles of Narnia, Tolkein, etc. And, I'd make up 'puzzleworld' stories.

I would do odd things too when I read to them. If they were having trouble focusing, I'd stop, have them close their eyes, I'd put my fingers on their eyelids, gently, and ask them to draw a picture inside their heads of the story. This was for the youngest ones who were new to the storytime stuff.

Good memories. Chokes me up just talking about it.

I don't know if any of that contributed to their mental acuity, but, they are sharp as tacks. Little skills is what I think it's all about. Little choices and giving them the opportunity to make good ones.

[hallenrm]

I am reminded of the biography of Richard P Feynmann, an unquestioned brillian scientist. In his memoirs he recounts how his father would accompany him to the woods, discussing about various intricacies of nature, I wonder if the talked about physics concepts, but the fact remains thay Feynmann gre up to become the most reverred teacher and scientist.

 

ldsoftwaresteve, all who read this thread, can you recall any such instances. If you do please share them here, i would be indeed grateful:)