Luc Turpin

Trivial? This is an entirely different worldview than what was being promulgated. Maybe most physiologists and system biologists have come to the realization that the genome holds limited capacity, but the worldview that they espouse and communicate has not "adapted" to this change in circumstance. The way in which you responded to my latest post is testament to this. The "major" part of your contention is being questioned by recent evidence. It see more an "interplay" in the litterature. Why bring this up when no one as I know it is doing so.

An interview with Denis Noble. “I think that things must come up to date in evolutionary biology” “Organisms can actually use the chance and using it all the time” “It (the immune system) goes to the nucleus and says please stop the error correction and allow the breaks to occur and then we will select out of those the very few that can grab hold of the virus. I am saying that this is general. It happens in bacteria when they resist antibiotics. It happens in cancers.” “They (cancer cells) hyper-mutate; they use chance to get novelty” “If you can bring this stochastic process under some kind of control, use and do the selection….” Talking about Dawkins “I don’t think the great majority of research biologists are any longer going down that path in the way in which he laid it out. I am sorry to say; I think the ground has shifted quite a long way” “I don’t think that people like Richard yet know that; that things have really moved on rapidly” “There is a shift here; its in principal of enormous proportion ….” It has big implications” Talking about gene sequencing; “from the point of view of what was promised twenty odd years ago in relation to cure for cancer, cures for diabetes…..there was to be cures coming out of the sky ……….what have we found, the association level is quite tiny” Talking about genes “there isn’t a program there” “ There is no such program in the genome” “When are we going to wakeup to the fact that it’s been twenty years now sequencing as many genomes as we can and the output as promised as simply not appeared” “Darwin would have never accepted that natural selection was the only mechanism” “With the same genes you can have a very different behavior” “Gene are influencing, not causal” “We are not determinate like computers” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCLRKP9NW8I

Thank you for this. It clarifies things greatly for me!

Not in it for the winning, but for understanding. As for learning, I have done a lot of this with our exchanges. Also, with what I have posted so far in Science Forums, i believe that there is ground for reasonable doubt on the current-conventional theory of mind. Sent my application to SpaceX; never got a response 😊

There is NASA and SpaceX. I am more like SpaceX, where I shoot rockets in the air and see them blow-up until maybe they fly. Greg Venter also used some kind of shotgun approach to genetics’. It's too late for me to change, because it would take me too much time to back-up and move forward. And I would rather run and fall on my face than walk, again because time is of the essence for me. I will nonetheless begin thinking about building a case. However, knowing me, it will be a haphazard and incongruent endeavour. Through experience and reading, I have come to the conclusion that the conventional mind model is lacking. I am surely wrong, but this is the path that I have chosen to take. And I have also chosen to prove or disprove this by unconventional means; not because my process is better, but because more valid scientific processes are inaccessible to me. I will continue doing what I do in the hope that maybe someday something of me will make sense. Be not disapointed if I continue posting studies; this is the only way that I have of expressing myself. Vive la différence!

Your writing is very clear and concise, and valuable I know that my method of inquiry is unconventional and at times bothersome, but here is an article that I would like for you to comment on! If you do not wish to do so, I would understand. "With a finding that will "rewrite neuroanatomy textbooks," University of Iowa neurologist Aaron Boes, MD, Ph.D., and his colleagues show that the thalamus is not a critical part of the brain pathway involved in keeping humans awake and conscious." "The finding upends decades of medical dogma that placed the thalamus as a critical relay point for the signals originating in the brainstem and ending in the cortex that maintain consciousness (wakefulness). The new study, published online Nov. 12 as a preprint in the Annals of Neurology, provides the first systematic evidence from humans that questions the routing of this critical pathway. The study evaluates patients with strokes of the thalamus and shows that even extensive injury to the thalamus does not severely impair consciousness." https://www.gehealthcare.ca/fr-CA/insights/article/rewriting-the-brain-pathway-for-consciousness https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.25377 Furthermore, cephalopods and some other living entities do not have a thalamus per say, but show complex behaviours. I agree with this assessment. I would push the boundary even further by saying that not only higher vertebrates, but also lower life forms have shown "higher levels of thought and planning"

For once, we all agree!

Corrections: 1- Not a bit or bits of brain that does the thinking, but the whole brain unto itself. 2- A non-pretentious "we" as in........

I have been doing a lot of reading over the years on mind and brain, so I learned a bit before leaping. It's my lectures that brought me to the realisation that we may not have it quite right as it relates to the mind-brain connection. During the viewing of the video, I realized that I may know more than I thought and that the presenter seemed to share many of my concerns. Not a bit or bits of brain that does the thinking, but the whole brain upon itslelf. If mind, in various ways, is in all living things, then yes it does make a big difference. It becomes an inherent property of the living and bolsters my case. A none pretentious "we" as in all of us, not as in some of us experts. The "we" would include Geronimo 😊

I watched the video from beginning to end. Are you trying to convince me that I am right? You should watch once again and put yourself in a mindset that the brain is actually a transducer. I did so and a lot of how he says the brain work's, made sense in that perspective. He also asks where is mind in the brain? In the cerebellum? no. even if 80% of neurons are located there? Still no! In the cortex? maybe, but why there and not somewhere else, he says. In the thalamus? He does not answer! in the Claustrum? mentions it at the end with still no definite answer. He briefly states that consciousness is in nature; at least in dogs, which is my position also. He talks about brain size, which is not an indication of higher consciousness, as I did. During the video, he peppers us with many questions about consciousness without answering them, which is again my position that we know very little about the mind brain connection. As for IIT, I can only say that it is a highly-highly controversial theory, with many neuroscientists indicating that it does not even address the really hard problem; e.g. how does a kilogram or so of meat create consciousness. There was also an open letter signed by scientists saying that IIT was pseudoscience. Caution noted! I posted the article not as absolute proof of concept, but that there may be, just may be a link between mind and genes. The jury is still out on this. My point is that just a few years ago, there was not even mention of mind influencing brain, let alone genes. Now, we have some studies indicating that this might be the case. If this bears out, then the whole neuroscience field might be turned upside down. Fron brain creating mind, to mind affecting brain and genes.

Mind over genes? "An international study led by the UGR using artificial intelligence has shown that our personalities alter the expression of our genes. The findings shed new light on the long-standing mystery of how the mind and body interact." "In previous research, we found significant differences in well-being between people in the three personality groups, depending on their level of self-awareness. Specifically, those with greater self-awareness (the creative group) reported greater well-being compared to the organised and unregulated groups. We have now shown that these levels of self-awareness are also strongly associated with the regulation of gene expression in the same order (creative > organised > unregulated). This suggests that a person can improve their health and well-being by cultivating a more self-transcendent and creative outlook on life." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240401142515.htm https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02484-x

Thank you for this! I will continue posting what appears to me interesting findings in the mind-brain thread.

How do you get non-randomness from randomness? I am neither searching for "legitimacy" nor "credibility"! Just trying to understand and to me, at least, something appears off. But, maybe, it's just my imagination running wild.

Thanks DanMP! My journey may also be nearing its end! Randomness is at the heart of science. We owe our existence to chance, random quantum fluctuations, evolution - random mutations and natural selection, molecules bumping into each other, etc. I understand this. However, in my readings of the science literature over many years, I have been amazed at how much complexity, organisation and structure that appears to come out of nothing. And I have read many articles that seem to edge their bets toward non-randomness events. This is what I think has not been properly addressed in science. Take my numerous posts in the mind-brain thread. They are replete with studies and statements hinting at maybe something more, but this is mostly ignored by the general science community. The foundation of science is that everything occurs by chance and I am saying that my modest readings seem to tell me differently. Is science being too dogmatic about randomness and chance events? you tell me! Your quote is helpful! I believe that I have less "legitimacy" than most participants in these scientific forums.

I am sure that this will not satisfy you, but nonetheless, here is one that I think is more than just patching small holes. DNA mutations are not random as previously thought Findings change our understanding of evolution https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6 Now, on to mind-brain. Layers upon layers of "unexpected" complexity was added in the last few years to genetics and science as a whole. Again, on to mind-brain.

It would take me a few days to go back and find all of the studies that had the words "unexpected findings" written into study abstracts. I have no inclination in doing so; Therefore, your right, I have nothing to offer in the way of evidence. If possible, I would like to come back to the topic of mind-brain as I know a bit more than genetics. I have enough of a battle on my hands with mind-brain that taking on another challenge is not warranted for now.

We cannot even see our own biases. This says that even when presented with evidence, our brains fail to shift. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds Maybe the model needs changing! we still grapple with the same questions as a century or more ago." Genome sequencing promissed many cures to diseases. This did not happen. What we found since then was a whole lot of things that we did not expect. "With extensive PR, the Genome Project promised rapid cures for many diseases by deciphering the genetic code for less than 2% of the human DNA involved in making proteins in a small number of people. After the genome Project, there were almost no cures found in that code. In the decade after the project, research increasingly showed the fantastic complexity of the regulation of that tiny percentage of our DNA in a region at least tem times larger that the "genes". It, also, showed that many differences in code exist between normal individuals. Millions of regulatory RNA were discovered. The massive use of alternative splicing in the human brain was discovered. It, also, was found that in diseases that are based on a series of mutations, such as cancer. there are many individual variations in the mutations causing the same disease. Many disease have large number of genes that are somehow related and not understood - autism, schizphrenia as examples. Also, it was found that fifty percent of the total DNA is "jumping genes" with critical effects on normal brain function and human brain evolution" - Jon Lieff

So, why molecular-evolutionary biologists are sticking to their "guns"? A statement from one of theirs speaks loudly. "Technical advances have brought an accelerating flood of data, most recently, giving us complete genome sequences and expression patterns from any species. Yet, arguably, no fundamentally new principles have been established in molecular biology, and, in evolutionary biology, despite sophisticated theoretical advances and abundant data, we still grapple with the same questions as a century or more ago." And why the need for the Plank's principle "In sociology of scientific knowledge, Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views". “Traveling waves influencing the storage and retrieval of memory” "Broadly, we found that waves tended to move from the back of the brain to the front while patients were putting something into their memory," "When patients were later searching to recall the same information, those waves moved in the opposite direction, from the front towards the back of the brain," https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-03-brain-memories-recalled.html Agreed that new studies are needed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_theories_of_consciousness#:~:text=Electromagnetic field theories (or "EM,McFadden's and other field theories.

I give you credit for at least responding, which is more than most. "We" is the scientific community as a whole; we are good at poking holes in individual research, but less so when it comes to poking holes in established scientific models. I retain that my last two posts speak loudly to this. "In sociology of scientific knowledge, Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views". This is a "split" thread, so I was not the one to assign where it went.

We also quickly remember our successes, but seldom acknowledge our failures And it's more complicated than we thought! "With extensive PR, the Genome Project promised rapid cures for many diseases by deciphering the genetic code for less than 2% of the human DNA involved in making proteins in a small number of people. After the genome Project, there were almost no cures found in that code. In the decade after the project, research increasingly showed the fantastic complexity of the regulation of that tiny percentage of our DNA in a region at least tem times larger that the "genes". It, also, showed that many differences in code exist between normal individuals. Millions of regulatory RNA were discovered. The massive use of alternative splicing in the human brain was discovered. It, also, was found that in diseases that are based on a series of mutations, such as cancer. there are many individual variations in the mutations causing the same disease. Many disease have large number of genes that are somehow related and not understood - autism, schizphrenia as examples. Also, it was found that fifty percent of the total DNA is "jumping genes" with critical effects on normal brain function and human brain evolution" - Jon Lieff Enough of me digressing.

I acquiesce that DrmDoc and myself are seldom in agreement on matters related to mind. And here is another "crackpot" intervention of mine; this time on molecular and evolutionary biology "Technical advances have brought an accelerating flood of data, most recently, giving us complete genome sequences and expression patterns from any species. Yet, arguably, no fundamentally new principles have been established in molecular biology, and, in evolutionary biology, despite sophisticated theoretical advances and abundant data, we still grapple with the same questions as a century or more ago." The point being made is that we easily remember what is right, but seldom acknowledge what is wrong with our well established scientific models.

+1 Evidence trumps theory.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ How would Dawkins react to this one? “Sophisticated swarming: Bacteria support each other across generations” "We used Bacillus subtilis as a model organism. This ubiquitous bacterium is also found in our intestinal flora. We have revealed that these bacteria, which live in communities, cooperate and interact with each other across generations," explains Prof Knut Drescher, head of the study. "Earlier generations deposit metabolites for later generations." https://phys.org/news/2023-11-sophisticated-swarming-bacteria-generations.html https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-023-01518-4

Agreed, all in the head, but how in the heck does it do that? Din't know you were into disco 😊

Even if half correct, how would we explain this within our current mind-brain model? "With each mental event, dramatic structural changes occur inside large numbers of neurons, outside of neurons in the extracellular space, at the synapses between neurons and in glial brain cells. Remarkably, these molecular changes occur instantaneously all over the brain in specific circuits using many different mechanisms. For each momentary event, the same neuron can be used in completely different circuits. Signals in the circuits occur simultaneously with other types of elctrical communication including synchonous oscillations and changes in the extracellular electrical potentials. Also, with each new learing event, new cells are minted from stem cells and incorporated into the neurola circuits. This is just part of the life of a thought in the brain".