American biologist claims that genes can be affected by signals located in the external environment of the cell, such as thoughts, feelings, and emotions.

According to cell biologist Dr. Bruce H. Lipton (formerly a professor of anatomy at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and now a researcher), this effect is quite real. Having performed a series of experiments, he suggested that the cell membrane is an organic version of a computer chip.

Although these views are controversial since science states that genes are those that control our behavior, not vice versa, similar publications of other researchers seem to strengthen this view. Despite the fact that Dr. Lipton’s ideas haven’t been taken seriously by the scientific community, let’s explore them.

Quantum physics of cell biology

Dr. Lipton is also one of the first researchers who applied the principles of quantum physics in cell biology. While traditional cell biology focuses on physical cells as biological control agents, Lipton’s research involves the mechanisms by which the energy in the form of beliefs can affect biological functions and even the genetic code.

Applying modern physics to biology, he examines its impact on our lives. According to Dr. Lipton, it turns out that people not only can control their genetic activity but also change their DNA through their beliefs.

Until recently, it was believed that genes were activated automatically and became active or inactive by themselves. This kind of behavior could justify a theoretical model, where the genes would be the factor that controls the biological functions.

Although the power of genes continues to be emphasized in biological studies and textbooks, a radically innovative approach has come to disturb the calm waters of cellular biology. Dr. Lipton claims that the environment and especially our worldview directly affect our genetic activity.

During the first 6 years of life, the child acquires the behavioral patterns they need in order to be a functional member of society. Additionally, their subconscious mind forms beliefs about their own personality. When a parent tells the child that they are dumb or attributes any other negative trait to them, this information is perceived as fact by the child’s subconscious.

Such acquired beliefs form the ‘central voice’ that controls the function of the cellular ‘community’ of the body. While consciously, someone can have great self-confidence, these powerful subconscious beliefs can lead to self-destructive behavior.

How the conscious and the subconscious mind interrelate

The most dangerous aspect of our automatic negative thoughts is that they are controlled by the subconscious, without any control or even observation of consciousness. We believe that with willpower, we can change the negative programming of our subconscious.

Unfortunately, despite it sounds simple, in reality, it is very difficult: it means that one should have such power so that they can be an observer and controller at the same time. Once the consciousness takes a small break, your subconscious will automatically get the control to play the familiar and very firmly established role.

The subconscious mind is like a tape recorder

In our subconscious, there is no observer to check what has been recorded. Therefore, there is no distinction between good or bad behavior. It simply records, independently of the quality. In this perspective, the subconscious mind is like a tape recorder, which uses specific behavioral programs that are activated by specific stimuli.

Unlike the conscious mind, the subconscious is much stronger regarding the ‘editing’ of information. Many neuroscientists think that the conscious mind represents only 5% of our total mental activity. The rest is the thoughts that are constantly occupying our minds and the attitudes we adopt without even being able to perceive or control them.

Therefore, it is evident that the conscious needs incredibly strong willpower in order to even simply observe and identify the behavior that comes from the subconscious. Positive thinking can help, but you need to establish a form of cooperation with the subconscious.

Knowing now that what we are and what we can become is a state that can be taken under our control, albeit with great effort, it is necessary to look within ourselves, to trust our inner observer, and get it to work for us.

If we know the mechanisms that determine our behavior, we can improve them and, therefore, improve our lives.

What do you think about Dr. Lipton’s ideas? Does his theory seem convincing to you?

Copyright © 2012-2024 Learning Mind. All rights reserved. For permission to reprint, contact us.

power of misfits book banner desktop

Like what you are reading? Subscribe to our newsletter to make sure you don’t miss new thought-provoking articles!

This Post Has One Comment

  1. tmraywood

    It is so rewarding to see this idea being taken seriously and to see that science is beginning to make inroads in support of this proposition. I have long believed that perception itself must play a role in genetic mutation within, that is, the framework of evolutionary process whereby the sentiments and proclivities of the parents (or even further back) are passed down viz DNA coding. For example, the biologically male child who as an adolescent discovers of himself a strong sexual attraction to males [instead of females] can be understood in many cases to have absorbed that proclivity from the mother strictly through the mechanism of genetic inheritance.

    Another particularly interesting clue along these lines centers around the otherwise improbable success rates of certain ethnicities. One prominent example of this is strong Jewish role in virtually all spheres of thought and enterprise. Despite comprising a decidedly small percentage of the overall population, the historic and ever-present degree of intellectual contribution made by Jews worldwide is almost excessive. This can easily be understood in terms of what I’ll call the “we’re the Chosen Ones” genetic factor. So even though many such contributors need not in really any way consciously subscribe to such beliefs, it seems probable they’re essentially hard-wired to perform at levels defined by profound productivity. So when we look at science, finance, the arts, or even martial prowess, we very much seem to be observing a gene pool fitted with an uncanny gift for that which is seminal in scope.

    Here’s another: the Luck O’ The Irish. Really? Check your history. By the middle of the 19th century the typical Irish citizen, (and thus the typical Irish immigrant), was of literally no account. They had no money. (In Ireland they served as subsistence farmers for actual landholders and owned no real property of their own.) They had no education. (They typically could neither read nor write.) Accordingly, from the outset as immigrants they could obtain to no real station in the U.S. and had to accept only the lowest forms of labor for railroads or for factories of various sorts, often living in squalor. They were reputed for excess in the use of alcoholic beverages and, even worse, for the mistreatment of their womenfolk. The records and rolls are full of evidence documenting this. And the periodicals are equally full of evidence as to how greatly they were loathed as almost subhuman in their character as a people. But what a story of ascendency is theirs? Within just over a hundred years of the Great Famine (blight of the potato crop in Ireland circa 1845), here in the U.S. we had an Irish Catholic president. And even in the current administration (and that which preceded it) you can hardly take in a national news broadcast which doesn’t resonate with plainly Irish surnames occuping high-level governmental positions. I think more than half of those present in the Situation Room when Bin Laden was apprehended were of Irish descent, for example. So, were they just lucky? Or were they ascendant against all reasonable odds because their DNA adjusted itself or “self-coded” in such a way as to match their core belief in an inevitable good fortune? Whether it be individually or collectively, certainly [if generally] we behave in whatever ways line up with what we believe ‘defines’ our promise or potential. So it seems not at all coincidental that Irish Americans came quite quickly to behave in ways which ensured of sociopolitical ascendancy because, of course, how else could Luck O’ The Irish be expected to translate?

Leave a Reply