Epigenetic modifications

[atanu]

Why won't it? What is so special about epigenetic changes vis-a-vis genetic changes? Just different forms of biochemistry operating here, one describing changes in DNA molecules and the other describing changes inother cellular machinery (methylation, RNA transcription etc.) Both are hydrocarbon chemical reactions occurring through enzymes in the aqueous medium inside cells. Somewhat complex, but quite vanilla chemistry. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

No. I have never understood evolution to be blind, whether epigenetic or genetic.

The World as Will and Representation - Wikipedia

 

[Profound Realization]

Self organization is important in lots of places including things like cloud formation, tornado or crystal growth. But scientists are not talking about any metaphysical self by the term. It's simply the internal material parts of a system spontaneously interacting with each other to move from one stable state to another stable state. The more accurate terminology is organization occurring through internal interactions rather than external forcing.

Thanks for the response. I understand that many “scientists” do their best based upon the limitations of what can be observed, measured, weighed, tested, etc. and have no choice but to discard/exclude intelligence, or any meta-physical terminology. I’m not sure if you agree with Lamarck in any way, but he believed that it was so transparently obvious and evident in organisms that it needed no trial by experiment to confirm it.

 

[Profound Realization]

No. I have never understood evolution to be blind, whether epigenetic or genetic.

The World as Will and Representation - Wikipedia

Long ago, I began to fall into this particular trap. Where everything appeared blind because I was blind. But wasn’t aware that I was blind at the time.

 

[sayak83]

No. I have never understood evolution to be blind, whether epigenetic or genetic.

The World as Will and Representation - Wikipedia

Evolution is actively directed by natural selection and other types of selection processes. I don't think it's deterministic, but it tends to create increasingly complex levels of biological order over time through which life and eventually consciousness has been instantiated in the world. I have no doubt that this has happened in many other worlds too... while many many others remain lifeless or have only primitive life. It's all a part of explosively creative differentiation of Brahman and word that Hinduism uses is "Lila" or play. Play or leisure is act that lies in the middle path between object oriented and directed action and random actions. It has skill, complexity and aesthetic beauty, but does not have a purpose apart from the value it has by itself, inherently.

 

[sayak83]

Thanks for the response. I understand that many “scientists” do their best based upon the limitations of what can be observed, measured, weighed, tested, etc. and have no choice but to discard/exclude intelligence, or any meta-physical terminology. I’m not sure if you agree with Lamarck in any way, but he believed that it was so transparently obvious and evident in organisms that it needed no trial by experiment to confirm it.

No I don't agree with Lamarck.

 

[David T]

Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution - Wikipedia

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that species experience certain obstacles in their lifetimes which they must overcome. They acquire certain characteristics to deal with these challenges, and such accumulations are then passed to their offspring. In modern terms, this transmission from parent to offspring would be considered a method of epigenetic inheritance. Scientists are now questioning the framework of the modern synthesis, as epigenetics has shown to be in direct contrast with the core of Darwinism while being in agreement with Lamarckism. While some evolutionary biologists have dismissed epigenetics' impact on evolution entirely, others have begun to discover that a fusion of both epigenetic and traditional genetic inheritance may contribute to the variations seen in species today.[13]
.......

Lamarck is making a small comeback. Lamarck essentially proposed that the way species deal with environmental challenges generate characteristics that are inheritable. This understanding, although apparently intuitive and common sense, has been mostly ridiculed.

It seems that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was considered a legitimate explanation of evolutionary change. Darwin also proposed his version of how organisms might inherit acquired characteristics. But with the advent of materialism and "modern synthesis" of Darwin's theories, the role of will of species towards evolution of form was thrown out.

Neo Darwinists hold that in each generation, genes undergo random mutations, making offspring subtly different from their parents; those mutations that enhance an organism's abilities to thrive and reproduce in its own particular environment will tend to spread through populations, while those that make successful breeding less likely will vanish. This concept discounts role of will/intelligence of organism.

• Why was Lamarck considered wrong?
• How may the findings of epigenetic that tend to support Lamarck-ian thinking modify the understanding of theory of evolution?

I think in Evolutionary science, the debate itself is way more interesting than what ever is said on a particular day. But that's a psychological aspect different from the debate

I term random at the level of astrology it's

Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution - Wikipedia

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that species experience certain obstacles in their lifetimes which they must overcome. They acquire certain characteristics to deal with these challenges, and such accumulations are then passed to their offspring. In modern terms, this transmission from parent to offspring would be considered a method of epigenetic inheritance. Scientists are now questioning the framework of the modern synthesis, as epigenetics has shown to be in direct contrast with the core of Darwinism while being in agreement with Lamarckism. While some evolutionary biologists have dismissed epigenetics' impact on evolution entirely, others have begun to discover that a fusion of both epigenetic and traditional genetic inheritance may contribute to the variations seen in species today.[13]
.......

Lamarck is making a small comeback. Lamarck essentially proposed that the way species deal with environmental challenges generate characteristics that are inheritable. This understanding, although apparently intuitive and common sense, has been mostly ridiculed.

It seems that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was considered a legitimate explanation of evolutionary change. Darwin also proposed his version of how organisms might inherit acquired characteristics. But with the advent of materialism and "modern synthesis" of Darwin's theories, the role of will of species towards evolution of form was thrown out.

Neo Darwinists hold that in each generation, genes undergo random mutations, making offspring subtly different from their parents; those mutations that enhance an organism's abilities to thrive and reproduce in its own particular environment will tend to spread through populations, while those that make successful breeding less likely will vanish. This concept discounts role of will/intelligence of organism.

• Why was Lamarck considered wrong?
• How may the findings of epigenetic that tend to support Lamarck-ian thinking modify the understanding of theory of evolution?

Evolutionary narratives evolve generally without accounting for that phenomena as a part of the narrative. Neo darwinists are clinging to random chance like southern baptists cling to the literal resurrection its narrative nonsense. A simple walk in nature and one can see that. The bi-polarity of random chance is the literal resurrection, in religious statements which is a random chance event that can only be attributed to something in religious context an intellectual force outside reality imposing its intellect on nature. Random chance is not nor has it ever been reality but pure narrative fantasy exactly like the literal resurrection. Where do you think the idea "random chance" came from? Science? Hardly.

 

[atanu]

Evolution is actively directed by natural selection and other types of selection processes. I don't think it's deterministic, but it tends to create increasingly complex levels of biological order over time through which life and eventually consciousness has been instantiated in the world. I have no doubt that this has happened in many other worlds too... while many many others remain lifeless or have only primitive life. It's all a part of explosively creative differentiation of Brahman and word that Hinduism uses is "Lila" or play. Play or leisure is act that lies in the middle path between object oriented and directed action and random actions. It has skill, complexity and aesthetic beauty, but does not have a purpose apart from the value it has by itself, inherently.

We co-create our own miserable worlds, through our egoistic wills.

I have no reason to go against understanding of Vidyaranya's Panchdashi, which states that from standpoint of living being, Ishwara's (Lord's) will is the creator (see below), although from the view of pure awareness there is no creation (reference not shown).

Spoiler: Panchadasi

Panchikarana Prakriya

18. By the will of awareness in the form of Isvara and for the experience of Prajna the five subtle elements (space, air, fire, water and earth) arose from the part of Prakriti (nature) in which Tamas predominates.

19. From the sattvic part of each of prakriti’s five subtle elements arose in turn the five sense organs: hearing, touch, sight, taste and smell.

20. From a combination of all the sattvic portions of the five subtle elements), arose the organ of inner experience called the antahkarana (the Subtle Body). The antahkarana functions in two ways: it doubts and it determines. In its doubting function it is called Manas (mind). Its determining, discriminating function is is called Buddhi (intellect).

21. From the Rajas portion of the five elements arose in turn the organs of action: speech, hands, feet, anus and sex.

22. Prana, the Vital Air, arose from the rajas portion of the five subtle elements (tanmatras). It divided into the five physiological functions which are Prana, Apana, Samana, Udana and Vyana.

23. The five sensory organs, the five organs of action, the five vital airs, mind and intellect together form the Subtle Body, called the linga or suksma sarira.

 

[sayak83]

We co-create our own miserable worlds, through our egoistic wills.

I have no reason to go against understanding of Vidyaranya's Panchdashi, which states that from standpoint of living being, Ishwara's (Lord's) will is the creator, although from the view of pure awareness there is no creation.

Spoiler: Panchadasi

Panchikarana Prakriya

18. By the will of awareness in the form of Isvara and for the experience of Prajna the five subtle elements (space, air, fire, water and earth) arose from the part of Prakriti (nature) in which Tamas predominates.

19. From the sattvic part of each of prakriti’s five subtle elements arose in turn the five sense organs: hearing, touch, sight, taste and smell.

20. From a combination of all the sattvic portions of the five subtle elements), arose the organ of inner experience called the antahkarana (the Subtle Body). The antahkarana functions in two ways: it doubts and it determines. In its doubting function it is called Manas (mind). Its determining, discriminating function is is called Buddhi (intellect).

21. From the Rajas portion of the five elements arose in turn the organs of action: speech, hands, feet, anus and sex.

22. Prana, the Vital Air, arose from the rajas portion of the five subtle elements (tanmatras). It divided into the five physiological functions which are Prana, Apana, Samana, Udana and Vyana.

23. The five sensory organs, the five organs of action, the five vital airs, mind and intellect together form the Subtle Body, called the linga or suksma sarira.

I don't see how that this quotation supports your argument.

 

[atanu]

I don't see how that this quotation supports your argument.

Which argument?

 

[sayak83]

Which argument?

That epigenetic modifications are directed by will of the being whose body it is or that evolution is goal directed.

 

[atanu]

That epigenetic modifications are directed by will of the being whose body it is or that evolution is goal directed.

Yes, I said that I do not consider that modifications, genetic or epigenetic, are blind. I further said that my understanding draws from Panchadasi, which states that Ishwara’s will Is the creator. I referenced a passage that talks about this.
.....

 

[BilliardsBall]

Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution - Wikipedia

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed that species experience certain obstacles in their lifetimes which they must overcome. They acquire certain characteristics to deal with these challenges, and such accumulations are then passed to their offspring. In modern terms, this transmission from parent to offspring would be considered a method of epigenetic inheritance. Scientists are now questioning the framework of the modern synthesis, as epigenetics has shown to be in direct contrast with the core of Darwinism while being in agreement with Lamarckism. While some evolutionary biologists have dismissed epigenetics' impact on evolution entirely, others have begun to discover that a fusion of both epigenetic and traditional genetic inheritance may contribute to the variations seen in species today.[13]
.......

Lamarck is making a small comeback. Lamarck essentially proposed that the way species deal with environmental challenges generate characteristics that are inheritable. This understanding, although apparently intuitive and common sense, has been mostly ridiculed.

It seems that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was considered a legitimate explanation of evolutionary change. Darwin also proposed his version of how organisms might inherit acquired characteristics. But with the advent of materialism and "modern synthesis" of Darwin's theories, the role of will of species towards evolution of form was thrown out.

Neo Darwinists hold that in each generation, genes undergo random mutations, making offspring subtly different from their parents; those mutations that enhance an organism's abilities to thrive and reproduce in its own particular environment will tend to spread through populations, while those that make successful breeding less likely will vanish. This concept discounts role of will/intelligence of organism.

• Why was Lamarck considered wrong?
• How may the findings of epigenetic that tend to support Lamarck-ian thinking modify the understanding of theory of evolution?

Why was Lamarck considered wrong? Because Stalinists and others killed millions using his ideas.

How may the findings of epigenetic that tend to support Lamarck-ian thinking modify the understanding of theory of evolution? Because it takes faith to believe that what I learn in my lifetime will be passed along via genetics, and smacks of science fiction, therefore, atheists will believe it wholeheartedly.

 

[atanu]

Why was Lamarck considered wrong? Because Stalinists and others killed millions using his ideas.

How may the findings of epigenetic that tend to support Lamarck-ian thinking modify the understanding of theory of evolution? Because it takes faith to believe that what I learn in my lifetime will be passed along via genetics, and smacks of science fiction, therefore, atheists will believe it wholeheartedly.

Can you kindly explain again?

 

[sayak83]

Yes, I said that I do not consider that modifications, genetic or epigenetic, are blind. I further said that my understanding draws from Panchadasi, which states that Ishwara’s will Is the creator. I referenced a passage that talks about this.
.....

The only thing I saw in the quoted text is that personified Brahman's (that is Iswara-s) desire for Self understanding (prajna) causes the emergence of the diversification of Prakriti in multiple gross and subtle layers. This is exactly what I said as well.

 

[atanu]

The only thing I saw in the quoted text is that personified Brahman's (that is Iswara-s) desire for Self understanding (prajna) causes the emergence of the diversification of Prakriti in multiple gross and subtle layers. This is exactly what I said as well.

Brahman does not lack self understanding. We, the temporary ego selves--our intellects, lack self awareness. We see separate individuals but do not see the one without a second.

Panchadasi means : Creation appears by will of Ishwara for enjoying experience of infinite hues of its own Prajnana.

I reproduce again.


Panchikarana Prakriya

18. By the will of awareness in the form of Isvara and for the experience of Prajna the five subtle elements (space, air, fire, water and earth) arose from the part of Prakriti (nature) in which Tamas predominates.

 

[sayak83]

Brahman does not lack self understanding. We, the temporary ego selves--our intellects, lack self awareness. We see separate individuals but do not see the one without a second.

Panchadasi means : Creation appears by will of Ishwara for enjoying experience of infinite hues of its own Prajnana.

I reproduce again.


Panchikarana Prakriya

18. By the will of awareness in the form of Isvara and for the experience of Prajna the five subtle elements (space, air, fire, water and earth) arose from the part of Prakriti (nature) in which Tamas predominates.

OK. Self experience rather than self understanding. I agree. Still not seeing anything being created for having purposes. Lila has its own value and is not for purpose but for experiential pleasure of Self with Self.

 

[atanu]

OK. Self experience rather than self understanding. I agree. Still not seeing anything being created for having purposes. Lila has its own value and is not for purpose but for experiential pleasure of Self with Self.

I did not use the word purpose earlier. I did that purposely.

But surely there is a mention of a will and mention of a purpose --- "Self experience".

Suppose I sat down meditating and contemplated "Let me enjoy the view of my consciousness", will it not be a personal purpose? Is not willing to enjoy "Leela" not a self purpose?

Or you can use any other words to express the above essence.

 

[sayak83]

I did not purpose purposely.

But surely there is a mention of a will and mention of a purpose --- "Self experience".

Suppose I sat down meditating and contemplated "Let me enjoy the view of my consciousness", will it not be a personal purpose? Is not willing to enjoy "Leela" not a self purpose?

Or you can use any other words to express the above essence.

Imagine a person singing away for his own enjoyment. The sounds come from him and go back to him as he listens. This melody and the sound, with its rich diversified cadence are akin to the elements of diversified prakriti. They are aspects of his being, emerges from him through his thoughts actualized in sound and goes back to him as he listens to it, creating a new way to experience his own self-creativity. Yet the words and the rhythm are not there to convey any message or an expositional discourse. This is the kind of relation Brahman has with the universe.

We have gone far beyond epigenetics though.

The point I am making is the idea of God as a designer or watch maker is wrong. The idea of Nature as one damn thing after the other is also wrong. The structure and relentless causal flow of phenomena itself shows the latter to be mistaken, and yet the universe (and us) are not machines created for a job or purpose by some super-machinist. Both views ought to be rejected.

 

[atanu]

I think in Evolutionary science, the debate itself is way more interesting than what ever is said on a particular day. But that's a psychological aspect different from the debate

I term random at the level of astrology it's

That is an interesting comparison.

Evolutionary narratives evolve generally without accounting for that phenomena as a part of the narrative. Neo darwinists are clinging to random chance like southern baptists cling to the literal resurrection its narrative nonsense. A simple walk in nature and one can see that. The bi-polarity of random chance is the literal resurrection, in religious statements which is a random chance event that can only be attributed to something in religious context an intellectual force outside reality imposing its intellect on nature. Random chance is not nor has it ever been reality but pure narrative fantasy exactly like the literal resurrection. Where do you think the idea "random chance" came from? Science? Hardly.

The red part is a fresh way of understanding how the so called meme (to borrow a term) of "random chance" came about.

I personally do not deny that "random chance" is a big factor, because we are mostly automatons, having lost the view of intelligent self.The "random chance" surely plays a big role. Yet, how can we deny the role of intentions?

I cannot also understand as to why some self acknowledged automatons, like (for example) Dawkins, became so intelligent? Has god specially endowed him?

 

[atanu]

Imagine a person singing away for his own enjoyment.

That is sattwik (in mode of goodness) purpose. There can be rajasic (in mode of asserting ego) or tamasic (in mode of total ignorance) purpose also at our levels. Ishwara (Lord) has only the sattwik purpose. That is why the epithet "The Good", "The Auspicious".

This is the kind of relation Brahman has with the universe.

Brahman, in my advaitic understanding, has no purpose. It just is. All other manifestations proceed from it. Unlimited intellects are its nature. And these intellects posit Ishwara on Brahman.

But the point is that we are discussing from point of view of intellects and not from point of view of Brahman.

We have gone far beyond epigenetics though.

Yes. Yes. I must control myself -- purposefully.