The Biology of Belief
Ever since James D. Watson and Francis Crick revealed the helical double-helix structure of DNA as the carrier of heredity, genes have mostly been held responsible for the state of the body and its health. Darwin's thesis of the survival of the strongest became the central dogma. The mindset of competitive struggle was reinforced.
Yet in nature another survival strategy can be observed - cooperation. Cells show us that there is something more valuable than fighting against one another.
Each cell is in itself a complex being with a certain intelligence, capable of learning and remembering, and it can pass the information it has acquired on to its offspring. A cell could survive on its own. And yet in a human being roughly 50 trillion individual cells come together, working for a common whole and sharing a common consciousness. Cells could serve as role models for humanity on Earth, where a far smaller number of beings apparently has far greater trouble cooperating with one another. Cells could show the way to a planet filled with joy.
Cells understood very quickly that together they have far better chances of survival. Working together, they can perceive their environment better, and they can differentiate themselves and thereby take on specialized tasks.
Cells are collections of protein building blocks (proteins). The human body comprises more than 100,000 proteins, yet only 25,000 genes. Every protein is a chain of amino acid molecules. Peptides hold the connections between the amino acids in the protein together, and these can take on various shapes depending on physical pattern and electromagnetic charge. Hormones, enzymes and electromagnetic fields influence the shape of these chains, resulting in interlockings in which the proteins fit together like gears.
The small number of genes - humans, incidentally, have only 1,500 more genes than a spineless microscopic worm - had early on raised the suspicion that genes could not explain the complexity of human life. With regard to disease, it had also become apparent that genes could not activate or deactivate themselves.
Is the DNA blueprint, after all, not the inherited stroke of fate? Is genetic "predisposition", after all, not carved in stone?
Dr. Bruce Lipton, professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin and scientific researcher at Stanford University's School of Medicine, argues in his book »The Biology of Belief« (named Book of the Year in its field by USA Book News in 2006) that one's own belief patterns can change one's DNA. He refers to studies showing that different epigenetic factors (environmental influences such as stress, nutrition, emotions) caused over 2,000 different protein variations to arise from the very same DNA. These could be inherited.
Lipton concludes that environmental influences and proteins play a decisive role in heredity. How one nourishes oneself seems to be at least as important as which genes nature has provided.
Epigenetics is today regarded as a factor in many diseases, including cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. By contrast, according to Bruce Lipton, only 5% of cancer and cardiovascular diseases are actually attributable to true heredity.
Cell membrane [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
But what lies behind the other 95%? How do environmental influences get into the cell? Here the cell's brain plays a decisive role, and the brain is not the nucleus (which merely serves reproduction), but the cell membrane. The membrane can translate environmental signals into behavior, and while a cell could go on living after its nucleus is removed, it could not do so without the membrane - the cell would die. The structure of the membrane corresponds to a filter mechanism. This is meant to let nutrients into the cell and waste products out of it. It quickly becomes clear that, on a very small scale, decisions are made about how our body is able to deal with the supply of water, food, emotional messenger substances, but also toxins. The membrane decides what is allowed through it. Many people are fortunate enough to be able to drink plenty of water. Nevertheless, some of them remain dehydrated. Others take calcium because of low bone density, but hardly any of it gets built into the bones - most of it is excreted again. What is the dynamic behind such behavior?
The filter mechanism needs, first, sensors that observe the environment both inside and outside the cell. Then it needs actors - effective proteins that respond to environmental signals and trigger an action. These proteins can, for example, activate genes, and often enough the very same genes are activated that the parents already had activated. At first it is only one possibility among many, but it is likely that the parents' behavior will be copied, and so heredity eventually becomes reality. The fundamental decisions are mostly made already in the womb. It seems the body adjusts itself to what it wants to believe. That is why it is conceivable to reduce eyesight or hearing ability in order to have fewer conflicts with perception, to build a body with little vitality, to split off memories, or, better yet, to forget them altogether.
In this article I mainly write about interpretation. Yet it should be clear that it also genuinely makes sense to choose a good environment and good friends. Fundamentally, then, not much is demanded of the sensors. They must be able to distinguish between a healthy and a dangerous environment.
A toxic environment should lead to withdrawal and protective measures, a nourishing environment to opening up and growth. This serves a purpose in the case of real influences, depending on nutrient deficiency, electrical fields, chemistry in the body, hostile surroundings, and so on. The body creates healthy boundaries for itself.
The crux lies in the interpretation of the signal, when it leads to an inappropriate action. It is then no longer just in the signal itself, which is why we speak of the brain of the cell. Just as in society, so too in the body a parasite is let into the system instead of being chased away. But parasites give nothing. They only take. A system that is open to everything cannot be entirely sealed. A virus seems welcome, perhaps so as to be able to underpin anger at oneself with real facts. In particular, we allow chronic stress to take hold.
Whoever lives under stress does so at the cost of their vitality, because life-sustaining processes already run at a bare minimum in the face of »perceived« dangers. Yet it is far from enough merely to avoid stress, since that would only be the zero state. Only feelings of fulfillment, joy and love truly advance life-sustaining processes.
Under stress there is no time to grow, to digest, to nourish, or to fend off internal bacteria or viruses. The entire body is focused on survival - or so it thinks, at least.
If the immune system had time and space and were activated, it could launch targeted attacks on problem areas. But what happens when the stressed person decides to take medication? Unfortunately, chemistry affects an entire range of proteins, not just one specific one. Medications can trigger similar signals in different regions of the body, because the same proteins are present in different systems. This results in the notorious side effects, all the worse when a medication addresses only a symptom rather than the cause of a disease. According to Bruce Lipton, medical interventions have become the third most common cause of death in the USA.
Wouldn't it be better, then, to look for alternatives? Why do placebo effects work? What about a better »perception«? Could we train that? Since proteins are influenced by electromagnetic fields - couldn't we use energetic input instead of chemical input?
If we did not deceive ourselves so often (and sometimes lie to ourselves), better perception would already be assured. Honest effort, however, has a natural enemy. These are the habitual programs, often sabotage programs, stored in the subconscious. In the conflict between reason ("I should exercise more...") and the subconscious ("I don't deserve to be free..."), there is unfortunately only one winner. The conscious mind can process about 40 bits per second of data. The subconscious manages 40,000,000 bits per second. That is why there is no point bringing evidence to the subconscious. All the talk of positive thinking is worthless. Given these proportions, even the question of how much control I have over my life appears in a new light. It becomes clear why there is no control, and why there cannot be any.
So I can talk to my subconscious as much as I like. It will remain ineffective and will only cost me energy. Lipton uses the very fitting image of a tape recorder that simply plays the same pattern over and over again. Have you ever tried talking to a tape recorder? It cannot be persuaded that way to play something different.
Still, the situation is not hopeless. After all, we managed to get ourselves into this state in the first place, and, in the spirit of Moshé Feldenkrais, health also means reversibility. There is a correct answer, and it is this: you have to change the recording on the tape. You have to re-record the tape. That gives you a new, better program. Mental training offers good techniques for this. I believe Reiki, too, is helpful in this sense, because it contributes to better perception.
Only through my perception has it become my truth. In the beginning there was nothing at all, everything was neutral, at most there were things that happened alongside me. I didn't even have to experience them myself. I simply downloaded them - from my parents' behavior, from my teachers' behavior. How many of these ended up in my subconscious without my knowing anything about it at all? How many of them are positive belief patterns that have so far allowed me to live a good life? How many of them are false and contradictory, sending out those unclear signals that no brain could ever process correctly? My perceptions are certainly not infallible. My perceptions are only my belief. This belief steers my biology. My belief can be more or less wrong, but a belief will never set me free. Which brings me to my motto: for it is clarity that is liberating!
Who I am does not depend so much on my DNA. Biologists have found in humans so-called self-receptors, human leukocyte antigens, which are linked to the immune system and which reflect one's very own personal identity. Every cell has such receptors, and they are located on the outside of the membrane. They have an antenna. They simply download the signals that concern them from their surroundings. In practical terms, then, I receive my identity from a radio station that I tune into with my »I« frequency. It broadcasts from outside, from my environment, and it broadcasts regardless of whether my bodymind can receive the signal or not. So who am I, then?