"Reincarnation"

[Robert Oz]

If you are reincarnated but have no conception of that previous reincarnation, what on earth is the point? Why would you care?

Not only that, but how can that even be defined as "you". The term "you" becomes meaningless. If "you" is your consciousness, it ends with death. If "you" are your memories, it ends with death.

 

[Marduk]

Not only that, but how can that even be defined as "you". The term "you" becomes meaningless. If "you" is your consciousness, it ends with death. If "you" are your memories, it ends with death.

I think you could say that you live on in the memories of your offspring, instinct is a case in point, instincts don't spring from nowhere, they are a learned behaviour that at some point one of your ancestors found helped with their survival allowing them to pass on their genes more succesfully and they passed on that learned behaviour at the same time. So a little part of the first ape like ancestor who found it easier to sleep at night lives on in all of us, deep inside our hypothalamus he lives still. Imagine if someone had a brain injury that caused that memory to become more real to them subjectively, wouldn't they think they were that ape ?

would they care if people didn't believe them if all they wanted to do was groom themselves and eat fruit because its what made them feel comfortable, wouldn't in effect this mirror all the claims made for reincarnation.

what if its not just the instincts being passed on, what if its all the significant long term memories of all our ancestors we have in our heads, but under usual circumstances we don't have access to them. Not just the memories of personal experience, but also the memories of stories they had heard, or anecdotes they liked as well. What would someone think if suddenly they got access to say just the long term memories of an individual who had lived thousands of years earlier. The brain certainly has the storage capacity for this and the mechanisms to utilise it. Wouldn't this answer a lot of questions about some peoples reincarnation experiences, if we allow that not everyone who's had one is bonkers or woo ?

true you wouldn't become that person and you might not be remembering all of their life properly, but to the person experiencing it, how would they be able to distinguish what was a real memory or what was a fabricaion their brain had manufactured to connect the other memories together ?

 

[Moochie]

Apropos of nothing, I'm really enjoying Life on Mars.


M.

 

[Lanzy]

Ok, Let's go with Life is a Circle and say,....sure why not? Unless someone actually comes up with evidence one way or another.

 

[Fnord]

what if its not just the instincts being passed on, what if its all the significant long term memories of all our ancestors we have in our heads, but under usual circumstances we don't have access to them. Not just the memories of personal experience, but also the memories of stories they had heard, or anecdotes they liked as well. What would someone think if suddenly they got access to say just the long term memories of an individual who had lived thousands of years earlier. The brain certainly has the storage capacity for this and the mechanisms to utilise it. Wouldn't this answer a lot of questions about some peoples reincarnation experiences, if we allow that not everyone who's had one is bonkers or woo?

The brain might, but the haploid gametes (a.k.a., 'Ova' and 'Sperm') do not. Only our parents' gametes are merged at conception, not their brains. Gametes barely have enough room to record our necessary genetic data -- plus a substantial amount of redundancy, activation/deactivation codes and noise -- without also recording the life-time experiential memories of our every male and female ancestor since DNA was 'invented'.

It is our brains that store our experiences, not our genes. One brain must somehow 'connect' to another for the transfer of knowledge to take place. Otherwise, we would already know everything our parents already knew from before the moment of our conception, including their languages, career skills and memories of day-to-day living.

Neat premise for a science-fiction story, but not borne out for real life by available evidence.

 

[Marduk]

The brain might, but the haploid gametes (a.k.a., 'Ova' and 'Sperm') do not. Only our parents' gametes are merged at conception, not their brains. Gametes barely have enough room to record our necessary genetic data -- plus a substantial amount of redundancy, activation/deactivation codes and noise -- without also recording the life-time experiential memories of our every male and female ancestor since DNA was 'invented'.

Gametes contain DNA, Junk DNA as has been recently shown to contain copies of dead virus's going back millions of years to the start of Mammalian evolution, it therefore has a huge storage capacity, are you so certain that memories of someones life can't be encoded into the DNA in the same way that memories of a disease can be. I'm not saying that its the entire life time memories encoded either, just some leftover junk that we have no apparent practical purpose for.

say the same way that we get half of our genes from each parents, whos to say that we don't also get half of their memories which include all the memories passed down to them by their ancestors along with the known instincts. I'm not saying that these passed down memories need to be of any particular quality, just that they might exist, consider how much data storage is in your brain right now, if you had to download just your long term memories to a computer, how many GB would that info take up ?


see its like this

Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

the same is true for the virus

All eukaryotic genomes contain, besides the coding information for amino acids in different proteins, a significant amount of noncoding sequences, which may or may not be transcribed. In general, the more evolved or biologically complex the organisms are, greater is the proportion of the noncoding component in their genomes. The popularity and success of "central dogma of molecular biology" during the last quarter of the 20(th) century relegated the noncoding DNA sequences to a mortifying status of "junk" or "selfish", even though during the pre-"molecular biology" days there were good indications that such regions of the genome may function in as yet unknown ways. A resurgence of studies on the noncoding sequences in various genomes during the past several years makes it clear that the complex biological organization demands much more than a rich proteome. Although the more popularly known noncoding RNAs are the small microRNAs and other similar species, other types of larger noncoding RNAs with critical functions in regulating gene activity at various levels are being increasingly,identified and characterized. Many noncoding RNAs are involved in epigenctic modifications, including imprinting of genes. A comprehensive understanding of the significance of noncoding DNA sequences in eukaryotic genomes is essential for understanding the origin and sustenance of complex biological organization of multicellular organisms.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/genomicron/blog/and_junk_dna_train_rolls


1. Instincts are passed genetically
2. dead virus's are passed genetically
so why can't memories be passed genetically, they are to all intents and purposes the same manner of recorded information as the diseases and the instincts, arent they ?

I'm not saying that this has happened, just that I can see no logical process why it hasn't, its a "what if" that needs more neurological research. We hardly know enough about the brain and its functions as it is and lets face it, genetics is a relatively new kid on the scientific block as well.

 

[Fnord]

1. Instincts are passed genetically
2. dead virus's are passed genetically
so why can't memories be passed genetically, they are to all intents and purposes the same manner of recorded information as the diseases and the instincts, arent they?

As I said, nice premise for a science-fiction story.

I also don't see why it could not happen - I only see that it did not happen ... at least, there is no evidence that it has.

Are we getting into one of those "Lack of Proof is not Proof of Lack" time loops again?

 

[Robert Oz]

see its like this
1. Instincts are passed genetically
2. dead virus's are passed genetically
so why can't memories be passed genetically, they are to all intents and purposes the same manner of recorded information as the diseases and the instincts, arent they ?

I'm not saying that this has happened, just that I can see no logical process why it hasn't, its a "what if" that needs more neurological research. We hardly know enough about the brain and its functions as it is and lets face it, genetics is a relatively new kid on the scientific block as well.

The difference between instincts and memories is instincts are something we are born with (with the first being a mutation in our DNA, presumably), while memories are accumulated over time. Saying that memories could transfer to our offspring through DNA is similar to saying that muscles one builds through weight training or a tan one develops through sunbaking can be transferred to our offspring through DNA, which isn't the case.

The ancestor who slept during the night didn't choose to sleep during the night. A mutation in his DNA made him sleepy during the night, which increased his chances of survival and was, therefore, selected by nature. The mutation is then passed on to the next generation, not the memory or the choice.

 

[Marduk]

As I said, nice premise for a science-fiction story.

I also don't see why it could not happen - I only see that it did not happen ... at least, there is no evidence that it has.

Are we getting into one of those "Lack of Proof is not Proof of Lack" time loops again?

lol probably, I was just musing on the possible method of reincarnation experiences which seemed lacking in this thread (unless you get really woo and start mentioning Gods). I think it is possible, that doesn't of course mean that its probable.

 

[Marduk]

The difference between instincts and memories is instincts are something we are born with (with the first being a mutation in our DNA, presumably), while memories are accumulated over time. Saying that memories could transfer to our offspring through DNA is similar to saying that muscles one builds through weight training or a tan one develops through sunbaking can be transferred to our offspring through DNA, which isn't the case.

But it is the case, or what would be the point of selective breeding for physical traits ?
the evolutionary theory of "artificial selection" describes exactly what you are denying can exist, that creatures can be selectively bred so that the offspring contain the same traits as the parents, wether thats muscle mass or colour. I'm thinking here more of natural colouration that a reaction to photo stimulus of course

The ancestor who slept during the night didn't choose to sleep during the night. A mutation in his DNA made him sleepy during the night, which increased his chances of survival and was, therefore, selected by nature. The mutation is the passed on to the next generation, not the memory or the choice.

and the mutation is stored in what format and is that format not exactly the same way that the brain stores long term memories i.e. biologically ?

 

[Robert Oz]

But it is the case, or what would be the point of selective breeding for physical traits ?

No. The general body shape and natural ability to grow muscle is inherited, but muscle built through exercise is not. Arnold Schwarznegger's children may have body types that would balloon as soon as they pumped some free weights, but they would not grow to Arnie's size without them (and a healthy dose of steroids).

and the mutation is stored in what format and is that format not exactly the same way that the brain stores long term memories i.e. biologically ?

It's all stored biologically, but there is still no evidence that memories, gargantuan muscles, tans or failing eye-sight is handed down to the next generation.

There is no evidence that memories make there way into our DNA.

 

[Marduk]

No. The general body shape and natural ability to grow muscle is inherited, but muscle built through exercise is not. Arnold Schwarznegger's children may have body types that would balloon as soon as they pumped some free weights, but they would not grow to Arnie's size without them (and a healthy dose of steroids).





It's all stored biologically, but there is still no evidence that memories, gargantuan muscles, tans or failing eye-sight is handed down to the next generation.

ok to simplify, I am not speaking about nurture being passed on as with your examples of body building and tanning, just that nature is passed on as with general muscle pattern and colouration, these instructions are passed on genetically, so is there some method that can categorically say that memories cannot be passed on genetically as well or do we not know enough about the process to be definitive about that. Seems to me it could be possible, fnord also admits it could be possible.
cheers

There is no evidence that memories make there way into our DNA.

I understand this, I am speaking hypothetically and its apparent that as the instruction for brains are passed on genetically and that mutations can be passed genetically why can it not be possible that memories encoded in the parents brains amount to the same thing as small mutations in the parent and so are passed along with the rest. It seems that otherwise the body is being unneccesarily complicated deciding what is and what isn't to be passed down. Wouldn't it make more sense to just pass everything and let the offspring grow using the parts that it finds essential in the environment that it exists in ?

Can I ask Robert if you hold any qualifications in this area or if not would you wait a week or so until I fire off some e mails to some experts who are ?

 

[Robert Oz]

ok to simplify, I am not speaking about nurture being passed on as with your examples of body building and tanning, just that nature is passed on as with general muscle pattern and colouration, these instructions are passed on genetically, so is there some method that can categorically say that memories cannot be passed on genetically as well or do we not know enough about the process to be definitive about that. Seems to me it could be possible, fnord also admits it could be possible. Can I ask Robert if you hold any qualifications in this area or if not would you wait a week or so until I fire off some e mails to some experts who are ?

cheers

No qualifications here and I would welcome expert advice.

It was just my understanding that something accumulated throughout life wouldn't get passed on. I am humble enough to eat my words if I'm wrong, of course.

 

[Marduk]

ok excellent, so I guess I need some nominations for which neuroscientist would be good for an opinion

anyone know any or have any suggestions ?

 

[Robert Oz]

I was just exercising my google skills and ran across a point I hadn't considered, but I think is important.

The ova in a woman's body are all present in the ovaries at birth (and so are the stem cells from which the male generates sperm), which means the DNA stored in the ova, especially, would need to change after memories have accumulated and continue to change as more memories are accumulated.

Is there any evidence that DNA is in a constant state of change?

 

[Marduk]

I was just exercising my google skills and ran across a point I hadn't considered, but I think is important.

The ova in a woman's body are all present in the ovaries at birth (and so are the stem cells from which the male generates sperm), which means the DNA stored in the ova, especially, would need to change after memories have accumulated and continue to change as more memories are accumulated.

Is there any evidence that DNA is in a constant state of change?

I have no idea, but as were still hypothetical I don't think its important, perhaps the ova only contain the memories from our grandparents and back from there skipping the mothers encoding but passing on the fathers, or perhaps the mothers memories along with the mothers grandparents are passed somehow via the umbilical cord connection. This is starting to sound like computer science isn't it

and besides science is not set in stone

It is commonly said that when oocytogenesis is completed, no additional primary oocytes are created, in contrast to the male spermatogenesis, where gametocytes are continuously created. In other words, oocytes reach their maximum at ~20[3] weeks of gestational age, when there are seven million of them; however at birth this has already been reduced to approximately 1-2 million.

Recently, however, two publications have challenged the belief that a finite number of oocytes are set around the time of birth.[4][5] Renewal of ovarian follicles from germline stem cells (originating from bone marrow and peripheral blood) was reported in the postnatal mouse ovary.
Due to the revolutionary nature of these claims, further experiments are required to examine the dynamics of small follicle formation.

I am learning lots of new words today, not sure I can actually pronounce most of them but yanno, I am learning, yayay

woah though, people have always told me I look more like my grandfather than anyone else and this is totally born out by photographs
spooky. So if it turns out then that I have his body through genetics and hypothetically if I could access those memories that I received from him genetically as well then, hasn't he been reincarnated in me,

just to add here I am using the literal meaning of reincarnation as Re - back again. incarnation - in the flesh. Not the woo one where my soul wafts around until it finds a suitable blank minded foetus to inhabit

 

[Robert Oz]

Aahhh! My Google-Fu is pathetic. With the knowledge I have of evolution (limited though it may be), I'll stick with my guess of "no inherited memories" unless I hear different from an expert in the field.

 

[Ladewig]

I think you missed the biggest thing here. If we all knew we were all, then I'd hope some people would think differently about their actions towards others. Maybe that is the ultimate irony. When you die, maybe its like the TV program "This is your life", where the host goes through an embarrasing home video of all the ills you have commited in your life and then says "and now your next life, the guy you stabbed in the throat for being a different colour to you."

I have read the part in quotes several times and have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[canispeaktodave]

I have read the part in quotes several times and have no idea what you are talking about.

A British programme in the 80s. They get a celeb on and suprise them with all their old friends.

Wow, that thread got a bit off topic. I don't think anyone really agreed with what I had to say. I'm just glad it generated a good bit of old fashioned debate, with very little flaming. Thanks for that, was fun

 

[Moochie]

Hey, there is no evidence of an afterlife. At least insofar as an egocentric consciousness is concerned.

We understand from prevailing knowledge that the atoms/molecules we're comprised of are infinitely recycled, and that this is our connection to infinity.

By "our" I do not mean any personal conscious possession, but only a generic conglomeration of atoms/molecules that probably have always existed, and probably always will.

This doesn't imply a continuing consciousness of a personal self. Sorry.


M.