Is Morality Encoded in Our DNA?

I would guess morality could well be in the genes, but not necessarilly 'good' morality.

To ensure survival of the species there would be all flavours, some of which will ensure survival at different times in differing cercumstances.

In a balanced stable social environment 'good' morals may help the community... In times of stress, say drought famine war then 'bad' morality my be more likely to ensure survival of one genes.

After all mankind didn't get to dominate the planet without being ruthless murdering self centred exploiters of just about everything and everyone.

You have got to be kidding me. Morality is part and parcel of the Herd instinct at best. When amongst a group that are moral we outwardly portray that to fit in. When our education and life experience turns us into Lawyers, Politicians, Military we turn into real SOB's

And then some are born SOB's and remain that way for all of their lives, I think you call them "Re********s"

The present warring society and lack of great programs and just good opportunities for normal people has not been brought about by 'Moral people. The world over requires a layer of "Blue Collar" work. When that is removed everyone below the level of Millionaire suffers.

That is my two bits, bet there are others who think we are doing just great. I would love to know what those Aliens in the UfO's are thinking about this place. Bet they are getting so many belly laughs they live on pepto bismall

Maybe you just skim read my post...?

My view doesn't sound much different to yours .. I.E. Morality is extremely variable and is as much about expediency as anything else.

Not sure which bit you think I'm kidding about?

Yes much the same, the kidding part was about moral degeneration coming as society collapse. The Moral ones in charge now are bringing about the collapse of much of what has been of common value up to this time from what I have been able to observe.

I see us as a species being led by the avaricious and the powerful having little to no concern for others.

I Dun know where we are heading, but it does not seem to have a common good in mind?

Can you somehow get past my ignorance and help me to find out what "Re********s" is?

Thanks in advance....

Best left as it is:

Morality, if it is part of our personality, may lie in our frontal lobe. A number of observations made over the years by the medical and psychology people point to a link between our physical make-up and our personality. This after having witnessed countless brain trauma and resulting changes in patient personality.

Perhaps the best known instance is that of a rail worker in the late 1800's USA who was pounding a blasting charge into rock when the thing went off and sent his steel pounding rod up through his chin and out the top of his head.

He survived but, according to friends and family, lost his ability to feel or express emotion and became dark and sullen; a total reversal of his pre-injury personality.

Go figure.

Does anyone know where there is further information on this particular case? I would like to know what would lead researchers to believe that this rail workers change in personality was attributed to physical damage to a particular area of the brain, and not simply because of the psychological trauma attached to having a steel rod fired through one's head.

I personally get dark and sullen when I haven't had my mid-morning snack, but I don't think one can say that this is because my lack of a snack has deprived my brain of certain chemicals.

Point being, the physical and the psychological aspects might be mutually exclusive. I would love to hear more about this particular case.

Thanks!

I'm not sure about the miner case, but I have studied neuroscience and quantum mechanics in relation to our brain(s). The first thing one has to consider is that we have 3 brains, the neo cortex (frontal lobe), the mid brain (the psychic brain), and the reptilian brain (the library of congress brain) <G>.

The chemistry in the body is produced by your brain. These chemicals are created based on past experiences, or neural networks. It is like flying a plane on auto pilot so we do not have to think 'step forward right foot' to walk. We do it automatically.

When the body experiences anything out of that auto pilot mode, it creates a large amount of chemicals from the survival mind. You now see how the chemical balance in the body/mind can change drastically and almost instantaneously. If you do not eat when you are accustomed to eating, your brain is going to be sending out chemicals that you are hungry, if you do not eat, your body will then begin to go into a mild case of withdrawal.

There is a website, www.thesynchronicitygrid.com that houses tons of links for information like this. You might find it helpful on your search for these answers.

Peace, McKenna

Thank you for the information. I will definitely be checking out that site.

I personally get dark and sullen when I haven't had my mid-morning snack, but I don't think one can say that this is because my lack of a snack has deprived my brain of certain chemicals.

I believe you can say that there is a connection between seratonin levels and hypoglycemia. The lack of a snack can indeed change your brain chemistry.

Hello Guru,

Congratulation, your initiation of this topic has now got 50 (half century-an achievement in cricket match) postings, including this.

On going through your original posting, carefully, I observe that you have made a few general observation/statements which you believe.(I hope my understanding is correct)

Would you mind sharing with us, the purpose of your first posting -meaning what did you expect to hear from us .

Has the views that you have received till now, helped you in fulfilling the purpose of initiating this string of dialouge.

Please dont misunderstand me- Iam just trying to understand if there is an objective ---

Actually, the original posting was more a summarization of the article being referenced, not specifically a point or a belief on my part.

If I had to lean one way or the other, I would tend to believe that morality is more dependent on our upbringing and what we are taught in our lives, than a code in our DNA.

At the same time, morality transcends politics and religion in my viewpoint. So to divide it along those lines seems out of place. What would be more appropriate is the understanding that politicians and religious individuals tend to think that what they are doing, what they believe, is right. Morality after all is defined as conformity to the rules of right conduct. I believe trying to confine morality as being influenced by one thing or another is to see things though tunnel division. I believe it is something that can not be restrained by such classifications, and its source may ultimately not be definable.

To address your other question, the only objective to starting this discussion was to start a discussion. Mention of this article will be made in the Diversions section of the upcoming Lab Equipment Newsletter, but I was anxious to find out what people thought about the study prior to its release.

I think that has worked, and am looking forward to reading even further in depth discussion about this study, everyone's beliefs in this forum, or morality in general.

Thanks for participating!

Women say they want a "nice guy" but have a genetically wired in response to be attracted to jerks because the aggressive male tends to have an edge with regard to survival and being able to "provide".

Interpretations I make from experiments in game theory lead me to think that the morals we apply to any given situation are very situation dependent and not necessarily coincident with what we say or think.

Of course the details of underlying beliefs have profound effects that are virtually impossible to associate to indoctrinated and self adopted values in a meaningful way since much of what most people believe is imbedded on a level that is inaccessible to anyone including themself.

This is a question that has no answer that can claim to be more than opinion. Too many unknown variables whether you factor in the supernatural or not.

My wife and I both come from cultures where the "Polite response" is what is sought and given with each encounter (She is from Korea and I am from Iowa). However she in all of her Wisdom demands that I turn my Macho on just to make an adequate impression in the world today.

Martial arts training suggest a skilled and trained person possessing a true power is one that need never be expressed, unless that expression is demanded by a direct confrontation.

Seeing that so many people miss interpret those signals as a gross weakness we are all now operating under some frightfully sensitive rules where the expressed power we show equals real power thing we have going on in side.

If you are not a showman by trade you might wind up messed over just because you said something nice. Go Figure?

This is a tough question, one that I have wrestled with before. I am of the opinion that mankind is born knowing right from wrong. But deciding whether this in engrained in our DNA or God-given usually depends on whether one is religious or not. Sure, there are deviants who defy the norm, but most people feel guilt and remorse when they do wrong. I have a tough time with those who base everything on evolution - where are the half man half apes if we in fact evolved from apes? Why didn't apes die out if this model wasn't sufficient? Sorry to get off topic.

'right from wrong'

Is a flexible concept if it's a matter of survival...you or the other starving beast.

One could argue that morality is a luxury.

I have a tough time with those who base everything on evolution ^{(but presubably you find fairy tales no problem at all?)}

Why didn't apes die out if this model wasn't sufficient?

You missunderstand .. evolution doesn't mean that every preceding creature dies out..else there would only be 1 species! It's more about relative success... there is often room for similar but slightly diferenet creatures..we exploit a different niche to the other primates so we havn't felt it necessary to butcher them to extinction!

Actually I heard that there are areas where they are decimating populations of primates for food.

Yum-yum, monkey meat!

Bet it taste like chicken.

Probably good with some fava beans and a nice chianti....fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh-fuh

It's not often you get to use the same "Hannibal Lecter" quote twice in one week!

Yep, tasty, or so I've been told.

Once you go Munky, you always be funky!

On the topic at hand, it could be argued that morality is a product of conscience, and that conscience is a product of our ability to reason.

We can reason that a thing we would not want to have done to us, is something that someone else would not want to have done to them either.

Do unto others...then duck! (duck is tasty too)

Well Del, at least most fairy tales have a happy ending

And evolution does state that permanent changes are done to advantage, meaning that evolving apes would have been able to kill off those who didn't evolve - survival of the fittest. They wouldn't have changed so dramatically over short time intervals not to compete for the same food sources, so killing them off would have been the 'prudent' thing to do. Unless, of course, they had some sort of morality engrained in them that prevented this

You never did answer my question about where the currently evolving apes are, unless, of course, you believe in Bigfoot, who is suposed to be lurking here in Southern Oregon nearby.

Andy, where I come from "Re********s" stands for Republicans.

It seems like your conclusions are based on your beliefs about how things work. Things do not necessarily happen to work a certain way because we think it to be so. It is easy to say "A, and then why (or why not) B?" but the statement itself does not establish fact or take into consideration all possible options. In fact, it seems clear that many who want something to be a certain way lead themselves to believe that it is so through a lack of complete information regarding all the actual possibilities.

Aren't everybody's? This is a hypothetical discussion, is it not? Or do you claim to have all the answers based on your opinion?

"In fact, it seems clear that many who want something to be a certain way lead themselves to believe that it is so through a lack of complete information regarding all the actual possibilities".

Quite so...

It is really a matter of how things get framed that peaks my curiosity. When you make the statement "- where are the half man half apes if we in fact evolved from apes?" it seems to be offered as evidence instead of opinion. It seems to quietly assume that it is a fact that if man evolved from apes that there would necessarily be half man half ape creatures and then use that to challenge another's opinion. This seems to me to purvey a degree of certainty that cannot in fact be substantiated and so it seems illogical to use it as a basis to call into questions someone else's opinion.

Were you simply to have stated that "I believe tha if man were evolved from apes that there would be half man half apes." Then your opinion is out front in the argument and as such you would accept a somewhat weaker stance based on our agreement that it is based on an opinion/belief that we all agree may or may not be fact.

So my point is only with the clarity with which we express our ideas and also understand our own thoughts. Perhaps you believe it to be a fact that there would be such evidence and so my point is to argue your base assumption of said fact before we ever get to what the fact would dictate.

I would hope to be neither of "Each, however, as he revolves about "his" truth, feels anything that is not "his" truth is a lie." (Paulo Freire from Pedagogy of the Oppressed) "The both suffer from an absence of doubt." (Marcio Moreira Alves from same)

I only strive to retain a healthy measure of doubt and to avoid sounding like I don't. Forgive me if I have failed at either, then I have not made myself clear.

We all swagger up to the podium with a certain amount of assuredness in our views, or else we'd get boo'd off! Well, maybe I was :) Hey, I'm only half human according to my wife, so what do you expect?

My question regarding the half man half apes still hasn't been answered yet, and stands on its own. The Theory of Evolution has problems explaining everything, as does Theocracy. To get back on point, I knew/know right from wrong before I ever learned this through life's lessons. So, is Morality Encoded in Our DNA? I believe we are born knowing right from wrong.

Well mammals, different from other animals, have a limbic brain which is where the processing occurs that would support moral behavior. So I would definitely say that we are genetically endowed with the capacity to be moral.

However, also different from the animals, we have the capacity to be "immoral" and that too seems to be genetically endowed, or we wouldn't have it.

I have no trouble believing that in your personal experience you experience an innate orientation toward moral behavior. It seems infants arrive with a personality and probably more.

Given that we seem to have an incidence of both pre-dispositions, I would conjecture that there is no assurance of morality. Given that most people act within socially acceptable morals I would say that probably the limbic brain is an evolutionary success in predisposing us to cooperate. I think where I differ is in the distinction between process and content. I think that our content (the mechanism of a limbic brain) enables us to learn moral process. I don't think it is then necessary to have pre-existing morals in this model. "Right from wrong" is quite contextual and differs in various societies yet anyone brought up is able to learn the morals of their group. Given adequate stress during the formative years they can also be made to be sociopathic in their behavior toward others. Brain dysfunction can definitely disrupt the sense of what is right and wrong as can wrongly learned values.

So it seems too complicated to settle on any single notion of how it works. Hence my hedging toward a healthy measure of doubt. I doubt there is or may ever be an answer. And so, I would hope to not be perceived as presuming to know. None the less it is an interesting question.

I feel personally that it is 99% upbringing.....what is passed on from parents, family, family friends and of course (the old fashioned) schools (not today as the poor teachers, wrongly of course, have their hands tied in these areas!!).

The list of importance is exactly as I said it:- parents, family, family friends and of course the (old fashioned) schools.

I may have missed a few points out as I am only firing from the hip so to say.....

I would have to agree with you Andy. The problem is that we are indoctrinated to the consensus reality at an age before critical thinking has a chance to prompt us to question. And it is to a depth that we can virtually never access or even imagine and so we seek to attribute imaginary situations as external causatives.

It's an immersion effect. The fish doesn't know it is in the water.

You are very right of course, well put. I wish more people would understand and take responsibility.....

My children are the way they are because of my wife and I, sometimes my wife does not like to agree with that though......!

Of course I am responsible for all the good things.......(I you believe that you are off track!!)

Mr Rcapper, you have a way with words that I admire and like.

(Do you have a tiny bit of Irish blood in you somewhere? If yes, it suits you well! Mine is Scottish and causes problems sometimes!!)

Ah you have divined the true source of my insanity!

My mother's father was Irish.

Hence numerous inches of alcohol related scar tissue.

Seemed like a good idea at the time!

I sincerely love the Irish as a people, they encompass many good traits that the rest of us do not have. We dummies do not always fully understand them, that is the only problem....

They can even tell jokes about themselves, that only the Jews I have known in my life are in anyway similar!!

Stay as you are!!

I agree with you, but would like to add that I believe the impact of society's current system of values seems directed against destruction of the family. Hence, family values (the largest contributor to morality as per you comments) are destroyed in many cases. The large number of single parent families (often lacking a father figure that has integrity in their life) results reduced morals. The "It takes a village to raise a chilfd" position is only partially true; it takes that and one H-ll of a strong family.

Sorry.

...I believe the impact of society's current system of values seems directed TOWARD destruction of the family.

I don't think that it is direct as you indicate. I don't disagree that that is the outcome. I just think it is more that the values that are common emphasize qualities that result in destruction. The consequence of a self-centeredness and greed more than an explicit focus toward destruction.

Denial is not a river in Egypt. But it does appear to be carrying us down the river or at least "down the tubes".

Well put, I am in total agreement.

After much thought and a lifetime of viewing others it seems
(to me) that man, and woman of course, is born an animal.

With medals for stating the obvious; I think we all start with a
"clean sheet" that is we are not pre-programmed at all mentally,
and, depending upon our "status" (bodily, socially, etc. etc.) our
environment, and the treatment we receive and give to others;
is how our individual mental attitude to life is created and formed.

Only as an example; eg. the strong could naturally become the "bully"
and the weak more devious. Many other attributes and descriptions are
developed according to the individual and group upon contact with life.

Not to write a book, for example, kindness can develop kindness in others.
(turn the other cheek.) Conversely; an eye for an eye, can beget violence.

With the mind developing from a clean start; we then slowly overlay "our"
personal understanding and perception with a morality. Shown best by the
differing views upon specific moral issues. Convincingly they are subjective.

Summarising I think there are three break points:
1) the human animal, a clean start; no programming. (DNA)
2) the development, according to each, and their individual circumstances.
3) the developed mind creating a "morality" from the experiences and others.

These are blurred and overlap of course; are not clear cut, and not objective.
I am sorry if a basic description does not add anything new, only my thoughts.

jt.

Win $10 million on http://www.mfnb.at

After a weekend filled with watching my two year old son bite his cousin, smack the cat, and wail on his older sister with a tennis racket, I have come to this conclusion:

The concept of morality being encoded, has taken a major blow.

Cute !!!

He is on a strong "learn" phase, I wonder who gave him the Genes for that????

Who is the "normal" custodian, you or your wife?

if it is you then you are a bad boy!

if it is your wife then you were right to divorce her!

if you live together but you are too busy with your job, divorce her now!

If you live together and you were not too busy with your job, WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING!

Ever heard about a nice kind girl having heart transplanted from a dead man which was a drunker and smoker.

Soon after a successful operation and healed to normal live, the girl behavior changes to express likely the same behavior as the dead man was. The girl begin to smoke and drink unstoppable.

The mother of the dead man, after being asked to see, find out that the girl resemble his passed son very much.

The question echoed : Is Morality Encoded in Our DNA?

This is simply not true.

Une point which I have not seen clearly made is that it would appear that some criminals appear to blame their "crimes" on their upbringing, which I personally feel certainly is a (very sad) possibility.

Mainly as I believe that the family gives our morals in the first place!!

Does anyone have any personal feelings or experiences in this area of criminality?

If yes, can they give some examples please....thanks in advance.

Andy, I don't think one can discount environmental factors when it comes to morality, which can lead to criminal acts. I just happen to believe we are born with a moral compass that lets us know right from wrong.

There is a very famous psychology experiment that was done after WWII, to prove that the Germans were genetically inclined to simply follow orders, no matter how "awful" they were. The conclusion after much experimentation, was that if there was a person in authority on hand, people of a variety of genetics and environments would respond and do actions that they were not ordinarily be predisposed to do. Even against what they believed in. Here in the U.S. we call it the "Devil made me do it" defense.

What did you think of my take on the "R" word?

Some how I overlooked your explanation of the "R" word, apologies, I think its funny, as I always say, if you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined.......your humour is excellent and well tuned!!

....even though I used to vote "C**********e" in the UK years and years ago!!!

My final thought on this subject: I was taught that to generalize one has to take the majority of the cases en-mass and ignore the outliers, or exceptions to the rule. Most people worldwide don't kill indiscriminately; in fact we are taught this is immoral and abhorrent. We cannot take environmental factors (being taught) out of the equation; it obviously exists, when it comes to morality. For that matter most animal species don't kill indiscriminately either. Hmmm. Does that mean they are taught morality? Am I just confusing morality with self-preservation? Some interviews with murderers I have read show that they killer 'knew better' in that they have remorse after the fact. Did they go against their environmental teaching or some inner conscience? We may never know.

But, I am not satisfied with this answer. There is so much more to life than we can ever hope to discover. Perhaps I need to start a new topic, and if I do, I would love for all of you to weigh in. Just be prepared for the unbelievable!

I think that comparing a wild animal killing for food with regard to people and morality is silly, we kill to eat or at least some of us do. A large number of the rest of us buy the "kill" in a shop already prepared mostly for cooking!!

Only a few wild animals kill unnecessarily, just for fun so to speak, the Fox in the hen house who just does not know when to stop for example.....but if there had not been a hen house, I am sure that the problem would not have existed.....the rest of the birds would have secreted themselves in trees after the first (and only) kill.....

So I think that we should leave animals out as they follow their own morality, not necessarily anything like a Human's morality....

To start with, we must understand or accept a theory/concept proclaimed in the Vedanta (Vedanta is the summary of the findings of the self realisation process through their super consciosness ability, developed through defined process**,of saints/rishis of the East,particularly in Indian sub-continent- which would include countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tibet, Ceylon and--,), which can be stated as follows:

"Like sound,light,electro-magnetic,gravitational wave/force, there exists a conscious-knowledge-bliss wave,which manifests itself whenever it meets or finds a suitable receptacle.This conscious-knowledge-bliss wave includes intelligence,ethical values or morality, emotions,tastes and feelings.The suitable receptacle is everything including nothing,however depending on the quality/characterestic of the receptacle the extent of manifestation of this wave/force is determined.

To illustrate the above, you may consider the dependence of the quality of sound manifested by a radio (a siutable receptacal), of the original transmitted sound waves from the transmitter depends on the quality of the antena, transistor,condensor etc of the radio set.Better the quality (that is less impurity) of the antena, transistor,condensor etc, the output quality f the sound approaches the original sound quality.

The antena, transistor,condensor etc,(components of radio the suitable receptacle in this case) is manufactured by human beings from the basic raw materials. Quality of the raw material,eqipment,process and disciplin maintained by the humans involved in manufacturing will determine the end quality of the antena etc.

Now just equate the following:

waves/forces: original sound waves = conscious-knowledge-bliss wave

genisis of: original sound wave=singer/musician

genisis of: conscious-knowledge-bliss wave=god

suitable receptacle: radio=vacuum,matter,plants,animals,human beings

components of the suitable receptacles: antena, transistor,condensor etc =void,ether,elements,dna,vains,blood,brain etc

Each of the raw materials of both sides of the equation has the capability to respond to the various primal universal waves/forces in different degrees.The original quality of the raw material depends on their individual past experience. However the present quality depends on the effort put by itself or environment to improve its quality.

Keeping the above in view the manifestation of morality in living beings depend primarily on the quality of DNA, though the other components also influences.The ORIGINAL quality of the individual beings DNA depends on its past experience and tendencies that are encoded in the atoms of the DNA.So each individual being manifests a particular pattern of tendencies and values.

It must be remembered that each being has the capability and an urge to improve its

quality till such time there are no imperfections and at that stage it gains total freedom for it blends with the original waves/forces and becomes god which we all is, as we are all one.And the super consciousness of the fact that we are all one can and is the only justification for beings to be moral.

I stop now and wait to hear from you that is me.

IWE

Sorry but you lost me at "To start with, we must understand or accept a theory"

I don't think I must at all.

To Guru and all of you,

Sorry for the apparent arrogance.

Pardon me for same, as this is my first attempt in Blogs.

Kindly read, if you so decide, "To start with, we must understand or accept a theory" as "To start with, would request you to consider a theory/concept ----".

Thanking you in anticipation.

Thanks for your note. I appreciate that you understand. I think the one thing most of us could agree upon is that none of us can offer "the" answer, and so I respect the opinion that recognizes that. Since our words are all we have to communicate, we can only assume at first that someone said what they meant, allow that further discussion will enhance our understanding, and hope that it is not a requirement that we necessarily agree.

Mortality is a relative term to describe the inevitable.

At the end of each chromosome there is a chemo-structural tip called Telomere, which wear through the years, allowing it's carrier-cell to divide, or keep dividing, - > up to a given limit.

Once this limit is is reached (having the Telomere reach it's shortest allowed length), a self-destruction command is issued to the cell (called "Apoptosis"), and the cell disintegrates to to it's constituents, or de-metabolise.

The mean number of divisions per cell is not etched in the DNA, but as a result of many genes interacting with each other such mean number is emerging, a different one to each species.

There is however, a kind of "universal figure" to all this, in the form of mean number of heartbeats (which is relevant to heart-owning species, of course) and it is around 4,000,000,000. Now, for faster metabolising species, those with a heart beating faster, it means shorter life span, when compared to species with a slower beating heart.

Poetic justice? No way.

Trees are exempt from this. Some Californian Sequoya trees were found to live way beyond 5000 years.

But wait! while some Brazilian Marshall parrots were found to live beyond 300 years, and mind you, the bird kingdom are the fast heart beaters, elephants having their heart beat slower than humans live about the same, some 80 years.

So, besides some known anomalies, the rule is, the faster your heart beats, the shorter your life be. In mean terms of a species. Not in absolute terms of an individual.

The lesson? - Life is too short even at 5000 years, so better make the most of it and enjoy while it lasts...

Cheers

I'm so sorry. I just realised the thread was about Morality, not mortality, as a I have mis-read.

So, if Morality is a cultural trait, Where exactly in the DNA should it be written?

Are there genes for honesty? For faith? For integrity?

Heck, we don't even know what is the combination of genes assigned to produce aggression as a fixed trait.

We may associate it with some neurotransmitters such as:

• Acetylcholine - voluntary movement of the muscles
• Norepinephrine - wakefulness or arousal
• Dopamine - voluntary movement and motivation, "wanting"
• Serotonin - memory, emotions, wakefulness, sleep and temperature regulation
• GABA (gamma aminobutyric acid) - inhibition of motor neurons
• Glycine - spinal reflexes and motor behaviour
• Neuromodulators - sensory transmission-especially pain

(taken from Wiki)

But genes? There are hundreds, sometimes thousands of genes in chemical interaction, to produce any given, distinct morphology we may later call 'a trait'

That's ok, I enjoyed your post about mortality. Personally I think that to say that the structures that give us the ability to engage in moral thought and behavior are provided for in our DNA. Beyond that, what is even considered moral becomes pretty relative. Apparently suicide bombing is a moral act in some groups, is that coded in DNA? Just where would we find the sequence for that in the double helix? I think given ideal conditions we would find a natural predisposition to follow the golden rule but under stressful conditions when the competition for limited resources is great, the guy with the bigger stick is going to claim moral superiority.

A-Propo "...the guy with the bigger stick..."

- "Might is right" and "Show me the tip of a spear and I'll show you freedom" - Napoleon Bonaparte

- "Justice flows from the muzzle of guns" - Mao Dze Dong

...With such big names, it's easy to confuse the issue

Our present Gov with "Dick Cheney" forming the 4^th branch is acting upon what legal and moral grounds? I mean our Leaders are to be the shining example of all that America stands for in ethical and moral behavior.

I may be missing something but if these guys are the best we have morally then a possible outcome of an examination of our genetic makeup might find that Pirates and Vikings and Dungeon tortures are the building blocks of our human existence.

Then they might say doing what feels good to themselves is a genetic trait, and possibly far closer to the mark? I Dun Know?

You just might hit the spot there, but, see, politics and politicians are two components feeding off each other, to maintain a self-perpetuating system with a will, agenda, and mind of it's own.

Politics provide a a structural growth-medium for corruption, hypocrisy and criminal negligence. Politicians may initially be good hearted and well-meant people, but once entering the 'real-game' they are swept away into the heart of darkness.

Not to mention the golden opportunity it provides to initially corrupt people in the first place. these will find the system rewarding beyond ther wildest aspiration.

Politics are there to be a platform for self-serving opportunists or others who became such . it's not really there to serve people, only to create the appearance it does. to facade a veneer of respectability, order, and apparent concern.

In truth, we all know deep-down, what it really is.

Isn't that why democracy is the mask behind which plutocracy hide?

It's only an appearance.

The hope remains with honest people to be elected and challenge the corruption once they are in control, but somehow, over millennia, it never happens.

Any guess why?

This is such a great contemplation, thank you. Our DNA is who we have been, who we are, and who we are going to be. All knowledge is evolving. Once we have an experience, assimilate the information, gained the wisdom from that experience, we then evolve our DNA. A new code is released to our cellular mass.

Morality is a judgment. It weighs a 'good' versus a 'bad', when in fact it is all exactly how it is suppose to be. In order to grow spiritually. or in a 'moral' way if that is the perception you have, we must have those experiences that give us the opportunity to do that.

When speaking about a group, or a collective consciousness, and their 'morality', it seems to be pretty evident that 'birds of a feather flock together'. Or like minds attract like minds. All this means is that we all migrate towards others who hold the same belief system as we do. We can evolve the collective with new information and unlimited mind. If we think it, it already is.

I look forward to chatting more about this with others. Thank you very much for the lofty thought!

Peace,

McKenna

If morality was written into our DNA, we would probably be ALL moral neat and clean by now, following 4 million years or more, of natural selection.

The mechanism you just described, according to which we gain experience and morality (or any other trait for that matter) during our individual or communal life, and is then embedded into our genetic code and transfered to the next generation, is called "Lamarckism" and was scientifically proven false by Darwin Wallace, and by general science ever since the eighteen century.

Alas, the concept of "inheritance of acquired characters" still permeates in the general public notion as if it's real and valid, because it's easier to visualise, than the method which nature actually uses, called "Natural Selection", in which, randomly occurring mutations, may appear by errant DNA transcription, to aid an individual in their chance of survival and fertility, thus gaining a permanent place in the individual DNA, and should this individual have offsprings, gain a permanent place in the communal DNA, all in relative terms of course, it's a probability game of statistics, after all.

In concrete reality, an individual may acquire a helpful gene by random mutation, but was victim to mortal accident, lack of a mating spouse etc, thus this gene may be lost.

Thank you for your reply. I read the Wiki on Lamarckism, interesting reading. I can see why it was 'abandoned'. The word abandoned was used in the description, but what happened is the information evolved, new thoughts were hatched, new ways to perceive something were born. If I were to write a dictionary, (and by the way are you aware that a high level mason wrote the webster dictionary), my definition of 'short'sighted' would be 'to stop searching for something more or a new way to think and be'.

Lamarckism did not place free will into the equation. Nothing is written in stone, especially when considering DNA. I do like the analogy using a computer as the example of your mind, which I also believe is the soul, which I believe is housed in the DNA. Science is now contemplating what they call 'junk DNA'. If you look around in nature and observe it with an expanded thought, you would see that there is no such thing as 'junk'...there is no waste. There is only the evolution of matter.

Separating ourselves from that process only creates more separatism.

If you have the belief that you are your genes, then it shall be, but it will BE because your free will chooses that destiny. You made the decision to become that, instead of making the choice to become something different. People experience both of these scenarios daily. The people who decide to be something different have gained the wisdom from being the previous experiences, and have thus decided to move on to the new, the unknown. <<<That changes your DNA.

Once there is change, the old is still there, but in a more illuminated perspective than before. We can never lose anything. We can only change our attitude in the way we are attached to it.

All of this is just my perspective. It is a culmination of my philosophy, experience, and knowledge.

1. "...If you look around in nature and observe it with an expanded thought, you would see that there is no such thing as 'junk'...there is no waste..."

'Junk DNA' is a generalised term to describe genes which were added to a genome, but had neither positive nor negative influence on the carrier's chances of survival, fertility, or any such influence on their morphology.

Such non-contributers, as they appear randomly, are nicknamed "Hitch- Hikers" in the analogy of the DNA being a sort of "train to immortality", in the sense of genes immortalising their existence by means of endless generation-to-generation replication. For a gene, it's enough that it doesn't actively contribute to it's carrier's demise, to immortalise itself in the genome.

It doesn't really needs to positively contribute to it's carrier's survival. "Just don't rock the boat, and you have a seat on the train" - sort of thing.

2. "...People experience both of these scenarios daily. The people who decide to be something different have gained the wisdom from being the previous experiences, and have thus decided to move on to the new, the unknown. <<<That changes your DNA..."

This, again, unfortunately, is Lamarckism. In a way, more than anything else, the take of Lamarckism shows a profound failure to understand the fundamental single mechanism behind natural selection. So again, here it is:

A) A gene is added to the genome by mutation (an error in transcription, which could be caused by radiation, disruptive chemical influence or faulty control-genes or enzymes, etc.)

B) The mutant is present in a gamete, a mature reproductive cell.

C) The mutant is not hindering it's carriers chances for survival or reproduction.

D) During mating, the mutant is not 'recessive' to compete with a dominant allele.

E) The resulting offspring, equipped with the new gene to confront the ever challenging living environment, will not be negatively influenced by the new gene, by itself, or in interaction with other genes, as to it's abilities to survive, or successfully reproduce.

- - - -

- This is the only biochemical way for genes to be created or replicated. If you were to point to the rare occasion of Retro-Viral genome invasion, again, this would fall into the realm of 'disruptive chemical influence or faulty control-genes', no more, no less.

- The only possible way for a gene to appear and replicate in a "Pseudo-Lamarckian" way, is given in the example of a mutation in the maturing gamete, to pass the A to D trials.

- In short, you either inherit the mutation from your ancestors, or it is created on you maturing gametes, during your life time.

- - - -

Now, as to your evidently Lamarckian speculation, here goes:

- By which biochemical mechanism, can a mental, spiritual or moral trait or tendency, be created during your active life?

- - - -

None that is known, or proven to act, in any existing biochemical mechanism.

I'll only grant you that Lamarckian explanation, is more pleasing to rationalise the inheritance of mental or physical traits, during one's life to pass as legacy to their offspring.

Tempting as self-flattery it is. Granted. Easier to explain common cultural tendencies, Granted. True it is not. Nature has it's own set choices, even if they are not idealised by faithful people.

Speculated, it is, very much so, but only by people who cannot grasp that traits are acquired in nature, by a random process of variability, called 'mutation'.

- True it cannot be, with the positively proven mechanisms of nature.

No .DNA coding only controls the material activities .Actually our identity is the 'soul'

All morality ,thinking and believes are there in it .The function of brain is just like the

'computer processor' i.e. to process the instructions of soul for DNA and neurons.

This is called the "Mechanistic Approach", and is still fiercely debated, but at least it's still on the table, unlike "Lamackism" which was scrapped nearly two hundred years ago.

Today, it looks more and more as if you are right, as there are more and more prominent scientists who tend to lean toward mechanistic explanation to mental tendencies.

The debate is still on, because there is no positive proof yet, for the link between brain (or neural) activities and specific mental traits (such as tendency or inclination to crime, being now on current debate), but only general trait labeling such as aggression versus calmness, or curiosity versus apathy, for instance.

I agree with you. Yes soul is our identity.This soul carries all the morality-good or bad.(or else there is a need for a second common soul). Now the souls morality is mainfested through the quality of the individuals DNA.The individuals DNA has an inherent quality at its inception or birth.But unlike a micro-processor the DNA has an intrinsic quality to evolve to higer quality level by which its tendencies and character can manifest the highest level of morality that the soul carries -till a stage when the individual DNA identifies itself with the soul and becomes god-christ-mohammed-budha-shiv-martin luthur-mother terresa-gandhi-swami vivekananda-unknown greats-brahma.

Yes , I know, we are capable of becoming god, as we are god, for what else can be there besides god-for if there was then god would be limited.Yes -there are various process prescribed in differen relegion to achieve same. Some of the said processes needs to evolve to be compatible with todays world - but anyone truly interested will do the necessary modification while following the prescribed process.

Incidentally the defination of god has evolved over the centuries.Niel Donald Walsh, author of CWG, has named god as Change/Life/the one who is needless/the one who has no preferences/the one who loves unconditionally/the one with and without form/ and few more such attributes