In a previous blog I mentioned the assumptions I hold currently with respect of the relationship of the individual human mind, consciousness, or person, to the brain, and to genetics in general, and basically came down for a “both-and” view of the relationship between the non-local phenomenon of the former, to the local material phenomenon of the latter. Well, it seems some geneticists are coming to conclusions that might at least be regarded as similar (and my deep thanks to Mr. T.M. for sending me this article):
The central dogma here being that the 2% of the genome is responsible for all coding, and the other 98%, the so-called “junk DNA”, is nothing but “garbage”, a dogma under increasing assault within genetics and the life sciences themselves. As the article points out, the idea of 98% of DNA being nothing but junk is, from the evolutionary point of view, problematical, to say the least.
In the article what one notices are the dramatic “phantom leaf” effect, and the fact that Russian scientists in particular seem to have performed experiments on – for those paying attention to my own writings on the subject of analogical thinking – context as a factor in the determination of the information content of a statement, or iteration of a statement, through several distinct contexts. In short, there is a feedback mechanism between any statement or thing, and the context or field of information in which it occurs. Indeed, various physicists and scientists have advocated a view that the physical medium itself is a field of information in a topology of regions and common surfaces.
With this background in mind, the above paper comes to some very intriguing conclusions:
“1) All living organisms consist of two substances: the material substance and the energy-informational (EI) (or subtle) substance.
“2) The key property which distinguishes the EI substance, and the corresponding EI field, from all substances and fields known in modern physics is that the EI substance is omnipresent, i.e. it is present simultaneously at each point in the space of our three dimensional material world. This means, in particular, that the distance between EI substances of any two material objects in our three dimensional world is always zero, no matter how far they are located physically from each other.
“3) In agreement with Postulate 1), we assume that each living organism exists at two levels: the material level and the EI level.
“4) The two levels of an organism are intimately linked with each other and affect the condition of each other as well as reflect the condition of each other. Moreover, the EI level is the leading one.
“5) We define life as a dynamic exchange of energy and information between a physical organism and its EI (or subtle) counterpart.”
In other words, DNA is itself a complex code consisting of the thing to be mapped, and the context in which the mapping occurs, and notably, the mapping function may be- -though the authors do not come right out and say it, but merely imply it – a kind of quasi-quantum mechanical collapse of the wave function as a determinant of the morphology of the organism… and with that, of course, we’re chin to chin with “the Topological Metaphor of the Medium” that I have written about, and with that deep interface between mind, matter, the medium, physics, and biology that seem to be so deeply implied by ancient cosmologies.
Or to put that last point more even more succinctly: life itself, genetics itself, may turn out to be profoundly analogical in character and structure.
Of course, for the moment I suspect that the Western scientific world will denounce these ideas as yet more wild ravings and holdovers of the sort of “pseudo-science” that once obtained in the Soviet Union (think Kozyrev here folks), but I strongly suspect that these types of findings will not go away, and that we are on the cusp of the beginning of the end of the kind of nineteenth century mechanism and materialism that has so ruined science.
See you on the flip side.