Thread: The Web That Weaves (Itself)

First, a little background: The idea first occurred to me many years ago while I was reading Charlottes Web (a wonderful book, by the way), and has since left a great impression on me.

At one point in the story, Charlotte (a spider, of course) tells her friend Wilbur (a piglet) that she will be "going away" (eg: die) soon, and then asks him to safely transport her "Magnum Opus" back to her web. A few days later, Wilbur discovers that the "cargo" was actually Charlottes offspring. In due time, each of the little hatchlings build themself a "wind-riding" net, bid their farewells, and depart (save for a few that stay behind to keep Wilbur company).

What struck me was the fact that the spiders were simply born "knowing" how to spin a web. It just seemed impossible. Where is this knowledge stored? How is it transferred from generation to generation? As I grew older and learned about biological processes, reproduction, etc, the mystery only became more and more puzzling to me. None of these provided much insight into what mechanism(s) might be involved.

Some people I've discussed the idea with have said that the information must be stored in the DNA, or as a complex chemical process, or some other combination of "known" physical processes. Yet, I am convinced that the principle must be rooted in something much more fundamental, if incalculable.

Now, the irony: Recently, I was doing some geneological research and happened upon a paper written by my great-great-great grandfather (direct paternal) over one hundred years ago. Titled "Maternal Impressions", it discusses the possibility of the transmission of thought during pregnancy! As evidence, he describes several peculiar cases that he observed first-hand, as well as numerous accounts from others. He draws no real conclusions, though, but it is nontheless interesting that he chose that particular subject. Strange indeed, I thought, that we should both be so fascinated by this mysterious phenomena! A case of "paternal impressions", perhaps?

Incidentally, over time I have begun to believe that this very "force" (or "field") may even be the answer to the riddle of quantum mechanics; Instead of assuming a truly "random" universe where "reality" emanates from "collapsing wave-functions", we propose that volition itself is the root of the uncertainty, and that it also obeys the Maxwell-Boltzmann probability distribution. Due to it's instrinsic nature, it's precise (deterministic) calculation also cannot be performed, and thus it is completely compatible with quantum mechanics! In fact, if this is true then the obvious conclusion is that randomness and determinism are really just a duality; both are equally valid and can be appropriately chosen by convention (as with the particle/wave duality). Moreover, it allows us to finally reconcile physics with "force of will", as we no longer have to "pretend" that conciousness plays no role in physical interaction. Best of all, the argument of God vs. Science is no longer an issue; Since volition is recognized as a first-class physical principle, we can leave it up to the religous astute (as well as the fanatics) to debate amongst themselves the implications!

Anyway, I think the volition field would be a most plausible medium (with physical basis) for information such as intuition, knowledge, and understanding to "flow" through (even if it helps little to grasp the underlying mechanisms), providing a possible explanation of how things such as "impressions" might be transmitted from ancestor to ancestor.

I could be way off, of course.

Yeah I don't know what storage instinct takes up, but I seem to remember that psychology sort of had an answer, as how some of our natural behaviors as humans are like that of animals. We all share an instict to find and protect a specific habitat.

I don't find anything odd about DNA that can make a central nervous system also being capable of making one with instinctual knowledge.... maybe the brains of living things execute first boot programs to learn it

God

I will actually refrain from discussing religious aspects of this (because I know how heated religious discussions can get on this board).

In fact, I invite that discussion here. I'd like to know what some religious opinions might be about this.

Yeah I don't know what storage instinct takes up, but I seem to remember that psychology sort of had an answer, as how some of our natural behaviors as humans are like that of animals. We all share an instict to find and protect a specific habitat.

A few years ago, a friend of mine convinced me to take in a puppy she'd adopted a puppy from a shelter (some friend!), as she was moving out of state. It was an Australian Blue Heeler. Well, at the time I had a very small yard, and this turned out to be a very bad thing, actually - apparently, it wasn't nearly enough room for the new dog. He would literally *race* along the length of the fence, round and round for hours on end! Besides that, he was hyperactive to the extreme, and would often 'nip' at people, for no apparent reason. Well, long story short, he eventually escaped by leaping the fence (which was 6 foot high!).

Then one day I was watching a show on PBS which featured a story on Blue Heelers. Interestingly, they showed that you could take a young dog that had never been exposed to sheep/cattle, and they would *immediately* start 'herding'. Just by instinct. I even recognized the similarity between the demeanor, stance, and incredible running style of these dogs and the one that I had briefly owned.

How much information would that represent, anyway? Well, consider this: The DNA sequence of a dog is roughly 3 billion base pairs. Since each of these can assume one of four values, this amounts to two bits per base. So in total, about 700 MB of data. Considering the complexity involved in building just the physical configuration of a multicellular organism, that probably doesn't leave too much room for things such as "chase sheep" or "run like the devil", does it?

Incidentally, I just realized a very 'simple' experiment that could be used to determine whether or not the information is stored in the DNA: Sequence the genome for a particular creature. Reconstruct the DNA sequence mechanically and grow the gamete in a test tube. Observe behavior.

The only restriction would be that you wouldn't be allowed to use any organic materials derived from that particular creature (to ensure a 'clean' result), which of course means you'd have make an artificial womb. That may be prohibitive for many creatures, but I would think that for something like a spider, this wouldn't be extremely difficult (I could be wrong, though).

Neat. I've don't think I've heard of the idea of instinctual knowledge being passed on like that before. It's an intriguing idea. But I doubt it really is that way, I mean think about it, how would that work for birds? The chick's brain doesn't even to start develop until after it's long left the mother.

I think instinct is stored in the DNA. You mention how a dog's DNA is the equivalent of about 700 MiB, but that really doesn't mean much, it really is comparing apples with oranges. I agree that we know very little of what there is to know. I also think that quite a bit of what "we know" is no more than a desperate attempt at trying to explain the unknown.

Unless you were to think that the god gives animals and/or people their instincts in a supernatural manner (which I don't), one's theistic views probably don't matter much.

I'm not sure exactly where, but I remember in the past learning about such terms as "cell memory" which essentially means the coded instructions necessary for autonomous operation. In a sense, we are filled by baby web-weaving spiders which where born with all the necessary knowledge on how to go about their business.

Individually cells may not do much, but if we think at the animal scale with millions, billions, trillions of cells, things may start to shape up. Especially if we think of the cells in the animal's brain which were born from their mother and father DNA; a strand that has been specializing, shaping up and perfecting itself over the last millions of years. And today much more capable and producing bug-free and efficient coded instructions than in the past.

The question is thus... can "cell memory" at the grand scale of trillions of individuals be the source of Charllote babies knowledge?

Very good point, and yes, that is the ultimate question. If it is, then the implications are that some impressive compression principles are being applied to the DNA to achieve so much in so little space.

It's an intriguing idea. But I doubt it really is that way, I mean think about it, how would that work for birds? The chick's brain doesn't even to start develop until after it's long left the mother.

Well, the hardest part is explaining the 'how', and I'm not sure there's an easy answer (given the semi-existential nature of my theory). On the other hand, if an experiment such as the one that I proposed earlier were conducted, it would at least allow one to definitively determine if, in fact, it originates from within the DNA or elsewhere (whatever that may turn out to be).

Unless you were to think that the god gives animals and/or people their instincts in a supernatural manner (which I don't), one's theistic views probably don't matter much.

The thing is, though, I see nothing supernatural about it. If there is in fact a 'volition field', as understood as a physical principle, then it would be reasonable to think that it may be capable of transmitting information. Indeed, if anyone doubts that it exists then I would ask them to examine and answer the following simple questions:

1) Who is experiencing at this very moment?
2) Who else experiences things?
3) What does not experiences things?

Here are some typical responses, along with possible comments:

1) I am.
- Correct. There is no doubt that conciousness exists, because I can verify that it is occuring right now.
2) Other people, animals, and possibly plants.
- Correct. I realize that this state is not unique to me, because I observe it in others.
3) Everything other than #2.
- Yet everything in #2 is composed of atoms, so it follows then that it must simply be a configuration of atoms that gives rise to cognition. If this is the case, then if the exact configuration of my body even momentarily (eg: randomly) aligned, say, within the center of the sun, then cognition would necessarily arise per force therein. Thus, the distinction between 'animate' and 'inanimate' may merely be an illusion. Indeed, it may in fact be the case that this force of cognition, or volition, is simply a property of energy itself.

If cognition is not universal then I would argue that this actually creates bigger dilemma, as we are forced to explain why it is unique for the general case. In a sense, I think this is similar to the geocentric wordview of the last millenia. To wonder that the earth is not the center of the universe actually makes more sense than otherwise, but it was frankly a difficult thing to accept (especially given certain interpretations of Biblical text). [Interesting Trivia: Giordano Bruno was the first person to go on the record to suggest that not only was heliocentricism true (with respect to the Earth), but that the stars did not orbit the sun (it was just a star itself), and that many stars harbored life-bearing planets! He was burned at the stake in 1600.]

Your ancestor was either a crackpot or very imaginative, probably both.

Actually, he was a 3rd-generation physician and a surgeon (a rare thing in the mid-19th century) with over 30 years of experience at the time he wrote the article. That said, you might say that eccentricity runs in the family, so I won't argue with the 'imaginative' label.

According to his account, though, only 20 out 2000 of the obstetrical cases he had attended to were notable, and of these only 2 were significant. One case involved a woman who, during delivery asked if the child was deformed. He asked why she thought that it might be and she indicated that during the pregnancy she had obsessed over the sight of her neighbor's amputated arm. Coincidentally, the child was in fact missing a forearm!

Besides his personal accounts, he relates the anecdotes of other physicians with similar experiences. As I said before, though, he doesn't really speculate about the cause of the phenomena, nor does he insist that it even exists, although he does suggest that the matter warrants further examination/consideration.

Instincts are encoded in DNA, they arise due to genetically determined neural pathways. A great deal of human knowledge is instinctual, such as how to use your eyes to see.

Right, well that may indeed be the case, but again, given the limited bandwidth alloted to the DNA molecule, it does beg the question. I mean, the human genome is only around 750 MB. Granted, it's had plenty of time to work out an efficient system, but that's still cutting it pretty close. Hell, the OS I'm running now is like 3 GB (not to mention add-ons).

It's not some magical field that transmits thought.

But that's exactly my point. That "magical field" that we call conciousness is quite real. If it has no physical basis, then how is it "attached" to the atoms in your body? No matter what you do or where you go, it is always there. It's inexhaustible, if you think about it.

Originally Posted by hk_mp5kpdw

Genetic Memory

Except, all of these merely gloss over the subject and make very vague gestures in the direction of DNA, without revealing much insight. To be sure, I sort of straddle the fence here, because although I'd like to believe that ancestral impressions are related to my theory of the 'volition field', I also recognize that DNA may actually be the carrier. Fact is, if it (the genome) was significantly longer, I would find it a lot more plausible, but as it is, there's a fair chance that there just aren't enough 'bits' to encode everything.