Biological Reincarnation

[redraven]

Although what I am about to post here has it's roots in disputed cell biology, the ramifications are very much in a theological context, hence the reason I have posted on this section.
The following is a condensed section of a book I have been boring the majority of you with ( ;D ) called The Biology of Belief by Bruce H. Lipton. I find much to be commended in the reasoning used here, though it was originally written from a monotheistic point of view and so I have taken the liberty of putting it in a more palatable context for us as I don't want the idea's contained herein to be sabotaged by semantics.
I would be most interested in any thoughts you may have........


" Every functional protein in our body is made as a complementary image of an environmental signal. If a protein did not have a complementary signal to couple with, it would not function. This means that every protein in our bodies is a physical / electromagnetic complement to something in the environment. Because we are machines made out of protein, by definition we are made in the image of the environment, that environment being the universe.
I learned from cells that we are part of the whole and that we lest forget this at our peril. But I also recognized that each one of us has a unique, biological identity. Why? What makes each person's cellular community unique? On the surface of our cells is a family of identity receptors, which distinguishes on individual from another.
A well studied subset of these receptors, called self receptors or Human Leukocytic Antigems (HLA) are related to the functions of the immune system. If your self receptors were to be removed, your cells would no longer reflect your identity.
When you donate an organ, the closer your set of self receptors matches the the receptors of the recipient, the less aggressive the rejection reaction launched by the recipient's immune system.
In your search for a better donor, however, you will not find a 100% match. So far, one has never been found.
Because of our preoccupation with the material Newtonian world, we might at first assume that the cells protein receptors are the "self". That would be the equivalent of believing that the antenna of a TV was the source of a broadcast. The cells receptors are not the source of it's identity but the vehicle of by which the "self" is downloaded from the environment.
When I fully understood this relationship I realized that my identity, my "self", exists in the environment whether my body is there or not. Just as the in the TV analogy, if my body dies and in the future a new individual (biological TV) is born who has the same exact set of identity receptors, that new individual will be downloading "me". I will once again be present in the world. When my physical body dies, the broadcast is still present. My identity is a complex signature contained within the vast information that collectively comprises the environment.
Supporting evidence for my belief that an individual's broadcast is present even after death comes from transplant patients who report that along with their new organs come behavioural or psychological changes.
Psychological and behavioural memory does make sense if we realize the the transplanted organs still bear the original identity receptors of the donor and are apparently still downloading that same environmental information. Even though the body of the the person who donated the organ is dead, their broadcast is still on. They are "immortal", as I believe we all are.
Cells and organs transplants offer a model not only for immortality, but also for reincarnation. Consider the possibility that an embryo in the future displays the same set of identity receptors that I now possess. That embryo will be tuned into my "self". My identity is back but playing through a different body. Sexism & racism become ridiculous as well as immoral when you realize that your receptors could wind up in a white or black person, male or female. Because the environment represents "all that is" ( the universe) and our self receptors antenna's download only a narrow band of the whole spectrum, we all represent a small part of the whole, the universe."


RR

[Francis]

Hi RR

I'm afraid this just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't even know what direction to take in reply... Could you try and explain the first sentence more clearly? - I might be completely misunderstanding the first premise you put forward to build on...?

[Midori]

Even with a medical background I can't make head or tail of this.

Cheers, Midori

[Lee]

Nov 24, 2008 15:49:07 GMT -1 redraven said:

Every functional protein in our body is made as a complementary image of an environmental signal. If a protein did not have a complementary signal to couple with, it would not function. This means that every protein in our bodies is a physical / electromagnetic complement to something in the environment. Because we are machines made out of protein, by definition we are made in the image of the environment, that environment being the universe.

the use of the word environment here is so vague and nebulous to be without meaning. it can mean different things in different contexts. by conflating them all together he takes a valid context and uses it in an invald way. he seems to be mixing up cause and effect. our body responds to the environment around us, that doesnt mean we are a representation of the environment.

I learned from cells that we are part of the whole and that we lest forget this at our peril. But I also recognized that each one of us has a unique, biological identity. Why? What makes each person's cellular community unique? On the surface of our cells is a family of identity receptors, which distinguishes on individual from another.

here at least is some valid science, i wouldnt be surprised if what followed is nonsense tagged on to try to add credibility...

A well studied subset of these receptors, called self receptors or Human Leukocytic Antigems (HLA) are related to the functions of the immune system. If your self receptors were to be removed, your cells would no longer reflect your identity. When you donate an organ, the closer your set of self receptors matches the the receptors of the recipient, the less aggressive the rejection reaction launched by the recipient's immune system.

In your search for a better donor, however, you will not find a 100% match. So far, one has never been found.

anyone tried looking at identical twins?

Because of our preoccupation with the material Newtonian world, we might at first assume that the cells protein receptors are the "self". That would be the equivalent of believing that the antenna of a TV was the source of a broadcast. The cells receptors are not the source of it's identity but the vehicle of by which the "self" is downloaded from the environment.

horseshit. about as valid as sayng that fingerprints are the point at which the self is downloaded. they are unique to the individual too.

When I fully understood this relationship I realized that my identity, my "self", exists in the environment whether my body is there or not. Just as the in the TV analogy, if my body dies and in the future a new individual (biological TV) is born who has the same exact set of identity receptors, that new individual will be downloading "me". I will once again be present in the world. When my physical body dies, the broadcast is still present. My identity is a complex signature contained within the vast information that collectively comprises the environment.

potentially testable, though he doesnt provide a mechanism by which membrane bound proteins which serve a very specific purpose ALSO act as antennae for the non-corporeal part of our being.

Supporting evidence for my belief that an individual's broadcast is present even after death comes from transplant patients who report that along with their new organs come behavioural or psychological changes.

im sure studies have been done on this and would be willing to bet that 'changes' to the person are more to do with the psychology of having another persons bits inside you.


it seesmt o take valid science then run off with it into bollocks, hoping that people will be hooked by the proper stuff and not notice the rest. sorry RR, i know this is something you are interested in but has more holes that the PG tips bag i had in my mug earlier.

[Lee]

pilfered from a german transplant rehab website, brief but mentions one or two interesting points in this context:


He was the first to successfully receive a new hand but he did not want it for a long time. Clint Hallam from New Zealand had problems to accept the hand – psychological ones. He stopped taking the immunosuppressants, drugs that prevent the rejection of a foreign organ by the immune system. In 2001, two years after transplantation, medics had to remove the hand from Clint Hallam.

Theo Kelz from Austria is quite a different case. It was during a bomb blast in 1994 that the policeman lost his hands. The following years he wrote to more than 50 hospitals in order to find a doctor that would give him new ones. After he had found a doctor who ventured the operation Kelz accepted the hands immediately as his own ones: „It was my deepest wish to have new hands. For years I fought for them. Hence, after I finally got them, I did not think about where they came from“, Kelz says.

The psyche is an essential factor for the success of a transplantation. If liver, heart or hand - the organ is foreign and mostly from a dead person. „For many, the integration is a very difficult part“, says Wolfgang Albert, medical head of the medical care unit of the German Heart Centre Berlin. The psychologist takes care of patients undergoing heart transplantation. Especially when it comes down to the heart, people see a strong connection between beating organ and own personality. Many of his patients imagine that a piece of identity is transplanted together with the heart. This raises fear: „They ask themselves: what do I do if I get the heart of a ‘bad character’ or – considering men – that of a woman“, Albert explains.

Mood swings are a side effect of cortisone

About 2325 kidneys, 400 hearts, 1000 entire livers and 280 lungs were transplanted last year in Germany. 50 percent of Albert's heart patients suffer from depressions during the waiting period, although the operation itself is almost a routine nowadays. There is only one way that helps the patients: talking, talking, talking. That way, many fears can be eliminated by discussing them before the intervention. Thus, waiting for an organ also has its advantages: it offers time for discussion and dealing with problems. This raises the chances on coping better psychologically with the new organ compared to those patients having to be operated quickly due to acute organ failure.

„In the end, only three or four percent of patients experience the new heart as not belonging to themselves in the long term “, according to Albert. Also, the myth about a transplanted identity is quickly demystified through background information. „Many patients do change during the process of having received a foreign organ “, says Albert. However, this is not due to a transplanted identity but arises from the pivotal incidents that usually influence personality and individual values. Moreover, the immunosuppressants work on the brain causing mood swings or affecting the memory temporarily. „This is why, for example, men think they must have received the heart of a woman when they suddenly start crying while watching a love story“, explains Albert. „In reality, this is only a side effect of cortisone.“

„It is difficult to figure out who is mentally stable enough for a transplantation“, the psychologist Sibylle Storkebaum of the University Hospital of the Munich Technical University explains. In July, the first person ever received two full arm transplants in this hospital, in an operation that became famous worldwide. Storkebaum started accompanying this man a year before the operation in order to find out whether he really wanted the surgery and whether he would psychologically be strong enough for it - only mentally strong people with an intact social network can endure the strains well.

Sense of guilt and „honeymoon effect“

Many of transplant patients experience an emotional rollercoaster: First they are scared to die through their illness or, in the case of missing extremities, to stay completely dependent upon others resulting in a social death. On the other hand, they fear the operation. On top of that a vague sense of guilt often arises because of the impression that someone else would have to die for one’s own sake – especially when the longing for a donator's organ becomes very strong. Also, waiting, sometimes for years, wears down. After transplantation the so-called honeymoon effect occurs: the patients are euphoric, experience some kind of a second birthday. But the feeling fades away, the fear of losing the new organ spreads. Patients begin to wonder about the unknown donator, feelings of guilt and a piece of grief over this person’s death may start.

Before affected persons are put on the waiting lists „a huge ‚Yes, I want!‘ has to be noticeable“, according to Storkebaum. „The people must still have future plans for their lives and have to be ready to co-operate.“ Those not showing a strong will cannot be added to the waiting lists. The danger is too great that the patient would be worse off after than before the surgery resulting into not taking the immunosuppressants and endangering themselves – more damage than benefit would be caused.

Anyhow, the new heart, kidney or arm does not necessarily have to become completely one’s self. „In fact, it is not an own body part, it is a foreign one. The patient may just as well speak that out loudly “, Storkebaum argues. For example, sometimes it can be of help to personify the organ with a touch of humour. Some of Albert's patients give their heart a name. And one of Storkebaum’s patients recently said: „I think my donator fancies a beer right now.“

[redraven]

Apologies everyone, memo to self, engage brain before engaging typing fingers and check notes instead of printing notes. Ah well, onward.......

Nov 25, 2008 11:31:51 GMT -1 Lee said:

Nov 24, 2008 15:49:07 GMT -1 redraven said:

Every functional protein in our body is made as a complementary image of an environmental signal. If a protein did not have a complementary signal to couple with, it would not function. This means that every protein in our bodies is a physical / electromagnetic complement to something in the environment. Because we are machines made out of protein, by definition we are made in the image of the environment, that environment being the universe.

the use of the word environment here is so vague and nebulous to be without meaning. it can mean different things in different contexts. by conflating them all together he takes a valid context and uses it in an invald way. he seems to be mixing up cause and effect. our body responds to the environment around us, that doesnt mean we are a representation of the environment.

The original piece was inferring that the cell's membrane was to be viewed as the "brain" of the cell because it is the part that interacts with the environment directly. Thus, some of the proteins created could be a result of this interaction, inferring that the number of self receptors could be influenced by environmental interaction. A big assumption to make.


I hadn't heard of the "self receptor cells" and his reasoning would seem to be common sense, but upon reflection I think he is guilty of making sweeping generalizations without sufficient evidence to back it up.

The idea of biological entities drawing identity from the environment is an interesting one, and the idea of each individual's biological makeup influencing what is drawn from the environment and the ramifications of this are an interesting development. Unfortunately, one that falls at the first hurdle with questionable science, which makes some of the later theories, however "sensible" they would at first appear, flawed at this time. I suspect we will hear more of this subject and I am convinced that the interaction that we experience when "connecting" to certain area's held important to us individually, are based, to a degree, upon our biological makeup. Though how that has come to be, is still, at this time, just out of reach.

RR

[maglowyllt]

I certainly wouldn't say this is a boring book but I just can't really seem to understand the science involved. Or maybe I just disagree with it. Perhaps the Monotheist point of view lessens the validity of it within Polytheist Belief? For example I have always beleived that Male and Female energies are complementary but opposite and yet here he claims that someones "receptors" may end up in someone of a different sex... hmm I really just don't know what that means actually. Could you perhaps provide a rough summary of what he actually means in this whole text?

[redraven]

Nov 26, 2008 14:39:44 GMT -1 @maglowyllt said:

I certainly wouldn't say this is a boring book but I just can't really seem to understand the science involved. Or maybe I just disagree with it. Perhaps the Monotheist point of view lessens the validity of it within Polytheist Belief? For example I have always beleived that Male and Female energies are complementary but opposite and yet here he claims that someones "receptors" may end up in someone of a different sex... hmm I really just don't know what that means actually. Could you perhaps provide a rough summary of what he actually means in this whole text?

Hello Maglowylit,
The subject matter has been quite intense so I will attempt to show, in plain English, what his premise is.
The guy was a cellular biologist originally and was employed by one of the US's major school's of medicine. He studied cell structure and in the 80's made some connections that show that the life of a cell has all the factors that we, as humans, exhibit as integral to life. Respiration, digestion, reproduction, and, controversially, selective intelligence. This selective intelligence was responsible for what proteins were created by the cells, the proteins being responsible for the formation of specialized cells.
His assertion is that the environment was the key factor to how the cells interpret the information needed to assign those special features to the new cells in a multicellular organism. The "environment" talked about here is the form of the fluids the cells find themselves in. His theory is that the cell wall is the "brain" of the cell, capable of adapting the cells behaviour dependant upon the environment it finds itself in. So, for example, if the cell is in an environment that is potentially toxic, the membrane determines what "qualities" new cells need to deal with this hostile environment.
He also maintains that cells get their information in 2 ways, chemically, as we have just shown, and electromagnetically, which is present in the atmosphere, the air and the physical environment.
So, in theory, the environment where you live has the potential to influence your cell generation through either of these two ways.
One set of cells he speculates that can be influenced are the self receptor cells. These cells are the genetic markers on the surface of cells that identify, biologically, what is "you". These cells have to be present in all your organs to identify you to your immune system, otherwise your defenses would attack your own organs and thus, you would die.
Everyone has their own "unique" number of self receptor cells, the greater number of self receptor cells indicate a more self conscious organism.
He has made a tenuous link that says the cells are influenced by the environment, the cells "download" information from the environment and that has an influence in your own "identity" creating your own unique self perception.
Thus, your unique biological make up receives specific information which is key into creating "you". Now, when you die, your body stops receiving information. But, because it is your cells that create who we are, if another fetus in the future, has exactly the same number of self receptors as you, then that fetus will start to download "you" from the environment, and you will be reincarnated into another body and live again. The question of what sex, race or creed you are in your new guise are meaningless, because they don't influence the number of self receptors present, the cells are creating them by "downloading" from the environment.
A rather long post I'm afraid, but that is as simple as I can make it at this time. Feel free to ask more questions if there still parts you don't understand.

RR

[maglowyllt]

Thanks RedRaven, I understandn his meaning now although it seems to be based on alot of guesswork. Is the theory widely accepted in his field?

[redraven]

His work comes under the title of epigenetics, which is a fascinating subject worthy of some study, especially when quantum physics are thrown into the mix, which his theory relies on heavily. It can be a little "heavy" for some, but I will continue to study it as I think it could show an example of how we relate to some landscapes and not others and, by default, how we connect to some Gods and not others.

RR

[Adam]

Nov 27, 2008 18:04:27 GMT -1 redraven said:

especially when quantum physics are thrown into the mix, which his theory relies on heavily.

Aaarrrggghhhhh!!

;D

[maglowyllt]

I think it could show an example of how we relate to some landscapes and not others and, by default, how we connect to some Gods and not others.

I hadn't thought of it in that context. Interesting.