Re: Phantasmagoricals: The new science of brain eating zombie

[gunblade64]

I find, at least for my sake, i know you are very right.

How can matter even begin to have a sensation to what we are living with to start with.

Even the word 'we' is irrelevant due to the fact that i only know that i exist because i perceive trough out this matter-substance called a 'brain'.

In that sense ,why should the perceiving of the brain even be different or more real than a science-fiction android wich also could be just a simulation like other people and the universe surrounding us...

[otonanoC]

Hahaha.. you actually used the word "phantasmagoricals".

You do realize, that this word is going to turn into a meme, yes?

[1PostPoMoMaN1]

That word's a meme now!!! LMAO.

[ratholin]

This epigenetics stuff is neat. It's really amazingly cool. It's a wonderful addition to neodarwinism. Did you see the thing with the calico cats? I freaking love science. I guess to some of us new science kind of gives us a boner.

[cehbeach]

It seems to me that the people being the most vociferous in their opposition are declaring "ne plus ultra" regarding Darwin. Ironic that the Catholic Church made the same declaration regarding Galen and Aristotle.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Academic science, like any other institution, has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, which currently has it making billions of dollars because of trumped up claims of the potential of genetic technology. It is all based on bad science that assumes genes make organisms, that there is a 1 to 1 relationship between genes and traits. It is just not the reality. It is more complex, but complexity is bad for business.

[0ThouArtThat0]

"less dumb or less cruel" - this is not a scientific statement on your part, so no amount of evidence from me will alter your attitude about it. Science has nothing to say about this one way or another.

Epigenetics is significant because it proves that genes do not make or determine organisms. This means that natural selection upon mutating genes is not the sole mechanism of evolutionary change. The whole organism, including its mental states, behaviors, etc. is what evolves.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I think this makes it less of a dumb and cruel process, b/c the organism is involved (not just blind genes), but as I said, that is for you to decide. Science can't decide for you either way. It doesn't make value judgements.

[Tefer65i]

'I try to use those words in novel ways'

I think thats were you might be being misunderstood by Gary and others, how about making up your own 'words' and defined them. Something akin to Gary's 'ape brain'. When he says that you know clearly what he is talking about becasue he defined it himself.

I know that using familiar words for unfamiliar concepts might lend the ideas extra feeling, but it also in a sense 'phantasmogoricalises' them. Which is unfortunate as some of the ideas are fine.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Yeah you're right. I'll try and come up with more appropriate words.

[theartofstew]

"all because of epigenetic influences". you do understand that is a HUGE claim about how cells work. remember that there are other ways to regulate proteins in a cell, such as transcrption factors and other gene related ways

[0ThouArtThat0]

transcription can only occur with the help of epigenetic mechanisms. of course everything in the cell is 'related' to the genome. but I am trying to dispel the idea that genes are somehow in control of individuals or evolution. They are related to the experience and result of each, but not the sole cause of them.

[EverettsVLOG]

anyone know how the first enzymes used to trnaslate DNA get into our cells? Do we get them from our parents or what?

[0ThouArtThat0]

We get them from our parents, of course. They come along for the ride during cell division. I think what this points to is the notion that there is some minimal level of complexity for life to exist. The first free living cell had to emerge quite quickly, without time for natural selection, as a membrane-bound autocatalytic system.

[EverettsVLOG]

alright thats what i wanted to here... haha

[bipolarkooksoldlady]

hi matt

"The first free living cell had to emerge quite quickly, without time for natural selection, as a membrane-bound autocatalytic system."

does this idea also reflect the RNA world idea, where more simple catalysis occurred initially, or is this a hypothesis apart from that?

[0ThouArtThat0]

It is a hypothesis in opposition to the RNA world idea. RNA world says information came first in regards to the origin of life; membrane bound autocatalysis says metabolism came first.

I side with the latter reluctantly, because ultimately I think it is misleading to talk about "information/form" and "metabolism/substance" as somehow separate or in conflict. I only go with the metabolism first hypothesis because it balances the prevailing attitude to unquestioningly accept information first.

[bipolarkooksoldlady]

ah, ok. a lot clearer. i know what you mean about the separate thing. but, hey, reductionism has its uses. :) just gotta remember to put everything back together once you're done studying. systems bio seems the way to go there though.

i wrote a comment on gary's video (the one that is reply to this one) that describes how i see your conflict. maybe it will be helpful to you, idk. the argument is all convoluted right now. hard to see what it's really about.

you getting ready for the fall in sf?

[0ThouArtThat0]

Yeah, I leave in a few days : )

I'll check out your comment.

[docrufus]

Hay Matt - I hear ya.

[jogayot]

ditto

[MariborchanX]

I really like this video. Though I haven't been watching you regularly for some time, sometimes when I see some of your videos, I can't really agree... Maybe I should watch from start to the end to judge 'your' theory, but that takes a shitload of time, since you've got a big bunch of videos.. so could you make a video, or direct me to it, where you explain in a short way what topics you're dealing with, what you are trying to prove or promote, what are your basic presuppositions, etc.?

[0ThouArtThat0]

hmm... i'll try to make a video about these things... but I don't know. I wouldn't know where to start. What am I trying to promote? Deep thinking based on an open appraisal of direct experience, I'd say. There is a video on my redliterocket4 channel called "my philosophy" that might clear some things up...

[MariborchanX]

Ok thx, I'll take a look. But as you're probably aware, "Deep thinking based on an open appraisal of direct experience" is rather vague. I'm sure that your ideas don't fall from the sky, that you have at least a few thinkers or distinct philosophies you most appreciate, feel closest to intellectually and try to evaluate.. so basically I'm interested in your sources. I tend to believe one can't really think outside from the different ideas he has learned in his life and tries to use..

[0ThouArtThat0]

I agree. Biggest influences: integral philosophy (Aurobindo, J. Gebser, William Irwin Thompson, Ken Wilber--though I am not one of his cult followers, and others...), embodiment (S. Gallagher, Varela, Maturana, Lakoff, Johnson, Merleau-Ponty, and others...), Taoism/Buddhism (DT Suzuki, A. Watts, Ram Dass, and others), and depth psychology (Jung, Tarnas, Grof, and others...)

There are plenty of names I haven't dropped here... Kierkegaard comes to mind, Nietzsche, Heidegger... they all influenced

[0ThouArtThat0]

me.

[patternsinchaos]

"But reaction from within the scientific community and from animal protection advocates was almost universally negative... ...these animals will not be normal. They will have a very short lifespan like Dolly and other cloned animals did, and they will have serious health problems."

Rudolf Jaenisch, a cloning expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told the Guardian

[patternsinchaos]

A perfect example of epigenetics is cloned cats. Conditions in the womb determine what the cat looks like. Genes simply are not what we thought they were originally.

"The world's first cloned cat, born in December 2001 as a joint production between Savings and Clone Inc and Texas A&M University, had a different coat from that of the original. Coat colour is not entirely genetically predetermined."

[pyrrho314]

what about the wierd sped-up metabolism of the cloned sheep... iirc she aged rapidly... but had the same genes. That proves something right there... or proves there is something beyond genes to something as basic as the aging process.

[patternsinchaos]

I posted the issues with these animals, and until Matt approves it as a comment for this video, here is my explanation for this: /watch?v=OsduEg6MP14

[EverettsVLOG]

my understanding, although i havent read a book on this yet, is that "epigenetics" is an *effect* of natural selection. i.e., organism's genes are naturally selected to exhibit some epigenetic stategies. there is no evidence that epigentics is anymore than molecules cranking away in their usual way. what do you say to this? your attempt to make some sort of argument that matter is conscious seems to me, as alwyas, completely insane! 'inert' matter could exhibit consciousness when organized...

[0ThouArtThat0]

I think it is misleading to see epigenetics as an effect of natural selection. DNA cannot replicate/regulate itself without certain proteins already existing to help catalyze the process. So epigenetic influences seem more likely to be the result of self-organization (ie, "order for free," as S. Kauffman says). It is still "just" molecules, yes. But it requires that the Central Dogma be retooled a bit, as it is a drastic oversimplification to say information can only go in one direction...

[0ThouArtThat0]

...from gene to mRNA to protein. It is also an oversimplification to see 1 gene as equal to 1 protein.

I'd love if you could explain to me how inert matter can become conscious due only to a change in its shape. If you can, I will no longer have a reason for resorting to panexperientialism to understand conscious experience.

[cardellacole1]

so the oneness of conciousness is perception both thought and dream at the same time ,,, the door is open

[Mjhavok]

Gary's definition of bullshit is everything he doesn't understand.

[cardellacole1]

and the present the perception of it the concious oneness of old and new ?

[cardellacole1]

is mater a memory the past, and thought allways new

[cardellacole1]

is all mater re-membered or is it allways new

[cardellacole1]

thought is a transformation in the movement of spacetime, thought is constantly new ? i dont mean the thought from memory

[minomeshank]

you really think that the catholic church was intended to follow jesus teachings as opposed to just being a corporation who stole his image to make more money?

[cardellacole1]

a transformation in the movement of space time

[cardellacole1]

a tree is not a shape that stands in a field it is a movement of energy from seed to destruction ?

[0ThouArtThat0]

more than a movement of energy, a transformation... right.

[cardellacole1]

yes a transformation

[kraemer1962]

I love that picture of yours, cardellacole1, because it is such a strikingly concise & beautiful emblem for a non-substantialist, process-focused ontolgy.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I don't even think neo-Darwinists take natural selection as literal as you are taking it here.

[pyrrho314]

the revolution would be in the issue of how the tools that an individual has to survive with come to be.

[pyrrho314]

Einsteins theories were a new paradigm over Newton's, but Newton's are still correct to a certain degree of approximation... it was still a revolutionary paradigm shift, however, because a whole new type of effect is discovered, and Newton's laws were found to be a special case.

[cardellacole1]

when you look inside the cells you are seeing memory , thought is a movement of energy ,

[cosmanthony21]

...he started it!

[dreaminginnoother]

Joe Rogan in his rant about dmt which is posted all over youtube is convinced human kind is simply a complex bacteria for the planet earth. We are Gaia's epigenetic in that case, no? Ah drug theories, gotta love 'em.

[pyrrho314]

I agree, atoms are not "conscious", that's a name for a complex version of the phenomenon.

However, I do think there is some elemental-will that has to be found at the atomic level, an at least partial component of will in order for it to be there to emerge in biochemistry.

[pyrrho314]

cell specialization is due to epigenetics? I thought there was a genetic driver for cell specialization?

interesting stuff.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Yes. The genome in every one of your cells is identical. Epigenetic influences determine how they differentiate. This is mitotic epigenesis. There is also meiotic epigenesis, where non-genetic regulatory factors are passed on via germ cells to subsequent generations.

[pyrrho314]

I guess I just figured it was something like, one cell starts specializing at random into whatever options are programmed at that point, then, by genetic coding, releases some chemical, which then informed subsequent specialization in the other cells. So it is environmental in that picture, but still driven by genetic machinery.

OR, alternately, when a cell divides it splits some instructions that cause a branch so each cell starts running different parts of the genetic sequence.

??

[0ThouArtThat0]

Cell specialization isn't random. There is a precise sequence of events that leads to the morphological layout of developing organisms. If the timing is off, there will be drastic disfigurements (the earlier in dev. the hiccup, the worse the final result). This sequence isn't coded in the genes, but arises due to self-organizing dynamics, the position of a cell relative to other cells, etc. Everything each cell needs is in the genome, but specific genes are activated epigenetically.

[pyrrho314]

yes, I see that, note first, if a sequence starts randomly doesn't make the whole thing random... it's like picking teams, you can use a random means to choose the two people that will pick teams.

But given the way you describe it... the genes are producing the "epigenetic" environment, the algorithm of self organization is still thereby genetic. If two cells are developing into the same type, but they should be different, even running one program, there can be a means for them to ...

[pyrrho314]

... negotiate that one of them should change specialization... and that can be done before the actual specialization begins.

I'm applying a computer metaphor here but I think it's particularly apt. It's like writing peer to peer programs... everyone has the same program, but some drop into a server mode, one adopts one color piece, the other adopts the other piece. Often such processes have to start with a random step just so choose/know who is arbitrating the cooperation.

[CousinoMacul]

"if a sequence starts randomly doesn't make the whole thing random"

Except that the evidence suggests that the start is anything but random. Egg cells (even before fertilization) have an internal landscape that sets the epigenetic ball rolling for early embryology.

(Also, viewing the cell from this perspective, picking fertilization as the "beginning of life" seems like a purely arbitrary decision.)

[0ThouArtThat0]

Well, basically... yeah. Maybe that specific example isn't true, but the idea is correct. A good example of epigenetic influence would be (and this has been demonstrated in a laboratory with mice) that a change in one generation's diet leads to a change in the next generation's phenotype, with possible adaptive advantages. This all takes place without changing the DNA code, remember.

[loveisallneed]

I find this fascinating, as I have always had a gut feel there was more than just random mutations being selected. I would think adrenaline levels would have an effect on sperm quality, etc. But, if not in the DNA, how does your diet effect you great grandchild? Also, NS is still in effect. We bypass NS with culture, not body chemistry

[cardellacole1]

a beautiful display of temperance and humillity matt. isnt it a shame that a > mind that thinks its a suffering worm and a

bacteria should have such a problem with such qualities

[0ThouArtThat0]

the funny thing is that, the more we study bacteria, the more intelligent they turn out to be : )

they are the real brains of this planetary operation! without them, the rest of life could not be.

[cardellacole1]

if you ask me its attoms that are the real brains but ive seen your recent videos and i know what you mean

[cardellacole1]

well garys anyway

[dreaminginnoother]

I am dealing with intestinal problems. From experimenting on myself with antibiotic and probiotics and communicating with others doing the same, I am convinced people's personalities are often swayed more by the bacteria of their gut than pretty much anything else. As a more direct example of simple function, constipated people will reliably be more angry. I have seen that improve after probiotics and diet change. 5 lbs of bacteria just in the gut. There's a brain there too.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Epigenetics is a big deal not so much because of how it relates to Darwin, but because of what it says about the New Synthesis. Darwin didn't even know about genes. Epigenetics shows that my lifestyle CAN effect my offspring, something the NS denied. This is a big deal. I think the larger paradigm shift has to do with complexity theory, though. It allows us to develop methods to understand morphological development and self-organization, something Darwin never even touched.

[HaleyMary]

I agree with you. I haven't watched Gary's videos, but I think it's better if people do some research first before having an opinion about a subject.

[CousinoMacul]

"I haven't watched Gary's videos"

Good for you.

[cehbeach]

Gary already knows everything. No further research is required by by His Eminence. In fact no research at all is required for the Lord High Chancellor of Ultimate Truth.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Dario,

Epigenetics doesn't contradict Darwin's theory. Stop with the straw man arguments. Epigenetics and complexity theory adds to our understanding of evolution. Darwin wasn't wrong, it's just that our understanding of evolution has evolved!! We know much today that Darwin was ignorant of. Natural selection does a decent job explaining why we don't see certain forms alive today, but it tells us basically nothing about the forms which have survived. For that, we need new theories.

[2bsirius]

Personally, I would like to see one argument at a time...I don't think I would mix pantheism or pan-experientialism into this argument...For me it muddies the waters. For clarity, it might make more sense [at least to me] to limit the discussion to one problem at a time. The current research in epigenetics alone is enough to address...I'm not sure doing more that is productive right now...It IS galling when creationists mistakenly use new research in epigenetics in unenlightened ways...

[0ThouArtThat0]

I didn't mean to mix it all up. Gary brought it up, I just wanted to clarify b/c he was drastically misquoting my position (as usual). I do think we need to reevaluate our understanding of matter in light of the implications of an evolutionary worldview, though.

Epigenetics is quite interesting, and in itself enough to alter the prevailing paradigm. I am more excited about complexity theory, though; it seems to be the bridge between physics and biology....

[2bsirius]

If we don't remind on topic, it might encourage misreading and misinterpretation of the valid core to the epigenetic research. I don't want in ANY WAY to do that.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Don't worry, I am planning to go toe to toe with the Creationists and IDers soon. Maybe Gary will calm down when he sees that I reject creation science as quickly as he does.

[mistaspot1]

I think his anger springs from his constant paranoia that God is going to be interjected into everything. Science attempts to discover what the nature of reality IS. Whatever it IS, that's what we should believe, if we're going to be honest with ourselves. We shouldn't have opinions of our own. We should just look at the empirical evidence.

[0ThouArtThat0]

I agree. The problem is that what counts as empirical evidence depends on the scientific paradigm within which we are working. Scientific theories are not about what reality IS, they are proof of nothing. All a theory is good for is giving scientists a foundation to work from, which really amounts to giving them an idea to try to prove wrong. Theories are useful only because they are falsifiable. The best theories are the ones that, in being proved wrong, can advance our understanding.

[0ThouArtThat0]

"God" is definitely a loaded word. I think it is important to realize, though, that strict materialism is just as much a metaphysical belief system as any other dogmatic religion.

[mistaspot1]

I think that's probably the most important point to make, and maybe it should be hammered home: scientists try their hardest to prove their own theories wrong.

[2bsirius]

Yes, mistasport, your point is what I was just trying to say in my last two comment....I didn't realize that you had said the same thing here.

[MariborchanX]

mistaspot1, they surely try to prove their theories wrong, but paradigm shifts are still painful for them.

[TheDevilsAdvocate55]

I'm in complete agreement with you, I just don't think I could ever have a discussion with gary. Its frustrating just watching his videos, let alone talking to him.

[TheDevilsAdvocate55]

You live in florida?

[0ThouArtThat0]

yup

[TheDevilsAdvocate55]

me too