• Benj96
    2.2k
    The body is a control machine. "Homeostasis" from homeo -" same, similar, equal" and stasis - "standing/stillness" is the ability to leverage adaptability and counteraction to maintain a strict and stable state throughout time. In other words, to stand still, stay neat, tidy and ordered in an everychanging/dynamic environment of constant flux and uncertainty that exerts change on that which wishes to be stable and unchanged.

    This is the negentropy of life. The retaliation against chaos. The preference for order.

    And thus, ageing is the slow and insidious process of unraveling, derangement of the bodies fine tuned and exacting systems. And so naturally, ageing comes with disorder, dysfunction and disease (increasing chaos) reflected by inflammation, autoimmunity, cancer, fever and wasting away. Dying.

    This order - the instructions for life, the great textbook of reference for how to organise matter (protein, fat carbs, minerals and vitamins as well as energy (body temperature and metabolism) into something stable begins with our DNA. DNA is like a the book of life. It has learned to write through experience (trial and error). And it is a book that is also the author of itself, at least partially. Editing itself, copying itself, translating itself as it sees "fit" to permit life to continue in multiple environmental conditions.

    In a metaphorical sense then, with DNA acting as memory, the text or storage of how to grow, develop, establish health and be youthful and vital, then ageing is like a process of "forgetting" the book. Ageing is a corruption of the text, the clear cohesive narrative that once was. The logic of the book is slowly replaced with delusion and word salad jargon (faulty or uncooperative genes). Ungrammatical. Poor syntax. And this leads to failure of communication between the body systems, accumulation of useless or waste products (like amyloid deposition and senescent cells - dormant useless cells) and general disharmony.

    Ageing is associated with loss of DNA, loss in translation, fragmentation and degradation of the instructions by the environment (mutagenic forces) as well as the actions of the self.

    So how, assuming this analogy, do we influence our DNA? How does one take control of the quality of their DNA and thus slow down ageing and deterioration?

    The mind and body are intractably connected. The mind can destroy the body (self harm, toxic habits, psychological stress and suicide). And the body can destroy the mind (failure to repair, maintain or protect the nervous system for example organic diseases like dementia, alzheimers etc).

    Thus logically, it stands to reason that the body can also repair the mind and vice versa: the mind can also repair the body (placebo effect, mental resilience/positive outlook, proactive health behaviours/beliefs, stress relief etc). And this is reflected in behaviours from the mind towards it's body: exercise, quitting toxic habits, eating healthy diets, managing stress, sleep hygiene.

    There is a direct link between the mind and DNA. They are not in total isolation from one another. How could they be? They are at the opposite ends of the spectrum of the mind body axis. But there is 2 way communication. And 2 way influence. This is known as epigenetics, how behaviors influence the expression and activity of certain genes.

    DNA has 2 genes of fundamental importance to it's longevity, stability and quality. Telomerase genes and DNA polymerase genes.

    Telomerase genes promote lengthening of the protective cap at the end of DNA to prevent it from shortening and deleting or corrupting vital genes. Polymerases repair mistakes in DNA, they are corrective. They undo spontaneous mutations by cutting out the defect and re-writing the correct one using the opposite strand as a guide.

    If the mind can exert positive epigenetic pressure via behaviour to promote the actvitiy of these genes, then the mind exerts a protective and reparative force on DNA. And thus slows ageing.

    But the mind can only do this if it is ordered/organised itself. A disordered nervous system cannot control nor influence it's body. It is impotent. Disordered minds do not confer good harmonious governance over their body.

    So in conclusion contemplation and will is the answer. Contemplation of the mind-body axis. Self-reflection. Contemplation of diet, of toxic habits and self harm, of order and disorder, of stress and it's causes (guilt, shame, anxiety, expectations, jealousy, anger etc). And of course the will to change how the mind behaves through what it believes.

    The mind cannot indulge in immediate mental pleasures and instant gratification at the expense of the body. At least not always. (binge eating, anorexia etc are such conditions where the mind denies the bodies it's rights in favour of mental gratification based on beliefs). The mind must contemplate it's authority, it's control, and concede to doing what is right by the body even if it isn't immediately satisfying.

    This is how the mind protects DNA. And how DNA protects the order that confers a healthy mind.

    Ageing is at the very least, partially prevented by the mind. The "fountain of youth" so to speak, has its waters running through the mind.
  • T Clark
    13k
    If the mind can exert positive epigenetic pressure via behaviour to promote the actvitiy of these genes, then the mind exerts a protective and reparative force on DNA.Benj96

    Do you have any references that provide data to justify this claim? I can believe that changes in behavior will improve health and help let us live longer. Unless you have evidence, I am skeptical that it can change our DNA.
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    Do you have any references that provide data to justify this claim? I can believe that changes in behavior will improve health and help let us live longer. Unless you have evidence, I am skeptical that it can change our DNA.T Clark

    Smoke for 40 years. It will change your DNA. Cancer doesn't appear randomly. It arises from genetic mutation.

    That is my evidence. It is well established medical fact. If you want me to reference articles that promote the idea that carcinogens exist (mutation inducing substances or even behaviours like smoking that introduce such substances to the body exist) I can. Though I don't believe this is neccesary as I would imagine it's common knowledge at this stage, and knowledge you can easily find for yourself.

    Ask your doctor if smoking is bad for your DNA.

    As for the mind exerting positive epigenetic pressure on the quality of DNA, it is the opposite of exerting negative epigenetic pressure on the quality of DNA (ie consuming carcinogens) - substances that destabilise and corrupt (mutate) DNA. Like cigarette smoke.
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    excellent reference unenlightened. Bravo/a.

    Psychological stress and trauma leads to impairment/disbalance of the mind-body axis and thus exerts negative epigenetic pressure on DNA, through "top-down" cascading dysfunction.

    The mind exerts natural selective forces towards which genes are more active (thriving and surviving) or less active (silenced or "functionally dead" or "genome extinct" ).

    If the minds effects on body promotes genes that when hyperactive encourage cancer or autoimmunity, then such mental pressures are sure to reduce ones lifespan. Or accelerate ageing.
  • T Clark
    13k


    Yes, I agree. There is evidence to show that smoking causes cancer.
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    Yes, I agree. There is evidence to show that smoking causes cancer.T Clark

    Good. Then we are on to something here. This is merely the holistic approach to human health and longevity.

    To be holistic means acknowledging that all aspects of the person in entirety - including their psychology/mind - are players in the role of survival and thriving, youthfulness and health.

    To ignore the minds role in health is deferring all personal responsibility for how fast you age and deteriorate.

    We must align ourselves mentally with a deep and comprehensive understanding of DNA and how it works.

    Because DNA is the blueprint for the laws of mother nature. It "knows" much more than we do because DNA has been around for far longer than any singular individual, it is shaped, formed, reformulated but the environment - nature and it's laws. It is a teaching of the ecosystem towards the niches and becoming of any species within a niche in the ecosystem.

    DNA "lives" intergenerationally. Education on nature imbedded within and passed on between organisms - from parent to offspring for eons.

    It "understands" the art of living by the very fact that it continues to propagate amongst us, to sustain us.

    This archaic text ought to be read first before it is re-written/amended. Rather than ignored and rewritten on a whim. We invariably re-write it through our actions, desires and behaviors.

    So we must contemplate our actions and their effects on it if we stand any chance at avoiding corrupting the text of our constitution as healthy organisms.

    Ageing is the cumulative effects of our imperfections in life. Ageing is the product of our illiteracy regarding the primary language of life. Ageing is a dissonance between the knowledge held/stored in DNA and "subjective knowledge or beliefs" held by the mind that "thinks it knows" what nature is, and thus what is tolerable/acceptable to nature's design. Ignoring such is to our detriment.
  • T Clark
    13k
    The claim in the OP isn't that behavior can cause damaging genetic changes that cause disease. It is that human behavior can cause positive genetic changes that will increase life expectancy. It mostly talks about the general affects of ageing not genetic causes of disease. It also claims "...there is a direct link between the mind and DNA."
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    The claim in the OP isn't that behavior can cause damaging genetic changes that cause diseaseT Clark

    Yes it is as claim to such. Toxic behaviours do cause damage. As we established.

    Yes, I agree. There is evidence to show that smoking causes cancer.T Clark

    It then highlights the opposite, that healthy behaviors promote genetic repair and stability.

    . It mostly talks about the general affects of ageing not genetic causes of diseaseT Clark

    Of course People are born with genetic diseases out of their control. That's because DNA operates on a longer timescale than individual existence. It is intergenerational.

    So the cumulative mistakes of one's past ancestors - their behaviour and their environment, influences the health and lifespan of their descendents.

    What you do in life today, your behaviors, will positively or negatively impact your descendents birth, health/ quality of life and lifespan.

    Because the harm one causes to their own DNA may never impact them specifically if the effects are felt only by the cells that produce sperm and eggs. Ie. "germline DNA" - that which you pass to your children.

    So we have an obligation to lead a healthy life not only for ourselves but for our future descendents.

    It also claims "...there is a direct link between the mind and DNA."T Clark

    Yes it does. Because there is. DNA exists within a body. A mind also exists within the same body. It's not like genetic diseases dont impact on the mind (mental disability caused by downs syndrome for example).
  • L'éléphant
    1.4k
    This is how the mind protects DNA. And how DNA protects the order that confers a healthy mind.Benj96
    Metaphorically, yes. Not the way you think it works. All life has a cycle. A wild tree with fruits has no stress or disorder or mind to direct it. But its fruits, too, will rot at the completion of the cycle.

    The claim in the OP isn't that behavior can cause damaging genetic changes that cause disease. It is that human behavior can cause positive genetic changes that will increase life expectancy. It mostly talks about the general affects of ageing not genetic causes of disease. It also claims "...there is a direct link between the mind and DNA."T Clark
    True, there are mitigating factors that can increase the average life expectancy. There was another thread in the forum that talked about lifespan. Advances in medicine and human conditions contributed to an increase in life expectancy. I mentioned that improving the quality of drinking water alone had contributed a lot to the well being of people.
  • T Clark
    13k


    I don't think I'm providing any positive contribution to this thread, so I'll bow out.
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    A wild tree with fruits has no stressL'éléphant

    According to who? Trees undergo stress like we do. The stressors may not be the same. But a tree can experience detriment to it's growth and reproductive potential.

    As far as I know trees can be traumatised by the environment or infected with disease. These are stressors that negatively impact their DNA.

    DNA is concerned with survival. Stability. Anything chaotic, stressful or traumatic has an impact on it. All lifeforms experience "stress" otherwise natural skeevtion would not work. Are you saying that darwinian evolution is only relevant to some loving things? That trees are without any selective pressures on their evolution?
  • L'éléphant
    1.4k
    According to who? Trees undergo stress like we do. The stressors may not be the same. But a tree can experience detriment to it's growth potential.Benj96
    I was expecting you would say this. In that case, we're not talking about the same stress as human stress. It becomes, all conditions are stressors. Which moots your point.
  • wonderer1
    1.7k
    I don't think I'm providing any positive contribution to this thread, so I'll bow out.


    FWIW, I find pseudoscience debunking to be providing a positive contribution.
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    It becomes, all conditions are stressors. Which moots your point.L'éléphant

    No it doesn't haha. Good conditions. Ripe conditions, are not stressful. Such conditions foster life.

    Just as the conditions of 23 degrees, adequate water, humidity and soil are the "non-stressful" or nurturing conditions for seeds to germinate.

    If all conditions were inherently stressors, then life would not exist because it would be stressed into oblivion.

    Mother nature is equal parts fostering/constrictive/nurturing and destructive/stressful/deadly.
  • L'éléphant
    1.4k
    If all conditions were inherently stressors, then life would not exist because it would be stressed into oblivion.Benj96
    Therefore, there are living things that aren't stressed out like some humans are stressed out.
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    FWIW, I find pseudoscience debunking to be providing a positive contributionwonderer1

    For you to establish anything as definitively "pseudoscience" that requires you to be the ultimate and unquestionable "scientist." Knowing all and everything that could possibly be considered scientific.

    That's a ballsy stance to take. And one I'm all to happy to challenge.
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    Therefore, there are living things that aren't stressed out like some humans are stressed out.L'éléphant

    Yes. Other living things are stressed by other factors that apply to their life cycle/ nature and don't apply to ours. Bacteria are stressed by the presence of antibiotics. Humans are not or far less stressed by the presence of antibiotics.

    What of it?

    Different lifeforms... Different life stressors. Simple.

    Trees are stressed out by soil conditions. Humans are not stressed by the conditions of the soil they're walking on. However humans may be stressed if all soil conditions everywhere were bad, because we rely on eating plants that depend on them. All stressors indirectly influence the stressors of other lifeforms. That is ecosystem. Symbiosis
  • L'éléphant
    1.4k
    Bacteria are stressed by the presence antibiotics. Humans are not or far less stressed by the presence of antibiotics.Benj96
    That's what you think. Those who take antibiotics are slowly killing themselves. When you take antibiotics, you're not letting the natural processes of your body to do its job. Have some faith in the process -- let your body do its thing.

    Caveat: long-term, habitual users of anti-biotics are harming themselves.

    apkkyBenj96
    Define this word please.
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    Those who take antibiotics are slowly killing themselves.L'éléphant

    Those that take don't take antibiotics kill themselves faster.

    I feel you're either trolling or just desperate for some validity.

    When you next get a severe case of tonsillitis, you can wrestle on your own with infection and possibly die of sepsis, or you can take a pill and feel better in 48 hrs. That's up to you altho I wouldn't recommend relying just on faith in your body to overcome the invader.
  • L'éléphant
    1.4k
    Those that take don't take antibiotics kill themselves faster.Benj96

    I agree. And those who are dependent on anti-biotics are also killing themselves.

    Note that everything is about dosage -- we can drink poison in a very minute amount and not die of it.
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    Define this word pleaseL'éléphant

    Ah I see we are devolving to the petty. It was a typo. "apply" was the word I meant to write. Take your trolling elsewhere as its vindictive and malicious for the sake of it. I assume you're intelligent enough to figure out a typo. If you're not... Well then, I can only offer pity.

    I don't, however, understand where such pedantic trolling comes from. What issue do you have with what I say that leads you to reduce yourself to that?

    I'm happy to move on if you are.
  • L'éléphant
    1.4k
    A petty squabble about a word that I've never seen before and from which I could not discern the usage which makes me the responsible party for my not understanding what that word was?

    I have no time to correct your disorder. I respond exactly to what you type in this thread. And if I don't understand what you're saying, I can ask you to clarify. That's not an insult.
  • wonderer1
    1.7k
    For you to establish anything as definitively "pseudoscience" that requires you to be the ultimate and unquestionable "scientist." Knowing all and everything that could possibly be considered scientific.

    No, that's a ridiculous criteria which would make it impossible for anyone to point out pseudoscience.
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    And if I don't understand what you're saying, I can ask you to clarify. That's not an insult.L'éléphant

    Alright. It wAs mEaNT tO SAy "Apply". Glad we clarified. I'll be more sure to write with exacting precision in future in case you mis-interpret something like "commmon sense" for "common sense".
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    No, that's a ridiculous criteria which would make it impossible for anyone to point out pseudoscience.wonderer1

    Science is actually about articulating a rational explanation to counter someone's views rather than saying "that's just pseudoscience" with zero backing.

    One operates off rational thought, logical coherent constructions, the other off personal bias/determination.

    I'm all ears for a cohesive reasoning as to why it's pseudoscience. I'm not all ears however for unsupported determinations of pseudoscientifism.

    So, I'm waiting for your actual critique on what I said.
  • T Clark
    13k
    I find pseudoscience debunking to be providing a positive contribution.wonderer1

    When this kind of thing comes up in a thread, I generally make my case once or twice and then bow out. I don't see any reason to disrupt the conversation. Please don't take that as criticism of you.
  • wonderer1
    1.7k
    Science is actually about articulating a rational explanation to counter someone's views rather than saying "that's just pseudoscience".


    Let's look at a definition of science. The first one to pop up as a result of my Google search was from The Science Council:

    Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
    Scientific methodology includes the following:

    Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
    Evidence
    Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
    Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
    Repetition
    Critical analysis
    Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment

    Note that only the last item in the list involves "articulating a rational explanation" and there can be a whole lot of doing science apart from "articulating a rational explanation". And as scientific articulation goes, sometimes doing science is saying "Bullshit!" at the back of the crowd listening to the snake oil salesman.

    One operates off rational thought, the other off personal bias.


    False dichotomy.

    I'm all ears for a cohesive reasoning as to why it's pseudoscience. I'm not all ears however for unsupported determinations of pseudoscientifism.


    It is pseudoscience becauses it is a grossly simplistic gloss over an enormously complex set of processes which is apt to lead uninformed people to false impressions about scientific understanding.

    If you want to have better scientific understanding, you will need to look into sciences more deeply.
  • wonderer1
    1.7k
    When this kind of thing comes up in a thread, I generally make my case once or twice and then bow out. I don't see any reason to disrupt the conversation. Please don't take that as criticism of you.


    I can't say that I don't recognize the wisdom in that, but sometimes I am not so wise. :wink:
  • T Clark
    13k
    sometimes I am not so wise.wonderer1

    Often I am not so wise.
  • 180 Proof
    14.1k
    Local "negentropy" only increases global entropy. "Mind" is an effect – recursive output – of a complexity which cannot decrease (re: dissipative structure). Given that cell senescence limits replication damage and slows the development of cancers which adaptively benefits an organism, birth, as they say, is the fundamental cause of death. One day, however, technosciences – products of "mind" – might provide some means to extend self-continuous brain functioning ("I, me, mine") to a nonbiological substrate in order to escape the rapid cell senescence of somatic biology. Until then, Benj, biological aging decay death is constitutively a priori (R. Brassier) and therefore mind-invariant.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.