Stephen J, What is the mechanism of DNA entanglement ? Without any realistic mechanism to go with it, wouldn't it be just a name ?
Sung On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote: > List, > > The more that I think about DNA entanglement, the more I am of the opinion > that it needs to be factored into the semiotic narrative. Because we do not > have all the facts, we should do so in a way that keeps open the option for > expanding our narrative to include nonlocal phenomena (such as DNA > entanglement). > > The established narrative on DNA theory, based as it is in the information > technology (infotech) metaphor that compares the brain to a computer, is > fundamentally flawed. It is flawed for a number of reasons, but the most > obvious one is that for all this purported data “software” in the DNA, > there is nothing resembling a computer to process it. If the mainstream > life-science community is to persist with this infotech narrative, then > they need to be consistent. But how can they remain consistent if, in > violation of the principles of complexity and the laws of thermodynamics > (entropy), it is impossible for anything resembling a computer to occur in > nature? > > Thus, what we are left with at the heart of any cell, is DNA molecules... > with no evidence of any infotech mechanism that might process the “data”. > SHOW US THE COMPUTER! NO COMPUTER, NO DNA INFOTECH (and no genocentric > paradigm). It’s that simple. This topic should be of interest to us in > semiotics, because ultimately, I suggest, the principles on which DNA > function are semiotic in character. > > In their experiment testing for the possibility of non-local correlations > between separated neural networks, Pizzi et al (2004) conclude that “after > an initial stage where the system interacts by direct contact, also in the > following stage where the system has been separated into two sections, a > sort of correlation persists between sections. This is what , at a > macroscopic level, we verify in our experiment: it seems that neurons > utilize the quantum information to synchronize.” > > > > *Given what we know of entanglement between particles, the only way in > which correlations between separated neural networks can occur is via the > DNA molecules within the neurons .*Other similar experiments in > biophysics arrive at similar or analogous conclusions. And the most common > question raised among researchers in quantum biology, including Pizzi et al > above, is along the lines of... how do mechanisms within the cell utilize > entanglement? I would suggest that they have their reasoning back-to-front. > *It > is not the mechanisms that utilize entanglement, but entanglement that is > the source for the mechanisms, properties and predispositions*. And this > reframes the problem as one that relates principally to semiotics. > > As a tentative description for how this might relate to semiotics, here’s > one of my conjectures: Entanglement between DNA molecules, I suggest, > enables the body's cells to access the shared mind-body condition, to be > informed by it. In this way, DNA entanglement plays a crucial role in *knowing > how to be*. This would be analogous to how our telecommunication > technologies provide every person in a city with immediate access to the > city's options, to inform its people on *how to be*. For example, people > growing up in working-class or middle-class suburbs are more likely to *know > how to be* tradesmen, shopkeepers, nurses, police or the unemployed, > while people growing up in upper-class suburbs are more likely to *know > how to be* professionals, investors, office-workers or, simply, the idle > rich. This interpretation would be consistent with how stem-cells develop, > contingent on their location within the organs of the body. A stem-cell has > to *know how to be* before it can become a productive cell with its role > in an organ properly defined. And the stem-cell’s proximal/local context is > what teases out its predispositions, in order to define its ultimate > purpose. This line of thinking seems to resonate with aspects of David > Bohm’s implicate/explicate order. [What I have in mind here is also > analogous to Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance, where he > regards the DNA molecule as analogous to a receiver (antenna).] *In > summary, proximal context (face-to-face or synapse-to-synapse) is what > teases out both the neuron’s AND the human’s nonlocal predispositions, to > define their ultimate trajectories.* > > Anyone else interested in exploring this further? There seems to be a > reluctance for people to step beyond their spheres of expertise, perhaps > for fear of ridicule. But in any interdisciplinary endeavour, this needs to > be done. We are ill-served when we allow The Establishment to dominate with > a broken genocentric narrative. At the very least, these ideas merit > brainstorming. > > sj > > Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A. (2004). > Non-local correlations between separated neural networks (E. Donkor, A. > Pirick, & H. Brandt, Eds.). *Quantum Information and Computation > (Proceedings of SPIE)*, 5436(II), 107-117. Retrieved August 2, 2015, from > http://faculty.nps.edu/baer/CompMod-phys/PizziWebPage/pizzi.pdf > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
