Luc Turpin Posted June 29 Author Posted June 29 Jon Lieff’s position on the interaction of mind and brain that closely resembles mine. “Study of the human brain reveals processes that cannot be easily explained without the interaction of brain and mind. Neuroplasticity: When a thought or learning occurs, it triggers wide-ranging changes in large brain circuits. I have discussed a wide range of different mechanisms that occur in hundreds of different parts of these circuits at the same time. A very brief list includes: Changes inside neurons of scaffolding molecules and movement of mitochondria strengthening synapses. Complex receptor proteins that exchange their subunits. A cooperative alteration of both pre synaptic neurotransmitter and postsynaptic receptor. Triggering of specific new complex motors. Alterations in the post synaptic density, a complex of over a thousand interlocking unique large proteins, different each brain region. Complex alterations of the molecules in the extracellular space not attached to any cells. Any one of these might be possible to explain on purely mechanistic grounds. But, having all of these alter in sync triggered by a subjective experience is impossible to explain without a unifying factor such as mind. Without some central direction, it is difficult to imagine all of this occurring at once. Hidden Talents:Using virtual reality gear, researchers are able to stimulate out of body experiences in ordinary people, showing a separation of mind and body.Also, psychedelics give counterintuitive results of increased mental activity with great decrease in brain activity, opening question of “doors of perception” into mind. Many triggers can stimulate very unusual spiritual experiences. Brain injuries can trigger very unusual mental capacities that appear to be repressed by brain regions. There is no Center in the Brain:Intensive study for a generation by a half a million neuroscientists worldwide has found no center in the brain for subjective experience. Recent studies show that the brain is much less modular than previously thought (modularity would go along with a computer model of the brain.) Most of the neurons are connected to multiple sensory inputs. Also, the hubs in the brain circuits are noted to have large amounts of local connections, but all also have massive long-range connections. This goes against a modular theory. Mind must interact with many different regions at once. This is also better explained by interaction with mind. Perceptions: It is very difficult to determine what causes perceptions. Our senses are limited to narrow bands of what exists (for example the narrow band of vision, hearing, and touch among the possible frequencies). But, the perception is only somewhat determined by the sensory input. In fact, it is determined in larger amount by the expectations, memories, desires and needs. Also, somehow, perceptions from social experiences are able to influence specific gene networks in immune cells. Animal Brains Animals are much more aware than scientists have realized, even very small animals with tiny brains. Animal research is demonstrating advanced cognition and social behavior in very small brains. For example, bees exhibit completely different structures related to advanced individual abilities of symbolic language, abstract concepts, advanced learning, mathematical abilities and kaleidoscopic visual memory. Birds have demonstrated advanced verbal learning and syntax. Lizards demonstrate high intelligence and advanced social behavior. Empathy and mourning are seen through much of the animal kingdoms. It is very difficult to explain the behavior of individual bees, ants, lizards and birds, as well as many other animals, without considering that they also share interaction with mind. Plant Intelligence Plants demonstrate surprising intelligence. Research shows dramatic abilities of decision-making, complex communication including communication at great distance through fungal wires, and for self-defense. A plant is able to plan ahead to the time of the morning dew, to make a toxic chemical that will kill mildew at that moment. Any sooner or later they could kill themselves with the toxin. Plants, in their fight with microbes, create new complex proteins in a constant back and forth battle. They also use RNAs in this battle. Plants are able to determine exactly how much sugar they have until dawn and apportion the usage by mathematically dividing the amount into the time remaining. In experiments where sugar is added, they recalculate the amount and increase the hourly amount that will last till the next light. They also exhibit short term and long-term memory. Plants are able to engineer their surroundings for their advantage. In order to get nitrogen, plants have a very complex back and forth communication with microbes to invite them into the plant to build a nitrogen factory. This involves many steps and signals, any one of which if not answered correctly would stop the process. The plant then builds a factory around them. Microbe Intelligence Microbes exhibit many “brainlike” capacities without a brain. They show decision-making from multiple inputs, group behavior, and advanced communication. Microbes can self-edit/mutate their genes to make special proteins to combat viruses, other microbes, and plants. These are complex large proteins that depend upon their exact shape. With the most advanced supercomputers, humans cannot calculate the folding of an average sized protein, from the codes. Yet microbes appear to know. Microbes demonstrate innovations to fight autophagy in cells. One microbe, leprosy, manipulates genes turning nerve cells into stem cells and then into muscle cells; Amoeba are able to live as individual cells, then when needed to travel for food, they form what appears to be a multicellular creature made of a stalk and flowering body. The flowering body flies away in the wind or on animals’ feet, whereas the stalk sacrifices itself and stays behind. Recent studies show that family members are more likely to sacrifice for others and enter the stalk. Mitochondria are previously independent microbes, who relinquished some of the freedom to live inside of our cells. In exchange for the protection of a large cell, they produce energy. They stay in constant and instantaneous contact with the functioning of the neuron. When thought occurs and dendrites and axons are being built and remodeled, the mitochondria multiply and travel to these spots to give more chemical energy for the process. Later, they will move elsewhere where necessary. Virus Intelligence Even more remarkable are viruses, also, self-editing/mutating their DNA to form complex proteins in battle with many different foes. Viruses demonstrate complex behavior,with positive and negative relations with bacteria and humans. One example (out of thousands) traces the intelligent behavior of the herpes virus in humans. See post Virus Intelligence. Herpes virus uses five distinct receptors to fuse with the skin cell’s membrane, allowing DNA to enter the cell. There it foils the complex nuclear pore mechanisms and enters the nucleus. With a more complex process it forms a circle of DNA and uses the cells machinery to reproduce. This new virus now leaves the skin cells and enters a neuron, where it hijacks the complex transport motors; it takes over the motor, accelerating it and directing it the long way up the axon to the nucleus where again it fools a different complex nuclear pore mechanism. In the neuron’s nucleus it changes its behavior and produces molecules that stop further activity to not kill the neuron. It can remain there for many years. Later, it is reactivated and leaves the nucleus, again travelling back on the microtubule machinery along the long axon. It, then, leaves the neuron and enters skin cells where it reproduces. Cellular Intelligence Neurons, immune cells, and cancer cells, which are vastly more complex than microbes, demonstrate extremely advanced communication and group activity. Human cells use cellular self-editing in multiple different ways. They edit their own DNA for errors. They edit their own DNA in very complex ways to make antibodies and T cell receptors. They edit messenger RNA in a very complex process called alternative splicing, where what was previously considered one gene makes not one protein but up to 500. T cells demonstrate many intelligent functions. They mature by building complex receptors that are then able to send and receive large numbers of cytokine wireless signals. They travel through the body searching for cancer, defective cells, and microbe infested cells. But, when in the cerebrospinal fluid they control the other immune cells, and send wireless signals to brain cells, which are necessary for normal cognitive function. When there is an inflammation, in the CSF, the stimulate action from the immune cells and they signal the brain to decrease cognition with the “sick feeling” Jumping genes, transposons and retro transposons, demonstrate complex behavior, which need to be counteracted with a unique immune system inside the cell’s nucleus. Individual cells have developed different versions of the nuclear immune system, called CRISPR, to fight the massive effects of jumping genes. Also, individual cells in different regions of the brain develop their own unique intrinsic immune systems for different bacteria and viruses with extensive innovation. Current Unproven Theories At this moment in the development of science, there is no way to prove any of the current theories of mind. They are all speculation. The most popular theory of neuronal connections has many problems, The Limits of Current Neuroscience. Electrical connection theories are complicated by chemical synapses, brain waves, astrocyte networks, cytokine communication with immune cells, extracellular space actions, as well as the unique behavior of individual neurons and the many different kinds of neurons. Quantum and information theories are fascinating, but many years of research remain and don’t necessarily explain subjective mind either. With non-locality, discontinuous behavior, simultaneous wave and particle nature, the physicist David Bohm said the structure of the universe is “much more reminiscent of how the organs constituting living beings are related, than it is of how parts of a machine interact.” (Wholeness and the Implicate Order, p272). The Penrose and Hammeroff microtubules quantum theory would apply to all cells. Other quantum theories would apply to all inanimate objects as well. Information theory is still in early stages of any feasible explanation how it could relate to subjective experience. Integrated Information Theory attempts to calculate consciousness but does not yet explain subjective experience. All molecular theories currently have no basis to explain subjective experience. Speculation: A Layer of Mind Beneath Physics For thousands of years philosophers have argued many positions about the nature of mind, all with advantages and disadvantages. None are any closer to being proven scientifically. There are now a hundred different “isms” and many different synonyms for each. The two most extreme positions are that everything is matter, materialism, and that everything is mind, idealism. The first extreme position is basically that of modern science. There are many reasons why the view is limited. It considers mind as an epiphenomena—an emergent property of matter. Using the word “emergence” means that the mechanism is not understood. The other extreme is that everything is mind or Spirit, some form of energy and matter coalesces from it. There are, also, many problems in explaining science with this position. Perhaps, a more practical position is in between. The middle ground posits that energy, mind, and matter all exist in a continuum as parts of basic nature. One word for this is panpsychism. This position has some difficulties, also, but is closer to our commonsense experience in life. There are many good books on this theory. Some of the views expressed here are further described in Panpsychism In the West by David Skrbina; Unsnarling the World-Knot by David Ray Griffin; Panpsychism: The Philosophy of the Sensuous Cosmos by Ells; and Mind, Memory, Time by Carl Gunther. There are many famous scientists, philosophers, and theologians who have expressed versions of this middle ground. An example is that of Thomas Edison, the great inventor, who wrote: “I cannot avoid the conclusion that all matter is composed of intelligent atoms and that life and mind are merely synonyms for the aggregation of atomic intelligence.” Commonsense View 1) The only access we have to the external world is our perception and thoughts about it. This occurs because our minds exist. 2) Perception is greatly limited by the small bandwidth of each sense—narrow bands of light, sound, touch and smell). It is also influenced by expectation and memories of previous events. There are many more neurons from the cortex interacting downward with the incoming sensory neurons, than the total number of sensory neurons providing data from the outside. Perception is affected by needs and desires. It is biased by situations. Details are missed or excluded. There are illusions, medical conditions, and errors. The multisensory brain chooses one sense over another—sight over sound. 3) Science is completely based on minds with perceptions. The only way science knows anything about the external world is by accepting that there are other minds, studying our perceptions, and seeing if a group of minds agree with the findings. Mathematical concepts are added to explain and predict these observations. All of mathematics is a subset of mind. (The notion that someone can refute the existence of mind in general by using their own mind is absurd.) 4) Bodies are observed as a perception – both our body and others’ bodies. We agree together that we are connected to each of our bodies. 5) Some form of mind exists in animals, cells, viruses and perhaps molecules. Mind can interact instantly in at least six orders of magnitude at the same second: perception of a social interaction causes neuroplastic changes in multiple cells, alterations in multiple neuronal networks and stress circuits, and stimulation of complex genetic networks deep inside immune cells. Mind, therefore, must interact with molecular mechanisms at all of these levels at the same time. 6) Mental functions exist in a hierarchy from virus and cells to animals and humans. Among animals there are many unique intelligences, despite the human claim to be the only superior mind. 7) Small simple mind entities that interact at molecular levels could combine into larger minds that interact with brains and society. These experiential simple mind entities must exist beneath and around all molecules and then coalesce into those large enough to interact with cells and brains. To answer the question where is mind in nature, one possible answer is a layer of experiential subjective entities of proto-mind beneath physics.
iNow Posted June 29 Posted June 29 It’s best practice to link to sources from which you copy/paste huge swaths of text https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/where-is-mind-in-nature
Luc Turpin Posted June 29 Author Posted June 29 19 minutes ago, iNow said: It’s best practice to link to sources from which you copy/paste huge swaths of text https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/where-is-mind-in-nature Apologies, you are right. I copy pasted the whole thing, because I have been trying to convey my position on the matter without great success. I guess that I am not very good at it. Jon Lieff’s text was much clearer, concise than what I could have done. It becomes easier to discuss things when positions are understood.
TheVat Posted June 29 Posted June 29 https://academic.oup.com/book/12822/chapter-abstract/163059537?redirectedFrom=fulltext The view put forth in this thread is panpsychism. One of the influential papers in current panpsychist theory is this one, by Galen Strawson. (my link is to a chapter summary for a collection of his papers) This chapter discusses the following statements: a materialist holds that every concrete phenomenon is wholly physical or material and a realistic materialist is a full-fledged realist about consciousness. Therefore it follows that a realistic materialist must hold that consciousness is a wholly physical phenomenon, and that at least some arrangements of matter are conscious or constitute consciousness. The chapter asks: what follows from this? It must be assumed in a standard way that all matter is made of the same stuff (leptons and quarks, or strings, or...) and it must follow that all matter can be arranged in a consciousness-constituting way. It is then argued that for certain things A, you cannot get A from non-A, and that consciousness is one of those things. Therefore no matter can be wholly non-conscious in its ‘intrinsic’ or ‘ultimate’ nature. If so, any realistic — any truly serious — materialist must be a panpsychist. An intriguing view but I don't see how it can be buttressed by the empirical methods of science. It seems to be a philosophical argument that proposes panpsychism as a core principle which, if adopted, then allows one to pass a wand over a great variety of puzzles and mysteries and say it all makes sense now! That could be deeply satisfying but it is still not science. Pehaps "metascience" would be more the term?
dimreepr Posted June 29 Posted June 29 7 minutes ago, TheVat said: The view put forth in this thread is panpsychism. It's more of an excuse to prevaricate...
Luc Turpin Posted June 29 Author Posted June 29 1 hour ago, TheVat said: An intriguing view but I don't see how it can be buttressed by the empirical methods of science. It seems to be a philosophical argument that proposes panpsychism as a core principle which, if adopted, then allows one to pass a wand over a great variety of puzzles and mysteries and say it all makes sense now! That could be deeply satisfying but it is still not science. Pehaps "metascience" would be more the term? We have got to find out how to investigate it or else we will never be able to understand the true essence o f reality. Metascience is an interesting choice of word.
Phi for All Posted June 29 Posted June 29 9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: We have got to find out how to investigate it or else we will never be able to understand the true essence o f reality. This is totally inappropriate for a hard science topic. True? Reality? Science isn't interested in either of those subjective descriptions. This also highlights my objection with your methods. You get to claim ad infinitum that we don't understand X because you're skeptical of the actual science that's gone on before, of how investigations you've never studied may have been handled poorly. Your incredulity means you're always right, never wrong. It's truly frustrating trying to have a conversation where consensus is in one person's hands rather than among peers. Are we done here, or do you want to start a different thread in Philosophy?
iNow Posted June 29 Posted June 29 3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: I have been trying to convey my position on the matter without great success Your position is clear. It’s your recalcitrance and reflexive deflection of valid counterpoints and criticisms that is turning people like me away. I see others before me have also provided similar feedback
TheVat Posted June 29 Posted June 29 Well at least he seems receptive to the possibility that this might be more metascience than science. If so, then the move to Philosophy could be fairly painless. Unless we receive a last minute bulletin that mind-preons have been discovered...
Luc Turpin Posted June 29 Author Posted June 29 34 minutes ago, iNow said: Your position is clear. It’s your recalcitrance and reflexive deflection of valid counterpoints and criticisms that is turning people like me away. I see others before me have also provided similar feedback I accept the criticism and will try and be less recalcitrant and reflexive moving forward. 38 minutes ago, TheVat said: Well at least he seems receptive to the possibility that this might be more metascience than science. If so, then the move to Philosophy could be fairly painless. Unless we receive a last minute bulletin that mind-preons have been discovered... Agree that I have an odd way of posting. Notwithstanding, I think that valuable evidence has been provided and that a better discussion can ensue.
Luc Turpin Posted June 29 Author Posted June 29 1 hour ago, Phi for All said: This is totally inappropriate for a hard science topic. True? Reality? Science isn't interested in either of those subjective descriptions. This also highlights my objection with your methods. You get to claim ad infinitum that we don't understand X because you're skeptical of the actual science that's gone on before, of how investigations you've never studied may have been handled poorly. Your incredulity means you're always right, never wrong. It's truly frustrating trying to have a conversation where consensus is in one person's hands rather than among peers. Are we done here, or do you want to start a different thread in Philosophy? Notwithstanding the poor choice of words on my part, science is still about trying to find out how the world works, is it not? What seems to be ad infinitum claims are actually a series of possibilities that open up if it is not mind from brain. Those are the mind through brain implications. I reiterate, the science is sound, but I disagree with the interpretation of the data. I do not want to be right, but want to provide an alternative to what is the current mind view. Not because I just want to do so, but because I think that some data is not being looked at or misinterpreted, which could change the picture. I feel as well frustrated by the conversation and feel that consensus is only possible on one side of the fence. If moving to philosophy would smooth things out, then so be it.
Luc Turpin Posted June 30 Author Posted June 30 Can this only be due to randomness? “Neuroplasticity: When a thought or learning occurs, it triggers wide-ranging changes in large brain circuits. I have discussed a wide range of different mechanisms that occur in hundreds of different parts of these circuits at the same time. A very brief list includes: Changes inside neurons of scaffolding molecules and movement of mitochondria strengthening synapses. Complex receptor proteins that exchange their subunits. A cooperative alteration of both pre synaptic neurotransmitter and postsynaptic receptor. Triggering of specific new complex motors. Alterations in the post synaptic density, a complex of over a thousand interlocking unique large proteins, different each brain region. Complex alterations of the molecules in the extracellular space not attached to any cells.” - Jon Lieff https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/where-is-mind-in-nature
dimreepr Posted June 30 Posted June 30 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: Can this only be due to randomness? “Neuroplasticity: When a thought or learning occurs, it triggers wide-ranging changes in large brain circuits. I have discussed a wide range of different mechanisms that occur in hundreds of different parts of these circuits at the same time. A very brief list includes: Changes inside neurons of scaffolding molecules and movement of mitochondria strengthening synapses. Complex receptor proteins that exchange their subunits. A cooperative alteration of both pre synaptic neurotransmitter and postsynaptic receptor. Triggering of specific new complex motors. Alterations in the post synaptic density, a complex of over a thousand interlocking unique large proteins, different each brain region. Complex alterations of the molecules in the extracellular space not attached to any cells.” - Jon Lieff https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/where-is-mind-in-nature Who designed it?
Luc Turpin Posted June 30 Author Posted June 30 41 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Who designed it? Randomness and mind! “All of mathematics is a subset of mind.” Is this statement correct?
dimreepr Posted June 30 Posted June 30 44 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Randomness and mind! “All of mathematics is a subset of mind.” Is this statement correct? No, it's just inappropriate...
Luc Turpin Posted June 30 Author Posted June 30 20 minutes ago, dimreepr said: No, it's just inappropriate... in what sense is it inappropriate? because it is a derivative of mind? or that mind does not exist pa say?
CharonY Posted June 30 Posted June 30 10 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Can this only be due to randomness? “Neuroplasticity: When a thought or learning occurs, it triggers wide-ranging changes in large brain circuits. I have discussed a wide range of different mechanisms that occur in hundreds of different parts of these circuits at the same time. A very brief list includes: Changes inside neurons of scaffolding molecules and movement of mitochondria strengthening synapses. Complex receptor proteins that exchange their subunits. A cooperative alteration of both pre synaptic neurotransmitter and postsynaptic receptor. Triggering of specific new complex motors. Alterations in the post synaptic density, a complex of over a thousand interlocking unique large proteins, different each brain region. Complex alterations of the molecules in the extracellular space not attached to any cells.” - Jon Lieff https://jonlieffmd.com/blog/where-is-mind-in-nature I have not looked at the links but it looks like that the blog you are reading is an MD and not a research scientist. This by itself is not necessarily an issue but just skimming through one of the links I cannot find any references. So at least on the surface there is no way of telling whether whatever is written there is based on actual facts or just assumptions. Generally speaking, a blog is not a reliable source of information.
Luc Turpin Posted June 30 Author Posted June 30 2 minutes ago, CharonY said: I have not looked at the links but it looks like that the blog you are reading is an MD and not a research scientist. This by itself is not necessarily an issue but just skimming through one of the links I cannot find any references. So at least on the surface there is no way of telling whether whatever is written there is based on actual facts or just assumptions. Generally speaking, a blog is not a reliable source of information. Thank you for the response. I have been following the individual for years and I am aware that he reviews numerous scientific studies and articles on a daily basis, summarizes each of them before writing up his blog. I believe that he has an interesting process going on and that the information provided is reliable. His interpretation of data can be brought into question, but not the amount of data provided as it is quite extensive. I also have a question for you, if mind was a separate entity of its own influencing living matter, what would that entail for evolution? thank you for considering my request for a response.
CharonY Posted June 30 Posted June 30 7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: I have been following the individual for years and I am aware that he reviews numerous scientific studies and articles on a daily basis, summarizes each of them before writing up his blog. I believe that he has an interesting process going on and that the information provided is reliable. How would you know? Did you follow up the original papers to see whether he summarized them accurately? And if so, how, if he does not reference them? 7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: His interpretation of data can be brought into question, but not the amount of data provided as it is quite extensive. I can list any a virtually unlimited amount of data, but if you can interpret them any way you want, the data is worthless. You need the right experiments to guide discovery. 7 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: I also have a question for you, if mind was a separate entity of its own influencing living matter, what would that entail for evolution? I have not seen any convincing or coherent example how that would likely work. Why (and how) would you extrapolate from an unknown? But to put it simply, evolution is based on inheritance. If the magic thing is not inherited in any way, it would entail nothing for evolution. If it did, it might, but since we do not know how, it is useless to speculate.
Luc Turpin Posted July 1 Author Posted July 1 36 minutes ago, CharonY said: How would you know? Did you follow up the original papers to see whether he summarized them accurately? And if so, how, if he does not reference them? I have not seen any convincing or coherent example how that would likely work. Why (and how) would you extrapolate from an unknown? But to put it simply, evolution is based on inheritance. If the magic thing is not inherited in any way, it would entail nothing for evolution. If it did, it might, but since we do not know how, it is useless to speculate. 1-He has been posting his summary of studies wth links on his internet site and now on X. I have looked at his linked studies and agree with his interpretation most of the time. 2- I thought that that would be the case, but if one would be aware of any convincing or coherent example it would be you. 3- yes, evolution is based on inheritance. However, would gene editing and splicing would have some sort of impact on evolution?. I guess not.
CharonY Posted July 1 Posted July 1 4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 3- yes, evolution is based on inheritance. However, would gene editing and splicing would have some sort of impact on evolution?. I guess not. Yes of course they would. While splicing refers to RNA modification, it does not change ones genes. However, the mechanisms for splicing are inherited. Likewise, there are mechanisms that can change the genomic content, via e.g. recombination. 4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 1-He has been posting his summary of studies wth links on his internet site and now on X. I have looked at his linked studies and agree with his interpretation most of the time. You are talking about two things. One is summarizing (accurately) existing literature and the second is putting a spin on them to make their argument. The tricky bit is spotting where they are still sticking to lit and where they start their spin. It is fairly often that woo doctors start off with a reasonable interpretation of a finding and then somehow convince that doing just X will magically improve health, without actually having data to support that. I am, for example, skeptical that the literature he summarizes actually make a link between thoughts and recept subunit diversity. Relating molecular structures to something seemingly simple as cellular physiology is a challenge already. And then making the step towards higher-level functions is an almost insurmountable jump from the bottom up. If there was a basis for that, the work would be published in high-ranked papers, not on a random website. I will also add that based on the article the author is not taking a metaphysical stance. Quite to the contrary, he argumes mostly from a brain perspective- just being more certain about how it relates to thoughts than the evidence allows.
Luc Turpin Posted July 1 Author Posted July 1 9 hours ago, CharonY said: Yes of course they would. While splicing refers to RNA modification, it does not change ones genes. However, the mechanisms for splicing are inherited. Likewise, there are mechanisms that can change the genomic content, via e.g. recombination. You are talking about two things. One is summarizing (accurately) existing literature and the second is putting a spin on them to make their argument. The tricky bit is spotting where they are still sticking to lit and where they start their spin. It is fairly often that woo doctors start off with a reasonable interpretation of a finding and then somehow convince that doing just X will magically improve health, without actually having data to support that. I am, for example, skeptical that the literature he summarizes actually make a link between thoughts and recept subunit diversity. Relating molecular structures to something seemingly simple as cellular physiology is a challenge already. And then making the step towards higher-level functions is an almost insurmountable jump from the bottom up. If there was a basis for that, the work would be published in high-ranked papers, not on a random website. 1- all mechanisms that can change the genomic content occur randomly, correct? 2- I will try and obtain the research that seems to link thought and subunit diversity. I too find this incredible 3- My only contention here is that these findings might be relatively recent and thus unknown to most. If I can get the studies then both of us can interpret them Contacted the author, awaiting a response, hopefully!
Luc Turpin Posted July 1 Author Posted July 1 While waiting a response from the author, here is a link to advancements in imaging technology. For those interested in this kind of information-technology. http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/a-new-way-to-image-cells-with-vibrational-spectroscopy
iNow Posted July 1 Posted July 1 Wow. Someone went on a neg rep spree in this thread hitting up posts from very early on Page 1. Okay... but care to comment on why you found them so problematic? After 7 pages of repetition and disregard of critique, they seem accurate IMO.
swansont Posted July 1 Posted July 1 On 6/30/2024 at 8:25 AM, Luc Turpin said: Can this only be due to randomness? What randomness are you talking about?
Recommended Posts