Bruce Lipton & the cell (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, December 24, 2015, 01:35 (3257 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Back to panpsychism
> 
> dhw: This is not panpsychism. He is talking about the influence of the mind on the body. -I really get the impression he is proposing cellular consciousness.
> 
> QUOTE: Our source, "identity," is not from within the body, and it is immortal; We are not victims of life we are creators of life; a human organism is not an singular individual, it is in reality, a "community" of sentient cells.
> DAVID: Back to universal consciousness at a cellular level.
> 
> dhw: I thought you might like the bit about our immortal identity. He seems to share quite a lot of your ideas. But yes, we are back to yet another cellular biologist who believes that cells are sentient, conscious beings that live and cooperate in communities. The support is growing.-He and I do share, no question. Your discovery of the ones who support this idea is growing, nothing more.-> DAVID: True. Automatically.
> 
> dhw: He doesn't say “automatically”.
 
I know, but I do.
> 
> dhw: I am very much inclined to be with him. He is a cellular biologist who shares the views of his fellow biologists Margulis, Shapiro, McClintock, Buehler et al...I certainly do not feel qualified to say he and they are absolutely wrong.-Of course you can't.
> 
> DAVID: He is confusing human consciousness with cellular activity. He wants cells with a subconscious. Just a stupid comparison
> 
> dhw: I thought you believed that cells carried masses and masses of information which they processed automatically.-I understand how reluctantly you have come to recognize that life runs on information, with a cellular interpretation of the layers of code and modifiers doing their job. I still get the idea that originally you did not understand the presence of, and importance of, that concept. -> dhw: That is their “subconscious”, and he is saying that this constitutes 95% of their activity. But it is the other 5% of ”consciousness” that does the creative work - the equivalent of the “brain”. It sounds stupid to you because you refuse even to contemplate the possibility that cells are sentient, cognitive beings.-Just fancy terms to jazz up the description of a cell. The cell has algorithms to follow, simple as that. Let's use embryology: the zygote has all the DNA, but in he intact human baby each cell type has the original DNA modified for that cell type, all arranged by the algorithm of embryologic development. Now back to the single cell and how it works: if the developing embryo can do all it does automatically creating a living individual human, a single cell can run its affairs (which are much simpler) the same way. I have complex multicellular organism view in discussing this; Shapiro does not with his one-celled bacteria and how he describes them. I believe he is fully aware of my view. I repeat, he is making point about how to view the genome as a read/write mechanism. 
> 
> dhw:I am surprised that you have chosen to quote this article. -I posted it just to demonstrate there is opposition to Lipton and I noted a comment in the review of his book that he is not widely accepted.- I haven't read the book .... I found the article and interview (especially Lipton's views concerning the mind's influence on the body) interesting and stimulating. One of the contributors to the above link has stressed how much in tune his ideas are with eastern philosophies. -I agree with all of that. In practice I used placebo effect many times. And the placebo effect acts upon cells!
> [/i]
> BBELLA: I read his book and am open to his findings.
> 
> dhw: Thank you. I am all in favour of openness. It complements the scepticism, and leads to a healthy balance up here on the picket fence.-Healthy skepticism is of great value. I use it with Lipton.