SHAPIRO: 4. Experimental research has discovered numerous cell-mediated processes of genome restructuring in all realms of life.

And now RNA has five codes: Methlyation for gene expression modification by RNA:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120517131655.htm

On this subject, there was an article in the Guardian the other day on the connectome search, which either David or Matt drew our attention to a while back. Jeff Lichtman and his Harvard team have set out to map the wiring of the 85 billion neurons, each of which “forms 10,000 connections, through synapses with other nerve cells. Altogether Lichtman estimates that there are between 100 tn and 1000 tn connections between neurons.” The brain is made of “thousands of specific types of brain cell that look and behave differently.” The ultimate object is to “lay bare the biological side of our personalities, memories, skills and susceptibilities. Somewhere in our brains is who we are.”

We’ve seen these staggering figures before, but they’re worth repeating if only to emphasize the “intelligence” – I’m gaining confidence in this concept! – of the cells that have put themselves together, and the difficulty of accepting that even the most rudimentary (cellular) intelligence could have arisen spontaneously in the first place from non-living material.

Glial cells have functions adding to the complexity of brain function: five types or more and may even convert to neurons!.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/2012/05/18/know-your-neurons-meet-the-gl...

http://news.rice.edu/2012/05/17/computing-experts-unveil-superefficient-inexact-chip/

Plant controls over sex:

http://the-scientist.com/2012/05/18/flowers-count-pollen/

SHAPIRO: 4. Experimental research has discovered numerous cell-mediated processes of genome restructuring in all realms of life.

Dhw: Thank you for the post on plants. It figures that there would be a similar process of “intelligent” cooperation, though I’d have expected a lesser degree of sentience. I guess it is all a matter of degree: plants at the bottom of the scale, humans at the top.

The “listening” rice plants in your latest post under "Nature’s Wonders" are yet another example.

DAVID: How about bacterial colonies learning to cooperate? No trace of Darwin here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120515203011.htm

But clear traces of Margulis. And cooperation of this nature requires some sort of awareness. These are not senseless machines; decisions are being made all the time, and if they are successful, the organisms survive and flourish (by Darwinian Natural Selection).

Exercise reduces chances for diabetes. Exercise as a medicine:

http://www.genomeweb.com//node/1039586?hq_e=el&hq_m=1221208&hq_l=1&hq_v=917...

More on methylation in muscles, with biopsies!

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/2012/05/14/methylating-your-muscle...

Auditory offense and very tasty defense:

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/apr/12-plants-repel-bacterial-assault-spying-chatter

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/apr/12-hagfish-special-trick-slime-mucus

SHAPIRO: 4. Experimental research has discovered numerous cell-mediated processes of genome restructuring in all realms of life.

Thank you for the post on plants. It figures that there would be a similar process of “intelligent” cooperation, though I’d have expected a lesser degree of sentience. I guess it is all a matter of degree: plants at the bottom of the scale, humans at the top.

How about bacterial colonies learning to cooperate? No trace of Darwin here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120515203011.htm

Dhw: It may be that Huxley’s vision can be prevented by a functioning democracy, but we should not be complacent. Already over here and no doubt in USA as well, technology has eroded vast areas of privacy in a manner foreseen by George Orwell in 1984.

BBELLA: I just happened to watch George Orwell's 1984 this last weekend for the first time...freaky!!! Definitely shows, as a conscious society, where we don't want to go!
These projections of thoughts and ideas of authors and movie makers reminds me of the worm holes my mind takes off on with certain thoughts and ideas. It's like once you see where a thought, decision, or certain mind set could take you, whether it be societal or personal, it's like we can then make conscious decisions to avoid that path. Sometimes I believe that's what movies and stories provide us as a human race - a peer down the rabbit hole we don't want to take. Our "mind" films were probably meant to do the same, among other things...learning from past mistakes, etc. We've created this ability to project the path certain mind sets for the survival of our species. Of course, this ability can be used for good or for bad...like with most all things.

This is a very interesting observation. Novels, plays, films certainly do provide us with all kinds of experiences we couldn’t otherwise have. Sometimes they’re warnings, sometimes they’re insights, sometimes they’re new perspectives, and sometimes they’re sheer fun. My late brother, who was an anthropologist, went through a phase in which he had no time for fiction: real life was what counted. But in his last years, he found himself writing a novel, simply because there are territories you can explore through the imagination that you can’t get to in real life. Literature can be a wonderful source of empathy as well as a guide to “rabbit holes” we should avoid, but I guess that depends in the first place on the nature of the writer and/or reader!

BBELLA: In this article Steven Taylor gives one more perspective on Dawkins and the fallacies of mechanistic science. Altho I've heard most of his perspective before, there were nuggets here and there that I thought very interesting, and I appreciated his agnostic resolve in the end.

http://www.steventaylor.talktalk.net/dawkinsessays.htm

For some reason, this link didn’t work for me (I see David had the same trouble), but I found the article by googling Steven Taylor, and it was under “Steve Taylor, author of Making Time & The Fall”. I thought it was excellent, and echoes many of the thoughts expressed on this forum. There was only one section I disagreed with totally:

“The most honest reaction to Dawkins' view of the world - and to the worldview of materialistic science in general - would be not to bother getting out of bed in the morning, to commit suicide, or to escape from the bleak reality by taking drugs or chasing after ego-gratification and sensory thrills.
But fortunately we don't have to do any of these things, since this 'bleak reality' isn't the truth about the world anyway.”

He has quite rightly emphasized Dawkins’ wonderment at the variety and sheer beauty of life, and it is absurd to equate the materialistic world view with bleakness. For me as an agnostic, the possibility that this life is all there is provides an incentive for relishing every moment of life that I have. This does not entail drugs, ego-gratification or sensory thrills, and the very suggestion that atheists (and agnostics) can only gratify themselves is an insult to all those who, whether consciously or not, practise the principles of humanism. I’m sure we are all acquainted with bigoted, self-centred believers and with kindly, altruistic non-believers, so the “most honest” reaction to Dawkins’ view of the world should be no different from reactions to other world views: life is generally what we make it, and we should not impose our own prejudices on other people’s philosophies.

Otherwise, though, I agree with your assessment, BBella – lots of interesting material.

In this article Steven Taylor gives one more perspective on Dawkins and the fallacies of mechanistic science. Altho I've heard most of his perspective before, there were nuggets here and there that I thought very interesting, and I appreciated his agnostic resolve in the end.

http://www.steventaylor.talktalk.net/dawkinsessays.htm

Just read the essay. Excellent. Had trouble with link above. try this:

http://www.steventaylor.talktalk.net/dawkinsessays.htm

Is this a face you could kiss?

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/05/cambrian-shutter-of-doom-becomes-sucker-of-wo...

And this from simple forms?

In this article Steven Taylor gives one more perspective on Dawkins and the fallacies of mechanistic science. Altho I've heard most of his perspective before, there were nuggets here and there that I thought very interesting, and I appreciated his agnostic resolve in the end.

http://www.steventaylor.talktalk.net/dawkinsessays.htm

It may be that Huxley’s vision can be prevented by a functioning democracy, but we should not be complacent. Already over here and no doubt in USA as well, technology has eroded vast areas of privacy in a manner foreseen by George Orwell in 1984.

I just happened to watch George Orwell's 1984 this last weekend for the first time...freaky!!! Definitely shows, as a conscious society, where we don't want to go!

These projections of thoughts and ideas of authors and movie makers reminds me of the worm holes my mind takes off on with certain thoughts and ideas. It's like once you see where a thought, decision, or certain mind set could take you, whether it be societal or personal, it's like we can then make conscious decisions to avoid that path. Sometimes I believe that's what movies and stories provide us as a human race - a peer down the rabbit hole we don't want to take. Our "mind" films were probably meant to do the same, among other things..learning from past mistakes, etc. We've created this ability to project the path certain mind sets for the survival of our species. Of course, this ability can be used for good or for bad...like with most all things.

bb

I found this report disturbing, in so far as it appeared to pave the way for Huxley’s Brave New World, in which biological engineering and psychotropic drugs are used to determine people’s behaviour.

DAVID: Don't worry. Science writers like to pontificate about future results as it heightens the importance of their report. Our mind is independent as consciousness is and should be. It is influenced by psychiatric treatment without drugs. If a democracy is maintained Huxley doesn't work.

Your last comment takes us off in a slightly different direction, but is an important subject in itself. It may be that Huxley’s vision can be prevented by a functioning democracy, but we should not be complacent. Already over here and no doubt in USA as well, technology has eroded vast areas of privacy in a manner foreseen by George Orwell in 1984. The “hacking” scandal which is in the process of destroying Rupert Murdoch’s empire may be the tip of the iceberg. We know that virtually all our electronic forms of communication can be monitored, and even now we have no idea to what extent we are under surveillance, either by the authorities or by crooks. The present UK government is actually seeking to increase its snooping rights, while at the same time – just like its predecessors – defying the Freedom of Information Act on the pretext that revealing the truth about some of its activities and commissioned reports would be against the national interest or would inhibit its advisers from telling them what they really think. Authorities can play with human minds even in a democracy, as is only too obvious from certain thriving religious communities in our own western society – and I don’t just mean Muslim. Genetic engineering has crept into agriculture, and the article you referred us to clearly points to it being used in medicine. And why not, if it cures sickness? But where will the limits be drawn, and by whom? Just how much do we know about the actions of people in power, even in our democracy? Importantly, we have a free press, but that free press can itself be corrupt. Three cheers for The Guardian, but no cheers for The News of the World whose criminal activities it exposed. There you have the two sides of the coin – good media exposing bad. My point is that our democracy is in the hands of politicians, the media, big business and certain other authorities (e.g. the military, the police), not one of whom can be trusted. And we have not even mentioned the vast areas of the world that are governed by undemocratic regimes! Huxley’s vision is not just a warning to the west – it applies to the human race as a whole. We already have brainwashed people prepared to murder and die for the cause drummed into them. It’s only a small step, then, for the authorities to dispense with drumming and to use a scalpel, needle or pill instead.

I agree with you that democracy is our best if not our only protection against the sort of power envisaged by writers like Orwell and Huxley. That is why I’m concerned at the manner in which your country’s democracy and mine is being increasingly and subversively undermined.

Loggerhead turtles all over the Earth migrate as hatchlings using magnetic maps hard wired in their brains:

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-incredible-sea-turtle-migration.html

“Yet fortunately, given medical advances, genetic determinism is not necessarily a life sentence, as those who wear glasses for shortsightedness or take growth hormone for growth problems can attest. The same will almost certainly be true for epigenetic determinism: Understanding the mechanism should bring forward possible cures.”

Of course we don’t understand the mechanism, but the basic premise seems to be that by removing the distinction between body and mind, and between genes and experience, we can change the former and eliminate the effects of the latter. And I’m sure we can. This is one of the preconditions for Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, in which the authorities use biological engineering and psychotropic drugs to determine people’s behaviour. That’s why, in spite of the obvious potential benefits, I find this train of thought disturbing.

Don't worry. Science writers like to pontificate about future results as it heightens the importance of their report. Our mind is independent as consciousness is and should be. It is influenced by psychiatric treatment without drugs. If a democracy is maintained Huxley doesn't work.

DAVID: Late research on methylation changing gene expression after a bad childhood; don't think this would be an evolutionary change, but the epigenetic implications are interesting:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304363104577390462225369908.html?KEYWORDS...

It’s not just the epigenetic implications that are interesting. The article contains the following extremely complex and to me disturbing idea which has major philosophical and ethical implications:

“To have your fate determined by your early experiences is not much different from having it determined by your genes, and when experience acts by changing genes, the distinction vanishes.”

It seems to me that there is a missing factor here. A bad childhood leaves its scars on the mind, and it’s common knowledge that just as the body may influence the mind, the mind can also influence the body. If a traumatic experience changes the genes, that does not mean that the genes have caused the experience! We simply don’t know the extent to which our genes determine our RESPONSE to experiences, just as we don’t know the extent to which the “will” is free, but a physical trauma (experience) may be cured by physical treatment, and a mental trauma (experience) may be cured by mental treatment – hence psychiatry. Blurring the distinction suggests that the mind is indeed indistinguishable from the body, i.e. that your “fate” does depend on your genetic makeup. This is made evident by the next paragraph:

“Yet fortunately, given medical advances, genetic determinism is not necessarily a life sentence, as those who wear glasses for shortsightedness or take growth hormone for growth problems can attest. The same will almost certainly be true for epigenetic determinism: Understanding the mechanism should bring forward possible cures.”

Of course we don’t understand the mechanism, but the basic premise seems to be that by removing the distinction between body and mind, and between genes and experience, we can change the former and eliminate the effects of the latter. And I’m sure we can. This is one of the preconditions for Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, in which the authorities use biological engineering and psychotropic drugs to determine people’s behaviour. That’s why, in spite of the obvious potential benefits, I find this train of thought disturbing.

Late research on methylation changing gene expression after a bad childhood; don't think this would be a evolutionary change, but the epigenetic implications are interesting:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304363104577390462225369908.html?KEYWORDS...

MATT: Sorry everyone, things have been pretty hectic over here. Just dropping a line in to let you know no one's dropped dead! ;-)

We do miss you, but it's a relief to hear that all is well. We certainly don't want you or your wife to be experimenting with NDEs.