MEME STORAGE IN DNA
A LANGUAGE IN DNA IN ADDITION TO PROTEIN
CODING:
The DNA code for
instructing cellular mechanisms in building complex proteins has been
well known for decades. The arrangement of this code in the chromosomes
is also known. Simply stated, the code for each complex protein or
enzyme is stored in its own segment of DNA called a gene. Scientists
have revealed much of the mechanisms used to regulate gene expression,
and they have a good grasp of how genes transfer units of genetic
information to the next generation, as with dominant and recessive
traits.
The problem scientists have not answered—nor seemingly not even started to address—is how instructions for controlling the mechanisms of life are stored in DNA. Sequences of codons comprising three nucleotide bases indicate specific strings of one of 20 amino acids. But, these proteins, usually comprising hundreds of amino acids and folding into complex functional units, are merely the mechanisms of life. What instructs these machines, these marvelous nanotech units, which are each responsible for a single chemical reaction or single cellular molecular function? Setting aside the problem of how a collection of enzymes and molecular machines could create the specific and complex forms of a body, one must ask how instincts that control the brain—that induce the body to take certain instinctual actions—are passed from one generation to the next.
Inherited instincts must be stored in DNA because DNA is the only storage medium involved in the transfer of information to the next generation. I refuse to believe that the construction of enzyme and molecular level machines alone can generate instinctive behavior. Given that approximately only 3% of the DNA of the human genome codes for amino acids, the other 97%, called introns, should be used in part for storing behavior instructions. I can’t imagine that blueprints for building a computer such as the brain would be stored digitally while excluding software to run it. Nature is efficient, so it seems strange that nature goes to great lengths to make and preserve exact copies of DNA yet have so much of it unused. I propose intron DNA harbors some type of language.
A meme is an idea or a unit of thought. This essay is a (large) meme as is each sentence and each word. A word is not an actual meme but the representation of one. A meme is not tangible in the same way computer software is not tangible, and memes can be thought of as units of software, programming or instructions for inducing action or thought. Humans transfer memes everyday by conversation, books, mass media, the internet and any other way we convey ideas. By coming in contact with a meme, one’s thought process, and therefore oneself, is usually changed in some (usually slight) way. Ethologists use the term "fixed action pattern," which well defines a meme of instinctive behavior. Some memetists, such as Susan Blackmore in The Meme Machine [1], have a more precise definition, such as a meme must be transferred by imitation. For purposes of this essay, I employ the broad concept of a meme. Although mine is not the normal use of the word, the word meme was coined by Richard Dawkins [2] to correspond to the gene concept, so use of the word to represent thought stored in DNA seems appropriate.
The problem scientists have not answered—nor seemingly not even started to address—is how instructions for controlling the mechanisms of life are stored in DNA. Sequences of codons comprising three nucleotide bases indicate specific strings of one of 20 amino acids. But, these proteins, usually comprising hundreds of amino acids and folding into complex functional units, are merely the mechanisms of life. What instructs these machines, these marvelous nanotech units, which are each responsible for a single chemical reaction or single cellular molecular function? Setting aside the problem of how a collection of enzymes and molecular machines could create the specific and complex forms of a body, one must ask how instincts that control the brain—that induce the body to take certain instinctual actions—are passed from one generation to the next.
Inherited instincts must be stored in DNA because DNA is the only storage medium involved in the transfer of information to the next generation. I refuse to believe that the construction of enzyme and molecular level machines alone can generate instinctive behavior. Given that approximately only 3% of the DNA of the human genome codes for amino acids, the other 97%, called introns, should be used in part for storing behavior instructions. I can’t imagine that blueprints for building a computer such as the brain would be stored digitally while excluding software to run it. Nature is efficient, so it seems strange that nature goes to great lengths to make and preserve exact copies of DNA yet have so much of it unused. I propose intron DNA harbors some type of language.
A meme is an idea or a unit of thought. This essay is a (large) meme as is each sentence and each word. A word is not an actual meme but the representation of one. A meme is not tangible in the same way computer software is not tangible, and memes can be thought of as units of software, programming or instructions for inducing action or thought. Humans transfer memes everyday by conversation, books, mass media, the internet and any other way we convey ideas. By coming in contact with a meme, one’s thought process, and therefore oneself, is usually changed in some (usually slight) way. Ethologists use the term "fixed action pattern," which well defines a meme of instinctive behavior. Some memetists, such as Susan Blackmore in The Meme Machine [1], have a more precise definition, such as a meme must be transferred by imitation. For purposes of this essay, I employ the broad concept of a meme. Although mine is not the normal use of the word, the word meme was coined by Richard Dawkins [2] to correspond to the gene concept, so use of the word to represent thought stored in DNA seems appropriate.
THE GAPING HOLE IN CURRENT THEORY:
A textbook
example of a complex inherited instinct is a certain spider that spins
an egg
cocoon in exactly the same way every time using thousands of movements.
The spider will do the whole sequence of steps from start to finish in
exactly the same way every time despite experience, being moved to a
new location, previous partial cocoon completion or running out of
silk. [3] The mother spider does not raise her
young, which eliminates passing down any action patterns by rearing or
example. This whole cocoon building and egg laying behavior pattern is
probably stored as a single meme.
Other studies show the hybridization of memes. Separate studies of complicated instinctive procedures such as nest building and mating rituals of certain birds show that mating slightly different species together will produce overall (non-working) actions that combine instinctive elements from both parents. [3] These and other behavior hybridization studies suggest memes are stored like genes.
Because the raising and socialization of offspring passes down many memes, especially in humans, confusion can arise when attempting to figure out an exact mechanism for specific meme inheritance. But while something like expression of sexuality is highly influenced by society, my sex drive for healthy looking members of the opposite sex is innate.
Neurobiology and related fields explain much about how life works, but professional researchers in these fields ignore questions of how instincts arise and are stored. If scientists do propose theories, they can do nothing except handwave and make jumps in assumptions by going from little molecules in the body to why most men are attracted to women's breasts. How could molecules possibly make me think about an abstract concept as breasts?
These holes in neurobiology are large enough to warrant exploring other ideas beyond purely molecular mechanisms. As Thomas Kuhn contends in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [4], the holes in the current theory lead to the next more complete theory. Sometimes a scientific theory has worked so well for so long that it is hard to see anything else. As with gaps in many scientific theories that are strong in certain areas, the holes in neurobiology are trivialized rather than addressed in a creative fashion.
Having DNA introns function as memes helps answer another question; how do we humans differ so much from other species while almost all the protein coding regions of our DNA are virtually identical to those of other species? When the Human Genome Project finished mapping the human genome, even the project's leaders claimed it raised significant questions.
A San Francisco Chronicle article [5] states:
Other studies show the hybridization of memes. Separate studies of complicated instinctive procedures such as nest building and mating rituals of certain birds show that mating slightly different species together will produce overall (non-working) actions that combine instinctive elements from both parents. [3] These and other behavior hybridization studies suggest memes are stored like genes.
Because the raising and socialization of offspring passes down many memes, especially in humans, confusion can arise when attempting to figure out an exact mechanism for specific meme inheritance. But while something like expression of sexuality is highly influenced by society, my sex drive for healthy looking members of the opposite sex is innate.
Neurobiology and related fields explain much about how life works, but professional researchers in these fields ignore questions of how instincts arise and are stored. If scientists do propose theories, they can do nothing except handwave and make jumps in assumptions by going from little molecules in the body to why most men are attracted to women's breasts. How could molecules possibly make me think about an abstract concept as breasts?
These holes in neurobiology are large enough to warrant exploring other ideas beyond purely molecular mechanisms. As Thomas Kuhn contends in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [4], the holes in the current theory lead to the next more complete theory. Sometimes a scientific theory has worked so well for so long that it is hard to see anything else. As with gaps in many scientific theories that are strong in certain areas, the holes in neurobiology are trivialized rather than addressed in a creative fashion.
Having DNA introns function as memes helps answer another question; how do we humans differ so much from other species while almost all the protein coding regions of our DNA are virtually identical to those of other species? When the Human Genome Project finished mapping the human genome, even the project's leaders claimed it raised significant questions.
A San Francisco Chronicle article [5] states:
"We have only 300 unique genes in the human (genome) that are not in the mouse," said Craig Venter, president of Celera Genomics, the Maryland firm that led one of the mapping teams. "This tells me genes can't possibly explain all of what makes us what we are." ...
Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a scientific leader of the Human Genome Project, sounded awestruck as he summarized the article he and his scientific allies published in Nature. "I think the junk is the biggest surprise in the genome," Lander said. Less than 1.5 percent of the genome seems to code for proteins, Lander said.
COMPUTER MODEL OF LIFE:
One way to visualize
the workings of the brain is picturing the brain as computer
hardware and the mind as software. Mind
may be a cloudy term, but the
concept of software persists, whether or not we can put a finger on
what thought actually is.
Considering how much our thoughts and the words of others control our
actions, it seems obvious that a brain functions as a computer running
software and interfacing with its body. The meme concept has been good
at getting people to see normal memes as working similar to computer
software viruses that infect people causing them to do something that
they would not normally do. (Some parasites can infect animals and
alter the animal's behavior, which may be excellent places to research
DNA encoded memes.)
Since neurobiology tends to only concern itself with the hardware, with continually elucidating molecular mechanisms, it does not look for software. Scientists blinded by all the amazing workings of cells and neurons downplay or dismiss any consideration of software. Ira Black argues in Information and the Brain: A Molecular Perspective [6] that no software exists. When something is learned neurons change and make new connections to represent the new concept. Obviously, our brains function as dynamic neural networks. And, hormones, neurotransmitters and other molecules function as triggers or messengers. Yet, when your boss or spouse tells you to do something, this command represents a high level function that cannot be represented merely by molecules coursing through your body, and a neural network could not reorganize itself nor respond properly to every type of command.
How can a brain, arguably more powerful than any human built computer, not use software? The power of our Information Age comes from software (and the hardware to run it) not mechanical machines, which powered the Industrial Age. I would agree that prokaryotes—single celled organisms lacking both cell nuclei and introns in their genomes—may not use software, just as humans got along for most of history without programmable computers. But, once tasks became sufficiently complex and variable, computers become necessary.
A major problem when dissecting the brain to figure out how it works is that one only finds the hardware. Software is invisible. If someone tries to take apart and analyze a strange unknown type of computer, they are only going to find hardware. They could see transistor junctions and electrical connections, and they can observe high level actions of the whole system, but the software will not be found.
The person attempting to comprehend this hypothetical computer could try to reverse engineer the software commands by decoding the complex organization of circuits. However, the easier way is to look for how and where the software is stored and deduce the instruction set from that. If someone wanted to figure out what makes the computer you are using to read this essay work, they would analyze the contents of your hard drive (or these days, perhaps, your device's "flash" memory) rather than disassemble the microprocessor.
Looking at the rawest data on the hard drive, one first finds that the data stores as a binary code, which we normally represent as 0s and 1s and call bits. At the next level (avoiding for now the intermediary level of checksums and error correcting codes) one finds the binary code organized into eight bit segments we call bytes. One byte represents a decimal number from 0 to 255. One might get stuck at this point and try to analyze the code with linguistic analysis. Assuming a knowledge of English, this investigator would eventually stumble upon a mapping of certain bytes to particular English letters.
This byte to character mapping is the ASCII code, which is the basis of how computers represent English. While a word processing or web page data file would likely contain a very high percentage of ASCII code, an application program file would likely not. Scanning raw bytes displayed in ASCII text of an application file, one would likely find only a few words such as "File," "Edit" and "View" along with error and other messages. On a typical hard drive, the ASCII code is only a few percent of all data.
The majority of the bytes—neglecting the data comprising pictures, video, music and such—are instructions for the microprocessor. The microprocessor does not understand ASCII, much less English, and treats it as data, not instructions. Most programmers use high level languages like Java or C++, which comprise certain specific English words that get translated—compiled—into machine code.
But the ignorant intrepid investigator of our hard drive would think he uncovered the major mystery of our computer when he discovered the ASCII code. He would label everything else "junk." The resemblance of this hard drive search to the decoding of DNA is uncanny. Instead of bytes comprising eight bits each, DNA has codons comprising three nucleotide bases. The four different bases make each codon represent a number from 1 to 64, and each codon maps to one of 20 amino acids. DNA even includes start and stop codons just as ASCII includes punctuation symbols. And as a text based computer outputs ASCII strings, the cell nucleus outputs RNA strings of protein coding codons.
I believe Stephen C. Meyer [7a] is the first scientist to proclaim the similarity betweens introns and computer operating systems:
It seems researchers have already uncovered much of the low level instruction set for the manipulation of DNA in the nucleus, a code eerily similar to machine language instructions for microprocessors.
However, the memes in DNA that I allude to are high level. They program the brain similar to the way that receiving a command in English causes a person's whole body to act. If nature created a low level processor in the nucleus, why would it not have the brain function as a high level instruction processor?
Since neurobiology tends to only concern itself with the hardware, with continually elucidating molecular mechanisms, it does not look for software. Scientists blinded by all the amazing workings of cells and neurons downplay or dismiss any consideration of software. Ira Black argues in Information and the Brain: A Molecular Perspective [6] that no software exists. When something is learned neurons change and make new connections to represent the new concept. Obviously, our brains function as dynamic neural networks. And, hormones, neurotransmitters and other molecules function as triggers or messengers. Yet, when your boss or spouse tells you to do something, this command represents a high level function that cannot be represented merely by molecules coursing through your body, and a neural network could not reorganize itself nor respond properly to every type of command.
How can a brain, arguably more powerful than any human built computer, not use software? The power of our Information Age comes from software (and the hardware to run it) not mechanical machines, which powered the Industrial Age. I would agree that prokaryotes—single celled organisms lacking both cell nuclei and introns in their genomes—may not use software, just as humans got along for most of history without programmable computers. But, once tasks became sufficiently complex and variable, computers become necessary.
A major problem when dissecting the brain to figure out how it works is that one only finds the hardware. Software is invisible. If someone tries to take apart and analyze a strange unknown type of computer, they are only going to find hardware. They could see transistor junctions and electrical connections, and they can observe high level actions of the whole system, but the software will not be found.
The person attempting to comprehend this hypothetical computer could try to reverse engineer the software commands by decoding the complex organization of circuits. However, the easier way is to look for how and where the software is stored and deduce the instruction set from that. If someone wanted to figure out what makes the computer you are using to read this essay work, they would analyze the contents of your hard drive (or these days, perhaps, your device's "flash" memory) rather than disassemble the microprocessor.
Looking at the rawest data on the hard drive, one first finds that the data stores as a binary code, which we normally represent as 0s and 1s and call bits. At the next level (avoiding for now the intermediary level of checksums and error correcting codes) one finds the binary code organized into eight bit segments we call bytes. One byte represents a decimal number from 0 to 255. One might get stuck at this point and try to analyze the code with linguistic analysis. Assuming a knowledge of English, this investigator would eventually stumble upon a mapping of certain bytes to particular English letters.
This byte to character mapping is the ASCII code, which is the basis of how computers represent English. While a word processing or web page data file would likely contain a very high percentage of ASCII code, an application program file would likely not. Scanning raw bytes displayed in ASCII text of an application file, one would likely find only a few words such as "File," "Edit" and "View" along with error and other messages. On a typical hard drive, the ASCII code is only a few percent of all data.
The majority of the bytes—neglecting the data comprising pictures, video, music and such—are instructions for the microprocessor. The microprocessor does not understand ASCII, much less English, and treats it as data, not instructions. Most programmers use high level languages like Java or C++, which comprise certain specific English words that get translated—compiled—into machine code.
But the ignorant intrepid investigator of our hard drive would think he uncovered the major mystery of our computer when he discovered the ASCII code. He would label everything else "junk." The resemblance of this hard drive search to the decoding of DNA is uncanny. Instead of bytes comprising eight bits each, DNA has codons comprising three nucleotide bases. The four different bases make each codon represent a number from 1 to 64, and each codon maps to one of 20 amino acids. DNA even includes start and stop codons just as ASCII includes punctuation symbols. And as a text based computer outputs ASCII strings, the cell nucleus outputs RNA strings of protein coding codons.
I believe Stephen C. Meyer [7a] is the first scientist to proclaim the similarity betweens introns and computer operating systems:
Genomic studies reveal that the cell accesses "distributed genetic data sets" and then combines these modules of specified information to direct the production of various proteins during translation—much as a computer operating system retrieves and accesses modular data sets stored in various places on a hard drive and then reassembles them into a single data file.
...
Operating systems use digitally encoded information stored in one part of the computer hard drive to direct the use of other digitally coded information, in particular, the application programs stored in another part of the hard drive. In the cell, nonprotein-coding regions of the genome provide formatting, bracketing, and indexing codes that enable the cell to locate and express specific modules of stored genetic information, that expression of which may be needed to respond to specific environmental stresses or changing developmental conditions.
...
Operating systems also store code to perform functions ("services") that many application programs need, allowing specific application programs to be more streamlined and store less information than they otherwise would have to do. Similarly, nonprotein-coding DNA provides services and needed functions to the protein-coding DNA gene expression. For example, nonprotein-coding sections of DNA produce small microRNAs crucial for translation regulation whenever protein-coding regions of the gene are being accessed and expressed. Every protein-coding region also needs promoter sequences and a host of other codes (including some stored in nonprotein-coding regions as far as a million bases upstream from the coding region of the gene).
It seems researchers have already uncovered much of the low level instruction set for the manipulation of DNA in the nucleus, a code eerily similar to machine language instructions for microprocessors.
However, the memes in DNA that I allude to are high level. They program the brain similar to the way that receiving a command in English causes a person's whole body to act. If nature created a low level processor in the nucleus, why would it not have the brain function as a high level instruction processor?
ANOTHER ROLE FOR INTRONS:
Initially called junk
by scientists, DNA introns are now in many respects
more interesting than the protein coding, or exon, regions. Strictly speaking,
introns refer to nonprotein coding intragenic regions within a gene,
while intergenic regions are DNA sequences located between clusters of
genes that contain few or no genes. For the abstract purposes of this
essay, almost any non-exon regions could be referenced as introns.
Meyer [7b] lists some of the various discovered functions of introns:
Researchers involved with artificial genetic algorithms found that having "scratch pad" areas where nonfunctional genes are stored improves genetic algorithms, suggesting another function of introns. Also, the ability to repair DNA suggests that our cells employ checksums or error correcting codes, which must be stored as introns. Surely, other ways cells use introns will be discovered. However, the multiple functions of intronic material doesn't mean a few percent of intronic sequences could not function memetically.
But, do all these functions explain why generally the more complex a species is the more introns it has? Remember, these functions basically compare to computer operating system tasks and not to overall plans for building a body and supplying instructions to run it.
Researchers in the early 1990s attempted to show that introns in general displayed some interesting attributes. H. Eugene Stanley and his collaborators and others [8] showed that long range correlations exist between base pairs of introns but not exons. Furthermore, Stanley et al. using statistical linguistic analysis found that introns have certain statistical features in common with natural languages and that exons do not. [9] [10] Although the methods and results were seriously questioned, given the above functions of introns, it is now obvious that exons and certain intronic segments have different functions. It also seems that DNA may use some fractal compression.
The question becomes do computer operating systems display similar linguistic features as introns. Surely, operating systems create long range correlations in stored data. Perhaps, more importantly, does the remaining genetic material with no known function more strongly correlate with statistical features of natural languages?
Meyer [7b] lists some of the various discovered functions of introns:
[R]ecent scientific discoveries have shown that the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome direct the production of RNA molecules that regulate the use of the protein-coding regions of DNA. Cell and genome biologists have also discovered that these supposedly “useless” nonprotein-coding regions of the genome: (l) regulate DNA replication, (2) regulate transcription, (3) mark sites for programmed rearrangements of genetic material, (4) influence the proper folding and maintenance of chromosomes, (5) control the interactions of chromosomes with the nuclear membrane (and matrix), (6) control RNA processing, editing, and splicing, (7) modulate translation, (8) regulate embryological development, (9) repair DNA, and (10) aid in immunodefense or fighting disease among other functions. In some cases, “junk” DNA has even been found to code functional genes. Overall, the nonprotein-coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a computer that can direct multiple operations simultaneously.
Researchers involved with artificial genetic algorithms found that having "scratch pad" areas where nonfunctional genes are stored improves genetic algorithms, suggesting another function of introns. Also, the ability to repair DNA suggests that our cells employ checksums or error correcting codes, which must be stored as introns. Surely, other ways cells use introns will be discovered. However, the multiple functions of intronic material doesn't mean a few percent of intronic sequences could not function memetically.
But, do all these functions explain why generally the more complex a species is the more introns it has? Remember, these functions basically compare to computer operating system tasks and not to overall plans for building a body and supplying instructions to run it.
Researchers in the early 1990s attempted to show that introns in general displayed some interesting attributes. H. Eugene Stanley and his collaborators and others [8] showed that long range correlations exist between base pairs of introns but not exons. Furthermore, Stanley et al. using statistical linguistic analysis found that introns have certain statistical features in common with natural languages and that exons do not. [9] [10] Although the methods and results were seriously questioned, given the above functions of introns, it is now obvious that exons and certain intronic segments have different functions. It also seems that DNA may use some fractal compression.
The question becomes do computer operating systems display similar linguistic features as introns. Surely, operating systems create long range correlations in stored data. Perhaps, more importantly, does the remaining genetic material with no known function more strongly correlate with statistical features of natural languages?
ALTERNATIVE INHERITED INSTINCT MODELS:
Perhaps, one reason
scientists seem to shy away from the question of instinct mechanisms is
that the topic can lead into realms of metaphysics. However, a proper
scientist must explore all possibilities.
One possibility is Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields. [11] Sheldrake proposes nonphysical fields that control physical entities. This field, originally proposed to explain embryo growth and cell differentiation, extends beyond space and time so that all the members of a species that has ever existed exerts some influence over a current member. A popular proposed example of this field's action is the "Hundredth Monkey" phenomenon, where once a significant portion of a species' population learns something then members of the species not physically connected with the other members will automatically "know" it (or at least be much more inclined to figure it out.) Sheldrake also uses morphogenetic fields to explain how nature chooses particular crystal formation and protein folding. Within the morphogenetic field label I classify any type of possible nebulous spiritual influences.
Another possible theory of inherited instinct storage is in Stuart Hameroff's Ultimate Computing. [12] He proposes that the microtubules making up the cytoskeleton of basically every living cell, in addition to providing the structure and shape of the cell and intracellular transport, function as electrical information processors. So, when a cell divides, it may be able pass on genetic information not just in DNA but also in the form of microtubules, which are integral in cell division mechanics.
Hameroff's claims that these microtubules function as electrical information processors. The microtubules do not seem to store information but instead seem to work as electrical logic gates, which could make up a cellular computer. However, the mechanism of how these logic gates would work is unclear. Hameroff hints that one type of logic gate is one tube perpendicular and close but not touching another. Also, some type of information processing seems to occur in single tubes. Hameroff may have found parts of a cellular biocomputer with the microtubules, but their use as a storage mechanism seems unrealistic.
Interestingly, Hameroff teamed up with Roger Penrose to propose that consciousness itself is due to some type of quantum coherence effect going on with the microtubules. [13] This model suggests that the microtubules may be functioning as a quantum computer. A quantum computer uses quantum states to represent bits, and since one quantum state is the superposition state of all possibilities, a quantum computer will be more powerful than standard computers when humans finally construct one. Even if such a computer functions as an integral part of life, it still requires software.
However, if DNA itself works as a quantum computer then, perhaps, it could eliminate the need for software. If, as Penrose also argues [14], quantum effects are required for consciousness then consciousness may equate to the quantum state. Thus, a particular sequence of DNA could have a particular consciousness metaphysically attached to it, so that treating a particular segment of DNA as a quantum computer could yield a particular instruction: a sort of morphogenetic field for molecules. This quantum molecular communication idea, where uniqueness of the sequence rather than pattern in the sequence is key, would fit my meme concept, except there would be no language.
Even if these theories have some element of truth, they do not contradict my meme theory. Life is quite complex, and its power and creativity suggests multiple levels of operation.
One possibility is Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields. [11] Sheldrake proposes nonphysical fields that control physical entities. This field, originally proposed to explain embryo growth and cell differentiation, extends beyond space and time so that all the members of a species that has ever existed exerts some influence over a current member. A popular proposed example of this field's action is the "Hundredth Monkey" phenomenon, where once a significant portion of a species' population learns something then members of the species not physically connected with the other members will automatically "know" it (or at least be much more inclined to figure it out.) Sheldrake also uses morphogenetic fields to explain how nature chooses particular crystal formation and protein folding. Within the morphogenetic field label I classify any type of possible nebulous spiritual influences.
Another possible theory of inherited instinct storage is in Stuart Hameroff's Ultimate Computing. [12] He proposes that the microtubules making up the cytoskeleton of basically every living cell, in addition to providing the structure and shape of the cell and intracellular transport, function as electrical information processors. So, when a cell divides, it may be able pass on genetic information not just in DNA but also in the form of microtubules, which are integral in cell division mechanics.
Hameroff's claims that these microtubules function as electrical information processors. The microtubules do not seem to store information but instead seem to work as electrical logic gates, which could make up a cellular computer. However, the mechanism of how these logic gates would work is unclear. Hameroff hints that one type of logic gate is one tube perpendicular and close but not touching another. Also, some type of information processing seems to occur in single tubes. Hameroff may have found parts of a cellular biocomputer with the microtubules, but their use as a storage mechanism seems unrealistic.
Interestingly, Hameroff teamed up with Roger Penrose to propose that consciousness itself is due to some type of quantum coherence effect going on with the microtubules. [13] This model suggests that the microtubules may be functioning as a quantum computer. A quantum computer uses quantum states to represent bits, and since one quantum state is the superposition state of all possibilities, a quantum computer will be more powerful than standard computers when humans finally construct one. Even if such a computer functions as an integral part of life, it still requires software.
However, if DNA itself works as a quantum computer then, perhaps, it could eliminate the need for software. If, as Penrose also argues [14], quantum effects are required for consciousness then consciousness may equate to the quantum state. Thus, a particular sequence of DNA could have a particular consciousness metaphysically attached to it, so that treating a particular segment of DNA as a quantum computer could yield a particular instruction: a sort of morphogenetic field for molecules. This quantum molecular communication idea, where uniqueness of the sequence rather than pattern in the sequence is key, would fit my meme concept, except there would be no language.
Even if these theories have some element of truth, they do not contradict my meme theory. Life is quite complex, and its power and creativity suggests multiple levels of operation.
PROPOSED MODEL FOR BRAINWAVE GENERATION FROM DNA:
If memes are stored in
DNA then there must be a mechanism for converting DNA sequences into
thought or into some kind of subconscious instinct. Rather than
considering DNA memes as instructions for building neuron networks, let
us think of thought as waves. Since our brains generate various kinds
of electrical waves, I propose scientists search for a mechanism that
converts DNA into electrical waves.
Measuring conductivity of DNA is a fascinating issue, and I respect the work of Jacqueline Barton's group. Barton finds that the conductivity of DNA can change with base pair sequences along with the contorsional shape of DNA. [15] Barton intercalated molecules into DNA to measure conductivity of the intervening sequence. Perhaps, in a similar fashion particular sequences of DNA can generate electrical waves, which would feed into the brain.
However, a recent invention called Nanopore Technology [16] sheds light on a likelier mechanism. This discovery excites scientists because of the possibility of ultrafast DNA sequencing. I'm excited about it because a similar structure may already work in our brains. Imagine a strand of DNA feeding through a hole, a nanopore, in the post synaptic membrane of a neuron. If this nanopore is just the right size so that, depending on the base sequence of the DNA in the nanopore at the time, calcium and potassium ions flow through at different rates. Therefore, a specific DNA sequence generates a specific voltage. By pulling the DNA through at a constant rate, electrical signals in the neuron are generated from the DNA. Presumably, these electrical signals would be of the same order of magnitude as the signals generated by receptors receiving neurotransmitters at the synapse.
Whether or not anything I have postulated about the specifics of meme storage in DNA is true, I strongly believe in its basic existence. Geneticists may feel smug knowing how DNA translates to proteins, but understanding the software code that runs the protein machines may be even more powerful.
Like the joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight, not because he lost them there but that's only where the light is, scientists seem only fixated on investigating where the light shines, not where logic tells them to look. If scientists would look elsewhere then light may begin to shine in these new directions.
Measuring conductivity of DNA is a fascinating issue, and I respect the work of Jacqueline Barton's group. Barton finds that the conductivity of DNA can change with base pair sequences along with the contorsional shape of DNA. [15] Barton intercalated molecules into DNA to measure conductivity of the intervening sequence. Perhaps, in a similar fashion particular sequences of DNA can generate electrical waves, which would feed into the brain.
However, a recent invention called Nanopore Technology [16] sheds light on a likelier mechanism. This discovery excites scientists because of the possibility of ultrafast DNA sequencing. I'm excited about it because a similar structure may already work in our brains. Imagine a strand of DNA feeding through a hole, a nanopore, in the post synaptic membrane of a neuron. If this nanopore is just the right size so that, depending on the base sequence of the DNA in the nanopore at the time, calcium and potassium ions flow through at different rates. Therefore, a specific DNA sequence generates a specific voltage. By pulling the DNA through at a constant rate, electrical signals in the neuron are generated from the DNA. Presumably, these electrical signals would be of the same order of magnitude as the signals generated by receptors receiving neurotransmitters at the synapse.
Whether or not anything I have postulated about the specifics of meme storage in DNA is true, I strongly believe in its basic existence. Geneticists may feel smug knowing how DNA translates to proteins, but understanding the software code that runs the protein machines may be even more powerful.
Like the joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight, not because he lost them there but that's only where the light is, scientists seem only fixated on investigating where the light shines, not where logic tells them to look. If scientists would look elsewhere then light may begin to shine in these new directions.
REFERENCES:
[1] Blackmore, Susan. The
Meme Machine. Oxford University Press. 1999.
[2] Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press. 1976, 1989, 2006.
[3] Purves, William K., Orians, Gordon H., Heller, H. Craig. Life: The Science of Biology, Third Edition. Sinauer Associates. 1992. p984.
[4] Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University Of Chicago Press. 1962, 1964, 1996.
[5] Abate, Tom. Genome Discovery Shocks Scientists. San Francisco Cronicle, Feb 11, 2001. pA1.
[6] Black, Ira. Information and the Brain: A Molecular Perspective. MIT Press. 1991, 1994.
[7a] Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. HarperOne. 2009. pp461,465.
[7b] Ibid. p407.
[8] Amato, Ivan. DNA Shows Unexplained Patterns Writ Large. Science. v257, p747. Aug 7, 1992.
[9] Mantegna, R. N. et al. Linguistic features of non-coding DNA Sequences. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, p3169. Dec 5, 1994.
[10] Yam, Philip. Scientific American. March 1995 p24.
[11] Sheldrake, Rupert. A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance. Park Street Press. 1995.
[12] Stuart Hameroff. Ultimate Computing: Biomolecular Consciousness and Nanotechnology. 1987.
[13] Hameroff, S. R., and Penrose, R. Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for consciousness. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation. v40, issue3-4, April 1996, pp453-480.
[14] Penrose, Roger. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford University Press. 1996.
[15] Boon, E.M. and Barton, J.K. Charge transport in DNA. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 12:320–329. 2002.
[16] Fologea, D., E. Brandin, J. Uplinger, D. Branton, and J. Li. DNA conformation and base number simultaneously determined in a nanopore. Electrophoresis 28: 3186-3192. 2007.
[2] Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press. 1976, 1989, 2006.
[3] Purves, William K., Orians, Gordon H., Heller, H. Craig. Life: The Science of Biology, Third Edition. Sinauer Associates. 1992. p984.
[4] Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University Of Chicago Press. 1962, 1964, 1996.
[5] Abate, Tom. Genome Discovery Shocks Scientists. San Francisco Cronicle, Feb 11, 2001. pA1.
[6] Black, Ira. Information and the Brain: A Molecular Perspective. MIT Press. 1991, 1994.
[7a] Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. HarperOne. 2009. pp461,465.
[7b] Ibid. p407.
[8] Amato, Ivan. DNA Shows Unexplained Patterns Writ Large. Science. v257, p747. Aug 7, 1992.
[9] Mantegna, R. N. et al. Linguistic features of non-coding DNA Sequences. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, p3169. Dec 5, 1994.
[10] Yam, Philip. Scientific American. March 1995 p24.
[11] Sheldrake, Rupert. A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance. Park Street Press. 1995.
[12] Stuart Hameroff. Ultimate Computing: Biomolecular Consciousness and Nanotechnology. 1987.
[13] Hameroff, S. R., and Penrose, R. Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for consciousness. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation. v40, issue3-4, April 1996, pp453-480.
[14] Penrose, Roger. Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford University Press. 1996.
[15] Boon, E.M. and Barton, J.K. Charge transport in DNA. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 12:320–329. 2002.
[16] Fologea, D., E. Brandin, J. Uplinger, D. Branton, and J. Li. DNA conformation and base number simultaneously determined in a nanopore. Electrophoresis 28: 3186-3192. 2007.
The "classic" older version of this
essay is here.