Active Ξ0.0008

Bloodline Memory is still plausible in humans.

By monkyyy • Posted 3 months ago

Description

I'm coming out of left field so I'll define some terms:

Bloodline Memory: Information carried thru a biological liquid media perhaphs as waves, as opposed to a structural one of brain matter where a "program" of a sort is stored in a neural graph and "weights"/ease of activation

Neo-Darwinist: Darwin never actually read Gregor Mendel's work, so what would his opinions of it be will remain unanswered. The history of darwinism was of course politically active. Declaring the question of life solved happened very quickly, "we Xrayed DNA. we solved the question of how does life work and where did it come from, look at this picture" will be (a minor) strawman, they write the biology text books.

Post-Neo-Darwinism: As the old answers show cracks, there are people who believe Darwinism but believe we need to more carefully examine the foundations of biology. I will point at Michael Levins work as this being objectively true.

---

It is believed synapses control thought under the Neo-Darwinist Physicalist world view commonly held by society; but this is still just a theory and until they recreate a brain without biological material there's a large gap of understanding. "ESP" research appeared to happen but as far as I can tell explored non-Physicalist mechanisms.

These theory's are orthogonal, there were ancient Greeks who were Physicalists but were temporally disadvantaged enough to be uninformed of the xraying of DNA and MRI scans, who would've been able to predict the results of the ESP experiments but unable to articulate modern theories of how brains produce thought.

As such the "ESP" experiments could be considered as attacking non-Physicalism, not proving Neo-Darwinism, nor did they actually attempt to do so.

----

Post-Neo-Darwinism:

I suggest this lecture by Michael Levin: https://youtu.be/GxgTczCIkM8?si=b2-SleFETS5g2HfZ

But for a summery he make 3 *very* radical claims:

1) A buttery retains memory, despite brain liquidification during its metamorphism.
2) The ability to create a new subspecies of a (very simple) worm via electricity without dna modification.
3) All animals navigate "morphological space" while healing or fetus development using low levels of bioelectristy that *isn't* synaptic in nature(brains dont precede fetuses).

For brevity, focusing on only number 1, if true; butterfly's have bloodline memory as I defined it above.

---

Lets break this down into some possibilitys:

Strong Bloodline Memory: All humans are functioning due to non-synaptic "computation" all the time; gut feelings are real and from non-human bacteria and evolving alongside humanity in a very strange way. You can't just store a human head in a jar to produce a functional human cryogenically.

Medium Bloodline Memory: While Bloodline memory exists in humans its very rare and or unimportant, increasing the "signal" leads to mental disorders. Nero-science needs to develop a theory for the commutation mechanism but the previous work is largely useful as you would expect.

Weak Bloodline Memory: Human neurons do not communicate with the outside noisy signals that control how your skin heals, humans are not butterflys or worms.

Falsification Criteria

1) Repeat the ESP experiments but assume physicalism is true; blood transfusions between twins, conductive plates between two rooms where the sender and receiver hold their hands to each. This will lead to a "god of gaps" theory but it will weaken the top end.

2) Criticisms of Michael Levins radical claims or what they mean.

3) Continued progress in Nero-Science under Neo-Darwinist theories.

(I would consider proof of "Medium Bloodline Memory", to be success)

AI Feedback

1. **Brief critique and context:**
The conjecture about "Bloodline Memory" suggests a non-traditional form of memory transfer, potentially via biological liquids or waves, diverging from the conventional synapse-centric view of memory. This concept challenges mainstream neuroscience and biology, which largely attribute memory and information processing to neural structures and synaptic connections. The propositions presented are speculative and lack empirical support, contrasting established biological principles. The conjecture also relies heavily on the reinterpretation of Michael Levin's work, which itself is still under scrutiny and not widely accepted as evidence of such radical claims.

2. **Recent research:**
Michael Levin's research does explore unconventional ideas about bioelectricity and its role in development and regeneration, as seen in his work on planarian regeneration and frog limb development. However, these studies do not directly support the idea of "Bloodline Memory" as proposed. Notably, Levin's claims about bioelectricity are intriguing but remain exploratory and controversial within the scientific community. For example, Levin's work on using bioelectric signals to induce regeneration in non-regenerative species is discussed here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1424706112. However, it is important to note that this does not directly support the notion of bloodline memory as described.

3. **Bayesian likelihood of falsification (with reasoning):**
The Bayesian likelihood of "Bloodline Memory" being falsified within 5 years is high, approximately 85%. This estimation is based on several factors: the speculative nature of the conjecture, the lack of empirical evidence supporting such a mechanism in humans, and the robustness of current neurological and genetic research that supports synaptic and genetic bases for memory and information transfer. Additionally, recent advances in neuroscience and genetics have not indicated mechanisms that would support the proposed form of memory transfer, and the scientific community generally requires substantial evidence to overturn established paradigms. The conjecture's reliance on non-mainstream interpretations and its deviation from well-supported scientific theories further contribute to its high likelihood of being falsified.

Bounty

Ξ0.0008

Contribute to the bounty for anyone who can successfully refute this conjecture

Contributors

Anonymous User
Ξ0.0008 Confirmed

You must be signed in to contribute to the bounty.

Refutations

Rational criticism and counterarguments to this conjecture

No refutations have been submitted yet.

Be the first to provide rational criticism for this conjecture.

You must be signed in to submit a refutation.

Discussion

Back to conjectures