The idea being explored doesn’t conflict with what we already know about how the brain works. Instead, it builds upon that knowledge, potentially offering a clearer view of what’s happening in the brain. The difference between consciousness being produced by the brain and consciousness passing through it would be subtle but important. This view doesn’t require the supernatural. One possible implication is that consciousness could be a fundamental part of the universe. At the very least, it could help us better understand consciousness.
Would you rather be mass or gravity in the universe? One is the source, shaping the other, while the other simply responds. One actively influences, while the other is moved.
Would you rather create meaning, shaping it for a brief moment in time, or would you prefer to uncover it, potentially revealing something eternal? One gives rise to purpose, while the other seeks it out, perhaps for all of time.
I stand to be corrected.Although the idea that epigenetic factors influence evolution, particularly in plants, has gained increasing attention in the scientific community, I had mistakenly believed that in plants, it was the DNA sequence itself that was also altered, but that is not the case. However, DNA methylation can be inherited from generations, suggesting it may play a role in shaping natural selection.
The picture science is currently painting may not fully capture the true nature of reality. And yes, I acknowledge that I lack the credibility of a bona fide scientist.
Assuming all this is true, so what? If it’s a reason to adopt a dualistic worldview, please explain why. If it isn’t, please explain what your point may be.
Does it? How?
So what? What difference does that make, in terms of “meaning” and “purpose”?
Why would it be any more real than if dualism was not true?
That’s interesting, because I was also considering using the Human Genome Project as an illustrative example, instead. So let’s go with that since it is specific and concrete. What hypothesis were they testing? What finding would have falsified the Human Genome Project? Failing that, would you not consider it to be science?
I don’t understand the analogy at all or what you’re trying to say here.
1 Like
You need to cite something in the primary literature for this assertion.
It seems you don’t understand what the terms “mass” and “gravity” denote.
OK, the misbegotten analogy aside, sure. I would rather be an agent than a passive object with no ability to influence my existence.
I fail to see how that pertains to the point you are trying to make, which is that dualism imparts meaning to our existence that physicalism cannot.
I honestly don’t care, one way or the other.
It also seems to me you are begging the question here, since one of the points of contention in this discussion is whether it is even possible for “meaning” to be inherent.
1 Like
They weren’t. It was data gathering. My point is that mere data gathering is not funded on the small scale of fictional wildlife biologists.
You lack credibility because your approach is entirely rhetorical, avoiding evidence.
2 Likes
I will defer to you on that, as I have no knowledge of what kind of wildlife research is funded, and the issue is irrelevant to my point. However, please note that I was the one who created those fictional biologists. 
Then again, hypothesis testing isn’t the only thing funded. Phylogenetics research, for example, is seldom aimed at testing a single hypothesis but, if anything, at testing all possible hypotheses simultaneously, which can be more easily be thought of as asking a question, e.g. “what are the relationships of these taxa?”, while hypothesis testing would ask “are those relationships X?”
I stand corrected.
Testing multiple hypotheses simultaneously is hypothesis testing. IMO my best paper is one in which we were able to test two very different hypotheses with the same experiments.
It’s not about credentials. It’s about dealing directly with evidence instead of rhetoric.
2 Likes
Our relationship with death would undergo a profound transformation. Free will would become a more coherent concept, as the mind would no longer be solely driven by deterministic brain states. At the same time, we would be compelled to take on greater responsibility for our actions, understanding that they have ripple effects that extend beyond our immediate experience.
Our relationship with nature would shift from one of control to collaboration, especially if consciousness permeates the natural world. This would require us to recognize that our actions influence systems that transcend our individuality. We would no longer be isolated beings, but active participants in an interconnected, ongoing process.
In the realm of science, we would still break things down into parts, but we would also seek to rebuild them to understand the emergent properties that arise from their interactions. Rather than just dissecting and analyzing, we would focus on synthesis and the larger patterns that emerge from complexity.
In summary, this shift would change not only how we conduct science but also how society functions—and would reintegrate spirituality into the broader conversation about human existence and the nature of the universe.
I revise this statement from ‘a dualistic worldview opens the door to endless possibilities of purpose and meaning’ to 'a dualistic worldview may offer a clearer understanding of the true meaning and purpose of life, as well as the reason for the existence of the universe.
In a mechanistic worldview, meaning and purpose must be created where they do not inherently exist, whereas in a dualistic worldview, they may already exist and simply await discovery by us.
Don’t understand what analogy?
Are these valid references in primary literatures for this assertion?
Note: Used Claude AI to find references, which is a bit better than using the internet.
Nature Reviews Genetics (2022)
-
Bošković, A. & Rando, O. J. “Molecular mechanisms of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance”
-
This review discusses how heritable ‘epimutations’ can contribute to heritable phenotypic variation and thus to evolution, covering DNA methylation, histone modifications and non-coding RNAs as signals that underpin these epimutations Nature
2. New Phytologist (2024)
-
Sammarco et al. “DNA methylation in the wild: epigenetic transgenerational inheritance can mediate adaptation in clones of wild strawberry (Fragaria vesca)”
-
This study reveals that a portion of DNA methylation is linked to climatic conditions, inherited across clonal generations, and affects gene expression, suggesting that it may be a target of natural selection Wiley Online Library
3. PLOS One (2014)
-
Furrow, R.E. “Epigenetic Inheritance, Epimutation, and the Response to Selection”
-
Research on mice and Arabidopsis thaliana showed that epigenetic variation responded to selective pressures, with methylation-associated phenotypes increasing progressively over generations PLOS
4. Cell (2014) via PMC
-
Heard & Martienssen. “Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: myths and mechanisms”
-
Genome-wide profiling studies have revealed DNA methylation cycling and its contribution to epigenetic variation in natural populations, with some conserved targets never losing methylation, resembling a sort of epigenetic selective sweep PubMed Central
5. Theoretical Biology (2011)
-
“Population-epigenetic models of selection” - ScienceDirect
-
Reviews evidence from over one hundred examples suggesting that transmission of DNA methylation is not restricted to mitotic divisions, but can also occur between generations via meiosis, allowing epialleles to mimic the traditional inheritance pattern of genetic mutations ScienceDirect
Meant matter not mass.
I want to clarify: I am not asserting that this is the way things are, but rather exploring what might be. I am simply pointing out that we still don’t fully understand how the brain generates thought. The possibility that consciousness could be somewhat separate from the brain is a notion that a small but growing group of neuroscientists is beginning to explore. I’m not defending this idea, but rather trying to illustrate what the implications might be if it were true. Based on the responses I’ve received, I realize I may not be doing a good job of conveying this. Let me see if I can find evidence for the view that the mind operates through the brain, rather than being produced by it.
Mass and gravity.
What if you were testing millions of hypotheses simultaneously? What if you had formed no hypotheses in advance of the data?