Quantum Entrainment

[Type4_PTS]

The thing is that there are really a lot of levels of 'scientific background'. Whoever KFC is, and whatever they do know, they clearly don't have the expertise to ask the obvious questions about Si's entirely speculative theoretical paper on quantum muscles — questions several of the blog's commenters asked immediately.

(What about decoherence? That's pretty much a stake through the heart from the very start. And so what if your idealized model reproduces some features of muscle motion? That doesn't mean that that's how muscles do it. It's not hard to make simple models that mimic any simple behavior.)

I used a statement from kfc about his feelings with regards to Quantum Biology and didn't include any part of his comments with regard to his analysis of the paper on muscles. To me it is clear that he had some pretty strong feelings concerning the subject even prior to when this paper came out. As far as his own scientific background, if I cared enough I'd contact him and get some clearification on that. I am kind of curious but just got too much going on at the moment that takes priority.

Yet rather than making the modest and accurate observation that there have recently been a few tentative and speculative papers on non-classical aspects of biochemistry, which might have been a good blog entry, KFC feels authorized to proclaim in TR's ArXiv blog that quantum biology is here to stay. That's not science, and it's not even good journalism.

Again, if I wanted to pursue this, I'd contact him directly so that he could defend himself on this point. He's got about 400 posts on TechnologyReview.com, so anyone else that wants to can go through them and evaluate the quality of his journalism and analysis of the articles selected from arXiv.


The recent Nature article on photosynthesis is, as far as I can tell, the only actual evidence so far for anything like quantum biology. All the other papers I've seen have been theoretical speculation. It seems to be good work, but the case has barely been opened, not closed. The subject is a complicated system, and there's a very good chance that whatever has been seen in it can in fact be explained classically. One of the reasons quantum mechanics is so elusive is that classical physics includes both particle and wave behavior — just not both at once. Wavelike energy transport in photosynthesis may well turn out to be classical wave physics.


I did not know that ArXiv requires some respectable affiliation or endorsement these days. I registered years ago, and maybe they didn't check then, or maybe I was just always already in the club and didn't see the bouncer at the door. Thanks for the info;

I don't know how strict they are but it says on their page that if someone misrepresents either their identity or their affiliation that that is grounds for immediate and permanent suspension.
http://arxiv.org/help/registerhelp

Here is the link with regards their endorsement system:
http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement


it interests me, because I'm vaguely interested in the possibilities of conducting large scale academic research and teaching online — virtual universities, virtual seminars, virtual institutes.

Good luck SOT. I have a friend of a friend who is a professor at a couple of online universities and is doing very well.

It's not happening yet, at the level I mean; but my interest is only idle at this point, and the odds are high that other people will make it work long before I do anything. Part of the value in this, though, would be the opportunity to reboot the current credential system, and let smart people participate whether or not they had jumped through old-fashioned academic hoops. But some form of quality control would be needed, or the whole thing would drown in crackpots. Whatever ArXiv is doing seems to work, so it's good to know they're doing something. If the 'endorsement' part of their scheme is really being used much, it might be a scalable solution.

Anyway, the other problem with writing books now on quantum consciousness, apart from the idea being implausible in principle, is that at best it's like writing books today about the anatomy of alien life on other planets. Maybe it exists, but we have no evidence about it, and we are not likely to get any evidence for the foreseeable future, because we're extremely far away from that level of knowledge. So whatever anyone writes now is sheer fantasy.

I originally posted on this thread as I had read (and liked) a couple of the books that the OP had mentioned. Last night I had pulled my copy of Matrix Energetics off the shelf and refamiliarized myself with it. I can see why it may offend someone who is trained in quantum mechanics. But when I read it originally I had never thought of it in those terms. And the author makes clear right in the Preface that he is neither a mathematician or physicist and that the knowledge he has of any of the principles (of quantum mechanics) could be described as more "poetic" or "imaginative" than scientific. The technique that is the subject of his book called "Matrix Energetics" falls into a category of what would be considered "Energy Healing", and relies upon what are considered "subtle energies". I recognize that mainstream physics doesn't recognize these subtle energies and that is understandable. The forward to the book was written by William Tiller who is professor emeritus of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University. I'm going to quote from one of his articles in a moment, but first for some who will say he is nothing but a fruitcake, want it to be known that he has also published over 250 conventional scientific papers as well as several books and additionally was an advisory physicist to Westinghouse Research Laboratories for seven years.
The following is from an article he wrote back in 1999:
( I am including it as I am in agreement with the part that I bolded)

http://www.tillerfoundation.com/subtle-energies.html

"There is now a large body of experimental data in the general area of psychoenergetics associated with the directed focus of human intention. Re- mote influence experiments with healers, remote viewing experiments, investigations of psychokinetics, clairvoyance, homeopathy, and other phenomena confound the established picture of natural laws but attest to the existence of processes requiring the involvement of emotional, mental, spiritual, and other inadequately understood domains of nature.
Because these domains are incompletely understood, they might best be grouped into a category called "subtle energies." Future research may delineate and distinguish the various characteristics of these energies and their usefulness in medicine. For now, subtle energies can be defined as all those energies beyond those presently acknowledged in physics. Four kinds of force are-conventionally considered to be responsible for all the observable phenomena in the universe: the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. Subtle energies and the subtle forces they generate are not necessarily strong or weak with respect to the established forces, but they are difficult to nail down with the standard protocols of today's science. It is useful to reflect for a moment on what the science of physics is able to do and not able to do. Physics attempts to develop a relative framework of quantitative understanding that is internally consistent across all the various observable phenomena of nature. Physics is not able to provide absolute truth.
Periodically, the prevailing model of physics is unable to provide internal consistency when incorporating new sets of experimental observations. The choice is then to either deny that the new observations are valid or expand the model of nature sufficiently to allow natural incorporation of the new data.
Such a revision in the standard model was required when quantum and relativity phenomena had to be accounted for. Today, the majority of the physics community is in a state of denial with respect to psycho- energetic phenomena. The present model is so neat, powerful, and comfortable that many people feel it would be a shame to have to disturb it. However, evolution moves on, in spite of prevailing paradigms."

 

[Eelo Ars]

..... Today, the majority of the physics community is in a state of denial with respect to psycho- energetic phenomena. The present model is so neat, powerful, and comfortable that many people feel it would be a shame to have to disturb it. However, evolution moves on, in
spite of prevailing paradigms."

Sounds like they do not have a good stick to measure it with. If they did have a good stick, and subtle energy phenomena occured with enough regularity that it could be predicted, then there probably would be stuff all over the place about it.

How I would love to have a really good stick to sell. )

 

[uniquemand]

Lol. Psycho-energetic phenomena. In other words, telekinesis. Show me. Otherwise, shut it. For a book covering this, read The Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Material World

 

[Student of Trinity]

[A bunch of very reasonable stuff against which I have no argument.]

The thing I dislike about 'poetic' and 'inspirational' uses of quantum physics is that I think they tend to be dishonest. I think they're like someone packaging a herbal nostrum with an 'artistic' logo that prominently features the letters F,D, and A.

Maybe someone really can produce good poetry from quantum mechanics. I've read one novel, for instance, that championed the Bohmian view of quantum mechanics, which I consider a dead end, and was also all about ghosts; but I really felt it worked as a novel.

So in principle, sure, I'm willing to cut all kinds of slack for good poetry. Poetic license will let you get away with a lot — if you can make the grade for actual poetry. But in general I don't think that quantum mechanics is very poetic. It's too weird and too technical to resonate well with human imagination, except insofar as it can be misinterpreted as a magical influence of the sort people have been imagining for millennia.

On the other hand, sprinkle some quantum buzzwords onto a bunch of New Age mumbo-jumbo about creating reality, that would otherwise sound like stone age superstition, and you suggest subliminally that it's scientifically proven. It seems to me that an honest presentation of some novel spiritual theory would avoid using such potentially misleading terms.

 

[Type4_PTS]

UM, My personal interest is in what would be considered "energy healing" where you are manipulating (or balancing) the subtle energies of the body. This would include Matrix Energetics, Acupuncture, EFT, Psych-K, and other methods. The term that Tiller used "psychoenergetics" *would* include telekinesis but I don't know what his views are on that.

A good book I found which mostly covers EFT, which is the only one of these methods I have direct personal experience with is this:

http://www.amazon.com/Promise-Energ..._1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272952098&sr=8-1#noop

 

[Type4_PTS]

The thing I dislike about 'poetic' and 'inspirational' uses of quantum physics is that I think they tend to be dishonest. I think they're like someone packaging a herbal nostrum with an 'artistic' logo that prominently features the letters F,D, and A.

I got what you're saying and I agree that some people throw around "quantum" as a buzzword as Smilla earlier said. As far as this guy Richard Bartlett is concerned, I'll give him a pass IF his methods deliver results as promised. He makes some incredible claims and so I would really want to witness this stuff in person and know the subject personally.

 

[uniquemand]

The EFT you are talking about is probably "emotional freedom technique": tapping, ostensibly on "meridians" in order to do... something. I am not a fan. It's been largely debunked, according to many papers in "the literature".

However, there is another EFT out there which is quite potent and used by many psychologists still today, "Emotionally Focused Therapy". This is worthy of study. I am fine with people studying "energy psychology", and looking at ostensible "subtle energies", but my view is that it is so much hoakum, piggy backing on new age and semi-occult studies, with no evidenciary basis and no discernable logic. It is, however, very pretty.

 

[Type4_PTS]

I am not a fan. It's been largely debunked, according to many papers in "the literature".

Yes, you are correct in the EFT I am referring to is "Emotional Freedom Techniques". I'm glad that I was unaware that it had been debunked as I used it to reduce by 95% two severe allergies in just several hours of work. I went from a point of spending a couple hours with a couple cats almost putting me in the emergency room on several occasions to the point now when I live with three cats. EFT has helped me with other issues as well.

Here is a list (below) of some studies that have been accepted in peer-reviewed journals. Many more are currently underway.
(click on each of the links below for further info)

The Effect of a Brief EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) Self-Intervention on Anxiety, Depression, Pain and Cravings in Healthcare Workers

Psychological Symptom Change in Veterans After Six Sessions of Emotional freedom Techniques (EFT); An Observational Study

The Treatment of Combat Trauma in Veterans Using EFT

The effects of EFT on long-term psychological symptoms

Self-administered EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) in individuals with fibromyalgia: a randomized trial

Evaluation of a Meridian-Based Intervention, Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), for Reducing Specific Phobias of Small Animals

Neurophysiological Indicators of EFT Treatment Of Post-Traumatic Stress

Clinical Story of a 6-Year-Old Boy's Eating Phobia; An Integrated Approach

Energy psychology in disaster relief

Energy Psychology: a review of the preliminary evidence

Pilot Study of EFT, WHEE and CBT for Treatment of Test Anxiety in University Students

Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) For Traumatic Brain Injury

Thought Field Therapy and its derivatives: rapid relief of mental health problems through tapping on the body

Veterans: Finding their way home with EFT--an observational study

Assessment of the Emotional Freedom Technique: An Alternative Treatment for Fear - The Waite & Holder Study

Rapid Treatment of PTSD: Why Psychological Exposure with Acupoint Tapping May Be Effective

The Effect of EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) on Athletic Performance: A Randomized Controlled Blind Trial

Energy Psychology in Rehabilitation: Origins, Clinical Applications, and Theory

Change Is Possible: EFT (Emotional Freedom Techniques) with Life-Sentence and Veteran Prisoners at San Quentin State Prison

The Neurochemistry of Counterconditioning: Acupressure Desensitization in Psychotherapy

The Effect of Progressive Muscular Relaxation and Emotional Freedom Techniques on Test Anxiety in High School Students: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Six Trauma Imprints Treated with Combination Intervention: Critical Incident Stress Debriefing and Thought Field Therapy (TFT) or Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT)

Theoretical and Methodological Problems in Research on Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) and Other Meridian Based Therapies

 

[uniquemand]

Yes, there has been a good, long look at it. I'm glad you had great success with it. I'd be interested in hearing about randomized trials of psychological techniques on physical illnesses such as allergies. If the illness has a psychological basis, then I think psychological treatments can be successful with them. The important question, I would think, is the difference between doing EFT and doing "placebo". I am an advocate of placebo, as long as it is ethically done, as I think a great deal of the "healing power" of many approaches is the person's belief that it will "work". However, there are some methods that work even better than placebo, and to the extent that they do, represent an augmentation of or compliment to that capacity.

 

[uniquemand]

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mentserv.html

"Thought Field Therapy (TFT)
TFT's founder, psychologist Roger J. Callahan, Ph.D., claims that TFT "provides a code to nature's healing system. . . . addresses their fundamental causes, balancing the body's energy system and allowing you to eliminate most negative emotions within minutes and promote the body's own healing ability." [32] The Callahan Techniques Web site also recommends dietary supplementation for persons who "suffer from multiple environmental sensitivities and even allergies which aggravate psychological problems." During TFT sessions, the therapist uses sequences of finger taps on "acupressure points" (primarily of the hands, face, and upper body) and the patient does repetitive activities (repeats statements, counts, rolls the eyes, hums a tune) while visualizing a distressing situation.

TFT is claimed to be nearly 100% effective in treating depression, phobias, and other psychologic problems. It is based on the notion that acupressure points are related to blockages ("perturbations") of "body energy" associated with physical or emotional illness. Proponents claim that the finger-tapping releases the blockages and increases to the body's energy flow. TFT's advanced techniques include muscle-testing (a variation of applied kinesiology) and "voice technology," in which the practitioner analyzes patients' voices over the phone and determines where the patients should tap themselves. "Voice technology" training for practitioners costs $100,000.

Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT), developed by a Callahan disciple named Gary Craig, is said to be a simpler version of TFT that works more quickly [33]. Other variations include Tapas Acupressure Technique (TAT), Negative Affect Erasing Method (NAEM), Midline Energy Treatment (MET), Healing Energy Light Process (HELP), Energy Diagnostic and Treatment Methods (EDxTM), Getting Thru Techniques (GTT), Be Set Free Fast (BSFF), and Whole Life Healing (WLL), all of which are sometimes referred to as "emotional acupressure."

Critics have noted that TFT's underlying theories clash with established scientific knowledge and that studies alleging benefit have been poorly designed [34-37]. In 1999, the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners reprimanded a psychologist for using TFT and voice technology in his psychology practice [38] and the American Psychological Association's Continuing Education Committee notified CE providers that TFT courses will no longer be approved for continuing education credits [39]."

Now, actually, I will stop commenting on this, here, as we've drifted off-topic considerably.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Now, actually, I will stop commenting on this, here, as we've drifted off-topic considerably.

Yes, your response to my post IS off-topic. The subject of your post was TFT which is NOT the same therapy as EFT.

Also your source of information, Stephen Barrett has been shown repeatedly to be misrepresenting himself as an expert on various subjects when he is nothing of the sort. I wouldn't accept his word on even what time of day it is.

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

 

[uniquemand]

Mods, would you please move my comments concerning EFT to a new thread, entitled "EFT, TFT and Energy Psychology", with me as author? I'd appreciate it.

 

[Type4_PTS]

Mods, would you please move my comments concerning EFT to a new thread, entitled "EFT, TFT and Energy Psychology", with me as author? I'd appreciate it.

Mods, if you do that, you could also move all the posts# 48 - 55 (with the exception of #49) as they all relate to the same subject.

 

[themadhair]

Exactly which ideas are you referring to (that I brought to the table)?

In this post you introduced belief that QM will somehow shed light on your spiritual nature. If you want to bring ‘spiritual nature’ into a scientific discussion along with QM then pony some evidence. Otherwise it is simply meaninglessly twisting QM. The whole ‘it will help is understand our spiritual nature’ + ‘I’m not suggesting it is the study of our spiritual nature’ strikes me as a bit of a canard tbh.

There is still alot of mystery about consciousness, and maybe you are correct in that it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. But I do feel strongly that continued research with what some have called "Quantum Biology" will prove fruitful.

Chemical reactions on the molecular scale are affected by quantum phenomena. Certain biological reactions come under this, hence the ‘quantum biology’. It would be nice if you understood this, because this is a poor way to try combining QM with consciousness.

So, I have your permission to believe what I want about spirituality, but not your permission to believe what I read in "books" about it (quantum subject) ?

Want to learn about QM then read a book about QM. Expecting these books to have knowledge about QM is really silly to be honest.

Like being told that certain knowledge is forbidden.

You make the assumption that such books contain knowledge. Good luck with that.

But if you know all about it, then why are you spinning your wheels telling me what not to believe, rather than what to believe?

I can understand their annoyance. People like you lap up the shit in these books, and the result is a load of people who know squat about the science. Which is a real shame and harms the scientific literacy of our species.

And if you do not know all about it, then how can you say another does not;

People who write books connecting QM to non-scientific concepts are talking crap. It really is that simple. Take the warning or leave it. The whole fake-indignation act is pretty funny though. If it isn’t an act then its just sad.

How am I to believe you when you tell me not to believe you (because I do bunch you in with those who write about it,) but if I believe that you are right that I should not believe you, then I am believing you to not believe you, which is believing you, which is what I am not supposed to do.

Quoting this because it may be one of the dumbest things I have ever seen written.

Be very, very careful when telling another what to believe or not to believe: you do not know what you will trigger.

Sharing some scientific knowledge is bad? Since when?

Make your suggestions positive, not negative.

There are some things that cannot be put in a positive way. Telling someone not to eat arsenic cannot be made to sound like a positive suggestion using your logic.

I start this thread wanting to pursue where conscousness comes from, with the idea that such a thing is possible and that others have some ideas about it.

I don’t believe you when you say this because, if you had a genuine interest in ferreting out the facts of consciousness, you would not have mixed in QM with it. What you really wanted to do was get some validation for some of the beliefs that you hold. Someone pointing out, and quite correctly too I might add, that QM as a scientific discipline has fuck all to do with consciousness and that most of the books in question are peddling garbage wasn’t exactly the response you were seeking.

It is useful to reflect for a moment on what the science of physics is able to do and not able to do. Physics attempts to develop a relative framework of quantitative understanding that is internally consistent across all the various observable phenomena of nature. Physics is not able to provide absolute truth. [/I]
Periodically, the prevailing model of physics is unable to provide internal consistency when incorporating new sets of experimental observations. The choice is then to either deny that the new observations are valid or expand the model of nature sufficiently to allow natural incorporation of the new data.
Such a revision in the standard model was required when quantum and relativity phenomena had to be accounted for. Today, the majority of the physics community is in a state of denial with respect to psycho- energetic phenomena. The present model is so neat, powerful, and comfortable that many people feel it would be a shame to have to disturb it. However, evolution moves on, in spite of prevailing paradigms."

Accurate translation of the above:
”We actually don’t have any evidence or observations for our ideas, and the scientific community has pretty much told us to GTFO because of it. However, lack of evidence not withstanding, we really like out idea. The current physics models have some problems. Hopefully, by claiming physics has problems, we can shoehorn our ideas into the mix despite us having absolutely no fucking legitimate reason for doing so. In short we have absolutely nothing in the way of experimental evidence and cannot get published in a proper peer-reviewed journal so we are resorting to rhetoric that will baffle the layperson.”

Yes, you are correct in the EFT I am referring to is "Emotional Freedom Techniques". I'm glad that I was unaware that it had been debunked as I used it to reduce by 95% two severe allergies in just several hours of work. I went from a point of spending a couple hours with a couple cats almost putting me in the emergency room on several occasions to the point now when I live with three cats. EFT has helped me with other issues as well.

http://www.srmhp.org/0201/emotional-freedom-technique.html

Here is a list (below) of some studies that have been accepted in peer-reviewed journals.

Could you direct me to the studies that specifically done double blinds, accounted for placebo, etc? As much as I would love to start delving there is far too much reading here. And I’ve never really heard of half these journals:
Integrative Medicine: A Clinician's Journal.
International Journal of Healing and Caring
Traumatology
Journal of Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine
Journal of Prenatal & Perinatal Psychology & Health

 

[Type4_PTS]

In this post you introduced belief that QM will somehow shed light on your spiritual nature. If you want to bring ‘spiritual nature’ into a scientific discussion along with QM then pony some evidence. Otherwise it is simply meaninglessly twisting QM. The whole ‘it will help is understand our spiritual nature’ + ‘I’m not suggesting it is the study of our spiritual nature’ strikes me as a bit of a canard tbh.

What I said in that post was:
"........... I believe that our attempt to understand what we believe is purely the 'physical universe' through the field of quantum mechanics will also lead to increased understanding of our true nature."

I did NOT say that someone could increase their understanding today of our spiritual nature. The section above of William Tiller's quote that I bolded more accurately aligns with how I feel on this subject.


Chemical reactions on the molecular scale are affected by quantum phenomena. Certain biological reactions come under this, hence the ‘quantum biology’. It would be nice if you understood this, because this is a poor way to try combining QM with consciousness.

I do understand this and completely agree with your statement here. What statement of mine are you referring to where I linked QM with consciousness?:confused2:

Accurate translation of the above:
”We actually don’t have any evidence or observations for our ideas, and the scientific community has pretty much told us to GTFO because of it. However, lack of evidence not withstanding, we really like out idea. The current physics models have some problems. Hopefully, by claiming physics has problems, we can shoehorn our ideas into the mix despite us having absolutely no fucking legitimate reason for doing so. In short we have absolutely nothing in the way of experimental evidence and cannot get published in a proper peer-reviewed journal so we are resorting to rhetoric that will baffle the layperson.”

I found your 'translation' quite amusing actually, but completely disagree with it.
But a very humourous spin you put on it. If you did stand-up comedy you could incorporate that into your bit and probably get a good response, if you worked a club around MIT anyhow.

http://www.srmhp.org/0201/emotional-freedom-technique.html

Could you direct me to the studies that specifically done double blinds, accounted for placebo, etc? As much as I would love to start delving there is far too much reading here. And I’ve never really heard of half these journals:
Integrative Medicine: A Clinician's Journal.
International Journal of Healing and Caring
Traumatology
Journal of Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine
Journal of Prenatal & Perinatal Psychology & Health

Really, I am just a beginner with EFT and not intimately familiar with all the studies. The book I referenced earlier in this thread does discuss the research to date and gets in depth on the points of the strenghts and weaknesses of EFT. I did look over the study you linked to and even as a beginner I can see that it is poorly designed. I see many problems with the study which I'm not going to get all into it here on this post as I doubt anyone would be interested.
I'll just say that the biggest issue I see with it is that the results produced by EFT depend to a large degree on the relative skill (or lack of it) on the practitioner. When the desired results are not being produced off the bat (which is common) there are a number of techniques that can be employed to debug the process. But in the study something called "Group EFT" was used where a practioner leads MANY individuals at the same time, unable to give individual attention. In a professional setting when EFT is administered it is usually done one on one with the practitioner able to totally focus on one person. There are other issues that come to mind as I'm writing that are at least as serious as this one if not more so.......to the point where I feel the study is about worthless. (even as far as any positive results were indicated by the study, and there were some)

 

[Eelo Ars]

To themadhair: Fine.

To Type4: I have used EFT many, many times, not only on myself, but on others. I am by no means an expert, but I like it. If it is nothing but placebo, then give me more placebos. My interest is in results.

However, I have not really been able to connect EFT to consicousness. Something happens, but I do not know what makes it happen. As in all systems, something happens, but what makes it happen? How far down can one break something until there is nothing left but that which compels?

As I have said, I am more interested it that which compels obediance, than that which obeys.

 

[Student of Trinity]

This is quite true. It has been amply verified, in fact, that the single best way to ensure that paranormal phenomena occur is to turn off the cameras, blindfold the observers, and wait for the crook to tell you what happened. It's amazing, but this really works most of the time. And if you peek even a bit while it's happening, damn, that makes the amazing paranormal magic turn into some crude fraud. There's a huge amount of hard evidence for this remarkable effect.

 

[programmer_guy]

I read Matrix Energetics and The Biology of Belief and also got to spend a few minutes with Bruce Lipton after a talk he gave just after releasing that book (Biology of Belief) several years ago. If you ever get a chance to see him it is definitely worthwhile. He's got some great stories from his experience as a medical school professor at Stanford as well as from his stem cell research he's been doing for about 45 years now. I feel that he played a key role in developing the part of biology known as Epigenetics. As far as Matrix Energetics, I greatly enjoyed the book and am interested in attending one of the seminars at some point. My brother already has and said it was worth while.




When I saw Lipton speak, it was primarily about the work he's done as a cell biologist where he produced some breakthrough studies in the 80's and early 90's. And that was also the focus of the book mentioned above. What does he teach in that book about quantum mechanics that you disagree with?

As far as Matrix Energetics is concerned, Richard Bartlett acknowedges more than once that he doesn't pretend to know HOW exactly the techniques work that he uses.

From your own study of quantum mechanics do you feel that its study opens any doors to increased understanding of our spiritual nature (or lack of it)?

Thanks for the reference on Bruce Lipton.

Here are some videos for anyone's convenience to watch:

Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 1 of 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLZ7GqWpEqM&feature=related

Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 2 of 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuJdVdArDgc&feature=related

Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 3 of 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0iU_QcU4o4&feature=related

Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 4 of 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy3arcY0KlQ&feature=related

Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 5 of 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-jh9UCy1Fk&feature=related

Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 6 of 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib57yeRJ9cU&feature=related

Bruce Lipton - Biology of Perception 7 of 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53ApMxcTw40&feature=related

The bottom line on what he is saying is that there is no spirit... only biology.
As the years roll on and I read more and more on what modern scientific inquiry is revealing about human beings... I am coming more and more to agree with this.
(But I would guess that this will upset many people.)

 

[uniquemand]

Doesn't upset me. I would agree that there is no non-physical, immortal spirit. The only spirit I see as "real" is the metaphorical spirit, as in "esprit de corps", or "that's the spirit". The sense of self, or "awareness of awareness unit" disappears at body death. Those who claim otherwise are making an extraodinary claim, and offer no evidence but anecdote. When asked to substantiate it, the best they can do is say "it seems real to me". When asked for actual referents in objective history, proponents never seem to be able to offer them. Hmm....

 

[Type4_PTS]

Bruce Lipton Videos

The bottom line on what he is saying is that there is no spirit... only biology.

From watching his video on "The Biology of Perception" I can understand why you would conclude this. But he doesn't actually say that in this lecture, and from reading other materials of his and seeing him speak I'm 95% certain that that is not his conclusion. Just the scope of this lecture doesn't address the subject of spirit.

What he *does* cover in this video is really what the title of the video is........The Biology of Perception. He shows how as biological organisms we can percieve on a cellular level, some of the various parts of the cell and their functions, particularly within the cell membrane. He goes on and eventually shows how genes don't control our biology as we thought for 50 years, rather it is our perception of the environment that controls our biology. Your perception (and beliefs) control your genes and determines which genes will be expressed. In the course of the hour video he takes you through the biology on a cellular level on how this happens. Personally though I must say I've seen much better video's of Lipton than this one. The actually video quality is very poor and he seems to have rushed through what he was trying to say to fit into an hour, and went over a number of things too fast. Unfortunately I don't recall offhand the location of the other videos but will post them If I come accross them.