On the Nature of
Much has been written about our "genetic
memory". But if such a thing exists, what is the mechanism by which personal
experience is transmitted from one generation to the next? How do instincts function? And,
how do personal experience and instinct interact?
Mental Relativity provides the following perspectives:
Genetic Memory does, in fact, exist. In truth, it is
one and the same with instinct. Instinct is commonly seen as a driving force which causes
a creature to display a particular kind of behavior. It is often assumed (and correctly
so) that the creature may not even be aware of the benefit or purpose of the behavior, but
merely responds to the inner drive which turns out to be of benefit. Of course, should a
habitat change, instinctual behavior may come to function as a detriment instead.
Another aspect of Instinct, much more akin to the
common understanding of Genetic Memory, is the internal presence of thoughts or feelings
which do not derive from personal experience, but rather from the common experience of all
of us together. This is partly true, and partly incorrect.
We do not share the experiences of others in our own
time, but share the collective experience of our ancestors as imprinted into our DNA. DNA,
in fact, is the medium through which Genetic Memory/Instinct is transmitted through time
to each individual.
Here is how it works in a simplified description of the
Mental Relativity model.
Before birth, DNA determines the shape of our bodies
and our brains. One of the things it determines is the arrangement of the neurons in our
brains, which (although similar from person to person) is unique to each individual. It is
that arrangement which creates a built-in influence of all the past experiences of all
In our own lives, our personal experience runs that
same system in reverse. When we become so familiar with a pattern in our lives, either of
our own activity or of something we observe, it affects the biochemistry which surround
the neurons in our brains. This change in biochemistry encodes the mean average, or sum
total of our experience.
There is a pathway from this biochemistry through the
glands to the DNA contained in our reproductive systems. Sperm is created continually,
making it more susceptible to large, immediate personal experiences. Eggs are always
there, waiting to descend, and therefore are more responsive to the long-term and
Both Sperm and Egg are like little "smart"
missiles", each being programmed right up to the moment of firing with the latest
data available. So, when we reproduce, all of our personal experience up to the moment of
conception is carried on to the next generation.
Of course, Sperm and Egg also contain the influence of
generations as well. Here is how that works:
The information based on experience which is contained
in DNA has a great inertia. It favors the average of all the previous generation's input.
Each individual adds a drop in the bucket of experience, so that like a boat turning on
the ocean, it takes several generations of consistent effort to change course.
Information encoded in DNA has a half-life, meaning
that each generation's addition to the encoding gradually fades away until it has
virtually no influence (though it will never actually reach completely none). This gives a
certain uplift in importance to each generations additional experience.
Those personal experiences which fall in line with
previous genetic experiences boost the signal of those drives. Those which do not, allow
those drive to lose strength, even while establishing a weak, new drive based on the new
Over time, the genetic memory collection of instinctual
drives fluxes and undulates in a slow pattern as the sum total of experience in a given
lineage gradually adapts to a changing environment.
Before we had developed the ability to travel great
distances, our environment remained relatively stable, as we stayed in the same valley,
for example, for all of our lives. The genetic influence from our ancestors was strong,
and in procreation, both mates' genetic memories/instincts were more or less identical.
But as we developed forms of transportation - horses,
ships, and especially the constructions of the twentieth century, we moved out of our
heritage environments and into something our genetic memories could only perceive as
chaos. In other words, our instincts and inner feelings were no longer at peace with the
world in which we found ourselves.
Due to our ability to travel, we began to procreate
with mates from far different genetic backgrounds, creating a dilution and sometimes
shattering of influences from our past. Generations that followed found themselves with
either less instinctual influence, or with contradictory feelings and drives, leading to
the displaced feelings and confusion over one's purpose in life that seems to affect
modern generations much more than those in the past.
But this is a good thing. Why? Because the creation of
transportation co-incides with the creation of a much more volatile world of quickly
changing scenarios. In the past, a strong genetic memory was important, for it carried a
wealth of survival information which was a real strength in that unchanging valley. But in
today's rapidly changing environment, a strong genetic memory/instinct base is a
detriment, causing an individual to be sluggish in responding to immediate needs.
It is a natural progression of evolution that when a
species becomes capable of long-distance travel, the genetic memory is diminished and
fragmented to allow for greater responsiveness to a more volatile world.
Now, the unfortunately side effect is that we feel at
home nowhere. Also, there are those peoples who still live in the same closed environment
and cannot understand the minds of more modern people any more than modern people can
understand theirs. The manner of thinking is truly disparate between the two.
We should also keep in mind that evolution is not
always a good thing. Sometimes a species can evolve to fill a fragile niche which may
vanish quickly, leaving the more evolved species cut off on a limb, while the less evolved
variety fares much better in the original habitat. There is no better or worse, no good or
bad, except objectively judged in retrospect, or subjectively judged by the fulfillment
experienced by the inhabitants of a niche. Often the Objective and Subjective evaluations
are in conflict, leaving no answer as to which way of life is better except by personal
Clearly we can see why there is such a strong urge in
many modern people to seek out their roots, to adhere to the traditional not from inner
drive but conscious decision, to halt progress or return home. And yet, for those who have
so little influence from the past remaining, there is a drive to increase the level of
volatility, live fast, put the past behind, and break with tradition.
Keep in mind, these are influences that occur below the
level of consciousness. They filter our perceptions of our world, but are not accessible
to conscious alteration.
In conclusion, we might surmise that as a whole, the
world is far better off with a whole range of outlooks, extending from those who are still
firmly genetically anchored to the lineage of the past to those who are completely
responsive to the present. No matter what chaotic form of catastrophe might befall our
planet, by covering the scale we best insure our changes for survival as a species.
Now, for those of you who want a little more technical
data about all this, read on...
DNA is not really a double helix, but a quad helix. The
two strands of the familiar double-helix represent the spatial and physical information
that determines how the part of a body will be formed, and where the parts will go. The
other two strands which form a second double-helix contain the temporal and mental
information such as how growth and aging will proceed, and what influences from the past
will be imprinted through the brain onto the mind.
The second helix is not actually side by side with the
first, but is a spiral OF the first. In a sense, the second helix is perpendicular to the
first in hyperbolic space, but is physically invisible in normal space.
This means that the second helix represents processes,
rather than objects. It cannot be seen under a microscope, but only mathematically, by the
relationships it engenders.
A simple way to visualize these kinds of relationships
is to look for connections between different levels of the familiar, physical
double-helix. For example, imagine a point on the typical double-helix model. It is well
documented how the DNA sequence from one point to another, linearly along the helix,
determines much of what will be physically.
Now, imagine we pick a point on the traditional
double-helix and go around a strand until we reach a point directly above (or below) the
first point. This connection is the first sequence of the non-physical DNA strand. As we
continue along this path, it would simply be a loop or a circle to go to the point just
above (or below) our point of origin. But if we shift a point to the left or right of
"just above" we begin to describe a second double helix (one strand to the left
and one strand to the right) that exists only conceptually in normal space.
The two strands of this second double helix are encoded
into the physical make up of DNA as strongly as the linear sequence along the physical
strands, but contain the genetic memory and timing information instead.
Those of you even more interested in this mechanism
should investigate the method by which proteins fold themselves. The most recent models
which include "entropy wells" are very close in dynamics to the model of Mental
Relativity which was used to create the interactive psychological "story engine"
in the Dramatica software for writers.
As a final speculation, let me leave some open
Could not this same system of dilution and
fragmentation be also applied to our physical genetic code as well?
Would that not be a good model for the intermixing of
the gene pool, even while some indigenous people remain genetically unaffected?
Could both the mental and physical dilution and
fragmentation be seen as a natural part of evolution?
Might we not reach a point where we dilute through
procreation but fragment through genetic alteration (such as curing diseases through gene
therapy) that there no longer exists any creature who can claim an unaltered human
Might we not fragment to the point where procreation
between different branches of humanity might no longer be possible?
Might this not lead to wars between factions, each of
whom claims to be "more human" than their adversaries?
Could this not be a precursor to our eventual expansion
into space, so that our species might evolve to fill specific environmental niches
elsewhere in the galaxy?
Well, as I said, these are just questions. I don't
think we can ever truly know the answers, but remembering to ask the questions once in a
while may be the best survival trait of all.