|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
 Posted - Dec 12 2011 : 2:42:13 PM
|
Exciting news!!!
Science is now beginning to be able to prove that specific vibrations using words and language can reprogram/transform our DNA. To me, this is scientific verification of what many of us already know through personal experience; that mantra meditation "rewires" us.
Hope you enjoy the read!
http://wakeup-world.com/2011/07/12/...frequencies/
Love!
Carson 
Edit: I found this part pretty interesting as it somewhat explains all the electronic/electrical interference I have been personally dealing with since starting AYP:
"The side effect encountered most often in hyper communication also in human beings are inexplicable electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of the persons concerned. Electronic devices like CD players and the like can be irritated and cease to function for hours. When the electromagnetic field slowly dissipates, the devices function normally again. Many healers and psychics know this effect from their work. The better the atmosphere and the energy, the more frustrating it is that the recording device stops functioning and recording exactly at that moment. And repeated switching on and off after the session does not restore function yet, but next morning all is back to normal. Perhaps this is reassuring to read for many, as it has nothing to do with them being technically inept, it means they are good at hyper communication."
|
|
|
chit-ananda51
India
127 Posts |
Posted - Dec 12 2011 : 10:30:54 PM
|
CarsonZi,
Thanks for sharing this great article. This is a step for humanity towards understanding the Cosmic Energy in manifestation and how it relates to the universe and our inner biology.
I am also reminded of the forgotten scientist Nikola Tesla of the famed Wireless signals. Initially a skeptic , he had a vision of his mother while she passed into Spirit as an angel and from then on he got the inspiration and break-through on his wireless model of transmission on the principles of "Tuning" and "Resonance" - a worm whole at work basically.  |
 |
|
|
krcqimpro1
India
329 Posts |
Posted - Dec 13 2011 : 10:53:23 AM
|
Hi Carson,
For the last few days, while listening to a " Chakra Balancing CD, I suddenly hear some 'static', and wondered what it must be. Now I know !
Thanks for the link.
Krish |
|
|
|
naplesward
USA
17 Posts |
Posted - Dec 13 2011 : 1:51:49 PM
|
Very Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 13 2011 : 9:01:17 PM
|
| FYI: DNA is just a pattern; a map. It does not cause you to do anything. But sometimes it's the only map you have so bad things can be replicated. |
|
|
|
tonightsthenight
846 Posts |
Posted - Dec 13 2011 : 10:26:37 PM
|
It may be true that we can create electromagnetic fields using spiritual methods. But...
...not trying to be Debbie Downer Carson, but the article and the website linked above aren't what I would call science. Doesn't seem very credible to me. |
|
|
|
Yaming
Switzerland
112 Posts |
Posted - Dec 14 2011 : 01:03:53 AM
|
I agree with tonightsthenight. I did not really look at the page. But the article itself and the way it is written certainly did not convince me at all, but rather made me want to to find the studies that were mentioned in it. Today too many fake scientists are out there with no proper credibility. I learned to be very careful about believing what so called "scientists" figured out.
Anyways, thanks for posting it. Maybe we will hear from further investigations into this direction. :) |
|
|
|
escapado
Germany
88 Posts |
Posted - Dec 14 2011 : 04:39:20 AM
|
| etherfish what do you mean? |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 14 2011 : 07:32:28 AM
|
I mean DNA is a pattern that is replicated by cells as they multiply. When it was first discovered, it was thought that DNA determined everything about us and we had no control over it. Evidence of this is scientists searching for the "cancer gene" today. They think if they get rid of, or replace that gene they will get rid of cancer.
But it is possible for the body to have conflicting DNA patterns, and the truth is, what pattern is used is somehow chosen by the body. What that means is, if a cancer gene is found, not everyone who has it will get cancer. It is the choosing of DNA patterns that is important, not the pattern itself, just like choosing a map is important before you travel. (Talking old school here, navigators still have to be programmed).
Belief systems are one of the influences on what DNA patterns are replicated. That is where yoga helps.
If a "bad DNA" sequence can be re-programmed, that's really good, but in the majority of cases, it is more important to change what chooses the DNA rather than changing the DNA itself. It is said that affirmations are powerful, but if you have a belief that is contrary to the affirmation, it won't work.
The other reason that changing DNA is not the best way, is that DNA sequences affect more than one thing. If you cure cancer by removing a gene, but your digestive system no longer works it's not a good cure.
The body understands genes and we don't, so things that affect the whole system are safer than under-the-hood tinkering with genes.
I don't know if this "re-programming" is under-the-hood or not, I'm just talking about general concepts.
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 14 2011 : 07:42:23 AM
|
I agree with Yaming that the article doesn't look scientific. But that doesn't mean it is not valid. And the proper response is, like yaming, to want to see the studies behind it.
There are too many people today who lack critical thinking abilities, and think things are either "proven" true or "proven" not true. A true scientist will tell you that nothing is ever "proven", but what is important is the number of studies, how they were done, and the credibility of the scientist doing them. And having a degree or publishing in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't necessarily give you credibility.
Contrary to what the media would have you believe, a "consensus" of scientists doesn't mean what they believe is true. All you have to do is look at history to tell you that. It is healthy to have dissenting views. |
|
|
|
tonightsthenight
846 Posts |
Posted - Dec 14 2011 : 4:00:42 PM
|
Etherfish,
I agree with you that we need to balance critical thinking and an open mind when reading materials. We shouldn't trust peer reviewed journals just because they are peer reviewed, for example.
But I don't find that this website passes the smell test. There is no "news" and there are no real "studies" in the article. It's just a couple of authors with fabricated names claiming all sorts of mumbo jumbo.
It would be good if we could drop the ideals of objectivity and empirical proof at all costs. I know acupuncture works as a method of healing, for example, but most mainstream sources would claim that there is no proof of efficacy.
However, we should not forget that objectivity and empirical proof have given a perspective to view the world that has allowed us to evolve at a very rapid rate. They are the foundations through which we will be able to explore the crazier parts of reality, which include the things we talk about here: yoga, prana, chakras and enlightenment. |
|
|
|
Yaming
Switzerland
112 Posts |
Posted - Dec 14 2011 : 4:40:09 PM
|
Even if the article is somewhat not convincing, it still has its value. :)
The problem I have with empirical proof, is that it often is hard to decide what the crucial factor is. For example acupuncture: sure it works, but does it work because of the needle in your body or because you and the therapist believe that it works. If the needle in the body actually does the job, there has to be a possibility to verify it.
A possible explanation could be found in the book Body electric by Robert O. Becker. He apparently discovered that acupuncture points have a higher conductivity than the other tissue. Actually, the conductivity of the tissue increases the closer you get to the point. I have no idea if his claim is true or not as I have not investigated any further.
And just for the sake of clarity: I do not think that something does not work or is humbug just because science was unable to detect and proof it. Few hundret years ago we didn't know anything about electricity. Has it ment it did not exist? No. The same goes for all the other stuff which seems unexplainable or even humbug today. :) One day we might find the right tools to scientifically explain it. Till then I just enjoy the effects it has on me.  |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 14 2011 : 9:45:12 PM
|
Well, there is no such thing as "proof", but yes, acupuncture has been scientifically shown to have validity, I don't know about cures, but the electrical part; meridians and points. You can buy little meters that can electrically find the acupuncture points, and they are where the Chinese maps show them.
An acupuncturist friend once told me she could do anything that drugs do and better, only acupuncture takes longer. But on the plus side, the cure is long lasting, not just symptom relief and dependency that drugs have.
Yaming; i didn't examine the article close enough apparently. I glanced through it, and got the impression there were references. That is very important. |
Edited by - Etherfish on Dec 14 2011 9:47:35 PM |
|
|
|
tonightsthenight
846 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2011 : 12:28:41 AM
|
Yaming,
I agree with you about much.
But about this article having value, I cannot agree.
The first sentence is completely ridiculous; it claims that DNA is an biological internet. What?
The brass tacks are this: the article doesn't really say anything at all. It offers up a bunch of buzzwords and lets the reader make connections that aren't really there.
Here's one gem of many:
"Living chromosomes function just like solitonic/holographic computers using the endogenous DNA laser radiation.”
Endogenous DNA laser radiation?
I think that articles like this only serve to confuse people. |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2011 : 10:52:39 AM
|
Hi TTN
Value (in my opinion) is completely subjective. "Truth" must be discovered for oneself (can't be given to another), and in my experience, real (or perhaps a better word would be ultimate) truth is wordless or beyond words so any verbal explanation of truth is going to be (on some level) a bastardization of truth. But when someone says/writes something that is a verbal representation (whether "proveable" or not) of a/the Truth that has already been personally discovered it can serve as validation (not that that is necessary for something to be "truth") or create a feeling of connection for the listener/reader. This is what this article did for me.
When the article talks about DNA being a "biological internet" I was interpreting what they were saying as something that I have personally discovered to be truth. The way I interpreted that sentence was to say that our DNA is like a mode of or a medium for connection.... which in my experience it is. Our DNA is our medium for connecting to infinite information (just like the internet). Explaining (and especially *proving*) how this works is very challenging if not impossible. I thought the article did a decent job of explaining something that is in many ways unexplainable and most likely unprovable (at least at this stage of human and scientific evolution).
So, I wasn't posting this article for any other reason than because I found it an enjoyable read and either good food for thought or because I found it to be a verbal representation of what I already knew to be true for me. How you and others interpreted the article and what is gleened (if anything) from it is going to be personal. Thanks for pointing out that as far as science goes, this article doesn't really prove anything (on an ultimate level is *anything* ever proveable?).... but really, the value (for me) was more in the connection I felt than the words used or the proof shown.
Love!
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Dec 15 2011 : 8:01:26 PM
|
No the article doesn't prove anything, but you are right, nothing is provable, because all "proofs" are based upon agreed assumptions. And just because something isn't scientific doesn't mean it is not true. It is just not scientific.
There are reasons for writing things scientifically, but of course they don't have to be followed.
And I have gained something many times from information that wasn't true. |
|
|
|
stevenbhow
Japan
352 Posts |
Posted - Dec 16 2011 : 10:43:10 PM
|
| Weird, I just finished reading "The Cosmic Serpent", which I think I heard about from CarsonZ a few years back in a thread about DMT. |
|
|
|
cantor
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - Jan 29 2012 : 08:54:02 AM
|
I read the article at http://wakeup-world.com/2011/07/12/...-frequencies
that CarsonZi mentions. The article is interesting but, in my opinion, would not be
considered anything but pseudoscience by most of the scientific community. You should note that there are no references to scientific journals, etc. that are quoted in the article. Parts of the article are misleading. For example, the author gives the impression that notions such as clairvoyance, etc. are accepted in the scientific community and this is simply not the case.
However, there is an interesting "scholarly" article that I found on the web by Daryl J. Bem, a professor at Cornell University. The article is called, "Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect"
and has been accepted for publication in the journal, "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011". You can find the article online with a Google search. Since the pre-pub, there have been some criticisms of the statistics used by Bem and rebuttals of these criticisms by other professional statisticians, but it appears to me that there is something very interesting here. Part of the reluctance of the scientific community to get on board with any of this stuff is the lack of any sound (from a scientific point of view) mechanism for explaining it. Personally, I "believe" in things like clairvoyance, etc. and I think there is "evidence" for it, but this is still a far cry from scientific validity. How important scientific validity is, is another question.
I should mention that, although I do have a fairly strong scientific background, I am not scientist. I am a working PhD research mathematician. |
|
|
|
Bourgo
USA
57 Posts |
Posted - Mar 17 2012 : 09:26:12 AM
|
I do breast cancer research and have a Ph.D. in genetics....let me weigh in on this.
Until something truly revolutionary like this (if it were true...) is published in a reputable, peer reviewed scientific journal, it is hard to take it seriously. If something is this life-changing, it would be published in "Nature" or "Science" and would spawn an entire new field of molecular genetics. I would personally LOVE for something like this to be true and validated by the scientific community as a whole...but most of it is pseudoscience and if you can only ever find reports of these things on third-party sites (i.e. not peer-reviewed journal sites) then it is likely not founded.
Remember, you have DNA in every single cell of your body; not just your brain cells, but EVERY cell. That means if a significant global, bodily change takes place in your DNA (which it does, of course, due to replication errors, repair errors, etc.) then it would need to take place in every cell in your entire body to be a true change....and that doesn't happen. What happens are random mutations in random cells that are not communicated throughout every cell in the body. In a sense, you are a mosaic of random DNA alterations....
If information can be changed and altered to reflect experiences, etc., then the only place we could not really measure this is in the brain (which would admittedly be the most likely culprit). Unfortunately, human brain biopsies are hard to come by ;-) Until someone does a study on rats or mice or some other animal, where they figure out how to take a brain biopsy, keep the animal alive, allow it to live and experience things for awhile, and then take another biopsy....then sequence both samples and determine if there are significant alterations, we are not going to be able to answer this question for sure. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Scientific proof that mantra can reprogram DNA
