DNA memory

Experiments in Quantum Biology have shown that memory is stored in the field. Even when parts of the brain
are selectively destroyed in laboratory animals, they can remember to perform complex tasks. These studies and
others have led to different conclusions than those drawn and established by Western Medicine.

With this departure away from the thinking found typically in Western Medicine, we are then led to drawing
different conclusions in Quantum Biology about the common storage of memory and much speculation.

A much debated topic has been past life memories. Some feel these are simply downloads from the field. But I
believe this is a limited view for the simple reason that non-locality in space implies non-locality in time, and
time has been revealed to be only curved space by Einstein.

This thinking cannot be accurate.

Further complicating this issue is that when tissues, such as a heart or other organs, are transplanted into from
one individual into another individual, the recipient often has memories that belong to the donor.

How can this happen?

This occurrence supports points we‟ve made in earlier discussions as well as new points:

Memory is not stored in the brain. The implication is memory can be associated with the tissue.

This can only be by connection through the field. This validates the concept of memory through the field. This
further implies that memory is imprinted as experience and manifested through Consciousness. It would seem
that emotions and feelings are recorded by the brain but are noted in Consciousness as experience. It would
seem that the interface between Consciousness and experience is through the DNA.

This DNA tie-in allows for individuated consciousness (of the individual) to operate either as a collective (of
cells) or as an individuated consciousness of the individual cell.

We can understand from all this, then, that a memory would have:

1. An association with the tissue removed.

2. Consciousness can have continued contact with DNA.

Both these findings were noted in experiments conducted by the United States Army, where disparate elements
of DNA, separated by considerable distance, displayed identical electrical signals in response to differing inputs
of emotional activity experienced by the individual from whom the DNA was taken. Even when the individual
was out of contact with the DNA, this took place!!

This model provides an explanation that is consistent with Quantum Mechanical principles, rather than that
supported by the thinking of established Western Medicine. Conceptually we would envisage an intelligent,
aware, conscious “field” in contact with various levels of consciousness individuated and collective which in
turn are in contact with memory and DNA.

http://www.thehealingattribute.com/index-inside.php/2009/06/dnamemory/
Genetic memory: The Scientific Basis for Past Life Regression?

Strange fact number 1: Scientists trained flat worms to curl up when exposed to light by electrocuting them
every time the light was turned on. A pure Pavlovian, conditioned response. Even more unfortunate for the flat
worms is their ability to regenerate themselves if cut in half. An amazing thing in itself; cut them in half and the
head end grows a new tail and the tail end grows a new head. When the scientists did just that they found
something bizarre; when exposed to light both versions of the worm responded according to the conditioning.
How can this be? Common sense and contempory neuroscience both agree that memory is contained in the
brain, so how can a newly grown brain come complete with memories?

Strange fact number 2: Take a calf born of stock that is used to cattle grids but has never seen one itself and
introduce it to lines painted on a road to resemble a grid. It will not cross. How has this knowledge been
communicated?

Strange fact number 3: A new -born chick is placed in a room with a hawk. It frantically tries to find cover. It
meets a chicken for the very first time and is completely comfortable. People would call this instinct, and I‟m
sure it is –but how is instinct passed from one generation to the next? Wouldn‟t it have to be stored in the DNA?
And instinct is just a form of memory, so if that form of memory is stored in the DNA, then why not other
forms of memory. It would explain facts 1 –3 wouldn‟t it?

The idea that our memories are stored in our genes is a very recent and controversial one. It has been accepted
since the experiments of Wilder Penfield back in the fifties, that hidden away in each of us is a permanent
record of our past. We are reminded of it regularly; how many times have you smelt a particular smell or heard
a particular song, and been instantly transported back to an intense childhood memory. However, most
neuroscientists believed and continue to believe that long-term memories are built into the brain by creating and
strengthening connections between neighbouring neurons. These connections, known as synapses, are thought
to join neurons up into complex networks that can recreate specific patterns of brain activity (memories), days,
weeks, or even years, later.

There are problems with this model. These connections would need to be permanent and stable, and the brain is
not. Nearly all the brain‟s molecules, including those that form the neural connections thought to be involved in
memory, are replaced every few weeks. How long-lasting memories can be stored by such an impermanent
medium has confounded neuroscience for years. It is like writing a message on a piece of paper. Suppose we
could replace the paper one molecule at a time. Eventually we would have a completely new piece of paper,
with exactly the same appearance – except it would not still have the message written on it. Neurobiologist
Sandra Pena de Ortiz suggests that somehow the brain must retain an archived blueprint of each neural network
in order to create the replacement neuron as a structural and functional clone of its predecessor. Nature‟s
blueprint of choice is, of course, DNA, and it has the advantage of not undergoing the turnover that other
molecules do. Not only is it quite stable over time, it even has a repair facility if anything goes wrong.

Pena believes that permanent memories are stored in altered genes. She and her colleagues believe that our
DNA creates „memory molecules,‟ new novel proteins, from a unique blueprint that could be formed by
neurons rearranging their DNA in response to each new experience. The unique structure of these memory
molecules would enable them to snap into a specific position at the synapses, helping make memories stable
without disturbing other synaptic structures. “Changes in synaptic connections wouldn‟t remain intact for long,
but gene rearrangements could be kept throughout the neuron‟s life.
Some scientists go even further and suggest that these memory molecules might store information themselves,
that each individual neuron contains memory.

Either way this is a radical concept because the usual concept of our genetic code is of something fixed at the
beginning of our lives, not something that gets re-written on a daily basis, and certainly not every brain cell
being allowed to tamper with that code. But looking at it from an evolutionary point of view this arrangement
does fulfil an abiding principle – that of Occam‟s razor.

Occam‟s razor states that nature always reduces things to the simplest solution. We know of only three
„memory systems in nature. There is the evolutionary memory of how to build an organism; a cognitive
memory of events we experience; and an immune memory of past infections. Two out of three of these are
based o n DNA, we would normally expect nature to be efficient enough to use the same tools for the third as
well, not evolve something unique.

The impact of this theory, if true, is that our identity, our self, leaves a permanent mark on our genome. We may
pass onto our descendents much more than eye colour. It has already been estimated that perhaps 40% of known
personality traits are inherited, such as introversion/extraversion. This theory could explain how. It also poses
other intriguing questions for our field.

Carl Jung popularised the idea of a collective unconscious that we are all plugged into, and suggested it as the
repository of racial memories and universal archetypes. With genetic research now proving the inter-relatedness
of all racial branches of the humanity – we are all related at some point in the past with Caesar, Sitting Bull,
Nelson Mandela, Confucius and Uncle Tom Cobbly – the genetic transmission of memory would be a sensible
transport mechanism for Jung‟s theory. And of course we can get crazier:

If memories are stored in our DNA (and as 97% of it has no obvious function there is plenty of room), and we
pass on our DNA to our children, who do the same thing with their children, could this be how the instincts of
the chick and calf were passed on? If memory is stored in the genes is that how the flat worm‟s tail can grow a
new brain with an old memory? And finally, if they have access to instinctive memory (as we do - think of the
grip response in a child when it thinks it's being dropped), is it possible to access other ancestral memories
located in our DNA? Could this be an explanation for past-life regression? When clients regress to memories
from a previous life, is it actually them accessing something present in their genome blueprint, an ancestral
experience?

It is the case that the mind uses past experiences as references to decide the meaning of what is occurring in the
present. In the main we are used to thinking of such past experiences being limited to this lifetime. Perhaps the
unconscious has access to reference experiences stretching back generations. Certainly many people who
experience such memories under hypnosis find an answer to a present problem. This would be consistent with
the theory predicting that the effects of our experiences would be expressed in our genome. If this is inherited
by our successors then it would also suggest that they would be subject to the consequences of those
experiences. Past life regression having a basis in science, whoever would have though it?

Recent research by Elizabeth Young of Princeton University has overturned another scientific sacred cow. The
accepted view has been that we are born with a massive over-supply of brain cells. As we adapt to our
environment brain cells that are stimulated by our experiences are strengthened, and those which are not
required atrophy. A little like paratroopers dropped into hostile territory, we are issued with a range of
equipment to cope with what we might find. As we explore the terrain, any equipment that is surplus to
requirement is discarded. So far so true. However, it was also held that we cannot create new brain cells, the
paratrooper cannot re-arm once they have been dropped. Elizabeth Young has now proved other wise. Brains do
indeed grow new brain cells in response to new learning experiences.

http://www.cyjack.com/cognition/Genetic%20Memory.pdf
The Genetic Code
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1968/nirenberg-lecture.pdf

Germline histone dynamics and epigenetics

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17467256

Evidence of photon emission from DNA in living systems

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g115139168855415/

Local Area Manipulation of DNA Molecules for Photonic DNA Memory

http://www.springerlink.com/content/gx8745429053l227/

The Art of War: Innate and adaptive immune responses

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q5ywd002exgldwyq/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14685686