Genetic Memory

Some parapsychologists[who?] have postulated that specific experience is encoded in genes, and proposed this as an explanation for past life regression. However, most parapsychologists generally dismiss this, on grounds that in those cases where past life regression has been considered, the subjects have no genetic link with the people whose lives they are considered to have regressed to; and that the idea is unsound as a mechanism for explaining how events could be recalled from past lives of people at points in those lives after they had children. Parapsychologists generally agree with the biological view that genetic traits are dispositional — i.e. that they merely encode a disposition to react in certain ways to environmental stimuli, and not actual memory or experience.[6][7][8]

Source

To interpret lets look at society prior to industrialization and in that regard lets look at a major city like London.

How are the streets cleaned?

So what you have is thousands of people whose job is to keep the streets clean. Historically in such a circumstance work conditions were horrible (Were talking 16 hour shifts where it was likely that children played a role).

So the next thing to happen is that we develop technology and develop the internal combustion engine and today we have "street sweepers". These humans who at the time had a maximum life span (in general) to the age of 48. Essentially did nothing but work, their entire lives, while they were not asleep.

A point being that in relation to Genetic Memory a person with a By-Polar Psychosis. Could have resulted due to "a disposition to react in certain ways to environmental stimuli, and not actual memory or experience."



Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Do you have a point?

reply to post by FyreByrd


Sure, it like presenting that sociopaths today are due to the Greco-Roman period.

Ignoring any Past Life, erm, stuff, and getting on more solid footting with Psychology we've the good old: Tabula Rasa agrument, which then goes into the Nature vs. Nurture debate.

Tabula rasa, meaning blank slate in Latin, is the epistemological theory that individuals are born without built-in mental content and that their knowledge comes from experience and perception. Generally, proponents of the tabula rasa thesis favour the "nurture" side of the nature versus nurture debate, when it comes to aspects of one's personality, social and emotional behaviour, and intelligence. The term in Latin equates to the English "blank slate" (or more accurately, "scraped tablet") (which refers to writing on a slate sheet in chalk) but comes from the Roman tabula or wax tablet, used for notes, which was blanked by heating the wax and then smoothing it to give a tabula rasa.

In essence, when we're born, are we a complete blank slate that has to learn everything?

Yes, and No.

Just as newborn animals like gazelle or horses can self ambulate and are up and running in a matter of hours after birth without anyone or anything 'teaching' them, we too have certain nervous system programming, and given enough time on our own would also self ambulate to walking without anyone teaching us.

As far as ancestral memory the likes of actual cognizant 'knowing' of something, nothing like that ever gets passed down through the genes. There may be certain predispositions in having a skill, talent, or knack at something, but, even there, there's not enough reliable data to indicate a talented Mathematician is going to be any more success in having talented Mathematician progeny than someone else entirely untutored, untested, and/or unskilled.

Certainly there's the morphological phenotypical expression in progeny where athletic parents have greater liklihood of having more athletically developed progeny, fat people make fat peopel, skinny skinny and so forth, but, we've no evidence for any knowledge base being passed on.

I am speaking specifically, as psychosis, as a copping mechanism, in relation to transfer to another generation. It was functional at some point in time is history but is no longer viable (due to changes in society).

Hypothetically a person with ancestors, whose job was to kill without remorse, could to a degree generate descendants, that felt the same way.

For the record I am not suggesting that this relates to any particular culture, I provided the example of Greco-Roman society as just that, an example.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


I think you're talking about "Inherited Memory," NOT "Genetic Memory" - the inheritance comes from epigenetic 'software' not genetic 'hardware.' ...The main difference is, epigenetic effects are not permanent even though they can be inherited (software v/s hardwired).

I love these ideas and think they have a LOT of merit, but am very concerned about the potential for abuse if people wrongly accept software inheritance as being hardwired genetically. Recognizing our "inherited memories" can lead us to better health, self-discovery, personal growth and truth. On the other hand, accepting the false idea of "genetic memory" and "genetically inherited traits" leads directly to truly horrific Eugenics Policies.

...Words are important.

reply to post by soficrow


Software is sprouted from hardware. So if you have a group of people with similar hardware lineage A compared to similar hardware lineage B, could it be that the software that develops from that hardware is more similar within the groups (with exceptions of course)? Is this the essence of the OP?

reply to post by ImaFungi

Software is sprouted from hardware.

Not in this case. The software is "sprouted" in response to environmental stimuli and change, then manipulates and often over-rides the hardware.

From Genealogy Sites: Collecting Medical Information for Eugenics Programs?:

...what epigenetics does is essentially like a 'software' program written on the DNA 'hardware'. You stress the organisms and they adapt to the stimuli. The pattern of adaptation may be passed down to the next generation, especially if the stress continues.

...epigenetics has thrown a real surprise into the evolutionary theory mix.

Epigenetic inheritance? It's Lamarckable!

It turns out that it's not just our genes that we pass on to our kids — they can inherit those epigenetic patterns of which genes are switched on and which are off too. If your dad took up smoking in primary school, he not only affected his own health and pocket money, he also increased the odds that you were chunky as a kid. And if your grandparents were gluttons while they were growing up you're not only more likely to be obese, your life expectancy is shortened. Their underage smoking and overeating didn't change the DNA or genes they passed on, but you might have inherited their 'epigenes' — the on/off gene switching pattern — along with their genes. That's the power of epigenetics!

...Diseases and development are complex things, but the mechanisms behind epigenetics couldn't be simpler. They're the molecular equivalent of throwing a spanner in the genetic works.

As to what your Übermenschen are being selected for... Obviously they're looking for a specific racial image. However, within that image can be a range of body types: large strong people for shock troops (trained all their lives to be large strong people before having kids), short skinny nimble folks for acrobats or assassins (agility training), etc etc. We don't yet know all the genes that govern intelligence, but if your scientists only let the top test takers have sex with other people you'd have a group powerfully motivated to study, learn, and remember.

[Sorry - Don't like to self-promote, but like doing work twice less.]

Races of people have traits,for example aboriginals have a much higher level of visual memory. Also the irish tend to be more emotional than the english.

reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse

Races of people have traits,for example aboriginals have a much higher level of visual memory. Also the irish tend to be more emotional than the english.

Your examples sound more like learned behaviour to me. I think there's good evidence for inherited memory (epigenetic, not genetic), but sorting through the differences between 'learned' and 'inherited' is important. For starters.

reply to post by soficrow


I am enjoying your posts in this thread. Please continue responses as needed as I do believe I am learning something here!

Science has yet to discover where in DNA the thing we call "instinct" is encoded. Sure, a lot of animals learn to do things from their parents or peers. But how exactly does a bird raised by itself know how to build a nest? It's not a physical characteristic passed on from one generation to the next. How does animal doing a certain thing that helps them survive, perhaps by accident, pass along the ability to do that exact same thing to the next generation? There's a disconnect there that doesn't follow standard evolutionary theory.

And human beings are animals. We have our instincts, too.

A copping mechanism is the result of an environmental condition. The individual had to conform to conditions that are no longer relevant socially at present.To present that a psychosis is a way to deal with an environment cast disparages on the environment not the individual. Implied with the term "genetics", is matter of how information is transferred from one generation to another.

Its not about Eugenics at all friend, rather than understanding that stress imposed by an eviroment to certain degrees can have such effects upon descendants.

This due to dysfunctional elements in any particular society.

Kashai
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Sure, it like presenting that sociopaths today are due to the Greco-Roman period.

edit on 6-11-2013 by Kashai because: Content Edit

you point is "itlike presenting.....Greco-Roman period". Excellent communications skills there.

reply to post by Kashai

..."genetics", is matter of how information is transferred from one generation to another.

Its not about Eugenics at all friend, rather than understanding that stress imposed by an eviroment to certain degrees can have such effects upon descendants.

Information can be passed along from one generation to the next either genetically or epigenetically. As there only are about 20,000 protein-encoding genes, it's clear that 'memories' are not genetic. So inherited memories, if they exist, obviously are passed on epigenetically. Point being, they are not in the genes.

This may not be about Eugenics to you, or me for that matter, but trust me - the Eugenics Movement is just creaming to to think they can prove psychological "traits" are genetic. And their policies for dealing with "defectives" are not good.

...That said, you're quite right that an environmental influence can cause stress that triggers an epigenetic response with epigenetic effects that can be passed along to several generations. But it's not genetic and hence, not permanent.

reply to post by soficrow


How are you defining permanent?

Epigenetics can impact evolution when epigenetic changes are heritable.A sequestered germ line or Weismann barrier is specific to animals, and epigenetic inheritance is more common in plants and microbes. Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb have argued that these effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[76][77] Other evolutionary biologists have incorporated epigenetic inheritance into population genetics models[78] or are openly skeptical.[79]

Two important ways in which epigenetic inheritance can be different from traditional genetic inheritance, with important consequences for evolution, are that rates of epimutation can be much faster than rates of mutation[80] and the epimutations are more easily reversible.[81] An epigenetically inherited element such as the PSI+ system can act as a "stop-gap", good enough for short-term adaptation that allows the lineage to survive for long enough for mutation and/or recombination to genetically assimilate the adaptive phenotypic change.[82] The existence of this possibility increases the evolvability of a species.

Source

I understand your concerns but you want to discuss a term I did not start this thread to address, the "Agents of Eugenics". The thread is about a potential baseline of tolerance to environmental conditions in humans that can
result in an effect to descendants due to transfer.

Any thoughts?

symptomoftheuniverse
Races of people have traits,for example aboriginals have a much higher level of visual memory. Also the irish tend to be more emotional than the english.

WHAT?! What sorta horsecrap are ye spewing there, bucko? I DEMAND ye take it back, or I'll be splashin' yer teeth across the floor like Chiclets!

reply to post by FyreByrd


So how does that relate to what we are talking about? Sounds more like a compulsion to infer superiority.

I guess unless I do everything perfect something must be wrong. That sounds like you are projecting and are full of yourself.

reply to post by Kashai

...you want to discuss a term I did not start this thread to address , the "Agents of Eugenics".

YOU introduced the term "Genetic Memory." I am arguing that the term is wrong, but saying I can accept "Inherited Memory" meaning epigenetically inherited memory. I introduced the concept of Eugenics to explain why it is very dangerous to claim that psychological traits are "genetic" or even "Genetic Memories."

The thread is about a potential baseline of tolerance to environmental conditions in humans that can
result in an effect to descendants due to transfer.

Fine - but you are claiming that said transfer/inheritance is genetic. I will argue that you're wrong. From your source:

...epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene activity which are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence. Unlike simple genetics based on changes to the DNA seqeuence (the genotype), the changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype of epigenetics have other causes.

Regarding your reference to "germ plasm" and the "Weismann Barrier":

In a famous series of experiments in which he cut off the tails of mice for 22 generations, Weismann disproved the theory that acquired characteristics could be inherited. A strong proponent of Darwinian evolution, Weismann also proposed the germ plasm theory. This theory suggested that while the body, which Weismann called somatoplasm, lives for only one generation, hereditary material, which he called germ plasm, is immortal, passed from generation to generation without change.

I do agree that coping mechanisms might be heritable - but would argue that the mechanism is epigenetic, not genetic. Your source correctly points out that epigenetic change can become genetic after a time. Arguably, such adaptations occur only when the change is beneficial to the species.

reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse



Hypothetically speaking lets consider the word "Tibet" was once the name of a family. Lets also consider that their were more families in the territory we know, today as Tibet, that were also very important. What ended up happening is that the Tibet family won and that is why the territory is today known as Tibet.

Keep in mind that the term "China" relates to the "Chin" family.

Humans altogether are violent though a large percentage in general react that way only when placed into certain conditions.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

"Let them eat Cake"

Any thoughts?