Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829)
Dear members,
I thought I would get things started on FCRF with some thoughts on the subject of the science of epigenetics. Once considered scientific “heresy”, the notion that heredity is more than just the underlying DNA sequence, and that adaptations of this kind can be inherited through successive generations, has now been generally accepted by most researchers. Indeed, it invokes a distinctly “Lamarckian” aspect as it implies that traits acquired through experience/action can be passed down in a way that the French naturalist, Jean-Baptise Lamarck, thought was eminently possible. For those of you who like reading scientific articles, I have attached a peer-reviewed article on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in plants, an excerpt from which is provided below:
“Generations of life scientists have contributed to our current view that selection, acting on randomly generated genetic variations or polymorphisms, is the driving force for adaptive responses and organismal evolution…. this dogma of genetic inheritance and evolution has been challenged repeatedly by Lamarckian viewpoints.”
While it is pleasing to see that a longstanding dogma of Neo-Darwinist ideology has now been challenged, if not refuted, the new science of epigenetics still focuses on the genes themselves and the mechanisms that alter the way genes are “expressed” without altering the DNA sequence itself: these include DNA methylation (adding a methyl group) and histone modification (histone is a polypeptide that forms the protein complex of the chromosome). But what it does not properly explain are the causal factors by which the organism and its cells senses information about its own environment and then modifies gene expression using the two mechanisms identified. In a way, this is similar to the vexing problem in developmental biology as to how different cell types (that have identical genomes) produce different proteins, whose sequences are encoded in the genome, according to specific needs.
Dr. Bruce Lipton has more to say about this in a youtube video whose link is provided below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjjvimJRevQ
Lipton argues against the idea that genes are “self-actualizing”, being just molecular blueprints of protein sequences. They don’t turn themselves on and off, or modulate their expression characteristics, but rather it is the environment that determines the genetic readout. Controversially, he argues that quantum mechanics reveals that “matter” is, in effect, just a form of vibrational energy and that it may be possibly to shape matter using “mental energy”, such as thoughts and emotions. This may provide a scientific basis for therapy based on the mind rather than just chemicals (already acknowledged in the placebo effect and psychosomatic disorders.) Thus, the environment affecting our genome may not just be physical but relates to our own psychological condition.
If you wish to contribute to this discussion you can comment here or you can join the Formative Causation group by emailing joehannon7 (at) gmail (dot) com.
BW,
Joe
There are several entries that I would like to comment on:
Evgenii Rudnyi (4/20) said:
“I am not sure that any new force could help here. When we discuss the sense of being started at, first it would be good to take a decision on a problem raised by Velmans: ‘Where experiences are’.”
The example he used, though, was about a physical phenomena with the information transmitted by photons (electromagnetic force). I am neutral on the location of the experience, since both make sense to me. The Sense of Being Stared At is different. From the viewpoint of the person being stared at, there are no photons transmitting the information. So the question needs to be asked, what is responsible for the feeling of being stared at. This is where I suggest a life force comes into play. Living beings, in my view, are capable of sensing a life force in the same sort of way they are capable of sensing other forces.
Evgenii Rudnyi (4/20) also used this quote from Rupert:
” ‘I suggest that the perceptual projection is not just analogous to but actually is a field phenomenon.’ ”
I agree with the idea of a field, and have no objection to calling it a morphic field. However, the definition of a field is that it describes the vectors of forces acting on a particle at various positions in space. I remember that Rupert has defined his morphic field as a field that acts with no force. [The reference is not readily at hand.] For traditional scientists a field with no force is probably as unlikely as a new kind of force.
I agree with Rupert that the morphic field does not represent any of the four accepted forces. I suggest that it represents the life force, instead. When you are trying to convince a reluctant scientific community of something revolutionary, it’s not clear what is the best way to proceed. I prefer to jump in with both feet, hence my suggestion that there is a life force.
Joe (4/28) said:
“…we might be able quantifiably measure the ‘sense of being stared’ at not just through subjective experience but also through changes in blood pressure, heart rate, hormone secretion and other biomarkers. That is what would attract the attention of mainstream scientists.”
It certainly is a step in the right direction to use biomarkers. I think that we will still hear the same objections about experimental design flaws, though. The place the mainstream scientists question the experiments is in the transfer of information from starer to staree, and not in the reports of the reaction. Biomarkers do not answer their objections.
Rupert Sheldrake (4/30) wrote:
“In experiments on the sense of being stared at done through CCTV, people did measure physiological responses, particularly electrodermal response… The only trouble with this experiment is that the effects seem to be much weaker through screens than through direct looking. But direct looking experiments with different numbers of lookers should be relatively simple to do as well.”
I’m glad to hear that you found the effect through screens is weaker than the effect through direct staring. I didn’t know about that result. It is a confirmation of my idea that life force effects are related to the possible physical effects between the two people involved. For example, someone staring from within touching distance should have a much larger effect than someone 100 feet away. Staring through CCTV is even more remote and should be weaker still.
I am not suggesting that the effect is a linear function of distance, though. I suggest it is based on the amount of effect the starer could have on the staree. There is a related experiment here, The Sense of Someone About to Touch You. My martial arts experience is that the effect is much stronger than the effect of staring, especially when the “touch” is a serious punch or kick. If we think of the Sense of Being Stared At’s evolutionary survival value, it makes sense that we sense things that can affect us immediately more strongly than things that can’t affect us right now.
Rupert Sheldrake (4/30) also wrote:
“If larger numbers of people have a bigger effect, it would not necessarily prove the existence of a ‘life force’. It would be better to think of it as an influence and leave open the question of how it is transmitted.”
I agree with the first part of this comment, but I will respectfully disagree with the second sentence. I think the goal should be to postulate the existence of a life force, derive equations for the interactions that a life force suggests, and see if we can predict results based on or equations. I’m not sure we have ever “proved” that electromagnetic force exists. Probably we have, but even more certainly, we have derived laws to use it effectively. If we get to the place where we can predict correct results from life force equations, we have a powerful argument in favor of its existence.
It’s not that life force is something that I am introducing to the world. Martial artists, healers, yogis, and other Eastern disciplines have been using the idea for centuries. Indigenous cultures from the Americas to Africa to Australia have a life force as part of their system of the world. It really is just the Western scientific tradition that has a problem with it.
So I have written a book, Calculating Soul Connections, that lays out my views on the life force in a way that is closer to Western science. It even has testable equations. It expands on what I have said here and puts the idea of life force in an even larger framework. If any of you are interested in an advanced reading copy, you can order it in advance here. Official release is scheduled for August 2013.
Tom
Rupert Sheldrake wrote:
In experiments on the sense of being stared at done through CCTV, people did measure physiological responses, particularly electrodermal response.
I don’t know of any systematic attempts comparing the effects of different numbers of starers, but in principle it should be quite easy to set up a staring experiment online, for example modifying Skype technology, so that people can be watched by variable numbers of others online. The easiest kind of experiment would be to have two subjects, have short viewing periods, say 15 seconds, and have a randomising device show one or other of the subjects to viewers, who have logged on and who’s number can be quantified. At the end of the trial period, each of the subjects has to guess whether he or she was being looked at, and the electro dermal response could also be monitored. This way, experiments could be conducted with a wide range of numbers of viewers.
The only trouble with this experiment is that the effects seem to be much weaker through screens than through direct looking. But direct looking experiments with different numbers of lookers should be relatively simple to do as well.
If larger numbers of people have a bigger effect, it would not necessarily prove the existence of a ‘life force’. It would be better to think of it as an influence and leave open the question of how it is transmitted.
Rupert
Dear Joe,
My point was just that in general one should distinguish between a first person view and a third person view (a Bird’s-eye view). In my view, this is a general problem of science that it is hard to locate the first person view in the objective scientific framework. I agree with you that my consideration is not related to experimental setup. This is another issue.
Evgenii
Dear Evegenii,
Whether a sense of being stated at is conveyed via fields, or through a life force, how do you address Tom’s point about how the sense itself is magnified when the stare is intensified due to the presence of more onlookers? It also interests me that we might be able quantifiably measure the “sense of being stared” at not just through subjective experience but also through changes in blood pressure, heart rate, hormone secretion and other biomarkers. That is what would attract the attention of mainstream scientists.
Joe
Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Sheldrake’s paper [1] on the sense of being started at was the first paper with which I have got acquainted with Sheldrake’s ideas. The paper was recommended me during a discussion of Velmans’ paper [2] (see also Velmans’ book [3]).
I am not sure that any new force could help here. When we discuss the sense of being started at, first it would be good to take a decision on a problem raised by Velmans: “Where experiences are”.
Let us consider a phenomenon “I see a cat” from a viewpoint accepted in science. There a person and a cat in a three dimensional physical space. Photons reflected from a cat strike some cells in retina and after that natural neural networks start information processing in the brain. That information processing somehow produces visual experience of a cat and now the question would be where such visual experience is located in the physical space. Is it in the brain or its location is coincident with the location of the real cat?
Max Velmans says that visual experience of a cat is located exactly where the cat is located. To this end, he introduces a notion of perceptual projection. Sheldrake makes a step further
“My own hypothesis is that projection takes place through perceptual fields, extending out beyond the brain, connecting the seeing animal with that which is seen. Vision is rooted in the activity of the brain, but is not confined to the inside of the head (Sheldrake, 1994; 2003). Like Velmans, I suggest that the formation of these fields depends on the changes occurring in various regions of the brain as vision takes place, influenced by expectations, intentions and memories. Velmans suggests that this projection takes place in a way that is analogous to a field phenomenon, as in a hologram. I suggest that the perceptual projection is not just analogous to but actually is a field phenomenon.”
I could hardly imagine how a new force could help here.
Let me conclude by referring to [4], where the authors consider an alternative, that is, that the visual experience of the cat is located in the brain:
“We would like to discuss the hypothesis that via the brain operational space-time the mind subjective space-time is connected to otherwise distant physical space-time reality.”
Once more, in my view it would be good to start by taking a decision where a visual perception of the cat is located, in the brain or outside of the brain.
[1] Rupert Sheldrake, The Sense of Being Stared At — Part 2: Its Implications for Theories of Vision, Journal of Consciousness Studies, Volume 12, Number 6, 2005 , pp. 32-49(18).
[2] Max Velmans, Where experiences are: Dualist, physicalist, enactive and reflexive accounts of phenomenal consciousness, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, Volume 6, Number 4 (2007), 547-563
[3] Max Velmans, Understanding Consciousness, 2009.
[4] Fingelkurts, A., Fingelkurts, A., and Neves, C. (2010). “Natural World Physical, Brain Operational, and Mind Phenomenal Space-Time”. *Physics of Life Reviews* 7(2): 195-249.
Evgenii
—
http://blog.rudnyi.ru
One of the most credible places where something like a life force is needed is in Sheldrake’s Sense of Being Stared At. Western science requires a force to transfer the information between starer and receiver, but which of the four physical forces can explain the results from these thousands of experiments? Life force, as discussed in Eastern models, would predict the results we see: moderate success in sensing a stare, chance results for the non-stare condition, some pairs being much more skillful than others. I would add to that my observation that when many people start to stare at you all at once, it is almost a physical sensation, so life force appears to be additive.
Dear Tom,
Thanks for your thoughts. I think you will find that Dr. Sheldrake does indeed cover the idea of a “life force”, and the philosophy of “vitalism”, in A New Science of Life (1981) and also in The Rebirth of Nature (1991). However, his research primarily focuses on the non-material inheritance and evolution of form and behaviour rather than the animating principle within all living organisms, per se.
While I greatly sympathize with your position, the fact is that the vast majority of scientists would simply balk at either the notion or need for a life force (or soul), and with a large degree of justification. You mentioned before that you believe there is a way in which both can be tested and measured: Now, I think that might get attention from scientific quarters, even if they would not necessarily share your interpretations. If you can think of specific experiments (details not required at this point) that could be done to test the presence of a life force, and make reproducible observations of its effects, then I am sure that the members of this forum would be greatly interested by what you have to propose.
Regards,
Joseph
Dear Joe,
You picked an interesting place to start.
My feeling is that Dr. Lipton has some worthwhile observations of things that need to be explained. Genetics and standard DNA explanations of life are certainly reaching a point where they are having trouble explaining observations. Unfortunately, Dr. Lipton is hanging his explanations on mechanisms that will not be sufficient. Here are a few of the problems I have with his discussion.
Newtonian physics — based on matter — is really not all our current science is based on. We also have a pretty good understanding of electromagnetism, which is all about energy. Nuclear forces have been studied as well. He is not portraying current science accurately.
There has always been a tendency to try to explain the current conundrums with the latest discovery in science. All of the mysterious phenomena of the 1800s were going to be solved by higher vibrational planes of electricity/light. It didn’t turn out that way. Now people want to use quantum mechanics to explain everything. This is unlikely because quantum mechanics seems to have a hard time even explaining itself and it misses the crucial requirement of being a mechanism to transfer energy.
When looking for a better explanation, the biggest problem I see is that the four accepted forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear) can’t explain observations like Sheldrake’s morphic resonance or the results of his Sense of Being Stared At. Those forces are how energy is transferred to affect things at the quantum level, so quantum mechanics doesn’t help either.
What I suggest is that we look for a fifth force that can transfer energy in a way that is compatible with the observations we are trying to explain. Lots of people have talked about it using names like chi or prana or life force. It handles the Sense of Being Stared At, observations of paranormal phenomena, and energy healing, among other things, quite well.
Then we probably need to propose something beyond our physical brains to interact with the life force. The common name for that is soul. I think Sheldrake’s morphic resonance is another name that could be used, if we allow his definition to be stretched a little. If the soul has purpose and can interact with matter through the coupling of the life force with electromagnetism, we have a mechanism for altering DNA and for differential expression of genes. (Think about how gravity can bend light to help understand the idea of forces coupling.)
I think it’s time to add life force and souls as something that can be studied. A more complete explanation is available on this website and in the associated book.
Tom Blaschko